Premier Oil UK Ltd – Engineering Change Request 4977

Produced Water System Upgrade Project -

Assessment for No Subsea Guide
PW Caisson Design

Document Number: CM-J1404-S-TN-006

ClerkMaxwell Ltd,
5th Floor Reception,
Salvesen Tower,
Blaikies Quay,
Aberdeen AB11 5PW.

T: +44 (0) 1224 531400

F: +44 (0) 1224 531499
E: [email protected]
www.clerkmaxwell.com
Premier Oil UK Ltd – Engineering Change Request 4977
Produced Water System Upgrade Project –
Assessment for No Subsea Guide
PW Caisson Design

Document Number: CM-J1404-S-TN-006

ClerkMaxwell Ltd,
5th Floor Reception,
Salvesen Tower,
Blaikies Quay,
Aberdeen AB11 5PW.

T: +44 (0) 1224 531400

F: +44 (0) 1224 531499
E: [email protected]
www.clerkmaxwell.com

Client
Rev Date Description Issued by Checked by Approved by
Approval
A01 24/05/13 For Comment NJ JI AG

Document Number: CM-J1404-S-TN-006 Page 2 of 26

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Document Number: CM-J1404-S-TN-006 Page 3 of 26

 1 INTRODUCTION 5
1.1 Background 5
1.2 Abbreviations 5

1 INTRODUCTION 5

1 INTRODUCTION 6

2 CAISSON LOCATION 6

3 DESIGN CRITERIA & ANALYSIS PROCEDURES 7

3.1 Design Criteria 7
3.1.1 Wave Period and Wave Parameters 7
3.1.2 Wave Height Distribution 8
3.1.3 Marine Fouling 9
3.2 Load Cases & Load Conditions 10
3.2.1 Design Acceptability 10
3.3 Fatigue Life 11
3.3.1 Fatigue Life Calculation 11
3.3.2 Fatigue Analysis Procedure 11

4 DESIGN CASES 12
4.1 Design Case 1 12
4.2 Design Case 2 13
4.3 Design Case 3 14

5 COMPUTER ANALYSES 15
5.1 Design Case 1 15
5.1.1 Analysis for Extreme Wave 15
5.1.2 Fatigue Analysis 16
5.2 Design Case 2 17
5.2.1 Analysis for Extreme Wave 17
5.2.2 Fatigue Analysis 18

6 RESULTS OF ANALYSES 22
5.3 Design Case 1 22
5.3.1 Case 1 – Extreme Condition 22
5.4 Design Case 2 22
5.4.1 Case 2 – Extreme Condition 22
5.4.2 Case 2 – Fatigue Condition 22
5.5 Design Case 3 23
5.5.1 Case 3 – Extreme Condition 23
5.5.2 Case 3 – Fatigue Condition 23
5.6 Guides – Extreme Condition 23
5.7 Guides – Fatigue Condition 24

Document Number: CM-J1404-S-TN-006 Page 4 of 26

 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Balmoral FPV is a floating platform of the GVA 5000 semi-sub design. The design,
construction and installation of the Balmoral FPV, subsea template and all associated
pipelines occurred through the years 1983 to 1986. The installation is moored above a
subsea template located approximately 120 nautical miles NE of Aberdeen in UKCS Block
16/21a in a water depth of 143 metres (LAT).
On Balmoral FPV, the processing system currently treats crude oil from a number of fields,
removing non-saleable gas and water, metering the product and exporting it via the export
riser pipeline.
Crude oil is treated from the following fields:
• Balmoral
• Stirling
• Beauly
• Brenda & Nicol
• Burghley
Originally, the produced water system on Balmoral FPV was designed to treat and dispose of
approximately 50,000 bbl per day of produced water. Several modifications have been made
to the system over time. The produced water caisson, as it stands is not capable of handling
the target of 90,000 bbl per day.
ClerkMaxwell was contracted by Premier Oil to design upgrades to enable the system to
meet the target. These upgrades are documented in report CM-J1404-Y-RE-002 [1].
Requirements include installation of a 24” discharge caisson to both increase capacity and to
reduce surface oil sheens.
It is anticipated that caisson dimensions will conform to ANSI B36.10-1979, and mechanical
properties to API 5L, grade X52.
In this technical note, analyses are presented for 3 design cases, comprising 2 separate
caisson support configurations and 2 wall-thickness variations.
Based upon the above results, a recommendation for final design can be made.

