Proceedings of the Seventeenth Sixteenth (2007) (2007) International International Offshore Offshore and and Polar Polar Engineering

Engineering Conference Conference Lisbon, Portugal, July 1-6, 2007 Copyright 2007 by The International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers(ISOPE) ISBN 978-1-880653-68-5; ISBN 1-880653-68-0(Set); ISSN 1098-6189 (Set)

The Comparison of Various SCR configurations for Bow Turret Moored FPSO in West Africa
Mason Wu, Kevin Huang
Acergy, North America and Mexico Houston, TX, USA,

ABSTRACT
This paper presents a high-level study of three different Steel Catenary Riser (SCR) configurations and the associated strength and fatigue requirements for Bow Turret Moored Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO) system in West Africa environment. The three SCR configurations that have been studied are: simple SCR, weighted SCR and Mini-Lazy Wave (MLW) SCR. This study is intended to provide the performance comparisons among these riser configurations, particularly the dynamic response characteristics at the touch down point (TDP). The study results reveal that the MLW SCR has the best performance for both fatigue and strength, followed by the weighted SCR and then the simple SCR. For the strength assessment, MLW SCR provides satisfactory von Mises stresses, and completely eliminates the riser compression at the TDP, where high compressions for the Simple SCR and moderate compression for the weighted SCR are observed. For the fatigue assessment, comparing to the simple SCR, the MLW SCR significantly improves the fatigue performance at the TDP, while the weighted SCR provides marginally better fatigue performance as well. It is concluded that the MLW is a promising configuration for bow turret moored FPSO applications in West Africa environment, and deserves further assessment.

KEY WORDS: Steel Catenary Riser, mini lazy wave, FPSO,

strength, fatigue.

INTRODUCTION
For the Deep Water riser applications, SCRs ( Quintin et al. 2007), Hybrid Riser Towers (HRTs), and flexible risers are the most popularly used concepts. Flexible risers are generally motion tolerant, but costly and limited in size and pressure rating. Therefore, there is always an interest to extend the application scope for SCRs, and/or the variation version of SCRs. Some general comparisons between SCRs and HRTs have been performed by Alliot et al. (2005), Wu et al. (2006), and Blevins et al. (2007). Recent years have seen the first uses of steel catenary risers (Legras, 2006, Nolop et al. 2007) with spread moored FPSOs for deepwater field developments in West Africa. The lessons learnt from the

installation of the SCR riser (Tenet, 2006), pull-in system (Judd, 2005) and FPSO (Xavier, 2006) are also shown in the literature. We have also carried out the conceptual evaluations for several SCR related configurations for Bow Turret Moored FPSO, which has gained more popularity in the latest deepwater field development in West Africa (Wyllie, 2006). Bow Turret Moored FPSO has a number of advantages, including high schedule flexibility, and possible parallel component construction resulting in lower total construction cost. One of its disadvantages is that the heave motion at the turret is relatively higher than that of the conventional FPSOs. This excessive heave motion could cause large quantity of high stress cycles within the riser. One possible solution is to use SCRs with high quality welds at certain critical locations to provide satisfactory fatigue performance. Consequently, this option would impose challenges on the welding procedures and quality control of the welds. Another potential design issue for SCR is the high compression load at the touchdown point for thermally insulated risers. A proven concept to solve both of the fatigue and compression problems is to use the full Lazy wave type of SCRs, with large quantity of buoyancy modules attached to the riser to decouple the FPSO motions from the riser TDP. However, this solution is also quite expensive due to the cost of buoyancy modules as well as the cost to install them. Thus, a mini-lazy wave type of SCR configuration is proposed as a candidate of more cost-effective solution. At the same time, a weighted SCR by clamping heavy collars near the TDP to mitigate the FPSO motions has also been studied. Comparing to the buoyancy modules, the clamp weights cost less in hardware and installation as well. To cover a wider range of FPSO applications, the riser assessment is carried out on both AFRAMAX and VLCC classes. In this paper we first described the design basis and environmental criteria, followed by the riser modeling and analysis methodologies. Then we illustrated the details of the stress comparisons at the riser TDP, and provided the analysis result summaries. Last, conclusions were drawn. It is found that the MLW concept is very effective to decouple the FPSO motions from the riser touch down region, especially in extreme environments. It is also shown that the MLW concept could be further optimized to provide better fatigue performance when needed. Therefore, it has high potential for bow turret moored FPSOs in benign environments, such as in West Africa.

