SPE 50101
A Strategic Approach to Designing FPSO Vessel Power Generation Systems
Jonathan S. Colton, Georgia Institute of Technology, and Yee Weng Low, Kvaerner Singapore Pte Ltd/Georgia Institute of
Technology.
@@@f K% GOMY of Petroleum Engineer% k.
Tfsie pap%rwas prspsrwt fw preserdstkm rstI’M 1S9S SPE Asia PsMa OS & Gas Cor#srenca
and Esfdii held in Perth, Auetmlii, 12-14 Osteber I SSS.
This psper was selsated for presentation by an SPS Program Committee felloMng review of
infwnratkes cmstsibwd in an aktrast subnrii by the aulhor(s). Cmrstemte of Ure papsr, es
p+eaentsd, have ne4 been reviswsd by the Seaiety of Petroleum Errgi- and are subject to
-fkm by the autkr(s). The msterial, as prssented, dess nd necsssarify reflect any
*Of tie SOC~W r.f Pe+mleum Engineers, b Mraara, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings ara aubjsaf to publiilfon
Pelmkrm
reviaw by Edtorial Committees of tlta Socisty of
Engineera. Electronic repmduatien, disdrfbutkmr,or slorege of any pert of thii paper
fer cemmercid prrrposss wifheut the written consent ef the Society C4 Petroleum Enginssre is
pmhitx+erf. Pennkskm toreproduse inprint krssbfctedtoan skfracf ofntimsrettmn~
words; illusbstiorrs may not be copied. The abslmst must centsin sorsspimrmre
edrnow!adgrnen+ c$wtrere and by *m the psper waa preaenfsd. W* Librerien, SPE, P.O.
Sox SS2SSS, Rtiardeon, TX 750SMSS6, USA., fSX 01-972-S52-94S5.
Abstract
A design process is proposed as a strategic approach for
designing FPSO vessels power generation systems. The design
process is formulated based on analyses of both offshore-
based and land-based power generation system design issues,
and with the belief that the design process is both effective and
efiicient if it treats as many of the relevant economic and
project engineering issues as possible. A design process
framework and a power generation systems design problem
are described and discussed.
Introduction.
The design process, as a human endeavor, uses and allocates
resources to meet an organization’s goals in the most effeetive
and efflcientl manner as implied by Simon [1] and Enchsen
[2]. Organizations will consider the overall economic issues
and engineering specifications of the projeet prior to aeeepting
the responsibility to underwrite the actualization of the project.
At the conceptual design stage of a Floating Produetionj
Storage and Off-loading vessel (FPSOV) power system we
are concerned that the resources used to create a design
process to solve a particular design problem also should be
usefid to the organization’s overall strategic and business
goals. The design process should have the ability to use the
same organizational resources to solve one set of engineering
1We define effectivenessas canying out as much of the useful
activitiesto achieve the end goals as possible. Efficiencyis definedas
the swiftness in achievingthese goals. An example is illustrated by
the check-out counters in a supermarket. Increasing the number of
check-out counters is effectiveness. The swiftness by which the
customersclearthe countersis the efficiency.
339
problems in one particular market sector (offshore) and then
be transportable to similar emerging engineering problems in
another market sector (land). Our strategy in the design of our
design process discussed here uses this paradigm set – to
identi~ the generic design issues that are eomxnon to both
business areas and then to build a design process around these
basic requirements. We feel such an approach addresses the
effectiveness and efficiency of a design process in an
organization.
Offshore-based and Land-based Power Generation
Systems.
A survey of the chxdgn literature for both offshore-based and
land-based power generation systems design indicates that power
generation systems design for both land and offshore have many
common issues (see Table 1, [3], [4] and [5]). The final
formulation of the problem for the two industries varied
aeeording to the major criteria that each faced. Offshorebased
systems have more restrictive operating safkty, weight and space
criteria than land-based systems, whereas land-based systems
have greater concern for predicting power demand growth.
Table 1 is a list of the desired major issues for the fiture
design of FPSO vessel power systems. This list was
consolidated from the literature and papers presented at past
offshore technology conferences. Operating scenarios costs,
safety measures, and both high ready availability and high
reliability are four of the most important issues relating to
power generation systems design. Availability and operation
and maintenance costs of the power generation systems are
expeeted to constitute a significant portion of the operational
cost of the vessel [6], [7] and [8]. In additiow FPSO vessel
systems must be designed for long operating equipment life
[9], [10] and [11].
Similar to power generation systems for offshore
applications, land-based power generation systems designers
are confronted by multiple design scenarios and power
demand uncertainties with respect to both short- and long-term
planning and configurations of the power systems. Since 1978
when the US Congress passed the Public Utilities Regulatory
Policies Aet (PURPA), this Aet has resulted in the usage of
smaller gas turbines and steam turbine sets to produce
electricity at more competitive rates [12]. These power
generation sets have similar power ratings found in the
 2 JONATHAN S. COLTON AND YEE WENO LOW
offshore-based power generation systems.