1.2 Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are adopted in this TN (Technical Note):

ANSI American National Standards Institute
API American Petroleum Institute
DL Design Life
DNV Det norske Veritas
FPV Floating production vessel
LAT Lowest astronomical tide
PM Pierson-Moskowitz energy spectrum

Document Number: CM-J1404-S-TN-006 Page 5 of 26

 1 INTRODUCTION
SN An S-N curves describes the stress range vs No. of cycles to failure, due to fatigue

Document Number: CM-J1404-S-TN-006 Page 6 of 26

 1
2 CAISSON
INTRODUCTION
LOCATION

Proposed location of the new 24” caisson is on the outboard face of the starboard aft leg,
adjacent to the existing produced water caisson.
The new caisson is shown in yellow (Figure 1, below).

Proposed caisson
location

LAT
Caisson
discharge

Figure 1: Starboard Aft Leg showing proposed caisson location

The new caisson will be approximately 33.0m long. It requires a deadweight support at Main
Deck Level, i.e. 21.0 m above LAT (El. +43 m), and at least one guide.

Document Number: CM-J1404-S-TN-006 Page 7 of 26

 3 DESIGN CRITERIA & ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

3.1 Design Criteria

Comprehensive Metocean data, prepared by PhysE Ltd [2] for the nearby Shelley field, are
adopted for use at Balmoral. The only modification is field water depth, which, for Balmoral, is
taken as 143.0 m.
The projected service life of the new produced water caisson is 7 years.
1.1.1 Wave Period and Wave Parameters
Paragraphs 4.6.1 and 4.6.2 of the Shelley Report, give an expression for Wave Period, T, in
terms of Wave Height, H, and Steepness, S:
T = [2 * * H / (S * G)]0.5, where S = 1 / 16 (median value), and
G = 9.807 m/S2 (acceleration due to gravity)
Thus, T = 3.202 * H0.5

Figure 2: Wave Parameters

Document Number: CM-J1404-S-TN-006 Page 8 of 26

1.1.2 Wave Height Distribution
The annual individual wave height distribution (scatter diagram) is given in Table 4-33 of the
Shelley Report. This is reproduced in Table 2, below.

Table 2: Annual Scatter Diagram

Document Number: CM-J1404-S-TN-006 Page 9 of 26
1.1.3 Marine Fouling
Water depth and marine growth thickness profile for a typical jacket structure in the central
North Sea, are given in Chapter 10, of the Shelley field report. This is reproduced in Figure 3,
below:

Figure 3: Structural Marine Fouling

Thickness of marine growth adhering to the caisson is taken as 25mm.

Document Number: CM-J1404-S-TN-006 Page 10 of 26

1.2 Load Cases & Load Conditions

The caisson is analysed for 3 Design Load Cases, described in detail in Chapter 4.
Each Load Case is analysed for the following 2 loading conditions:-
 Extreme Condition, utilising loading from the 50-year return storm wave (Shelley field
report) and associated current.
 Fatigue Condition, utilising stress levels caused by regular waves, according to a
Rayleigh distribution and the Pierson-Moskowitz energy spectrum of the annual
significant wave (Shelley).
1.2.1 Design Acceptability
For the Extreme Condition, the caisson design is deemed acceptable when the maximum
stress and deflection are less than 266 MPa and 200 mm, respectively.
For Fatigue, the design is acceptable when the calculated fatigue life, according to the rules
of DNV-RP-C203, exceeds 20 years.

Document Number: CM-J1404-S-TN-006 Page 11 of 26

1.3 Fatigue Life

1.3.1 Fatigue Life Calculation

It is assumed that the occurrence of waves in the scatter diagram conforms to a Rayleigh
distribution.
Furthermore, it is assumed that, for a sea state defined by the significant wave, the maximum
stresses in a structure - caused by waves of differing heights - are proportional to their energy
(spectral density), according to the Pierson-Moskowitz spectrum.