788

DESIGN BASIS
Table 3. Design Wave Parameters The studied riser system for the turret-moored FPSO consists of three 10 insulated production lines, one 10 water injection line, one 8 gas injection line, and one 4 gas lift line. The riser parameters are listed in Table 1. The design pressure is 5,500psi (37.9Mpa) for production riser and 4,500psi (31Mpa) for injection and gas lift riser. Table 1. General Riser Data Riser Type Production Water Injection Gas Injection Gas Lift Parameter Swell Hs (m) Swell Tp (s) Associated Sea Hs (m) Associated Sea Tp (s) Return Period 1-yr 3 13.5 1 6 100-yr 4 15.5 1 6 1000-yr 4.5 16 1.5 6

Number 3 1 1 1

OD in (mm) 10.75 (273.1) 10.75 (273.1) 8.75 (222.25) 4.56 (115.82)

RISER ANALYSIS MODELING

We included three production risers at 0 deg, 90 deg and 180 deg in a single model. This is for the convenience of the analysis since we can analyze the riser conditions in near, cross and far positions in a single analysis run. In the actual field layout, the riser arrangement pattern is not limited. The FPSO is assumed to maintain an orientation between +/-15 degrees from the wave heading. Sensitivity cases have been conservatively performed on wave headings beyond this range. The SCRs are hung off from FPSO bow turret. The riser hang-off section is not the primary focus of this study since (1) the SCR top section is very similar for all the three concepts; (2) our preliminary assessment shows that the SCR design at hang-off location may not be as critical as the bottom TDP section; (3) there are various existing top hang-off designs that have been field proven and could be used as necessary. The riser portion suspended in the water column and a sufficient extension on the sea floor are included in the model. Orcaflex beam elements with sectional properties at any given location equivalent to the section properties of all the tubulars making up the riser are used in the model. The mass of external insulations, anodes, as well as the weight tolerance for pipe manufacturing, is uniformly distributed along each section assembled with the same riser joints. The sea floor is modeled as elastic surface with modulus of 1,200 kN/m2. The soil friction is included in the analysis using typical 0.5 friction coefficient for both axial and lateral directions. The end of the SCR is a pin connection to the pipeline transition joint. There is a sufficient length of SCR included in the model laying on the sea floor such that the SCR dynamic response at the TDP will not be affected by the boundary condition at the pipeline transition joint. Wave and current induced loads are included through drag and inertia coefficients. Marine growth is not modeled in this study, although it could be included by introducing equivalent drag coefficients and inertia coefficients. It is expected the effect of marine growth has insignificant impact on the study results. Imposed motions from the FPSO are the primary driving forces of the riser dynamics. Prescribed motions of the FPSO were applied to the SCR hang-off location at turret. We included static offsets and first order motions in the analysis. The motion data were provided by the FPSO global performance analysis. Vessel drift motion was not included in this study.

From the initial screening, the insulated production riser is likely to be more governing than the injectors and gas lift line in terms of strength design and fatigue design. Therefore, the insulated production riser is chosen as the primary subject for the criteria check. For the purpose of study, the riser wall thickness is chosen as 1, as shown in Table 2. Table 2. Production Riser Design Data Parameter Unit Number of Risers Minimum Nominal ID Pipe OD Riser Top Angle Material Material Yield Stress Nominal wall thickness Wall thickness tolerance Internal corrosion Insulation Type Insulation Thickness Insulation Density External Coating Type External Coating Thickness External Coating Density Internal Coating Type Strake Length Strakes mass Weight of pipe in air, empty Weight of pipe in air, filled with water Weight of pipe in water, empty Weight of pipe in water, filled with water Bending Stiffness Axial Stiffness In (mm) In (mm) deg Ksi (MPa) In (mm) % In (mm) In (mm) lb/ft 3 (kg/m3) In lb/ft 3 (kg/m3) ft lb/ft (kg/m) lb/ft (kg/m) lb/ft (kg/m) lb/ft (kg/m) lb/ft (kg/m) kip-ft 2 (kg-m2) Kip (Te)

Production Riser 3 8.75 (222.25) 10.75 (273.1) 9 or 15 API 5L X65 65 (448) 1 (25.4) 12.5 0.12 (3) GSPP 3.5 (88.9) 45 (720) FBE/TSE 0.12 (3) 85 (1360) FBE 656.2 (200) 48 (71.4) 156 (232) 183 (272) 43 (64) 70 (104) 71,628 (3017) 840,650 (381)

The FPSO will be located in offshore West Africa, where swell waves are typical and dominant. Table 3 summarizes the swell dominated design wave parameters. The data of Current and Wind used are for typical West Africa conditions. They are not listed here since they are deemed not as critical as design wave (swell).

