OTC 17506 Selection of Trading Tankers for FPSO Conversion Projects

P. Biasotto, V. Bonniol, P. Cambos; Bureau Veritas

Copyright 2005, Offshore Technology Conference This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2005 Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, TX, U.S.A., 25 May 2005. This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC Program Committee following review of information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at OTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society Committees of the Offshore Technology Conference. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, OTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

selection of such hulls faces the higher cost of refurbishment of single hulls during the conversion and the high cost of purchase of more recent double hulls. Abbreviations FPSO FSO HTS IMR MARPOL MIC SBT SWBM SWSF VLCC VWBM VWSF Floating Production, Storage and Offloading system Floating, Storage and Offloading system High Tensile Steel Inspection, Maintenance and Repair International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships Microbial Induced Corrosion Segregated Ballast Tank Still Water Bending Moment Still Water Shear Force Very Large Crude Oil Carrier Vertical Wave Bending Moment Vertical Wave Shear Force

Abstract Review of single and double hull tanker designs has been conducted to identify the relevant aspects of the hull structure in the context of conversion into future FPSO systems. Typical designs have been selected and structural analyzes procedures for verification of the hull girder strength and the primary and secondary structures have been reviewed regarding yielding, buckling and fatigue strength. The typical defects and the main degradation modes based on the return of experience with tankers are also identified and a set of hull design parameters are described in order to evaluate the hulls candidates to conversion. The paper provides guidelines to assist the selection of trading tankers for conversion into FPSO. Based on a set of hull design parameters, different hull configurations are evaluated and the respective advantages and disadvantages assessed in order to identify the best candidates for conversion. Reserve of strength and corrosion margins have to be analyzed for each hull and compared with the FPSO project requirements, including field design life, environmental conditions and corrosion rates. Lists of typical defects and hazards based on the return of experience with tankers are also discussed. The paper also discuss the different designs based on the several parameters analyzed in order to provide guidelines to assess the hull structure condition, estimate the repair work at conversion and the inspection effort along the FPSO life. FPSO conversion projects based on existing trading tankers are still alternatives to new constructions for developments in areas like West Africa, Brazil and South East Asia. Nevertheless there are few tankers built before 1985 still available for conversion. Consequently single hull tankers built after mid 80s and double hulls built after early 90s became natural candidates to conversion into FPSO. Nevertheless, the decision making process regarding the

Introduction Although we see a shift towards new-build FPSOs, in particular for developments in harsh environment conditions, conversion seems to remain the basis for several projects in areas where benign environmental conditions are predominant, such as West Africa, Southeast Asia and Brazil. Therefore, the possibility of fast track schedules to have an early first oil date is also a important parameter in the decision process for selection of the floating unit type of hull: converted or new-build. Data concerning VLCC tankers built between 1973 and 2004 have been reviewed in order to identify the main types of oil tanker still operating and that may be available for FPSO conversion projects. In-service VLCC tankers can be divided in two main groups: single hull and double hull tankers. Single hull designs have been in general delivered until 1995. Despite first projects early 90s, double hull tankers have been built after 1995, following MARPOL resolutions 13F and 13G. The various aspects concerning the hull design characteristics and review of the ships historical information, including operation conditions, maintenance procedures and records of survey and inspections are reviewed based on Bureau Veritas and the industry return of experience on oil tankers. The aim is to identify the main parameters to be considered during the hull selection process and the refurbishment work required to fit the structure for conversion.

OTC 17506

The return of experience from previous FPSO conversion projects is also considered and the several steps necessary to achieve the hull structural assessment are described in the paper, incorporating the lessons learned from these projects. The Candidates Statistic data of in-service tankers built between 1973-2004 shows that around 56% are double hulls, 43% single hulls and 1% corresponding to other designs, such as double side tankers and double bottom tankers (figure 1). Probably the main characteristic of single hull designs built after 1985 is the extensive use of HTS. As there are few tankers built between 1973-85 still available for conversion into floating units (figure 2), single hull and double hull tankers built after 1985 and 1995, respectively, are natural candidates to conversion into FPSO. The decision making process to select the hull will balance between the expected higher cost for refurbishment of a single hull at conversion and the higher cost to purchase a double hull tanker. As shown in table 1, in 2004 the average cost to purchase a tanker built between 1985-95 was in average 60 m USD against 85.5 m USD for a vessel built between 1996-2000 (figure 3).
Oil Tankers Average Sale Price (m USD) Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Average Sale Price Ships operating 1973-85 11.8 12.6 11.0 13.0 15.0 12.3 29 1986-95 43.0 35.2 21.5 32.8 60.0 36.3 185 1996-00 73.8 79.2 59.5 52.0 85.5 66.1 116 2001-04 82.5 75.0 65.4 110.1 88.3 118