The inputs, below, are required for the assessment of fatigue life:
 Annual individual wave height distribution, i.e. the 1-year scatter diagram giving bands of
Wave Height, Hi, vs. No. of Occurrences. Please refer to Table 2, overleaf.
Note: the No. of Occurrences is assumed to be the same as the No. of Stress Cycles
 Expression for Wave Period
 Annual Significant Wave Height, Hs, and Period, Tz
 Design Fatigue Life of structure, DL, in years
1.3.2 Fatigue Analysis Procedure
The design Fatigue Life is calculated according to the rules of DNV-RP-C203. The adopted S-N
Curve is F3, which applies to tubular members, butt-welded from one side, without a backing
strip and located in seawater, with cathodic protection.
The adopted Semi-probabilistic (Deterministic) procedure, for calculating structural fatigue life,
may be broken down into the steps, shown in the following table:-

Step Analysis Type Result of Interest

1
Wave : application of Significant Wave to caisson Unit load distribution
1

2
Structural: using unit load distribution Maximum stress in structure
2

Spectral: Pierson-Moskowitz Spectrum for

3 Wave Energy & Nominal Stress Range,
Significant Wave, using Wave Frequency per
3 per Ht. Band
Height Band

4 Failure Cycle: DNV, S-N Curve, F3, using Nominal

No. of Cycles to Failure, per Ht. Band
4 Stress Range, per Ht. Band

5 Fatigue Damage Ratio: (No. of Annual Stress Palmgren-Miner Cumulated Annual

5 Cycles/No. of Cycles to Failure) per Ht. Band Fatigue Damage & Fatigue Life

Table 1: Calculation Steps for Fatigue Analysis

Step 5, note: the reciprocal of Cumulated Annual Fatigue Damage gives the Design Fatigue Life,
DL, measured in years.
Document Number: CM-J1404-S-TN-006 Page 12 of 26
 2 DESIGN CASES

2.1 Design Case 1

The following criteria are assumed for this Design Case :-
 A single guide, located at El. +25m (3.0 m above LAT)
 Un-corroded Wall thickness: 0.5” (12.7 mm).
 Caisson section in air: corrosion allowance = 3.0 mm (internal)
 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ water: ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ = 3.0 mm (internal) + 3.0 mm (external)
Please refer to Figure 4, below.

Figure 4: Design Case 1

Document Number: CM-J1404-S-TN-006 Page 13 of 26
2.2 Design Case 2

The following criteria are assumed for Design Case 2:-

 A single guide, located at El. +25m (3.0 m above LAT)
 Un-corroded Wall thickness: 1.0” (25.5 mm).
 Caisson section in air: corrosion allowance = 3.0 mm (internal)
 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ water: ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ = 3.0 mm (internal) + 3.0 mm (external)
Please refer to Figure 5, below.

Figure 5: Design Case 2

Document Number: CM-J1404-S-TN-006 Page 14 of 26

2.3 Design Case 3

The following criteria are assumed for Design Case 2:-

 A single guide, located at El. +20m (2.0 m below LAT)
 Un-corroded Wall thickness: 0.5” (12.7 mm).
 Caisson section in air: corrosion allowance = 3.0 mm (internal)
 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ water: ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ = 3.0 mm (internal) + 3.0 mm (external)
Please refer to Figure 6, below.

