GASTECH 2009 ABU DHABI

27 Mai 2009

Going offshore with membrane containment systems

By Frdric Deybach Engineering Director, Gaztransort & Technigaz Pierre-Emmanuel de Seze Head of Liquid Motion Group, Gaztransport & Technigaz Julien Cayuela Process Engineer, Gaztransport & Technigaz Julien Sigaudes CCS Department Deputy Manager, Gaztransport & Technigaz

GAZTRANSPORT & TECHNIGAZ

Introduction

We have been hearing about offshore LNG for more than a decade. In the mean time we have seen significant changes in the LNG business with a tripling of the fleet capacity, the development of spot trading, the introduction of mega trains, of very large LNG Carriers, and of new propulsion systems, but no offshore LNG platforms other than regas vessels are in service. G.T.T. membrane Technology is the market leader for conventional LNG Carriers, and has been for many years. Its position as the Technology of choice for the off-shore market will be strengthened thanks to the introduction of the new two-row concept for the most challenging of this type of application. This paper will first introduce the methodology applied to assess sloshing for an offshore project and describe why two-row tanks significantly reduce this sloshing. It will then analyze the impact of this new concept on the other installations of the platform, such as the hull structure or the cargo handling system, and propose optimizations and simplifications to minimize some of its negative impacts. It will finally present how specific requirements of offshore operation introduce modifications in the design, the operation and the maintenance of the cargo containment and the cargo handling systems, in particular to allow on site maintenance.

II

Sloshing

Sloshing loads are generally investigated at an early stage of an offshore project. Indeed, this aspect is usually seen as a potential key issue for membrane suitability when partially filled tanks are implied. Today, GTT has developed a thorough methodology to handle this difficult matter using the most advanced testing tools and statistical approaches. The experience accumulated since the early 70s with the first sloshing events up to much more recent ones provides a very good basis to anchor the theoretical approach upon real life. Hereafter, this methodology is described very briefly; a more detailed description of the most recent improvements of the approach can be found in Reference 1. To answer the current new need for large offshore facilities operating at partial fillings for a significant time, GTT together with his licensees developed a new solution: the so-called two-row arrangement which will offer a large flexibility together with all historical membrane advantages.

1 1.1

Necessary inputs and key assumptions Site Metocean situation

To perform a relevant sloshing analysis a minimum amount of information is necessary regarding environmental aspects. Indeed, being the original root cause of sloshing phenomenon, the waves that will be endorsed by the barge have to be described in terms of amplitude and period through a scatter diagram. GTTs current approach allows to study not only one single given site but a set of potential envisioned sites. For offshore platforms, a multisites approach is much more relevant from a technical point of view and much more accurate compared to unrealistic assumption involving for instance North Atlantic conditions. If the scatter diagram is the minimum required information, other information will improve the conclusions accuracy such as wave spectrum or spreading description.

Gastech 2009

DEYBACH DE SEZE CAYUELA SIGAUDES

Page 2

GAZTRANSPORT & TECHNIGAZ

When the Metocean conditions of the site can be numerically calculated through Hindcast simulation, it is then possible to obtain the time series describing both wind waves and swell but also current. In such ideal case, hydrodynamic analysis can provide very accurately not only the wave description but also their respective direction relatively to the barge heading. As a result the sloshing assessment becomes more reliable.

1.2

All fillings: different types of flow

Two main types of liquid flows can be distinguished in the tanks (see Figure 1) : firstly, while the ratio of the liquid depth over the liquid surface length (so tank breadth or length depending on wave direction) remains below 30%, the flow is characterized by progressive waves hitting the longitudinal walls secondly, for ratio above 30% the flow is characterized by standing waves that may hit either the ceiling or the upper chamfers after running along the vertical tank walls.

Progressive wave (15%H)

Standing wave (45%H)

Figure 1 : flow types

Progressive waves are known to induce the largest loads. Thus, when a dedicated study is performed, in addition to an extensive screening through all the possible liquid heights, a special attention is paid to the range of filling potentially generating this kind of waves.

1.3

Other key parameters

The knowledge of the offshore unit operational profile is also a key point. Indeed as exposed in the previous section, the filling level has a major influence on the flows within the tanks and consequently the sloshing activity. It is also governed by the relative wave heading with the barge (for instance, beam seas are known to be more severe than head seas). The barges operational profile describes the way the unit will be operated both in terms of loading and un-loading sequence (in other words the time spent inside the different filling levels) and its relative position towards the waves. These two aspects can be optimized in order to minimize sloshing effects: for instance by adding dynamic positioning system which allows to reduce the time spent in beam sea or/and with optimized loading / un-loading sequences to reduce the time spent within the fillings generating progressive waves.

Gastech 2009

DEYBACH DE SEZE CAYUELA SIGAUDES

Page 3

GAZTRANSPORT & TECHNIGAZ

Methodology

Two main axis have continuously driven GTTs approach towards sloshing method evolution: a permanent improvement of numerical and experimental tools to match the best practice and a special attention to anchor this theoretical approach into the actual feed back at sea. To this extent, sloshing recent events (2006-08), which remind us that sloshing has to be analyzed carefully, have considerably increased the background of the approach.

2.1

Testing set up

The previous huge step in testing set up improvement was the implementation of the first 6degree-of-freedom rig in GTT, the so-called hexapod. GTT was so pleased with the result that they decided to invest in a second one in 2007 with a more than twice pay load (6 tons) allowing to perform tests at a very large scale (up to 1/10 with 2D tanks). This new facility also made it possible to perform two test campaigns at the same time with a full automatic set up from the ship motion generation to the pressure recording running 24 hours a day and 7 days a week., The next step was to increase the number of sensors and improve the data acquisition system. Currently, 300 gauges can record pressure signals simultaneously up to 20 kHz sampling rate. Thanks to this large number of sensors, it is possible to have a detailed description of impact pressure within the tank in time and spatial domain. These powerful tools daily used by GTT are much appreciated by several oil and gas majors that are now accustomed to follow in detail and sometimes even participate in the testing campaign.