789

SCR CONFIGURATIONS
The nominal top departure angles were chosen as 15 degrees for simple and weighted SCR concepts, and 9 degrees for mini-lazy-wave concept. It was assumed that helical strakes cover the top 200m section of SCR to suppress the possible vortex-induced vibration (VIV). The SCR is assumed to be formed by insulated steel pipes jointed by girth weld. Other key parameters are listed in Table 4. The studied SCR concepts have similar top interface with FPSO turret and bottom interface with pipeline or subsea equipment. The main difference is the arrangement near the seafloor region. The weighted SCR concept has a section of pipe with dead weight collars attached, while the mini-lazy wave concept has a section of pipe with buoyancy modules attached. Both concepts are intended to modify the dynamic characteristics near the SCR TDP for better strength and fatigue performance. Table 4. SCR Key Parameters for Different Concepts Parameter Water Depth Nominal Top Tension Bottom Eff. Tension Departure Angle Suspended Length Horiz Span to TDP Straked Length Buoyancy Module Unit m kN kN deg m m m Simple 1515 2177 559 15 1996 1088 200 Weighted 1515 2463 634 15 1924 977 200 Mini-Lazy Wave 1515 1780 280 9 2190 1280 200 OD:2.5m L:2.5m Qty:11 -

Strakes

Weight Clamp

Wt:2.9ton Qty:16

Weight Clamps

Figure 1 shows the configurations of each of the three SCR concepts. The water depth is 1500m. The suspended length is approximately 2000m for simple SCR and weighted SCR, and 2200m for mini-lazy wave due to the buoyancy module lifting force. As expected, the weighted SCR concept has the largest top tension among these three concepts, and MLW concept has the least top tension. The difference is about 35%.

Buoys

Fig. 1 SCR Configurations, top: Simple SCR, middle: Weighted SCR, bottom: mini-lazy wave

790

VESSEL DESIGN DATA

Two types of FPSO are considered in this study: AFRAMAX and VLCC. Table 5 and 6 show the general vessel data for AFRAMAX and VLCC respectively. The motion RAOs indicate that the VLCC has slightly better dynamic performance than AFRAMAX. However, since the turret is mounted at the bow, the pitch motion could induce considerable heave motion at the SCR hang-off location. VLCC has smaller pitch motion, but with longer distance between COG and bow, AFRAMAX has slightly larger pitch motion, but with shorter distance between COG and bow. Overall, VLCC provides slightly better vertical motions at the turret. The studies were carried out on both vessels for more general conclusions. Each vessel different load conditions, i.e. ballast and 50% loaded, and full loaded, were checked and compared. Table 5 General Vessel Data for AFRAMAX Vessel AFRAMAX Load Condition LOADED BALLAST Displacement 98850 43370 Length OA (m) 230 Length BP (m) 222 Breadth 32.2 Depth 22 Draught at midship 15.7 7.4

Typically SCR design conditions include the following: 1. Installation SCR is empty or filled with seawater. 2. Pressure Test SCR is filled with seawater. 3. Operating SCR is filled with oil/gas with normal operating pressure. Installation and pressure test conditions should consider an environmental condition with return period less or equal than 1-year. Operating conditions should consider environmental conditions with return period up to 100-year. Preliminary assessment showed that the installation and pressure testing are not likely to govern the SCR design. In other words, the SCR in-place design criteria will be controlling. Because the environmental data indicates that extreme environment of the 100-yr wave is only slightly more severe than the 1yr wave, it is expected that the maximum operating cases govern the SCR strength design. The design load case factor and internal contents are case dependent and defined individually. The allowable strength increase factor of 1.2 was used for the 100-yr load cases with the mooring lines in intact condition. For the 100-yr environmental load and mooring line damaged case the allowable strength increase factor is 1.5. It is found that the mooring line damaged cases are less critical than the intact cases. The definition of the allowable stress follows API RP 2RD, and is defined as = C 2 , where Cf is the case factor, and y is the yield
a f