to defects due to stress concentration and corrosion is given [1], [2] and [3]. Nevertheless, it is well known that occurrence of corrosion and other defects might vary according to the shipyard design, fabrication standards, workmanship and the operation and maintenance procedures adopted during the trade period. There are a number of differences and particularities inherent to each shipyard design, but one of the most important characteristics is the primary structure arrangement. Generally two main types of structural arrangement are noticed: Longitudinal ring stiffener system comprising deep girders within center and side tanks, supporting the transverse bulkheads horizontally stiffened. There are no horizontal stringers. Horizontal system comprising in general four stringers within center and side tanks, supporting the transverse bulkheads vertically stiffened. In general a longitudinal ring is provided in way of the center line girder. Fatigue was clearly not the main concern in the design of connections of primary and secondary elements for such type of vessels, but in some way, it was apparently compensated for the stiffer structural arrangement, larger corrosion margins and less use of HTS. During this period, oil tankers were built worldwide in different shipyards, some of them having poor fabrication quality. Single Hulls (1985 - 1995) The structure design of such ships is optimized by means of finite element calculations and the extensive use of HTS to reduce the weight of steel. The hull structure design has used ST355, ST315 and ST235 steel types in different manners, in particular in the side shell plates, stiffeners and web frames. Some of them are built only using HTS in the cargo area. The use of HTS, in particular in the side shell area around the neutral axis, was found to be one of the main causes of problems associated to this type of vessel. Fatigue cracks of side shell longitudinal connections to transverse primary structures are probably the most typical defect of such designs, as fatigue strength of side shell longitudinals and corrosion margins are affected by the less stiffer structural panels at bottom and side shell areas. As a general rule, hulls built with ST355 should be specially regarded as such vessels have an extensive record of defects and likely have been reinforced with additional brackets after construction and before the second Class Renewal Survey. Another important parameter is the use of asymmetric profiles, i.e. angle stiffeners in the side shell and bottom panels. The use of angles at those locations having high probability of failure should be specially considered when evaluating hulls candidate to conversion, in particular when associated with use of steel ST315 and ST355. Double Hulls (1996 - towards) Despite double hulls are here considered from 1996, a number of design alternatives have been proposed in the early 90s. But the double hull milestone is 1998/99, when new

table 1: oil tanker average sale price (source: CW Kellock & Co. Ltd.) Three main categories of oil tankers are here defined and their main characteristics are further described here after. Return of experience with converted FPSOs shows that for each of them the structure degradation during the tanker trade will determine the FPSO design life. The main parameters are detail design standard, fabrication standards, operation conditions, maintenance procedures and trading in harsh environment. Single Hulls (mid 70s - 1985) Conversion of single hull tankers built before 1985 have been a worthwhile alternative for FPSO projects. Such vessels are relatively cheaper and their primary and secondary structures use to be stiffer than in hulls built after 1985, where high tensile steel has been extensively used. A number of different designs can be identified, comprising American, French, German, Swedish and Japanese standards among others. The industry has a good return of experience with oil tankers and an extensive list of areas prone

OTC 17506

builds experimented a sharp increasing and typical Japanese and Korean shipyards have been consolidated as the main references on double hull designs. In the same way as for single hulls, the industry [4] has published guidelines listing the areas prone to defects due to stress concentration and corrosion. But again the occurrence of corrosion and defects might vary according to the shipyard design, fabrication standards, workmanship and the operation and maintenance procedures adopted during the trade period. Nevertheless, such designs profit of improvements on fatigue assessment methodologies, design of connection details and fabrication standards over the past 10 years. Differently of the second category of single hull tanker designs, ST355 is almost no longer used and typical steel distribution combines ST315 at bottom and upper deck areas with ST235 around the neutral axis areas. The latest one with in general a percentage not less than 30% of the total cross section. Double hull designs have the number of structural connections increased up to 15% due to the inner bottom and side longitudinal bulkhead stiffener connections to transverse floors and web frames, where despite the easier access to inspection might increase the inspection effort of critical joints along the FPSO service. Double hull tankers have an optimized hull design, in general less than 5% margin in comparison with the class requirements, in particular at lower areas of the transverse section. Asymmetric profiles as angle stiffeners are again one of the most important aspects regarding fatigue strength for side shell longitudinal end connections. The use of angles, in particular at those locations having high probability of failure should be specially considered when evaluating hulls candidate to conversion. Vessels built after 1997 have similar structural arrangement, one of the most significant differences between such designs is probably the position of the cross-ties, fitted either within the center cargo tanks or within the side cargo tanks. It is noticed that for the first one (figure 4.a), the side shell and the lower hopper structures use to have higher deflections. It means that special attention should be paid to side and inner shell longitudinal stiffeners connections, horizontal girders and hopper connections with the inner bottom and inner hull structures. For designs where the cross-ties are fitted within the side cargo tanks (figure 4.b), side shell structure deflections are decreased and stress levels are expected to be reduced. On the other hand, longitudinal bulkheads are expected to have deflections increased, in particular at alternate loading conditions where center tanks are full filled and side tanks are empty. Therefore, special attention should be paid to the inner longitudinal bulkhead connections and in way of horizontal stringers. Return of Experience on FPSOs There are approximately 97 FPSOs and 74 FSOs in operation or available worldwide [5]. Over 60% are conversion projects. Return of experience shows that some have experimented structural anomalies and defects, independently of they are

newbuild or converted units. Despite they may be presented in a different degree of intensity, corrosion wastage and defects due to fatigue are the major threats for both types of hull. Deterioration processes are initiated during the tanker trade period (approximately 45 FPSOs operating were built before 1985, 4 between 1985-95 and 1 after 1995) and will be present along the FPSOs service life. A number of FPSOs have been converted on the basis of the Classification Society rules requirements, unless additional requirements were specified by operators. It means that inspections at conversion have been carried out within the scope of Class Renewal Survey based on a 5-year cycle, where substantial corrosion of structural components is verified in accordance with applied rules. Surveys are carried out in other to identify anomalies and defects, and necessary repairs are performed in order to bring the structure to as-built configuration. The problem with such approach is that the durability of the hull structure is not properly assessed against the required service life for the FPSO, in addition safety margin of critical components is not evaluated. As a consequence, these units might arrive at the first and second class cycle having substantial corrosion of the structural components of the structure, increasing the risk of buckling and fatigue. Consequences may be divers, comprising low and majors events in case proper mitigation actions are not taken: Reduction of storage capacity, non planned shutdowns for repairs, dry-docking for major repairs, Structural failure

Leak of oil, consequently risk of pollution and explosion, Most common anomalies found in converted FPSOs are the following: Excessive pitting of horizontal structures Substantial corrosion (grooving) Knife edging

