Load effects are to be considered ( besides: wind, blast, reaction force, nozzle

displacements,slug etc)

1) Deformation of the hull . This will be due to static effects as well as wave effects.Both
sagging and hogging effects have to be considered.

2) Acceleration due to heave, pich and roll ( this will be for both towing as well as static
conditions). Of these three motions,pitch and roll should be rotational accelerations.
However, I found that the typical way of giving acceleration input for pitch and roll is
translational acceleration. Why? These accelerations will be SUS load cases.

3) Structural displacements due to the accelerations mentioned in (2).

4)Thermal effects.

Load cases will comprise of the following:

1) W+P+ SRSS of accelerations due to pitch, heave and roll. This will be checked against
Sh.This is to be checked for both static as well as towing conditions.

2) Thermal displacement stress range + Displacement stress range due to hull

deformation+ displacement stress range due to structural movements due to pitch,heave
and roll. The method of summation will be ABS.This will be compared against the B31.3
stress range with stress range reduction factor =0.15.

3) Summation of thermal, weight and all displacement and acceleration loadings for
equipment nozzle loading and pipe support loading.
Since the topside is elevated from deck and the lines are also running at certain elevation
above the deck, the deflections due to hogging and sagging may get minimised and shall be
negligible for topsides, Is it? Justification for not considering Hog & Sag in topsides?

There is a longitudinal neutral axis along any ship where no axial change in length will be
experienced under hogging and sagging. Logically it will be somewhere between keel and top
deck. As you move above that neutral axis, longitudinal tensile and compressive strain will
increase under hogging and sagging.

Now consider topsides piping in an FPSO. Where do we put piping on an FPSO ? Frequently
along a rack, high above the deck, then we connect it to equipment fixed to the deck at
opposing ends of the ship, again elevated above the deck, and perhaps add a few line stops
for good measure.

To neglect the axial strain caused by hogging and sagging, the consequent fatigue inducing
stresses and loads in such piping is to invite rapid and easily avoidable failure. I think you
Client is either mis-informed or misunderstood.
Load cases for modular piping unit in FPSO ??

The CAESAR II template that builds the FPSO piping load cases should account for effects
of (1) temperature, (2) internal pressure, (3) displacements due to hogging and sagging,
(4) motion accelerations, including pitch-and-roll, and (5) wind. Suppose you apply B31.3
Piping Code, then you begin to combined listed load effects in terms of (a) Sustained, (b)
Displacement and (c) Occasional. A distinct requisite for FPSO piping stress analysis belongs
to (d) Fatigue. The latter, a cumulative exercise ranging from tens to 80 million cycles,
defines a category by itself.

Since your firm specializes in skid design--i.e., not a general engineering company--your
client or prime contractor should have provided you with some criteria here. Project
documents, such as "Design Philosophy for Pipe Stress Analysis," would delineate which
loads case be combined together.

Load cases compilation on FPSO piping, in my working, entails a humbling experience. Each
numbers around 50 cases. Depending up variances, the project may need several
templates, none STANDARD. Surely that of FRP piping differs from CS one.

Therefore, another FPSO stress challenge lies in the variety of piping materials used. CS,
SS, FRP, Duplex, Super-Duplex, Titanium or Cu-Ni each possesses different properties that
command unique attention. The thrust of FPSO piping stress analysis thus falls not only on
the mechanics of CAESAR II programming, but also on finding all those properties and
relating them to some justifiable stress equations and allowables.

None of what I have said suggests you should or shouldn't independently proceed with the
task. But the FPSO piping stress analysis is kind of "esoteric," that is, perhaps only a
handful of principal stress engineers or senior consultants have a firm grasp on it. Nor likely
can this forum help you much beyond certain good intention suggestions. My advice to you
is, asking first your client and prime engineering contractor for such assistance--they have
more piping at stakes than those on your skids, presumably.
Stress analysis of a FPSO

I assume you meant stress analysis of FPSO topsides piping, not subsea/marine piping. You
should consider

1. Hull deflection and topside modules deflection due to hogging, sagging, rolling & pitching
at all pipe & equipment support and enter it in diplacement field of CAESAR II

2. Induced acceleration on piping due to roll, pitch & heave are entered as uniform load, as
U1, U2, U3

3. Fatigue life assessment, normally done based on DNV Note 30.2

4. Surge/hammer/load calculated, may be, using PIPENET transient & entered in force field
of CAESAR II.

5. Booster compressors(reciprocating type) piping vibration analysis by vendor

6. Two phase lines natural frequency should be checked & kept above a min. value as agreed
with structural dept. If there is slug flow, then it will be real difficult job.