2.2 Long term approach and reliability analysis

The aim of the long term approach is to define the relevant expected loads for the design of the containment system. The statistical post-processing of the recorded impact pressures allows us to define exceedance probability functions. The exceedance probability function represents the maximum expected value of a random variable for a given time, called return period. When deriving the highest expected sloshing loads over the ships lifetime, it is necessary to consider all the conditions which may induce sloshing loads within the entire ships life. Indeed, due to sloshing intrinsic variability, the impacts may appear in a large set of situations. Then, it is usually incomplete to consider only the worst expected one from a short term point of view to fully determine the design loads during the ships life. A long-term approach should be applied. For each condition defined as a combination of {Tz Hs Heading Filling ratio}, an exceedance probability function (EPF) is determined based on the model tests. All EPFs (one for each condition) are then combined to generate a long-term exceedance probability function, taking into account the frequency of occurrence of each sea state and the barges operational profile. The design pressure is finally derived from this long-term distribution with the probability to occur once on the total number of sloshing events expected during the ships lifetime.

2.3 Calibration of the methodology and assessment

A sloshing impact involves simultaneously several complex physical phenomena (for instance: change in flow direction, gas entrapment, momentum transfer between liquid and gas, hydroelasticity). The sensitivity of the impact pressures to these different phenomena which are influenced by both global (ship motions, fluid velocity) and local parameters (local geometry, free surface shape, bubbles density) explains the high variability of the pressure peak measurements during sloshing model tests.

Gastech 2009

DEYBACH DE SEZE CAYUELA SIGAUDES

Page 4

GAZTRANSPORT & TECHNIGAZ

For the time being there is no software capable of dealing with all the phenomena involved in a sloshing impact, even with very simplified condition (for example a 1D impact). Today there is no way to simulate numerically a real sloshing impact with a reliable estimation of the pressure signal. When it becomes possible, the same sensitivity to the input conditions should be encountered and will then need to simulate thousands of impacts for a given sailing condition in order to be able to perform reliable statistics. This would be excessively time consuming if at all possible. Therefore, today and still for many years, the only way to perform a sloshing study is to rely on model scale experiments. The loads derived from the model tests have to be scaled to full scale. As the different physical phenomena are involved at the same time and may not influence each impact in the same way, there is no unique scaling law. GTTs current approach consists in evaluating experimentally a statistical scaling law based on feed-back at sea. Indeed, the model tests are calibrated upon what has been actually observed in the tanks when sloshing was identified as the root cause of some defects by performing a very close repetition of the critical voyages. This calibration process allows to integrate in the scaling factor all bias brought in by the experimental model compared to the reality at sea. The pressure loads obtained at model scale for a new project can then be transferred to full scale in order to be compared to the CCS strength in actual conditions through a probabilistic approach based on standard reliability method. Such assessment is not only in line with offshore expectations but it is also a necessity in order to deal with sloshing inherent stochasticity. The overall assessment process is described in Figure 2, with the design sloshing pressure evaluation on one hand, and the CCS strength determination on the other hand.

Figure 2 : sloshing assessment

Gastech 2009

DEYBACH DE SEZE CAYUELA SIGAUDES

Page 5

GAZTRANSPORT & TECHNIGAZ

3 3.1

Two row arrangement concept and benefit of longitudinal cofferdam Comparison of ship response and tank resonance

Even if sloshing can appear in a large set of wave periods, it is much more severe if the ship response frequency content is close to the main liquid resonance period. This critical period can be calculated in first approximation thanks to the following formula using linear theory:
TTransverse = 4 B Tank h Liquid gth B Tank

with BTank=tank breadth and hLiquid = liquid height The liquid natural period will hence depend on the filling height but also on the tank breadth. At low fillings, maximum sloshing loads are obtained in transverse direction. If we were to consider a two-row concept, the tank breadth and consequently the transverse liquid resonance period would be roughly divided by two. In the mean time, due to the generally large size of offshore unit and the large weight of the topside, the unit natural period will be larger and the response reduced compared to standard LNG carriers for instance. When compared to a standard LNG Carrier with one-row tanks for which the proximity of tank natural period and the floater natural period could be an issue, the two-row concept benefits from the two periods (tank and floater) shifting in opposite directions thus reducing drastically sloshing loads (see Figure 3).

100 80 60 40 20

Filling ratio [%H]

Ship response

4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1

Period [s]
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

0.5 0

One-row liquid natural period Std One-row ship response

Tow-row liquid natural period Two-row ship response

Figure 3 : ship response and tank resonance

3.2

Key results on two row arrangement design

Without getting into the detailed analysis of sloshing results, the benefits that a two row arrangement can bring compared to a single row can be summarized as follows :

Gastech 2009

DEYBACH DE SEZE CAYUELA SIGAUDES

Page 6

GAZTRANSPORT & TECHNIGAZ

Large range of fillings free of sloshing impacts Due to his narrow breadth, a two-row arrangement tank will experience a large filling range without any sloshing in almost any sea state. Indeed, after the transition from progressive waves (h/B~30%) to standing waves, the liquid depth is still not large enough to allow impacts neither on the ceiling nor on the upper chamfers. For instance, the model tests showed that no impact was recorded up to nine (9) meters Hs between 40 and 65% of the tank height. Only large wave heights may induce sloshing initiation Another key example of the huge benefit of the presently described design is the wave amplitude that is needed to generate breaking waves in the tank when considering the most severe range of filling. Basically, the wave height for which the first sloshing loads (not necessarily critical) may be observed is around twice the wave height for an equivalent one-row design. This leads to a much reduced potential number of sea states that may induce sloshing (maximum of around 5% for very severe environmental areas) Safety factors significantly increased compare to single row design Finally, the evaluation of sloshing loads made on several projects by GTT so far conducted to an increase in safety factors of at least two for this new arrangement under partial filling operations for 40 years compared to the accumulated experience of standard design in normal operational conditions.