Table 2 illustrates the design issues pertaining to both
offshore and land-based power generation systems design
tlom our sumey. Although offshore-based and land-based
power generation systems can be considered to exist in two
separate business spheres, their major design issues
(engineering and economic) are very similar.
Present design approach.
Presently, the typical maritime and offshore industries
approach for power generating system design apply what MM
rmd Bietz would call the variant approach to design [13]. Most
of the papers presented at offshore conferences indicate that
present industrial practice is to use existing or similar plants to
meet the majority of the project engineering criteria to fultll
fi.mctional objectives. Systems are fhrther modified and
retrofitted or new sub-systems are added as ways to meet the
set of limctional requirements [9], [10], [14], [15], [16] &
[17].
The selection of the physical equipment is based on
meeting engineering specifications or the fimctions required
fust [18], and then the final decision usuaily is based on an
evaluation for lowest initial costs, reliability, and
manufacturing issues. Such an approach at the conceptual
design stage is achieved mainly by using evaluation matrices
[13] and [19]. Yamashita of Mitsui Shipbuilding presented
more than 65 criteria for the evaluation and selection of
machinery systems [20]. The evaluation approach to power
generation systems integration is practical and can create
systems that have highly competitive initial costs. The major
drawback with the above approach at the concepturd design
stage is that project specifications are emphasized heavily as
engineering specifications. It does not attempt to look at the
overall project workscope issues concurrently with the
organization’s business interests.
For the land-based power generation systems desi~ the
highly competitive US electricity market has encouraged
many state-of-the-art approaches to the optimal design of
power generation systems. Power generation systems design
as optimization problems have been solved by Iyer et al [21],
W1lkendorfet al [22], Fujita et al [23] and Maia et al [24]. Iyer
et al [21] considered the operational costs of the system and
systems selections were conducted for power demands
involving multiple demand periods. Both Fujita et al [23] and
Wilkendorf et al [22] have looked at the initial and on-going
operational costs of a power generating systems configuration
design problem. These cost-based approaches modeled the
power generation system design problem either as an initial
capital or an operating cost model, and not as an cost and
engineering model. The power demand problem was tackIed
by McDonald and Wang [25] & [26] as a forecasting and
simulation model to project power demands. Object-Oriented
modeling sothvare was used by Rasanen et al {27] to simulate
load analysis and demands using both daily and weekly
rhythms. Their objective was to use load analysis as a
planning, maintenance and operation of network tool to build
better engineering systems.
340
SPE 5010t
Proposed design process approach.
A proposed design approach is made for a FPSO vessel power-
generation plant based on providing electrical power as the
primary power source. The contlguration of this power generation
system also is designed to provide heating. Both economic and
engineering issues are used as criteria to determine and guide the
modeling and eventual solution for the most economical solution
to meet the requirements of the engineering specifications.
Presently, dirwt mechanical power drive for gas compression is
not modeled. It can be modeled at a later stage if necessary.
Typical power generation system contiguratio~ schematic line
dim and energy problem model that can be used for an FPSO
vessel am depicted in F@res 1, 2 and 3.
A design process approach using the problem statements
identified in Table 2 is used to guide both the creation of the
whole design process and modeling the problem statement.
The issues identified in Table 2 were decomposed into the
overall power generation system problem into an independent
modules framework as depicted in Figure 4. The design
process framework is composed of an independent knowledge
database (KDB), modules of numerical and analytical models
@ to @, main analytical modelers (AM I and AM II)
consisting of main objective problem statements, and a man-
machine design interface, depicted as the monitor. The design
process fhmework uses an object-oriented methodology to
address design connectivity across all domains. The problem
structure is formulated by using both investment economic
issues (e.g., investment costs), engineering criteria (e.g.,
weight layout, safkty distances, etc) and environmental
regulation requirements (e.g., NORSOK rules [8], etc.) at
project conceptual stage. This modules formulation approach
is adopted to reflect the fact that, in almost all high cost
complex projects, the major decision tiecting the livelihood
for an engineering project to proce@ be postponed, or be
terminated is usually not the engineering diffkulties of the
project but the financial and social commitments that must be
made [28] to the project.