Unit Te m m m m m

Table 6 General Vessel Dada for VLCC Parameter VLCC FPSO Condition Ballast Interme Fully diate Loaded Loaded % 0 50 100 Length OA (m) Length BP (m) Beam (m) Depth (m) Displacement (m) Waterplane area (m2) COG Distance from Aft Perpendicular (m) COG Distance above WL (m) Center of turret from APP (m) Center of turret from WL (m) 338 325 56 26.7 14.1 15550 174.73 -0.79 345.85 12.6

stress. The principle stresses, which include tension induced stress (T/A), bending moment induced stress (M/I*OD/2), and pressure induced stress (hoop and radial stress), are combined using the von Mises yield criterion. We used a two-step approach for strength analysis. Step 1, use regular wave approach for preliminary screening. The regular wave approach is conservative. Therefore, some calculated von Mises may exceed the allowables. We then proceed to Step 2: screen through all the load cases and select the governing cases for a refined random wave simulation for calibration and validation. Regular wave approach is fast and random wave simulation is much more time consuming, by combining these two we were able to achieve the design goal in an efficient way.

10.09 15210 175.62 5.83 345.85 16.61

20.5 16280 173.04 -4.46 345.85 6.2

FATIGUE ANALYSIS APPROACH

We used spectral wave approach for the fatigue design. Figure 2 shows the flow chart. The procedures are as follows: 1. Select a set of periods for regular wave. Usually it covers the majority of the wave periods defined in the wave scatter diagram. 2. Select appropriate wave height for each period. We chose the weighted average wave height for each period. 3. Perform regular wave simulation on all the defined wave periods. The durations of the simulation are sufficiently long for stabilized SCR response. 4. Normalize the SCR stress response by the wave height. This would generate equivalent stress RAOs. 5. Combine the wave spectra with stress RAOs to calculate the stress RMS and Tz for each fatigue sea state in wave scatter diagram. 6. Calculate the fatigue damage for each fatigue sea state through narrow banded spectral method. 7. Sum up the fatigue damage of each fatigue bin over the wave scatter diagram to obtain the total fatigue damage.

STRENGTH DESIGN LOAD CASES

We first performed the static check of the riser configurations. The static results provide preliminary estimation of the SCR tension distributions, departure angle variations and maximum stress location. Based on static analysis results, selected cases were analyzed covering all extreme and maximum operating cases conditions, vessel loading (draft) conditions, current directions and vessel heading variations of 15 deg. Sensitivity analysis has been conducted on worst cases obtained, where the maximum compression in the line was obtained.

791

This approach is similar to the frequency domain fatigue method, however, with some nonlinear effect included.

Generate Weighted Hs vs Tp Curve

Wave Scatter Diagram

Select Wave Periods & Simulation Durations

Stress RMS & Tz

Clearance

OrcaFlex Simulation Runs

Fatigue Damage

Retrieve Stress Ranges

Calculate Stress RAOs

Fig. 3 Sea Bed Clearance Definition

Buoyancy Module Sea Bed Clearance
119 118 117 116 Clearance (m) 115 114 113 112 111 110 109 108 0% 1% 2% FPSO Offset (%WD) 3% 4% 5%
far cross near

Fig. 2 Spectral Wave Fatigue Flow Chart We also used the Rain Flow Counting technique to calculate the SCR fatigue for selected cases, and compared the results to the spectral wave fatigue approach, and good agreements have been observed.

SEA BED CLEARANCE

The buoyancy modules for mini-lazy wave concept causes hog bend and sag bend on the pipes. It is undesirable to have clashing between the sag bend section and seabed. Therefore, the clearance is checked to confirm the design. Figure 3 shows the definitions of the clearance. In our nominal mini-lazy wave configuration, the sag bend is approximately 100m above the seabed. We checked the clearance from two aspects: 1. FPSO offset. When FPSO offsets, the riser suspended length changes. This raises or lowers the sag bend section. Figure 3 shows the static check results. It is checked for the FPSO offset up to 5% WD. The clearance reduction is about 2 m, which is insignificant, as shown in Figure 4. 2. FPSO dynamic motion. The FPSO dynamic vertical movement could also cause the sag bend to move up and down. We checked that the clearance variation during 100-yr wave condition is in the range of less than 10 meters. Originally, there was a concern on the clearance between buoyancy module section and sea floor. However, based on the proposed configuration and clearance analysis results, the clearances between SCR and seabed are adequate at all times.