The three previous examples illustrate clearly the huge benefit of the two row arrangement design. The possible constraints or other benefits not linked to sloshing will be described further in this paper.

3.3

Possible design optimization

Tanks usually have chamfers at the top and at the bottom. The initial approach for two-row tanks was considering such standard geometry, however, in order to minimize the loss of volume a possible tank optimization is currently under investigation in GTT. It consists in removing the chamfer on the internal cofferdam side (see Figure 4). The benefit in terms of volume would be around 3 to 5%. A side effect would be a small reduction of boil off (due to the removal of two knuckles). Special attention is paid by GTT to guarantee that sloshing loads remain fully within the acceptable range, more so because in the end of the 70s comparable optimization lead to some sloshing induced defects (cf Larbi Ben Mhidi). Nevertheless, still looking at experience on existing vessels, several vessels built in the 70 do not have upper chamfers and no damage has ever been reported on them so far. An initial set of tests have shown no significant increase in sloshing loads confirming that such improvement could be clearly envisioned if it is considered of interest by operators. These preliminary results will be confirmed thanks to further dedicated campaigns.

Gastech 2009

DEYBACH DE SEZE CAYUELA SIGAUDES

Page 7

GAZTRANSPORT & TECHNIGAZ

Initial design Optimized design

Figure 4 : optimization of tank geometry

III Consequences of two-row tanks

1 Structural consequences
When sloshing is not the driver for using two-row tanks, structure usually is. Indeed, one of the characteristics of offshore platforms is its significant topside. This topside often decides of the size of the deck : even though modules are considered, their number and the safety distance between the equipments require a significant surface, in particular in the width of the deck. Such width requirement drives the design of the platform and results in beams which would be unconventional for LNG Carriers. This increased beam has direct effects on the midship section and the structural strength of the deck. To avoid using oversized, and therefore heavy, stiffeners and plates for the structure of the deck, a central support is to be considered, dividing the span of the deck structure. Where a simple bulkhead would be considered for any other bulk cargo, a cofferdam has to be used in our case. As explained in more details in III.4 below, the membrane containment systems are anchored to the hull structure, avoiding unnecessary steel and weight. This therefore requires a flat surface on the inside of the tank to install the insulation liner. The consequence of this flat surface requirement is that stiffeners are to be welded on the other side. As we are considering two parallel tanks, the other side of a simple bulkhead would also have to be flat leaving nowhere to place stiffeners, hence the use of a longitudinal cofferdam with a width of around 3 meters (see Figure 5).

Gastech 2009

DEYBACH DE SEZE CAYUELA SIGAUDES

Page 8

GAZTRANSPORT & TECHNIGAZ

Figure 5 : two-row tank cross section

As in the case of transversal cofferdams, the steel of the bulkhead of our longitudinal cofferdam is exposed to a cold flux coming from the LNG tanks on both sides. Usually the heat coming from the outside (air and sea water) is insufficient to maintain the temperature of the steel above its specified temperature, especially in worst design conditions required by the IGC Code or the US Coast Guards. Therefore, as for transversal cofferdams, a heating system will be installed in the longitudinal cofferdams. It will be designed to guarantee that the temperature in the cofferdam will never drop below +5C, even in the worst condition considered. The alternative to a heating system would be the use of low temperature steel grade but that solution is usually considered only for external bulkheads and is less costeffective for cofferdams. As explained above, the purpose of this cofferdam will be to support the structure of the deck and the topside. These loads will be transferred to the ship bottom structure, itself supported by the water. Because we have a symmetric arrangement with a tank on both sides, it may be possible to have a connection without chamfers on the ceiling and on the bottom. As detailed in the next chapter this arrangement without chamfers minimizes the loss of volume.

Economical consequences

With a simplistic approach, the introduction of a longitudinal cofferdam can be considered as a division of the tank in two with a thick wall, therefore a reduction of the cargo volume. This would be true if we were considering a retrofit of an existing vessel. However, when considering a new-build, it is a requirement considered at the design stage like others when all dimensions are optimized. Moreover, as described above, the central cofferdam allows for a reduction in the scantling of the deck structure, and potentially a reduction in the steel weight and the light ship displacement depending of the project optimization. In other words, the introduction of a central cofferdam should be considered more as a small reduction in the efficient use of the hull volume rather than a strict reduction of the cargo volume. However, the central cofferdam doubles the number of tanks compared to a standard design. As detailed below in III.3, a tripod mast has to be fitted in each tank for cargo handling. Therefore, doubling the number of tanks implies doubling the number of masts : tank penetrations, welded structure and all equipment connected to the mast, such as cargo pumps and sensors.

Gastech 2009

DEYBACH DE SEZE CAYUELA SIGAUDES

Page 9

GAZTRANSPORT & TECHNIGAZ

When the two-row tanks arrangement is envisaged because of the sloshing analysis results, it is usually to allow partial filing levels during the worst environmental conditions. These conditions however will occur over a period limited in time. An analysis of the operational requirement and a comparison with the duration of these conditions will allow us to minimize the number of tanks that have to be doubled. If we consider, for example, an FLNG with a liquefaction capacity of 2,000 m3/h and a window of 24h during which sloshing exceeds design parameters for full beam tank configurations, we need a design able to store 24 x 2,000 = 48,000 m3 of LNG in tanks with no sloshing. If the total cargo capacity in our example was 160,000 m3, we could combine 2 pairs of two-row tanks with a capacity of 12,000m3 each with 3 full beam tanks with a capacity of about 38,000 m3 each (see Figure 6). These optimizations make the two-row tank design the most cost effective solution for offshore projects in challenging environments.