Figure 6: Design Case 3

Document Number: CM-J1404-S-TN-006 Page 15 of 26

 3 COMPUTER ANALYSES

3.1 Design Case 1

3.1.1 Analysis for Extreme Wave

3.1.1.1 Wave Loading Analysis
The Shelley 50-year return wave is applied to a caisson of 24” outside diameter.
In this analysis, 50 mm is added to the caisson diameter, to simulate marine growth.
Furthermore, the total water depth and immersed caisson depth are increased, so that the
wave crest elevation is the same as that specified.
Qbasic computer programme, Airy.bas, is used for analysis. An Airy (sinusoidal) wave is
applied. Drag and Inertia Coefficients are taken from [3].
The following data are entered:
 Water Depth (M) = 144.35
 Wave Height (M) = 24.5
 ' ' Period (S) = 15.7
 Cylinder Diameter (M) = 0.66
 Drag Coefficient, Cd = 0.7
 Mean Current Speed (M/Sec) = 0.6
 Water Density (kG/M^3) = 1025
 TOP OF CYL. relative to SWL [+/-] (M) = 19.65
 BOT. ' ' ' ' ' SWL [+/-] (M) = -12.35
 Inertia Coeff., CM (1 + ADDED MASS coeff.) = 1.7
 No. of Tranches for Wave Force Calculation = 20
Figure 7: Input Data (Extreme Wave Analysis)
Programme output consists of unit load distribution, in kN/m, acting on the caisson
3.1.1.2 Structural Analysis
Since the weight of marine growth is small, marine growth weight is not considered here.
Wall thickness of the caisson is 0.5”.
Corrosion allowances, detailed in Para. 4.1, are applied in the calculation of section
properties.
Material densities (in water and air) are adjusted to compensate for the full section. A 20%
increase in weight is applied, to allow for the use of bolted flanges.
At the crest (13.56 m above LAT), the wave loading is 10.64 kN/m; at the lower end of the
caisson (11.00 m below LAT), the loading is 5.23 kN/m.
Calculations are performed using the well-known computer programme for space-frame
structural analysis, StaadPro.
The wave load model of the caisson is shown in Figure 8.

Document Number: CM-J1404-S-TN-006 Page 16 of 26

 Figure 8: StaadPro Computer Model, 50-Yr Extreme Wave Loading, Design Case 1
Caisson stresses and deflections are obtained from the structural analysis. Results are
presented in Chapter 6.
3.1.2 Fatigue Analysis
The maximum allowable stress and deflection, occurring in the caisson and obtained from the
Extreme Wave analysis, have both been exceeded. Because of these unsatisfactory results,
Case 1 fatigue calculations are not performed.

Document Number: CM-J1404-S-TN-006 Page 17 of 26

3.2 Design Case 2

3.2.1 Analysis for Extreme Wave

3.2.1.1 Wave Loading Analysis
The Shelley 50-year return wave is applied to a caisson of 24” outside diameter.
Caisson layout and environmental input data are the same as for Design Case 1. Please refer
to Section 5.1.1 of this technical note.
As before, the programme run generates wave load distribution, acting on the caisson.
3.2.1.2 Structural Analysis
Caisson wall thickness is 1”.
The weight of marine growth is not considered.
Corrosion allowances, detailed in Para. 4.2, are applied in the calculation of section
properties.
Support conditions and applied loads are the same as for Design Case 1.
The analysis is performed using structural software StaadPro. Programme input consists of
the wave load distribution, obtained from Section 5.2.1.1, above.
The computer wave load model is shown, below:

Figure 9: StaadPro Computer Model, 50-Yr Extreme Wave Loading, Design Case 2
Document Number: CM-J1404-S-TN-006 Page 18 of 26
 The Extreme Wave analysis gives caisson stresses, deflections, and support reactions as
output. Case 2 results are presented in Chapter 6.
3.2.2 Fatigue Analysis
3.2.2.1 Wave Loading Analysis
The Shelley Annual Significant Wave is applied to the caisson of 24” outside diameter.
In the analysis, 50 mm is added to the caisson diameter, to simulate marine growth.
An Airy (sinusoidal) wave is applied, using Microsoft Qbasic computer software, Airy.bas.
The adopted Drag and Inertia Coefficients are taken from [3].
The following data are entered:
 Water Depth (M) = 143
 Wave Height (M) = 10.3
 ' ' Period (S) = 10.3
 Cylinder Diameter (M) = 0.66
 Drag Coefficient, Cd = 0.7
 Mean Current Speed (M/Sec) = 0
 Water Density (kG/M^3) = 1025
 TOP OF CYL. relative to SWL [+/-] (M) = 19.65
 BOT. ' ' ' ' ' SWL [+/-] (M) = -11
 Inertia Coeff., CM (1 + ADDED MASS coeff.) = 2
 No. of Tranches for Wave Force Calculation = 20
Figure 10: Input Data (Annual Significant Wave Analysis)

Programme output consists of load distribution, measured in kN/m.