Fig. 4 Mini-lazy Wave Configuration Sea Bed Clearance

STRENGTH RESULTS
The maximum von Mises stresses are checked along the risers and the governing locations are identified. The stress utilization ratios are compared in Table 7. Figure 5 shows the maximum von Mises distribution along the riser for all the three concepts for extreme design case. It shows that: 1. The risers experience relatively high stress in the whole section due to the high design pressure. 2. The simple SCR has a very narrow stress spike at the TDP, which is the most critical location. As expected, in both weighted and MLW concepts, the stress level at the TDP has been significantly reduced. 3. For the MLW configuration, the von Mises at the hog bend section could be higher than the rest of the pipe section. This stress is obviously related to the buoyancy module arrangement. In other words, this will be a design task that requires careful considerations. Figure 6 presents the bending moment time histories at the TDP. It shows that the weighted SCR and MLW configurations have much lower peak values than the simple SCR. Table 7 summarizes the stress utilization ratios. The results indicate that adequate performance is obtained for both weighted and MLW configurations. Poorer strength performance was observed for the simple SCR risers.

792

300

Bending Moment @ TDP (kN-m)

Table 7 von Mises Stress Utilization Ratio Comparison VLCC AFRAMAX Load Category Simple Weighted MLW Simple Weighted MLW Max Op Extreme Survival 1.26 1.08 0.86 0.58 0.62 0.5 0.67 0.71 0.58 1.2 1.02 0.73 0.75 0.65 0.48 0.74 0.72 0.63

250
SCR

200 150 100 50 0 0 10 20 30 40 50

weighted MLW

290

TDP
270 250

60

time (sec)

Fig. 6 Bending Moment Time History Comparison @ TDP

von Mises (MPa)

230 210 190 170 150 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

FATIGUE RESULTS
Table 8 and 9 show the relative fatigue life comparisons between the studied concepts for VLCC and AFRAMAX FPSO respectively. The worst fatigue damage at the TDP region was reported. The results have been normalized by the simple SCR fatigue life for DNV-E curve for simplicity.The fatigue life ratio for simple SCR is selected as 1 for DNV-E curve, while all other data are the relative ratios to the simple SCR with DNV-E curve. It shows the MLW is able to improve the riser fatigue life at the TDP by 5~6 times, while weighted SCR improves by 2 times. Both FPSOs have similar trend. VLCC provides slightly better performance due to its larger displacement and lower motions. Figure 7 shows the linearized stress RAO comparisons at the TDP. It demonstrates that in most of the wave frequency range, the stress cycles for MLW have the lowest amplitudes, followed by the weighted SCR. It is interesting to see the stress RAOs are mixed in the wave period range of 5~8 seconds. This suggests that the MLW is well suited for swell dominant environments, where the periods are relatively long. Figure 8 illustrates the fatigue life distributions along the riser. As expected, the main difference is near the TDP region, where riser configurations were locally modified. In the rest of the riser sections the results are very similar. Figure 9 shows the fatigue damage breakdowns at various wave periods, which is calculated by summing up the fatigue damages at each period block in the scatter diagram, weighted by the occurrence probabilities for each sea state. It shows the majority of the fatigue damage is contributed by waves with period from 9 to 14 seconds. In summary, best fatigue performance was obtained with the mini lazy wave configuration with a fatigue life that was approximately three times the weighted riser and six times the simple SCR. In all cases, the worst damage was obtained in the touchdown zone. As indicated in the following table the calculated minimum fatigue life of the mini lazy wave and weighted risers are significantly improved from the Simple Catenary Riser. AFRAMAX has lower fatigue lives than those of VLCC. It is possibly due to smaller vessel yielding more vessel motions: heave and pitch induced heaves. Table 8 Fatigue Life Comparison Summary - VLCC Description Simple Weighted MLW VLCC DNV-B DNV-D DNV-E 17.82 56.00 198.64 1.45 3.27 8.00 1 2.27 5.55 AFRAMAX DNV-E 0.38 0.71 1.91

Arc Length (m)

290 270 250

TDP von Mises (MPa)

230 210 190 170 150 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Weight Clamp Section

Arc Length (m)

290 270 250

Buoy Section

TDP

von Mises (MPa)

230 210 190 170 150 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Arc Length (m)

Fig. 5 Max von Mises Comparisons, top: simple SCR, middle: weighted SCR, bottom: MLW.