Figure 6 : combination with two-row tanks

There is another advantage that is far from being negligible, dividing the tanks in two also brings additional flexibility and reduces vulnerability : individual tanks are of a smaller capacity, the volume unusable during a maintenance or a repair would therefore be smaller.

Consequences on the Cargo Handling System

As seen above, the longitudinal separation of the cargo tanks for the offshore vessels (FPSO; FSRU) appears to be a good solution to minimize the liquid motion and to allow intermediate filling levels. But, to double the number of tanks means to double the equipments inside the tanks such as pumps, welded assemblies, tanks penetrations, instrumentation, etc... In order to minimize that negative impact, we are considering introducing communications between adjacent tanks to have them operate as one and in the process remove some duplicate equipment. This while maintaining identical functionality and safety compared to separate tanks. We shall identify the usual functions for commercial, emergency and pressurization operations and analyze the equipments involved before proposing simplifications.

Gastech 2009

DEYBACH DE SEZE CAYUELA SIGAUDES

Page 10

GAZTRANSPORT & TECHNIGAZ

3.1

Brief description of Cargo Handling System Functions and Equipment

The purpose of a standard Cargo Handling System is to perform the following functions: Prepare tanks to be used for commercial operations, Receive LNG. The loading operation implies mainly piping and monitoring equipment such as level, temperature and pressure indicators, Maintain LNG at stable conditions for storage. Here the membrane is mainly used. The small part of heat ingress vaporizes a part of the LNG. The natural gas produced tends to increase the pressure and is removed form tank via the gas dome to maintain acceptable pressure, Unload LNG. Here is the operation that implies the major part of the equipments installed in a cargo tanks, Keep tanks conditions within acceptable limits at any time. Mainly pressure control inside the cargo tanks by consuming Boil off gas produced and pressure relieving safety valves are installed for high pressure cases, Prepare tanks to be inspected during dry dock maintenance (see Figure7) Maintain at any time the integrity of the membrane and insulation by providing correct conditions: pressure, temperature and gas composition. Ensure safety in case of barrier leakage by providing adequate systems to remove LNG from insulation and cargo tanks without damaging the membrane.

Figure 7 : example of typical function

Gastech 2009

DEYBACH DE SEZE CAYUELA SIGAUDES

Page 11

GAZTRANSPORT & TECHNIGAZ

To perform these functions equipment are located in different areas of the tank and the containment system. The main equipment are described below : The biggest one is without any doubt the tripod mast also called pump tower. Hanging from the liquid dome, this welded assembly is not only the support for the main cargo pumps but its structure of three pipes connected with struts is used as flow pipes (see Figure 8). These pipes are used to unload LNG : two for the main cargo pumps and one for the retractable emergency pump. The liquid filling pipe is also installed on the tripod mast. The liquid dome is not only the area where the structure of the tripod mast is anchored, but it is also the connecting area for instrumentation equipment and piping : sampling lines that will allow to determine the phase composition during commissioning and de-commissioning, liquid level measurement device such as radar and float type, independent level gauging for high filling alarms, temperature sensors installed along tripod mast for CTS (Custody Transfer System) and, in the case of Mark III containment system, cargo tank safety valves and spraying ramps (in the case of No96 containment system they are connected to the gas dome as shown in Figure 9). At the other end of the tripod mast, in order to guide the mast while allowing cryogenic contraction of the structure, the pump tower base support (PTBS) is anchored to the bottom of the tank. It is also the support for the stripping pump used for the final emptying of the cargo tanks.

Figure 8 : tripod mast

Gastech 2009

DEYBACH DE SEZE CAYUELA SIGAUDES

Page 12

GAZTRANSPORT & TECHNIGAZ

There are also equipments that are directly inserted in the insulation to control and protect the membrane. Temperature sensors located at strategic points will inform about insulation temperature modifications during important steps such as cooling down, loading and warming-up but will also be a great source of information regarding the location of a leakage of the membrane if one was to occur. The pressurization system is also connected to the containment system, regulating the pressure in the insulation spaces and controlling the gas ingress in case of membrane failure. It is composed of a dedicated piping network with control valves at inlet and outlet, as well as pressure relieve valves to avoid membrane overpressure. Most of the operations for the commissioning and the de-commissioning of the tanks are based on the replacement of the gas phase in the tank by another gas phase compatible with the next step. In order to avoid mixing of the phases and to obtain reasonable operating times, the injection of the gas is done so thats the two phases act as heterogeneous components. This phenomenon based on the difference of density between the phases is called the piston effect (see Figure 7). For an optimum efficiency it is important to have a smooth injection and to have the largest distance possible between the injection point and the exhaust point avoiding a preferential way for the gas to escape : in our case the bottom of the filling line and the gas dome.

Figure 9 : No96 Gas dome with spray ramp

3.2

Paired tanks operations and equipment removal

The following part will detail how introducing a communication between two two-row tanks and have them operate as one big tank with the same safety philosophy employed for standard cargo tanks is affecting the cargo handling equipment. In paired tanks, both the liquid and the gas phase of the two tanks have to be in interaction, we therefore start with the assumption that at least two communications have to be introduced : one at the bottom for the liquid and one at the top for the gas.