3.2.2.2 Structural Analysis

The load distribution, ref. Section 5.2.2.1, is used as input to structural analysis, which is
performed using StaadPro.
Caisson wall thickness, corrosion allowances and material densities are the same as Section
5.2.1.2, above.
At the crest (5.00 m above LAT), the wave loading is 3.61 kN/m; at the lower end of the
caisson (11.00 m below LAT), the loading is 1.17 kN/m.
The wave load model is shown in Figure 11.

Document Number: CM-J1404-S-TN-006 Page 19 of 26

Figure 11: StaadPro Computer Model, Annual Significant Wave Loading, Design Case 2

The maximum caisson stress, obtained, is noted.

Analysis results are presented in Chapter 6.

Document Number: CM-J1404-S-TN-006 Page 20 of 26

3.2.2.3 Stress Range
A wave energy spectrum describes the spectral density (i.e. energy) of a sea state defined by
the significant wave. The spectrum can be used to calculate the energy of waves, of different
height bands, within the sea state. For regular waves, the PM spectrum is normally used.
Height bands, used in the fatigue analysis, are taken from Table 2: Annual Scatter Diagram.
Using the PM spectrum, the stress range per height band can be calculated.
Height Band Nominal Stress Range is assumed to bear a linear relationship to the maximum
stress, caused by the Significant Wave.
Calculations for PM spectrum are generated by Microsoft Qbasic computer programme,
Wavespec.bas.
The required input data are shown in Figure 12, below:
1. Firstly, general data:
 Signif. Wave Ht. of Sea State, Hs (M) = 10.3
 Mean Zero-up-crossing period, Tz (Sec) = 10.3
 Adopted FACTOR, Wave Period derivation = 3.202
2. Next, the maximum occurring stress, from Sig. Wave structural analysis
 Max. Stress [Sig. Wave](N/mm^2)= 33.784
3. Following on from the above, the height of a specific wave band is entered
 Wave Ht., for ENERGY calc. (M) = x.x
Figure 12: Input Data, Wave Energy and Stress Range Calculation
The computer programme calculates, for each wave height band in the sea state:
 Wave Period
 ‘ ‘ Frequency
 ‘ ‘ Energy
 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ Ratio (to that of Sig. Wave)
 Nominal Stress Range, in N/mm2
Calculation results, for stress range using the PM spectrum, are presented in Chapter 6.

3.2.2.4 S-N Curve

The Nominal Stress Range, for each wave height band, can be applied to an S-N curve to
find the number of cycles to failure, due to fatigue damage.
Design Fatigue Life is calculated according to the rules of DNV-RP-C203. The adopted S-N
Curve, F3, applies to tubular members, butt-welded from one side, without a backing strip and
located in seawater, with cathodic protection.
Calculations for cycles to failure, using the DNV S-N curve, are generated by Microsoft
Qbasic computer programme, Fat-pipe.bas.
The required input data are shown in Figure 13:
 Section Label
 Nom. Str. RANGE [Struct. Anal.] (MPa)
Figure 13: Input Data, DNV S-N Curve, Cycles to Failure Calculation
Programme output gives the No. of Cycles to Failure, and can be found in Chapter 6.

Document Number: CM-J1404-S-TN-006 Page 21 of 26

3.2.2.5 Fatigue Life
The Number of annual stress cycles is obtained from [2]. Please refer to Table 2, of this TN.
An Excel spreadsheet is used to calculate Fatigue Damage Ratio, per Height Band:
Damage Ratio = No. of Annual Stress Cycles
No. of Cycles to Failure
The cumulation of Damage Ratios gives the Total Annual Fatigue Damage, according to
Palmgren.

Caisson Fatigue Life, measured in years, is the reciprocal of Total Annual Fatigue Damage.

The spreadsheet calculation for Fatigue Life is given in Chapter 6.

Document Number: CM-J1404-S-TN-006 Page 22 of 26

 6 RESULTS OF ANALYSES

3.3 Design Case 1

3.3.1 Case 1 – Extreme Condition

The applied loading varies from 10.64 kN/m (at the wave crest), to 5.38 kN/m, at the bottom
of the caisson.