Cracks due to fatigue Cracks due to fatigue result from a combination of several parameters. The trading history of the vessel, site specific conditions (for harsh environments) and high stress ranges experienced during the loading and offloading cycle in the FPSO service are the main reasons. However, poor detail designs, low standard of workmanship and corrosion of welded joints accelerating the occurrence and increasing significantly the number of defects, where some of the most common are the following: transverse brackets at transverse ordinary frames end of horizontal stringers end of cross ties in way of the side shell and longitudinal bulkhead web frames

end of longitudinal stiffeners in way of bulkhead penetrations and ordinary web frames. The damage cumulated during the trading history of the

OTC 17506

vessel uses to be the most significant parcel of the total cumulated damage comprising tanker and FPSO phases, in particular for ships operating in severe environment such as North Sea and North Atlantic areas. Cumulated fatigue damage due to wave cycles for an FPSO operating in benign environments such as West Africa and Brazil (Campos Basin) are in general less significant when compared with a harsher environment. For this one the fatigue damage due to sea load may be in the same order of that one observed during the tanker trade period. The fatigue damage caused by loading and unloading cycles during FPSO operations can be also estimated and cumulated with the damage due to wave cycles, but in general the number of cycles associated to the shuttle tanker arrival is low, consequently the cumulated damage is in general negligible. On the other hand, the effect of the loading and unloading cycle due to differential head on the oil tight bulkheads and side shell panels may lead to high stress ranges, specially in poor detail designs. Crack propagation analysis shows that the loading sequence may accelerate the growth of cracks initiated during the tanker trade period [6]. Hull Selection Evaluation of VLCCs candidates for conversion into FPSOs may include a significant number of parameters concerning the characteristics of these vessels. Obviously the first step is to evaluate their adequacy regarding the basic requirements of the FPSO conversion project, which are associated with the field development. Storage capacity and the cargo tanks arrangement (number of tanks, subdivision, etc) are some of these parameters. Certainly one of the most important and difficult aspects to be evaluated is the effective service life of the unit, which shall meet the required service life established based on the field estimated life. Once several candidates may be available, attention should be paid to the strength verification of the overall hull and its structural components. Structure safety factors should be assessed taking into account the hull condition at the end of the FPSO service life. Engineering assessment of the overall and local hull structure strength against yielding and buckling criteria has been quite successful for the majority of the FPSO projects. However, experience shows that an accurate assessment of the main deterioration modes of these components may not be an easy task, in particular concerning corrosion and fatigue deterioration. Fatigue is related with cycle loads (due to wave and cargo loading-offloading), the structure stiffness, structural detail design, shipyard fabrication standards, workmanship and corrosion rates. The hull condition is linked to operation and maintenance aspects in such way that the condition of a specific vessel might not be the same as for a similar ship operated by different owners and in different trades. Therefore, the FPSO design life will be directly affected by the fatigue damage and corrosion wastage cumulated during the previous tanker phase. Ideally, design review and assessment of the hull condition should be supported by a detailed inspection of the entire hull

structure before select the vessel to be converted. A hot spot map of the hull structure, derived from a detailed hull structure assessment based on finite element analysis, is also useful to evaluate the different hulls, however it may not be available during the selction process. Therefore, the various aspects concerning the hull design characteristics may need be reviewed in a more qualitative way. The hull design review may comprise a preliminary analysis of the existing as-built drawings of the vessel. Based on the return of experience, a number of parameters can be defined and a checklist elaborated for a quick review of the candidate vessels. For long term projects, where the unit should stay on site during 10, 15 or even 25 years, this would not be enough to ensure the integrity of the unit along the intended service life. A complete hull structure assessment should be available in the early stage of the project and preferable before the refurbishment program is defined. As a minimum scope, the tanker selection process should include for each vessel the review of the following data: As-built drawings: look for detail designs prone to fatigue, percentage of HTS, corrosion additions, etc. UTM Reports and survey and inspection records to identify corroded areas and typical defects: look for typical defects due to fatigue, high stressed areas and buckling. Check for substantial corroded areas. repair specifications in order to evaluate: - extension of scantling renewal due to substantial corrosion along the tanker service - mitigation of defects, including repairs, modifications and strengthening undertaken on board Operation and maintenance practices (type of oil, temperature, washing, corrosion protection, etc) Review of tanker trading history: tankers operating in severe weather are prone to have fatigue related problems

Details Design Critical areas within the tank structure can be defined as locations that, by reason of stress concentration, alignment or discontinuity, need particular attention for what regards the construction, the design and the survey. In general these locations can be divided in two main groups: connections of the longitudinal ordinary stiffeners with transverse primary supporting members (transverse bulkheads and web frames) connections of primary supporting members

OTC 17506

Ordinary stiffener connection with transverse supporting structures It is through these connections that the loads are transmitted from the secondary to the primary structure members. These details are subjected to high cyclic loading through the ships life and they constitute one of the most subjected to fatigue potential problem areas. Repair of such details may affect the tanker refurbishment schedule, as the work required to repair, renew and strengthen these details is much more significant than the required weigh of steel. The following parameters are considered the most important ones regarding fatigue strength of such connections: the location and the number of brackets (on one or both sides of the transverse primary member), the shape (soft toes or not) and the size of the brackets, the longitudinal stiffener profile (symmetrical or not). the misalignment of the webs of longitudinal ordinary stiffeners the use of HTS in the side shell plate, stiffeners and web frames

The risk of cracks with bending mode is limited with this design but it remains a probability of cracks due to shear mode. Nevertheless, tolerances should be strict in such way that production and construction are delicate processes. Connections of primary supporting members The most critical types of joint are the welded angles and cruciform joints that are subjected to high magnitudes of tensile stresses. The following parameters are considered the most important parameters regarding fatigue strength of such connections: Angle connection (figure 7): The most general type of welded joint is the angle connection found mainly in the following structures: double bottom in way of transverse bulkheads with lower stool, the double bottom in way of hopper tanks, the lower part of transverse bulkheads in way of the lower stool (if any), the lower part of inner side in way of hopper tanks.