Gastech 2009

DEYBACH DE SEZE CAYUELA SIGAUDES

Page 13

GAZTRANSPORT & TECHNIGAZ

One of the main operations for the commissioning of the tanks is the cooling down operation aiming at lowering the temperature to a level acceptable for LNG loading. Specific LNG sprayers are used to cool-down simultaneously the cargo tank volume and the containment system. For NO96 containment system, the spraying devices are installed on a circular ring at the gas dome (see Figure 9) and as it provides good efficiency for this technology the design should be kept. A penetration in the middle of each tank top is therefore to be considered. For the Mark containment system, the sprayers are distributed along the cargo tank upper corners with ramps of sprayers fixed directly on the membrane longitudinal corners with specific points of anchorage. So as a first hypothesis, the gas dome of one Mark III paired cargo tank can be suppressed as long as the communication is large enough to balance the gas phases of each tank and to allow the spraying ramps to be deployed in both tanks (see Figure 10). Considering the bottom communication, the adequate position is easy to determine considering the typical positive trim vessels have. Although shaft immersion is irrelevant for a static offshore platform, the trim remains useful to perform unloading with the main cargo pumps and to minimize the dead heel remaining after the stripping operation. Therefore, an aft crossing near the bottom of the central cofferdam is the best solution. For the upper communication, depending on the membrane technology several solutions can be envisaged. As already exposed, to maintain central LNG spraying ramps, the NO96 technology shall keep two gas domes. The upper communication could be done through piping on the deck. For Mark technology, as we consider an upper crossing to connect the two gas phases and bring the LNG spray lines from the other liquid dome, the crossing should be located in way of the liquid dome, usually aft of the tank.

Figure 10 : Mark III alternative spray ramp for paired tanks

The size and number of crossings will be determined after a detailed analysis considering project requirements and in order to maintain acceptable liquid and gas speeds during commissioning and commercial operations. One saving that will drive the size and number of crossings is the removal of one set of cargo pumps. In order to maintain tank unloading time, the individual pump flow rates will be increased but their removal allows for one tripod mast removal, introducing significant savings.

Gastech 2009

DEYBACH DE SEZE CAYUELA SIGAUDES

Page 14

GAZTRANSPORT & TECHNIGAZ

Maintaining the safety of the original design was fundamental for this study. The removal of one tripod mast and the gas dome of Mark III system, because their main function could be performed otherwise, also affects other functions such as pressure safety valves. For NO96 system, the cargo tank safety valves are installed on the gas dome. As we are maintaining the gas domes, the original design could be kept but alternatively we could also have one set of safety valves connected to the deck pipe crossing, provided that its diameter is designed accordingly. For Mark III system, the cargo tank safety valves are installed on the liquid dome. As we considered removing one of the tripod mast, the corresponding liquid dome would also be removed and we would consider only one space and rely on the set of safety valves from the other tank. In both cases, the maximum filling level in the tank, driven by safety valves being in the gas phase, will be affected and calculated for each project. The safety of the membranes implies an accurate pressurization system of both primary and secondary spaces. If we consider not only connecting the two tank spaces but also connecting each insulation space, and as long as the pressure drop through these connections is acceptable, we could rely on one pressurization set and one safety valves set. A preliminary analysis seems to indicate that injecting Nitrogen in one tank and exhausting it from the other will provide adequate sweeping. Regarding the emergency procedures in case of liquid leakage in any primary insulation spaces, as it is considered as only one space, both tanks are affected. The traditional methods for liquid removal can be considered under usual GTTs recommendations. Mark III IBS drainage system is fully applicable with an alternative repartition of drainage pipes and NO96 messenger system is still available in the tank with a tripod mast. Alternatively for both systems we could consider the new punching device system, already employed on CS1 system vessels. It would however require a dedicated, and therefore lighter, PTBS in the tank with no tripod mast. However, some items cannot be removed when pairing tanks. Sampling pipes are necessary in each tank to ensure correct commissioning and de-commissioning operations. Temperature sensors are also necessary in each cargo tanks. Typically, these equipments are installed along the tripod mast. In our case, for the tank without tripod mast and without liquid dome, several solutions have been analyzed. For NO96 system, a mini casing can be installed on the tank without liquid dome to allow the penetration of sampling line and temperature sensors. The pipes and the sensors will be welded along the membrane corner and protected by a specifically designed deflector. For Mark III system, the sampling pipe and temperature sensors can be inserted through the remaining liquid dome of the tank with a tripod mast and run along the membrane to penetrate the second tank through the central cofferdam upper opening as is considered for sprayers ramps. Temperature sensors inside the membrane would also be relocated to cover the whole surface of the tanks including the central cofferdam. Finally, as for any enclosed space, gas detection sampling pipes shall be added in the central cofferdam near the crossing areas and in the mini casing for the NO96 system.

Consequences on the Cargo Containment System

We saw above that all functions could be satisfactorily performed with paired tanks and that it would allow to save some of the equipment that were doubled with the introduction of the central cofferdam. After a brief description of the current containment systems, we shall see how they need to be modified to allow for the connection of cargo spaces as well as insulation spaces.

4.1

Brief description of existing Cargo Containment Systems

The No 96 system is a cryogenic liner made of two identical metallic membranes and two independent insulation layers (see Figure 11). The primary and secondary membranes are made of invar, a 36% nickel-steel alloy, 0.7 mm thick. The primary membrane contains the

Gastech 2009

DEYBACH DE SEZE CAYUELA SIGAUDES

Page 15

GAZTRANSPORT & TECHNIGAZ

LNG cargo, while the secondary membrane, identical to the primary, ensures a 100% redundancy in case of leakage. Each of the 500 mm wide invar strakes is continuously spread along the tank walls and is evenly supported by the primary and the secondary insulation layers. The primary and secondary insulation layers consist of a load bearing system made of prefabricated plywood boxes filled with expanded perlite. The standard size of the boxes is 1 m x 1.2 m. The thickness of the primary layer is adjustable from 170 mm to 250 mm, to match any B.O.R. requirement; the typical thickness of the secondary layer is 300 mm. The standard total insulation thickness on current projects is 530 mm. The primary layer is secured by means of the primary couplers, themselves fixed to the secondary coupler assembly. The secondary layer is laid and evenly supported by the inner hull through load-bearing resin ropes, and fixed by means of the secondary couplers anchored to the inner hull.