Reactions: Horizontal reactions, acting at lower and upper guides, are 59.24 kN and 133.64
kN, respectively. At the deadweight support, the horizontal reaction is 11.71 kN (direction
opposing the guide reactions), whereas the vertical reaction is 69.19 kN, acting upwards.
Stresses: Maximum caisson stress is 120.1 N/mm2
Displacements: Maximum horizontal displacement is 56.1 mm at the location 0.75 m above
LAT.

3.4 Design Case 2

3.4.1 Case 2 – Extreme Condition

The applied loading varies from 10.64 kN/m (at the wave crest), to 5.38 kN/m, at the bottom
of the caisson.

Reactions: Horizontal reactions, acting at lower and upper guides, are 59.24 kN and 133.64
kN, respectively. At the deadweight support, the horizontal reaction is 11.71 kN (direction
opposing the guide reactions), whereas the vertical reaction is 69.19 kN, acting upwards.
Stresses: Maximum caisson stress is 120.1 N/mm2
Displacements: Maximum horizontal displacement is 56.1 mm at the location 0.75 m above
LAT
3.4.2 Case 2 – Fatigue Condition
A structure, subjected to stress reversal cycles, is considered acceptable when the calculated
Fatigue Life, FL, is equal to - or greater than - twice the Design Life, DL.
It is assumed that the occurrence of waves in the scatter diagram conforms to a Rayleigh
distribution. Furthermore, for a given sea state, the resulting stress is proportional to the
energy (spectral density) of the wave, according to the Pierson-Moskowitz spectrum.
The calculated annual fatigue damage ratio for the caisson is 0.0000449.
Fatigue Life = 1.0 = 22282 Years
Damage Ratio

Document Number: CM-J1404-S-TN-006 Page 23 of 26

3.5 Design Case 3

3.5.1 Case 3 – Extreme Condition

The applied loading varies from 10.64 kN/m (at the wave crest), to 5.38 kN/m, at the bottom
of the caisson.

Reactions: Horizontal reactions, acting at lower and upper guides, are 59.24 kN and 133.64
kN, respectively. At the deadweight support, the horizontal reaction is 11.71 kN (direction
opposing the guide reactions), whereas the vertical reaction is 69.19 kN, acting upwards.
Stresses: Maximum caisson stress is 120.1 N/mm2
Displacements: Maximum horizontal displacement is 56.1 mm at the location 0.75 m above
LAT
3.5.2 Case 3 – Fatigue Condition
A structure, subjected to stress reversal cycles, is considered acceptable when the calculated
Fatigue Life, FL, is equal to - or greater than - twice the Design Life, DL.
It is assumed that the occurrence of waves in the scatter diagram conforms to a Rayleigh
distribution. Furthermore, for a given sea state, the resulting stress is proportional to the
energy (spectral density) of the wave, according to the Pierson-Moskowitz spectrum.
The calculated annual fatigue damage ratio for the caisson is 0.0000449.
Fatigue Life = 1.0 = 22282 Years
Damage Ratio
3.6 Guides – Extreme Condition

The caisson would be secured by guide clamps at 2 locations - 10.0 m above and 8.5 m
below LAT, where guide clamps of identical design are proposed.
Each guide is comprised of two 700 x 320 x 20mm (Outside Dia. x L. x Tk.) half-shells. Gusset plates
welded to the inner half-shell would be welded to starboard aft column leg, via a 20mm thick
doubler plate. Guide details are shown in Figure 3.

Document Number: CM-J1404-S-TN-006 Page 24 of 26

 Figure 3: Caisson guide clamp details

After lowering and alignment of the caisson, the outer half-shell would be bolted to the
inner shell using 6no. grade 8.8 M24 bolts (3 per flange).

3.7 Guides – Fatigue Condition

Fatigue assessment of guide welds would be performed in the next stage of this project.

Document Number: CM-J1404-S-TN-006 Page 25 of 26

 4 REFERENCES
RESULTS OF ANALYSES
[1] Main Study Report. CM-J1404-Y-RE-002, Rev. A01, ClerkMaxwell, 12/11/2012.
[2] Metocean Criteria for the Shelley Field (Block 22/3). C185-07-R264-V2-ID, Physical
Environment, 27/06/2007.
[3] HSE Offshore Technology Report, Loads, 2001/013.

Document Number: CM-J1404-S-TN-006 Page 26 of 26