the details of slots and collar plates The different types of ordinary stiffener connections with the transverse web stiffeners, and how the change of type of connection may increase the fatigue strength of the detail by reducing the stress concentration factor is illustrated in figure 5. The position of the center of torsion of angle profiles (shifted off the profile) induces additional local stress in the profile, differently T profiles have their center of torsion in way of web plate (plane of symmetry). In general T profiles should be used in areas subject to high local pressure, i.e. upper zones of side shell, longitudinal bulkheads and inner hull. The type of scallop is another important parameter regarding fatigue of longitudinal stiffener end connections (figure 6). The main aspects are the following: Scallop with or without collar plate: The classic connection is the scallop connection, a relatively large cut-out of the primary member leaving only one side welding possible for the web of the secondary stiffener against the primary member. To provide welding on other side, a collar plate may be fitted. This collar plate is not in the plan of the web of the primary member, which could lead to possible problems of cracks. Nevertheless, this is less critical than the profiled slot form the fabrication point of view. Profiled slot: The method is to cut out of the transverse member a section, which is infinitesimally larger than the web plate of the secondary stiffener and a larger cutout for the flange of the longitudinal. This gives the possibility to weld from the both side the connection between the web of the stiffener and the plate of primary member allowing a good transmission of the stresses.

Cruciform joint (figure 8) The cruciform connection is a particular case of angle connection. Indeed, the angle between the plates is now a right angle. The cruciform connections may be found in: the double bottom in way of transverse bulkheads without lower stool, the double bottom in way of the inner side when there are no hopper tanks, the double bottom in way of longitudinal bulkheads.

Return of Experience on Oil Tankers Corrosion protection system In general in service single hull tankers are found having moderate corrosion rate and thickness diminution. However there are some cases where excessive pitting in the bottom and top tank in cargo tank plating have been reported due to microbial attack in areas where coating protection is not provided. Cargo tanks of typical single hull tankers may not have been provided with corrosion protection systems, i.e. coating and anodes. Residual water from oil cargo causes grooving and pitting corrosion in the upper surface of horizontal structures like stringers and bottom plating at the aft end of the cargo tank. The normal corrosion rate in cargo tanks uncoated areas of double hull tankers is expected to be moderate based on the previous experience with SBT tankers, where horizontal structures like stringers and bottom plating would be areas to be subjected to special attention. However, cases of accelerated corrosion rate in cargo tanks have been reported. In addition, there has also been an increase in the pitting corrosion rate in cargo tank bottom plating. Double hull designs can be found having cargo tanks partly painted with epoxy coating in the under deck (3 meter below)

OTC 17506

and eventually the tank top plating (inner bottom), varying depending on owner requirements. But areas where coating fails may have accelerated corrosion, in particular in the deck head areas subject to increased deflections and stress levels due to the use of HTS. Accelerated corrosion in cargo tanks may be due to microbial attack from bacteria in the cargo oil. Cargo temperatures in double hull tankers can be found up to 20C higher than in single hulls due to the insulation provided by the inner hull. These higher temperatures would provide the necessary conditions to the microbes remain active longer and produce corrosive acidic compounds increasing the risk of MIC. Higher temperatures mean that the humidity is higher, increasing the amount of water vapour in the air space above the ballast and cargo tanks. Therefore, coating in ballast tanks bottom shell remains continuously wet, having mud settled in particular at aft locations due to the ship trim. This accumulation of mud could also generate a higher risk of MIC. Corrosion prevention systems are likely provided in ballast tanks. In order to prevent accelerated corrosion of the under deck and the tank bottom areas, a number of operators require painting of these areas also in cargo tanks. The total surface area to be coated and maintained in double hulls can be up to three times larger when compared to single hull tankers. Consequently, the maintenance of coating systems is one of the most important aspects regarding the hull structure condition. The following main aspects should be considered in order to evaluate the durability of the coating system of cargo and ballast tanks: Coating specification Coating preparation and application Workmanship during construction (grinding of sharp edges for instance) Double hull tankers have structural flexing increased compared to single hull designs which leads to higher cracking potential in particular in the deck, inner shell and inner bottom areas. Fatigue of longitudinal stiffeners connections Connections in way of transverse bulkheads are, in general, fitted with double brackets, however those connections in way of ordinary frames are often fitted with single brackets. In cases where HTS is extensively used, backing brackets might be necessary be fitted in way of ordinary frames along the hull length at conversion into FPSO. As a general rule, the following parameters were found to be the most significant ones regarding fatigue strength of side shell longitudinal connections and increase fatigue life: Double brackets reduce stress concentration factors. Type of steel: ST235 construction leads to stiffer structures around the neutral axis. In the contrary ST315 and ST355 lead to less stiff structures. Symmetric profiles avoid lateral bending of longitudinal stiffeners. On the other way angle profiles lead to lateral bending.

