Scribd
Upload
50 views1 page

Modularisation

Modularisation

Uploaded by

mailtosamraj
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
50 views1 page

Modularisation

Modularisation

Uploaded by

mailtosamraj
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Modularisation of FPSO Topside

A decision support tool for topside designers


W.H. Wong, 2001

Many offshore oil and gas reservoirs are being produced by so-called "Floating Production Storage Offloading"-facilities
(FPSO) instead of by conventional offshore platforms. A major problem in an FPSO project is the integration of the
topside deck with the hull. Nearly all FPSO projects suffer severe delay and additional costs due to various late changes
to the design.

This thesis research is conducted on behalf of ABB Lummus Global in The Hague. It is concerned with the identification
and analysis of the most frequent changes, the consequences for the FPSO project and how to design an FPSO that is
least sensitive to these frequent changes. By analyzing previous FPSO projects it was found that usually seven changes
show up in the integration phase. They can be ordered into three categories:
• changes in the FPSO design, which are changed weight, sizes or fitting of the topside elements and modules;
• changes in the integration process, which are a changed installation method and the characteristics of the integration
yard have become insufficient;
• changes in the surrounding of the actual integration, these changes are imposed on the project from outside. They
are changed delivery specifications and changed environmental and installation loads and loads due to hull motions.

The solution for a less sensitive integration process is looked for in the partition of FPSO topsides, i.e. modularisation of
the topside because the hull design is fixed and the topside processes and thus the topside equipment are dictated by the
project. The only freedom in the FPSO is the topside partition. Using the above information a decision support tool was
defined for the modularisation of FPSO topsides. The tool compares different modularisation concepts, their advantages
and disadvantages and their bottlenecks in an FPSO project. Secondly, the tool can enhance designers' understanding of
the behaviour of modularisation concepts in general, which is important in order to optimize the integration process. It
was not an objective to create a tooi that can define where to cut the topside into modules. It merely should help to
decide how the topside should be cut. The decision support tool is a so-called multi-criteria evaluation. The tool considers
three alternatives because all options derive from these three basic concepts. The possibilities of topside rnodularisation
vary from one single large module (concept A) to all topside equipment individually moduled (concept C). The third
altemative is a concept of ten modules (concept B).

The criterion for the best alternative is its insensitivity to the seven frequent project changes stated above. In the
decision support tool each of the above stated seven changes are evaluated in a matrix. The matrix is divided into an
evaluation of the FPSO design and of the integration process. A change has consequences for several elements of the
FPSO, i.e. topside and the hull, such as the module foundation and the topside deck. It also has consequenees for the
integration process, such as for the installation equipment and the schedule. All these elements require some trouble to
overcome the imposed change.

The comparison of the three concepts A, B and C is done by comparing the three total proportional trouble to overcome
the seven given changes. In the end of the research it may be concluded that a modularisation concept consisting of
modules with smaller sizes and less mass appears to be less sensitive to the seven major project changes. This despite
certain disadvantages, such as a less efficient use of the topside deck and the increased topside interfaces. Secondly the
decision support tool is able to sketch the (dis)advantages and the bottlenecks of every concept considered. And it can
also enhance the users’ understanding of topside modularisation in general. Some recommendations have been made to
ABB Lummus Global, these can be found in the thesis report.

Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences Delft University of Technology

You might also like