Figure 11 : No96 containment system

The Mark III system is a cryogenic liner composed of a primary metallic membrane positioned on top of a prefabricated insulation panel including a complete secondary membrane (see Figure 12). The primary membrane is made of corrugated stainless steel 304 L, 1.2 mm thick. It contains the LNG cargo and is directly supported by and fixed to the insulation system. Standard size of the corrugated sheets is 3 m x 1m. The secondary membrane is made of a composite laminated material: a thin sheet of aluminium between two layers of glass cloth and resin. It is positioned inside the prefabricated insulation panels between the two insulation layers. The insulation consists of a load-bearing system made of prefabricated panels in reinforced polyurethane foam including both primary and secondary insulation layers and the secondary membrane. The standard size of the panels is 3 m x 1 m. The thickness of the insulation is adjustable from 250 mm to 350 mm to fulfill any B.O.R. requirement. The standard total insulation thickness on current projects is 270 mm. The panels are bonded to the inner hull by means of resin ropes that serve a double purpose: anchoring the insulation and spreading evenly the loads.

Gastech 2009

DEYBACH DE SEZE CAYUELA SIGAUDES

Page 16

GAZTRANSPORT & TECHNIGAZ

Figure 12 : Mark III containment system

The Pluto II system is a double containment cryogenic pipeline (PiPiP) allowing continuous operation for 30 years or more without maintenance and even in case of flow line defect. It is composed (inner elements to outer) of a 30 to 32 flow line made of spiraly welded invar, a 36% nickel-steel alloy, a primary insulation layer made of nanoporous silica, also called aerogels or nanogels, a secondary invar barrier, a secondary insulation layer made of the same material as the primary, a high density concrete weight lining and a carbon steel carrier pipe with anti corrosion coating (see Figure 13). Thanks to the low thermal contraction of the material the pipe can be laid over kilometers without expansion loops. The thickness of the insulation can be adjusted to meet the thermal efficiency required by the project for its specific pipe length, the standard thickness being 80 mm. This technology has not yet been implemented other than for G.T.T. 30 m long prototype that was tested for 11 months in extreme conditions.

Figure 13 : Pluto II cryogenic pipe

4.2

Communication between two-row tanks

To have a communication between paired tanks, some modifications have to be introduced in the containment system, most using already existing components. These modifications,

Gastech 2009

DEYBACH DE SEZE CAYUELA SIGAUDES

Page 17

GAZTRANSPORT & TECHNIGAZ

whether they concern No96 or Mark III are based on the following principles and design basis : the tanks are connected through the central cofferdam, no chamfers are considered at either the bottom or the top of the cofferdam, continuity of the primary membrane, the secondary membrane, the primary insulation space and the secondary space shall be ensured.

This communication between the tanks is not a penetration but a part of the containment system that is in accordance with the IGC Code, with a primary barrier, a secondary barrier, an inner hull and the corresponding spaces. There is no limitation in the IGC Code on the shape of the tanks so these paired tanks are considered as a single one with a specificity in the communication area. The design of the communication shall be then in accordance with the membrane technology principles and dimensioned to withstand the local loads. For Mark III system, as described above, the tank operations feasibility study introduced two connections between the tanks that would be located near a corner at the top and at the bottom of the tank (see Figure 14). On standard MarkIII LNG Carriers, the design of the liquid dome is a big square hatch that comes up to weather deck. The sides of this hatch are covered by standard containment system elements (see Figure 15). We have added to that a set of 270 standards elements. These 270 corner elements of the current design of the MarkIII liquid dome have been naturally chosen for our connection trough the central cofferdam because they fulfill the same purpose.

Figure 14 : Mark III communication principles

Figure 15 : Mark III liquid dome arrangement

With this design principle the continuity of primary membrane and especially the continuity of its corrugations is respected. The continuity of secondary membrane and of the primary and secondary insulation spaces are also respected because standard Mark III elements are used : panels, pads and membrane sheets already existing in MarkIII design (see Figure 16). There is no new element in this design, and the dimension of the opening is very flexible, actually all sizes are possible as long as they follow the 340mm corrugation pitch.

Gastech 2009

DEYBACH DE SEZE CAYUELA SIGAUDES

Page 18

GAZTRANSPORT & TECHNIGAZ

Figure 16 : Mark III communication details

For No96, the principles of the design of the communication are a little bit more innovative. Using standard insulating elements proved in this case to be complicated because the Invar membrane is currently connected to the hull through the invar tube along the transversal cofferdams to transfer thermal and ship bending loads. Therefore, we chose an alternative design with a small round opening, which would fit in a standard invar strake width, instead of a big square (see Figure 17).

Figure 17 : No 96 communication

The Pluto II cryogenic pipe was a natural choice as its design already fulfills our requirement for a primary barrier, a secondary barrier, an inner hull and the corresponding inerted insulation spaces. Its size will have to be adapted to fit our round openings. Whereas a several kilometer long Pluto II pipe is anchored at both extremities, we are considering a single middle anchoring in the longitudinal cofferdam, made with an 8mm thick invar plate (see Figure 18). This design obviously keeps the continuity of insulating spaces. Where the

Gastech 2009

DEYBACH DE SEZE CAYUELA SIGAUDES

Page 19

GAZTRANSPORT & TECHNIGAZ

size of the Mark III opening is adjusted to meet fluid speed and flow requirements, the number of cryogenic pipes will be adjusted on the No96 system.