Shaped brackets and flat bars reduce stress concentration factor. However fatigue life drops quickly where flat bars are fitted. Flexural (figure 9) and shear (figure 10) are the two most common failure modes regarding fatigue cracks at such type of connections. The most common defects in single hull designs are attributed to the extensive use of HTS, in particular in the side shell construction. Some tankers built between 1985-95 had longitudinal stiffener connections locally renewed and provided with backing brackets around ten years service life in order to increase fatigue strength. In a general way, utilization of HTS in double hull designs results in the increasing of deflections and stress levels, affecting negatively fatigue life of structural connections and the effective life time of coating systems. Double hull tankers built early 90s were subject to a number of typical defects due to poor design details, specially at side shell longitudinal connections to primary transverse structures and connections of hopper to inner bottom and side longitudinal bulkhead. Significant improvements on design detail and workmanship have been achieved and implemented in the designs built late 90s. It is remarkable that a number of double hull tankers operating in severe environments like North Sea and North Atlantic have reported damages at side shell and bottom longitudinal stiffeners in way of transverse primary structure. Environmental Loads Different to other Class societies, Bureau Veritas ([7], [8]) apply loads depending on the operational conditions of the floating unit. There are variations in the overall severity of the climate in a given area, additionally different vessel dimensions, shape and load distributions need be taken into account. Therefore each project should be provided with calculation of hydrodynamic loads and vessel motions in the frequency domain, using the 3D diffraction-radiation method and taking account of site water depth. Site specific conditions need be taken into account in the hull structure assessment of the FPSO, including metocean data of the site and the mooring conditions, in order to properly define the sea loads on the structure. Such data include the wave directions, the wave spectrum and the relative headings. The main wave load parameters derived from the direct hydrodynamic models and used in the structural anlyzes are the following: Global Hull girder loads (Wave Bending Moment and Wave Shear Force) Relative wave elevation, that is indicative of variation of pressure on side shell Vessel accelerations

Hydrodynamic analysis The outputs of the hydrodynamic analysis determine the design load parameters to be applied to the structural model in order to assess the scantlings of the structure. The hydrodynamic model takes into account the unit hull forms,

OTC 17506

the lightweight distribution (including structure weight, topside weight, turret weight, etc.), the loading conditions and the connections with the seabed. At least three loading conditions are in general analyzed, comprising the full range of the FPSO loading conditions: Minimum draught Intermediate draught Maximum draught FPSOs are generally moored by two different types of systems that influence the calculation conditions of the hydrodynamic analysis: Spread moored design: the unit is maintained in a constant position independent of the sea and current heading, while the environmental loads have a predominant direction. Generally, the mooring lines are connected to the main deck at the fore and aft ends. Turret moored design: the unit is free to weathervane and has a natural tendency to orientate in the direction of the most severe environment component. The mooring lines are connected to the turret, generally located in the fore part of the unit.

and dynamic loading applied to the hull structure. SWBM and SWSF will be driven by the maximum values of VWBM and VWSF (including safety margins) and the calculated total hull girder capacity, taking into consideration the corrosion wastage along the tanker trading service. It should be noted that the direct analysis of wave induced shear force will result in a distribution slightly different to the one given by the typical rule distribution. Despite VWSF distribution has two peak values at approximately L/3 from the hull aft and fore ends, the hull capacity needs be checked along the length of the unit and in particular at the position of transverse bulkheads, where the total shear force has its maximum value. Oil tankers often have local reinforcements in the longitudinal bulkhead and side shell plating, over one to two web spacing, aft and fore of transverse bulkheads, to allow for peak values of the total shear force. Considering the wave load parameter results for a unit moored offshore Angola for instance, the site specific values for VWBM and VWSF are approximatelly 0.3 and 0.5 of the North Atlantic reference values, leading to an increasing over the minimum Rule value of 0.65. Nevertheless, the allowable values would still be increased up to 50% for SWBM and up to 35% for SWSF. Hull Structure Assessment Assessment of the FPSO hull structure should verify the adequacy of the tanker hull with the project specification, it means the strength of global and local structures, considering storage capacity, topsides additional weight and specific environmental loads. Furthermore, the hull condition at the end of the unit intended service life should be also assessed to ensure the hull structure integrity along this period. The refurbishment work necessary to fit the hull for conversion is not the most expensive cost regarding the whole conversion, however it plays an important role in the conversion schedule, as delays caused by the works in the hull might delay the unit commissioning. Repair and strengthening works prior or at conversion will also affect the unit along its service life. Due to time constraints, extensive structural analyses may not be feasible before inspections carried out prior to the refurbishment work. However, always when possible it is recommended to have first calculations and results of the hull structure assessment available in an early stage. This would be helpful to define the scope of the inspections and consequently to specify the required steel renewals and modifications. Hull structural assessment is a multi-step analysis procedure, where global coarse mesh analysis are used followed by local fine mesh analyses at critical locations, selected based on the coarse mesh results and on the return of experience. The structural analysis is based on the design load parameters given by the hydrodynamic analysis. Differently of newbuild hulls, structural assessment of converted FPSOs requires two phases to be considered: tanker and FPSO, as an FPSO presents specific characteristics when compared with trading tankers. The main characteristics of the FPSO are the following:

Wave load parameters The hydrodynamic analysis results in the following parameters valid for the offshore unit at the intended site and with precision of each value along the length of the unit: wave induced bending moment, wave induced shear force, total accelerations in all directions, at the center of gravity of each compartment and at relevant positions in topside areas, relative wave elevation,

sea pressure on the shell diagrams. The values of the parameters may be modified to include safety margins or adjusted to rule values when applicable. Depending on the site, the results of the hydrodynamic study may be higher or lower than the rule standard values. In the case when site-specific loads are considered, the results of the hydrodynamic calculation may be directly input in the structural analysis, depending on the applied safety margins or class rules, if the case. Hull Girder Capacity The hull girder total capacity needs to be checked along the length of the unit. Maximum permissible still water bending moment (SWBM) and shear force (SWSF) are derived from the wave bending moment (VWBM) and the wave shear force (VWSF) values obtained from the hydrodynamic analysis results. Calculations show that in general SWBM and SWSF could be increased for benign environmental conditions, such as in Angola and in Nigeria for instance, but varying depending on the ship characteristics. The additional reserve of strength due to less severe environments should not be fully credited to the allowable SWBM and SWSF to assure the normal ratio between static