793

CONCLUSIONS
Table 9 Fatigue Life Comparison Summary - AFRAMAX Description AFRAMAX VLCC DNV-B Simple Weighted MLW
45 40 SCR Weighted MLW

DNV-D DNV-E 2.17 4.03 11.01 1 1.86 5.07

DNV-E 2.63 3.20 2.91

21.23 39.42 107.64

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0

10

15

20

25

In this paper conceptual level analysis has been carried out to compare three different SCR configurations. The clearance between the buoyancy module section and the seabed has been checked and is not likely a design concern for MLW SCR. The study results reveal that the MLW SCR has the best performance for both fatigue and strength, followed by the weighted SCR and then the simple SCR. For the strength assessment, MLW SCR provides satisfactory von Mises stresses, and completely eliminates riser compression at the riser TDP. While high TDP compressions for the Simple SCR and moderate TDP compression for the weighted SCR are observed. For the fatigue assessment, comparing to the simple SCR, the MLW SCR significantly improves the fatigue performance at the TDP, and the weighted SCR provides marginally better fatigue performance as well. This is attributed to the weighted SCR configuration not being able to adequately de-couple the vessel heave motions between the riser top end and the touchdown zone. Limiting vessel heave by moving the riser hang off point closer to the vessel midship will improve the performance of the free hanging configurations. However, there is certain limitation to how much we can move riser hang-off/turret point toward the midship for the weathervane requirement of turret moored FPSO. It is concluded that the MLW SCR possesses the most attractive strength and fatigue performance, and it has the potential to become a cost-effective alternative solution to SCR. A high level installability assessment of riser to FPSO has been screened. Further study on the installability of the SCRs, including attached weight clamps and buoyancy modules, is highly recommended to confirm the feasibility of the weighted SCR and MLW concepts. And cost comparisons are also to be performed to confirm the overall cost benefit/penalty of these two concepts.

Stress RAO @ TDP (MPa/m)

Wave Period (sec)

Fig. 7 Riser Stress RAO Comparison @ TDP

1.E+05

1.E+04

Fatigue Life (years)

1.E+03

1.E+02

SCR MLW Weighted TDP (MLW)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are indebted to Acergy for supporting this paper, especially the assistance from Jean-Francois Saint-Marcoux and Jean-Luc Legras , the guidance from Ian Frazer, and Cynthia/Donnas preparation of the manuscript. This paper reflects the opinion of its authors and does not imply endorsements by the company to which acknowledgements are given.

1.E+01

TDP (Weighted) TDP (SCR)

1.E+00 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Arc Length (m)

Fig. 8 Riser Fatigue Life Comparison (DNV-E)

0.04 SCR Weighted 0.03 MLW

REFERENCES
Alliot V., Legras J., Perinet, D., (2004), A Comparison Between Steel Catenary Risers and Hybrid Riser Towers for Deep Water Field Developments, DOT 2004, New Orleans, LA. American Petroleum Institute, (1999), Design of risers for Floating Production Systems ( FPSs) and Tension-Leg Platforms ( TLPs), Recommended Practice 2RD, First Edition, January 1999. Blevins, RD, Wu, M., (2007), "Investigation of Interference between Upstream and Downstream Cylinders in a Current", Offshore Technology Conference, paper 18529, Houston, Texas. Det Norske Veritas, (1984), Fatigue Strength Analysis for Mobile Offshore Units, Classification Note 30.2, August 1984. Judd, S., Okonkwo U., Penel, G., (2005), Re-usable and multipurpose pull-in system, OWA 2005, Abuja, Nigeria. Legras, Jean-Luc, (2006), Riser Design for Offshore Nigeria challenges and solutions, OWA 2006, 14-16, Abuja, Nigeria.

Damage (1/yr)

0.02

0.01

0 2 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23

Wave Periods (sec)

Fig. 9 Fatigue Damage Distribution Comparison (DNV-E)

794

Nolop, N., Elholm, E., Wang, H., Hoyt, D., Kan, W., (2007), Montbarbon, S., Quintin, H., Steel Catenary Risers and Offloading System for the Erha Field Development, OTC 2007, Houston, TX Quintin H., Legras J., Huang, K., Wu, M., (2007), Steel Catenary Riser Challenges and Solutions for Deep Water Applications, to be published OTC2007 Paper 19118, Houston, Texas. Tenet, C., Duquesnes, V., (2006), Steel Catenary Riser Installation on FPSO, DOT 2006, Houston, TX

Xavier, B., Dubreuil, G., Johns, J., (2006), Lessons Learnt from the Installation of Deep Water FPSOs, DOT 2006, Houston, 2006. Wu, M., Saint-Marcoux, J-F, Jacob, P., Birch, V., (2006), The Dynamics of Flexible jumpers connecting a Turret Moored FPSO to a Hybrid Riser Tower. DOT 2007, Houston, TX Wyllie, M., W., J., Joynson, J., (2006), Recent Trends in FPSO Design and Project Execution Applied to Leased Vessels, OTC 18061, Houston, Texas.

795