Figure 18 : middle anchoring

We have competed the feasibility work for both designs of communication, and the results make us very confident about the possibility of having communication between tanks. We have now started the process of obtaining an approval in principal from Classification Societies.

IV Other impacts of offshore operations

1 Exposure to blast and fire
As seen above, one of the main differences between an offshore LNG platform and an LNG Carrier is the presence of a liquefaction or regasification plant. These plants include modules handling gases at high pressure that are unusual on vessels. The risks of a blast or a fire are therefore higher. The membrane containment systems fall under the integrated tank category in the International Gas Carrier Code. The containment and the cargo are located inside the hull, under the deck. In all designs since the 1970s, they actually are under two decks : the weather deck which, as its name indicates, is on the outside, exposed to the weather and the inner deck, which, as its name clearly indicates as well, is inside, in contact with the cargo containment system and separated from the weather deck by the trunk space (see Figure 5). The scantling of these two decks is driven by the loads induced by the hull bending in the worst possible design conditions (hogging or sagging). The resulting thickness and resistance provide significant protection from plant aggressions (blast or projectiles). The space between the steel plates increases their efficiency against projectiles under the same principles used for armored protection. The trunk space is rarely less than two meters high on LNG Carriers, the distance and the air it contains, provides insulation against a temperature rise that could occur with a fire on the weather deck. On offshore platforms, that height will most probably be greater. In order to provide some additional protection, as it is the case on some LNG Carriers for additional

Gastech 2009

DEYBACH DE SEZE CAYUELA SIGAUDES

Page 20

GAZTRANSPORT & TECHNIGAZ

ballast volume, the deck could be flooded with water. In case of large fire, that water will start boiling, but as long as the flow of fresh water is as large as the boiling rate, the temperature of the inner deck will never exceed 100C, temperature that remains well within the design parameters of the insulation materials and the tank safety valves. Not only can we use the deck to protect the cargo and its containment, but also some cargo handling equipments. The liquid dome and the gas dome are the areas where most of the penetrations into the tank are located. Some equipment, such as control valves, safety valves, liquid level measuring radar, float gauge, pressure and temperature sensors, expansion bellows, are connected to these penetrations. If the distance between the weather deck and the inner deck is large enough, both the liquid dome and the gas dome could be placed below the weather deck, relying on its natural protection to avoid introducing blast and fire reinforced equipment (see Figure 19). The local intermediate deck on which the liquid dome and the gas dome would be installed, needs to be at least two meters below the weather deck to leave sufficient room for the equipment operation and maintenance. On Mark III vessels, as seen above, the liquid dome is located on the weather deck, a distance of at least two meters should remain between the inner-deck and the intermediate deck. Therefore, if the distance between inner-deck and weather deck is greater than 4.2 meters, moving the gas dome and the liquid dome to the intermediate deck should be considered. The new enclosed space would obviously have to meet IGC Code requirements as for other enclosed spaces with innerting and gas monitoring.

Figure 19 : liquid and gas domes under the deck

Maintenance and repair

Offshore platforms will remain on site for several decades. The strategy for testing, maintaining and repairing is strongly impacted by this difference from the operation of LNG Carriers. The latter must attend dry dock for a few weeks on a regular basis, no less than

Gastech 2009

DEYBACH DE SEZE CAYUELA SIGAUDES

Page 21

GAZTRANSPORT & TECHNIGAZ

every five years and are usually every two and a half year. During these dry-dock periods, in addition to traditional ship and machinery maintenance, testing of the tightness of the membranes, visual inspection of mast, of containment system and maintenance of cargo pumps are performed. The IGC Code and the Classification Societies regulations rule these scheduled works and they do not vary much from one vessel and operator to another. For offshore platforms the story remains to be written. It will be influenced by LNG Carriers practice, oil offshore practice and strongly at the beginning by the operator/owner/sponsor maintenance culture. Considering their size, their distance from experienced repair yards and the long interruption in production, we can reasonably assume that these platforms will rarely consider dry-docking as an operational practice. Other alternatives from temporary single tank decommissioning to periodical full shut down will probably be adopted. The traditional tools and methods used on LNG Carriers will be adopted for the cargo containment and the cargo handling systems of the future offshore platforms. These tools and methods have been used and improved over 40 years. They rely on equipment portable and transportable that can be operated either by trained crew or specialized teams shipped to the barge. One of the fundamental methods used to test the tightness of the secondary membrane is a vacuum decay method. To test the secondary membrane, a vacuum of about -500mbars is set in the secondary space and the vacuum decay is monitored over a period of time. In the case of Mark III system an alternative test has been developed : Low Pressure Differential Test (LDPT), (see reference [1]). For the primary membrane a permanent monitoring of the presence of gas in the primary space associated with the very low thickness of the membrane allow detecting the smallest defect in the primary membrane and eventually following its slow progression. A vacuum decay test similar to the one described above for the secondary membrane is also available. As long as the nitrogen of the primary and secondary spaces are handled in a proper and safe way when pulling vacuum, these tests can theoretically be performed with tanks under gas or even in service with no interruption of operation. As mentioned above, cargo pumps have to be maintained regularly. On LNG Carriers, as the pumps are fixed at the bottom of the mast, tank penetration is required to remove the pumps. On shore tanks, the pumps are usually removable and can be lifted from the tanks to be maintained with no interruption in tank operation. Removable pumps are also used on LNG Carriers for emergency discharge. This latter approach will most probably be adopted for offshore applications. When tank penetration remains needed, a temporary single tank decommissioning is one of the alternatives to consider. It minimizes the impact on the plant operation with a limited loss of cargo capacity during the decommissioning (warming-up, inerting and aerating), the inspection or repair, and the recommissioning (inerting, gassing-up and cooling down). Single tank operations are already a standard practice on membrane LNG Carriers today with many years of feed-back. In the event of damage to the containment system repairs would be performed on site. Minor repairs located on the tank bottom have some times in the past been performed during a ballast voyage and would therefore pose no problems to be performed on an offshore platform. For larger repairs, the modularity of the design and the small size and weight of the components will allow them to be performed on site. As long as proper safety measures are taken to isolate operating tanks from repairs, components and equipment can be shipped to the platform. The biggest challenge will be works in altitude.