OTC 17506

The unit is fixed on a specific site, generating specific loads. The unit is permanently moored (no dry dock is planned for inspection and maintenance). Additional loads generated by the mooring system, risers and topsides.

the external sea pressure is calculated at the full load draught when the side tanks are considered empty (cargo loading conditions), and at the light ballast draught when the side tanks are considered full (ballast loading conditions). Strength of the primary structure The first objective of the finite element analysis is to determine the stress distribution in the primary supporting members. It allows verifying that the scantlings comply with the yielding and buckling criteria. Two levels of meshes are generally necessary to assess the strength of the structure. The first step is the global coarse mesh model (figure 11). The 3D coarse mesh model allows verify the overall behavior of the primary structure. There are two main approaches: The simpler and faster one is based on a three-cargo tank model, where the beam theory is used to balance the model and obtain the desired bending moment and shear force distribution in the mid tank area. VWBM, VWSF, accelerations and relative wave elevations derived from hydrodunamic analysis are used. Complete ship model including the entire hull structure over the unit length, from aft to fore ends can be used. Obviously it is a more time consuming approach. On the other end, accelerations and wave pressure distribution derived from hydrodynamic analysis are applied along the hull structure model in order to equilibrate it and obtain the correct bending moment and shear force distribution along the hull. Fine meshes are also performed to get more accurate stress levels in specific locations (figure 12). Detailed Stress analyses are in general performed for the following typical primary structures: horizontal stringers in way of typical oiltight bulkhead horizontal stringers in way of typical swash bulkhead typical transverse ring typical first transverse ring aft and forward oiltight and swash bulkheads Longitudinal girders in way of oiltight bulkhead and swash bulkhead

Continuously loading and unloading on site (constant variation of draught), differently of tanker which are generally operated in full and ballast conditions. Therefore, specific assessment of the FPSO hull structure needs be undertaken taking into consideration such particularities. The following limit states are verified for the hull structure components:
Yielding Hull Girder Buckling Ultimate Strength Fatigue

Plating Ordinary stiffeners Primary supporting Structural details

Hull girder strength The first step of the hull structure assessment is in general the verification of the global hull girder strength. A yielding check is performed, comparing the bending moment applied to the structure does not exceed the bending moment capacity provided by the actual hull scantling configuration. The bending moment applied to the structure is given by the maximum allowable still water bending moment derived from the assessment of the loading conditions of the unit (operation, transport, maintenance, etc) and VWBM derived from the wave load parameters analysis. It should also be checked that the bending moment applied to the structure is lower than the ultimate bending moment capacity of the hull girder, taking into account a safety factor increased compared to ships. Local strength of plating and ordinary stiffeners The second step is the verification of the scantlings of the plating and the ordinary stiffeners. These elements are assessed through a 2D section model loaded with the design load parameters defined by the hydrodynamic analysis. A yielding check and a buckling check are carried out for stiffeners and plates. In all cases, local loads are calculated for the expected most severe conditions. Each element is analyzed considering the compartments as being alternately full or empty, for the purpose of maximizing the loads induced on that element by the cargo carried. Similarly, for the elements of the outer shell,

FPSO specific areas (topside supports, turret structure, hull connections and other hull attachments). Main scenarios The tanker and the FPSO phases need be distinguished in structural assessment of the converted FPSO to proper consider the effects of previous corrosion and cumulated fatigue damage during the trade, but also the floating unit design characteristics and operation conditions. The following scenarios are therefore usually studied: (a) As-built tanker at construction date (b) Actual condition (at conversion date) (c) End of FPSO service life: derived based on the estimated corrosion wastage cumulated during the FPSO phase. Scenario (a) is mainly used to assess the fatigue damage cumulated during the tanker phase. It may be also used for a first screening of the candidate vessel in order to identify the

OTC 17506

most loaded areas to be further investigated during inspections carried out prior to the hull refurbishment program. In scenario (b), the existing 2D and 3D finite element models (initially modeled based on the as-built configuration) are updated in order to take into account the FPSO actual configuration, new loading conditions, site specific environmental loads, structural alterations and topsides added at conversion. Derived from the latest gauging reports and/or estimated based on typical oil tanker corrosion rates [2], the wastage cumulated during the tanker trade period can be calculated and the hull overall scantlings are updated. Renewals foreseen during the refurbishment may be also taken into account if already decided. The FPSO hull structure strength will be verified in accordance with the several limit states above described. Scenario (c) can also be studied, incorporating the corrosion wastage expected during the FPSO phase, the expected hull structure condition of the unit at the end of its service life is assessed. The reserve of strength of the hull structure components could be estimated and for those elements found critical, the alternatives to mitigate the deterioration effects along the life of the unit could also be identified, such as: Additional renewal and strengthening work at conversion Specify corrosion protection system to avoid corrosion wastage at critical locations. Improve the IMR plan to ensure the hull structure integrity

may be derived based on the analysis of the trading route. In cases where the trade data is not available, standard Bureau Veritas Rules wave load parameters for a typical World Wide trade tanker can be used. In general, tanker analyses are carried out based on the typical loading conditions: full load and ballast loading conditions leading to maximum sagging and hogging load cases. For the FPSO, review of the operational loading conditions comprising the loading/unloading sequences should be carried out to determine the representative loading conditions to be considered in the analysis. Deterministic fatigue strength assessment: The deterministic methodology has been further developed for the FPSOs by introducing several draughts and loading cases over the expected lifetime of the floating unit. The calculation method applied today by Bureau Veritas has been calibrated against spectral fatigue strength assessment and the methodology is applied in-house for screening of the structural details. The results of the deterministic approach are in general expected to be more conservative than those given by the spectral one. Spectral fatigue strength assessment: In order to assess more precisely the fatigue damage of the structural details a spectral fatigue strength assessment may be carried out. The spectral analysis is to be carried out in the following three steps: hydrodynamic analysis structural analysis calculation of the fatigue damage The hydrodynamic analysis determines the loads and the resulting motions generated by the environmental loads; the site-specific environmental loads are thus taken into account. The loads obtained through the hydrodynamic calculation are applied to the structural model. The structural model provides the RAOs of stresses at location of interest, within the model. The fatigue damage is then calculated based on statistics of stress ranges. At least three draughts (and associated loading conditions) 5 headings and 25 frequencies are to be taken into account, but may be adapted depending on the type of mooring. The acceptable damage depends on the location, the accessibility for inspection, maintenance and repair, and on the consequences of failure. Loading unloading fatigue assessment: Fatigue damage cumulated during the FPSO phase due to wave and loading/offloading cycles is also assessed. For the calculation of the stress range due to the loading unloading, the wave at a return period not less than one day is to be taken into account. The damage ratio of loading unloading is to be combined with the one due to the wave effect.

Fatigue The efficiency of the structural connections subjected to high cyclic stresses needs be checked with respect to possible fatigue related problems. Fatigue assessment can be divided into main groups: connections of the longitudinal ordinary stiffeners with transverse primary supporting members (transverse bulkheads and web frames) connections of primary supporting members The first group can be assessed by BV program VeriSTAR/MARS where library of details is used to evaluate the fatigue strength of end connections of longitudinal stiffeners by mean of fatigue deterministic approach. 2D analysis is therefore carried out in order to evaluate the strength of side shell and bottom longitudinal connections along the cargo region due to fatigue flexural mode in way of each oil tight bulkheads and in way of ordinary frames. 3D finite element analysis is needed to capture the local stresses in non-standard details for use in the fatigue calculation. Therefore, very fine mesh models (figure 13) are used, having element size between once and twice the thickness of the structural element. Assessment of detail connections shall take into account both tanker and FPSO phases. Fatigue damage taking into account wave cycles and loading/unloading cycles are cumulated with the damage associated to the tanker phase in order to estimate the remaining fatigue life at conversion. Environmental loads for fatigue assessment of the tanker

10

OTC 17506

Considerations about welding of structural members To evaluate the standard and quality of welding on seagoing tankers with respect to possible conversion to Floating Storage Unit, a comparison has been made with a new-built FPSO and a tanker. In general, welding leg length and scantlings of the FPSO, with the exception of interface structures with Offshore equipment and topsides, are often made on the basis of Ship's Rule requirements. Due to welding of interface structures and FPSO-owner's special requirements for particular areas (additional thickness, fatigue life etc.), welding leg length of FPSO seems to be more significant. Possible difference is coming from the more comprehensive loading booklet giving higher values of hull girder still water bending moment and shear forces. Deck Transverse Capacity and Topsides Modules Integration Hull structure elements of oil tankers built after 1985 are in general more optimized than in previous designs, particularly the 70s tankers often used in previous conversion projects. In addition, double hull tankers have in general higher stress levels than single hull tankers. Therefore top tank structure strength and their integration with the topsides modules need to be carefully investigated in order to identify needs for additional strengthening. Topside modules should be supported in way of transverse and longitudinal bulkheads and deck transverses. Finite element models, as described above, are used to verify strength of such structures and specify eventual additional strengthening of the under deck structure. Top down analysis using VeriSTAR Hull is an efficient way to perform such verifications taking into consideration local loads induced by topsides, but also the hull behavior due to sea loads and internal liquid loads. Global loads induced by the hull girder bending are also taken into account. Refurbishment Program Refurbishment work of the oil tanker hull may be undertaken before or at conversion, depending on the FPSO project strategy. The scope of work should be defined based on the hull structure condition assessment and on detailed inspection of internal and external part of the hull, supported by finite element analysis. The refurbishment specification is expected to contain at least the following main contents: Outcomes from the hull structural assessment should provide Plates and stiffeners to be renewed and/or strengthened based on the FPSO hull structure verification Plates and stiffeners to be renewed and/or strengthened based on the future corrosion study

structural analysis, there are a number of parameters that can be proper assessed only by means of inspections. Pitting on tank bottom plating, stiffeners and other horizontal members. Brackets and web stiffeners may present heavily corroded.

Plate renewal Renewal thickness of plates and stiffeners needs to be defined in order to determine the total steel renewal required at conversion. The expected corrosion during the FPSO service life is to be taken into account. Therefore the renewal thickness at conversion is defined as follows:

Re newal

=T

Re quired

+ LF

FPSO

Where: TRenewal = renewal thickness at conversion TRequired = required thickness derived from rules or by mean of hull structure calculations as described above. LFFPSO = required FPSO service life t = yearly corrosion rate for the studied element According to class rules, substantial corrosion margin is defined as 75% of the allowable corrosion margin. Therefore, those elements found during the FPSO service life having substantial corrosion will be subject to further inspections, more extensively and more often. Therefore, in order to avoid the increase the scope of inspections during the unit service life, the renewal thickness at conversion should also include sufficient margin to avoid substantial corrosion of such elements found critical in the hull condition assessment. Fatigue Return of experience shows that the most common actions in order to address fatigue cracks are the following: fitting of backing brackets on side shell and bottom longitudinal stiffeners in way of transverse bulkheads and ordinary web frames changes of toes of horizontal girders, longitudinal girder ends and web frames joints Inspections should confirm whether the critical fatigue details are the same as indicated in the as-built drawings. Previous repairs as indicated in the tanker repair specifications and survey records should be verified as well. Fatigue analysis is in general undertaken by means of finite element calculations, in general to determine the cause of the damage and test the alternatives of repair configuration obtained by improving of the detail design and reducing of stress concentrations.