Gastech 2009

DEYBACH DE SEZE CAYUELA SIGAUDES

Page 22

GAZTRANSPORT & TECHNIGAZ

Offshore scaffolding

Whenever inspection, maintenance or repair has to be performed in altitude (more than 80% of the tank is in altitude seen from a human height) scaffolding will be required. Regardless of the probability of such requirement, the consequences of a plant shut down or a drydocking would be extreme, therefore the specification for such scaffolding needs to consider worst conditions for 20 to 25 years. Introducing the necessary anchoring points in the containment system at the design stage is also required. A scaffolding specification has been developed based on standard requirements for tank servicing but with additional inputs that are related to platform movements. Three cases have to be considered in this specification : survival case (100% time), erection case (40% time) and operable case (70% time). The scaffolding should be a standard multidirectional one able to be used in the three main configurations described in Figure 20 : in a corner, along a longitudinal wall and in the middle of the tank

Figure 20 : scaffolding configurations

Based on this specification, a scaffolding study has been made by specialists. The conclusion of this study is that standard multidirectional scaffolding is able to fulfill the specification requirements and it confirms that anchoring points to the containment system are necessary. For scaffolding configurations that are not near a wall, anchoring by cables to the floor are necessary. For scaffolding configurations that are near a wall, direct anchoring is possible (see Figure 21). For the floor anchor we have a maximum tensile stress of 350 kg (as per the rules, a safety factor of 4 is to be considered) and, for the wall anchor we have a maximum normal stress of 400 kg (a safety factor of 2 is to be considered).

Gastech 2009

DEYBACH DE SEZE CAYUELA SIGAUDES

Page 23

GAZTRANSPORT & TECHNIGAZ

Figure 21 : scaffolding structure

In the case of Mark III technology, the membrane bears no stress in the center of each corrugation pitch, which is why the anchoring point has been considered in that location. The proposed anchoring is a ring screwed on an insert which is itself screwed or riveted on the top plywood of a flat panel. The membrane is welded on the stainless steel insert to make it liquid and gas tight. (see Figure 22). The same anchoring device is to be used in wall and floor applications because there is no alteration of the containment system when it is used.

Figure 22 : Mark III scaffolding anchoring device

In the case of No96 technology, two types of anchoring devices have been studied, one for the floor application and one for the wall application. The strength required for each areas are different enough and the consequences on the containment are significant enough to avoid one anchor to fit both. Moreover, for the wall application the stress is perpendicular to the wall, when for the floor application it is with an angle. For the floor application the best solution is to be anchored to the boxes fasteners, also called couplers, that maintain the No96 components secured to the inner hull. But in the standard design, these couplers stop at the bottom of the primary boxes. We therefore have to cut the primary membrane to fix the anchoring device. As stresses have to be perpendicular to the wall and in order to compensate for the stress induced by the angle of the cable, a device is anchored to the raised edges of the membrane (see Figure 23). For the wall application, stresses are lower

Gastech 2009

DEYBACH DE SEZE CAYUELA SIGAUDES

Page 24

GAZTRANSPORT & TECHNIGAZ

and perpendicular to the wall, and in order to avoid cutting the primary membrane, we developed a device that can be fixed to the raised edges of the membrane by pliers (see Figure 24).

Figure 23 : No96 bottom scaffolding anchoring device

Figure 24 : No96 wall scaffolding anchoring device

Even though some technical aspects still need to be validated such as the testing method of membrane pliers for No 96 or optimization of the sizing of the Mark III anchoring device, none present a high level of difficulty and we can consider the feasibility of scaffolding for offshore application confirmed. The above points are in progress and shall be finalized soon to allow for a Classification Society approval in principle.

V Conclusion
The membrane containment system is fully adapted for offshore applications. Extensive model tank test with probabilistic post-processing, applying a long-term approach, demonstrated the benefit brought by two-row tanks significantly reducing sloshing in partial fillings, even for severe conditions. The central cofferdam separating the two tanks brings additional benefits in terms of hull structure and flexibility. Moreover, while maintaining the same level of safety in all the functions required for commercial, emergency and pressurization operations, several equipments could be removed if the two tanks could communicate and be used as one, therefore minimizing the cost impact of the central cofferdam. For both Mark III and No96, the connections between tanks are feasible and rely on adaptations of existing technologies (Pluto II cryogenic pipe for No96). Finally, the development of anchoring devices, allow for a scaffolding to be used on site and works in altitude to be performed safely without considering dry-docking.

References :

Gastech 2009

DEYBACH DE SEZE CAYUELA SIGAUDES

Page 25

GAZTRANSPORT & TECHNIGAZ

[1] Eric Gervaise and al Reliability-based methodology for sloshing assessment of membrane LNG vessel ISOPE conference Osaka June 2009 [2] Jean Marc Quenez and Ki Hun Joh LDPT - Low Differential Pressure Test - for Mark III LNGC: A new approach of secondary barrier tightness valuation Gastech 2009 Abu Dhabi May 2009

Gastech 2009

DEYBACH DE SEZE CAYUELA SIGAUDES

Page 26