Detail connections to be renewed, modified and/or strengthened based on fatigue analysis, taking into consideration the cumulated damage during the tanker trade and FPSO phases Despite information incorporated in the previous survey and inspection reports may be taken into consideration in the

OTC 17506

11

Conclusions The selection of vessels for conversion into FPSO will probably face two main types of design: single hull tankers built between 1985-95 and double hulls built after 1996. The return of experience from previous conversion projects shows that both designs are prone to defects due to fatigue and corrosion wastage. Despite the particularities inherent to each hull design, corrosion and fatigue deterioration cumulated along the trade period will affect the FPSO hull structure integrity and performance along its service life. Thought that FPSO conversion projects requires fast track schedules, a detailed hull structure assessment by means of finite element analysis may not be available at the selection of the vessel to be converted. Therefore, the various aspects concerning the hull design characteristics, ships historical information, including operation conditions, maintenance procedures and records of survey and inspections should be reviewed at least in qualitative way during the hull selection process. In the same way that the hull structure may vary in function of the shipyard design and fabrication standards, the hull condition may change depending on the trade, operation conditions and maintenance procedures. Therefore a complete hull structure assessment by means of finite element analysis and consideration of the tanker trade phase degradation modes seems the most efficient way to proper assess the FPSO hull structure design and screening of the critical areas and components of the hull. Therefore, as far as possible, first results should be available early to assist the selection of the hull and the specification of the refurbishment program. Even if the hull is not the expensive part of the production project, as a large investment is made on the topsides and subsea equipment, special attention needs to be paid to the hull effective design life. Safety margins should be estimated and the necessary procedures to ensure the hull structure integrity should be incorporated in the units IMR plan. Acknowledgement The authors wish to thank Bureau Veritas for permission to publish this paper. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Bureau Veritas.

References [1] Guidance Manual for the Inspection and Condition Assessment of Tanker Structures Tanker Structure Cooperative Forum, Witherby & Co. Ltd., 1986. [2] Condition Evaluation and Maintenance of Tanker Structures - Tanker Structure Co-operative Forum, Witherby & Co. Ltd., 1992. [3] Guidance Manual for Tanker Structures Tanker Structure Co-operative Forum, Witherby & Co. Ltd. [4] Guidelines for the Inspection and Maintenance of Double Hull Tankers - Tanker Structure Co-operative Forum, Witherby & Co. Ltd., 1995. [5] Floating Production Systems, assessment of the outlook for FPSO vessels, production semis, TLPs and spars International Maritime Associates, Inc.. New Orleans, USA March 2004. [6] Otegui J., Orsini M.: Converted FPSOs. Making a Worthwhile Conversion DOT 2004. [7] Arselin E., Cambos P., Frorup U.: New FPSO Rules Base don Return of Experience. OMAE FPSO04 0091. Houston, USA 2004. [8] Rule Note on Hull Structure of Production, Storage and Offloading Surface Units NR 497, October 2004 Bureau Veritas. [9] Rules for the Classification of Steel Ships November 2004. Bureau Veritas.

12

OTC 17506

Hull Type 1973-2004

0.9% 6.7%

36.0%

56.4%

SH 73-84 SH 85-95 DH 96-04 Others

Figure 1: hull type of VLCCs built between 1973-2004.

Ships in Service - build 1973-2004

45 40 35 30 25 Qty 250000 20 200000 15 10 5 0 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 Year 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 150000 100000 50000 0 500000 450000 400000 350000 Average Dwt 300000

Figure 2: oil tankers operating per year of build and average deadweight.

OTC 17506

13

Ship Sales 2000-04 (USD) > 250,000 dwt

120.0

1973-85 1986-95 1996-00 2001-04

100.0

80.0 average (m$)

60.0

40.0

20.0

0.0 2000

2001

2002 year

2003

2004

source: CW Kellock & Co Ltd

Figure 3: average sale price of VLCCs between 2000-04.

STRESS COMPONENTS LOAD CASE 9PANEL SIGVM

STRESS COMPONENTS LOAD CASE 9

PANEL SIGVM

1 . 13E+0 2

1 . 0 6 E+0 2

9 . 87E+0 1

9 . 1 2 E+0 1

8 . 46E+0 1

A
Y X

7 . 05E+0 1

7 . 6 0 E+0 1

6 . 0 8 E+0 1

5 . 64E+0 1

4 . 5 6 E+0 1

4 . 23E+0 1 3 . 0 4 E+0 1 2 . 82E+0 1 Y Y 1 . 41E+0 1 Z Z 0 . 00E+0 0 D I SPLACEMENTS ; LOAD CASE 9: D I SPLACEMENTS ; LOAD CASE 9: PART I AL CARGO LC8 , HEAD , S , D , TROUGH , VBM PART I AL CARGO LC8 , HEAD , S , D, TROUGH , VBM X 0 . 0 0 E+0 0 Z Z - 1 . 5 2 E+0 1 1 . 5 2 E+0 1

Figure 4: double hulls typical structural arrangement arrangement

Transverse element Stiffener flange Stiffener web Longitudinal plating

Flat bar: Detail when low stress area

One backing bracket: improved design

Two backing brackets: reinforced design

Figure 5: detail of longitudinal stiffener connections.

14

OTC 17506

no collar plate

collar plate

full slot

Figure 6: scallops of longitudinal stiffener connections.

Figure 7: angle connection

Figure 8: cruciform joint

Shear introduced in the web of primary members by longitudinal stiffeners under local pressure: local shear

Shear mode:
Typical crack at transverse web frame

Shear in the web of primary member itself due to global displacements: global shear

Figure 9: shear mode induced crack

OTC 17506

15

Flexural mode:
Typical crack at transverse web frame Figure 10: flexural mode induced crack Figure 12: fine mesh model detailed stress analysis

Figure 11: Coarse mesh model

Figure 13: very fine mesh model fatigue analysis