The knowledge database (KDB) serves as the heart of the
concept design for power generation systems design process
framework. This knowledge database is connected to sets of
modules created to address the desired objective statement
solution posed in AM I and AM II. The modules are made up
of numerical models of each design issue that the designer
likes to formulate. In Figure 4, a dotted module indicates a
module that will be added into the design process framework
in the titure. In our design process, there are presently two
analytical modelers (AM I & AM II). One is based on the
selection of set of systems designed to meet the operating
scenarios and operating modes of the vessel. The other is for
the optimal placement and layout of the power generation
systems based on physical requirements and geometry. Both
modelers output to the computer monitor, which acts as an
interface tir designers’ input and design process output. This
allows a visual dimension to be added to the conceptual design
process to guide the concept design teams towards better
decision making. This approach shortened the design time
between economic issues scenarios and concepts inputs and
SPE 50101 A STRATEGIC APPROACH TO DESK3NINGFPSO VESSEL PCWVERGENERATING SYSTEMS 3

systems specification generation. Such a design approach . .. . .. .. . ... ... . . . . .. ... . .. . .. ... ....(1)
framework has five major advantages. Fwst, all of these P, (t) = $ P, (t)
Sal
modules can be developed concurrently as separate models
and tested individually prior to being incorporated into the PT( t ) = ~so pow~ Pdik? as ti~ion of time
structure. This maximizes the effectiveness and eficiency of P,(t) = Individual systems power profiles as tbnction of time.
the whole design process. Resources are made to solve the
“ P“ (t)
major tecbno-economic issues of the project in a top-down and PI(t) = Utilities power profile= ~— . .. .. . ... (2)
overall perspective. *=1 s
Second, the modules’ development allows the level of
Here PI(t) is expressed as a laplacian fimction and PI( t ) is firs
analytical and mathematical complexity to be refined in stages
through the timeline continuum and this allows the design = 1 and P. ( t ) are individual utilities power units.
process itself to change with time and become adaptive to
handling fiture power generation design problems while Pz(t)= ~H(t–2n)– H(t–2n–1) . .. .. . . . ...(3)
maintaining an overall coherent structure. Third, the power n=o
generation systems, when designed, should have access to
Here P2 ( t ) is expressed in a heaviside fimction and Pz( t ) is fors
iniiormation and rules from both land-based and offshore-
= 2 and n being the number of periods per time period. Examples
based industries. Power’generation systems could be designed
Of ,%%SOf dflkrerlt SySttXllSpOWm load reqtientS w
to sets of requirements pertaining to these two industries and illustrated in F@ires 5 to 8. LXe cycle costs encompassing capital
their solutions can be compared. These comparisons will give
costs, opemting and probabilistic loss of production costs are
designers a feel for the trends in design between the two
modeled into the life cycle cost (LCC) module Q. The time value
industries and this will help them to judge the power
of money and investment decisions are considered in this module.
generation systems technology developments in the fiture.
Equations (4) to (7) show the cost model for net present value of
Fourt~ the design process rdlows present designem to
capital costs, operational costsand lost of production costs.
continue merging existing power generation systems with new
systems in a formal manner not based solely on criteria
Z.(t) =:zfl(t) ...................................... (4)
matching and evaluation. The existing power generation /9=1
systems information is entered into the knowledge database
and becomes one of the choices in the selection of future where ~ t ) = Total life cycle costs of the power generating
systems. The existing systems reliability condition also can be systems and +1( t ) = Total life cycle capital costs or
set up in the reliability module and this allows the conceptual
design team to assess the overall impact of maintainkg the old
zD=l(t) =Rt(t)~Ei (t) . .. ... ... .. . . .. .. . . .. . .. ..... (5)
system and to be able to assess alternative design ideas. The i=1
f~h advantage is that the design process allows major design
issues not encountered presently to be added as new modules here FQ(t) is the annual recove~ factor (can be geometric,
to facilitate solving fbture power generation systems design linear or constant); p = 1,... no. of equipment components and
problems. In other words, the design process framework is systems, Ei(t) = the equipment components and systems cost
made robust to facilitate internal changes to be made within its and is a fl.mction of time. Ei(t) are not necessary hardware
structure to enhance its context as well as allowing it to equipment components cost alone. NORSOK [8] capital cost
broadening its capability. components are composed of the following: Design and
Administratio~ Equipment and Material, Fabrication
Example discussion. Installation Commissioning, Insurance spares, and
Figures 1, 2, and 3 illustrate schematically the overall Reinvestment cost. The operating costs is represented by
problem statement formulation for the design of power equation (6) as follows:
generation systems. In our design process, the power
generation system configured is required to fi.dfill simulated
power scenarios in the most economical manner for the vessel
$& ~u(t)~j(t)
zp=~(t)=~ i=l
............................(6)
or plant. The power input scenarios module @ (please refer to
Figures 1,2, and 3) contains the power growth power demand ~Eg=Operating factors associated with each particular
variations, and the number of power profiles that are to be equipment p = 1,... no. of equipment and m = 1,... no. of
used in the numerical solution. Power demand scenarios are operating factors per equipment. NORSOK [8] operational
simulated as a time-based function both periodically and cost wmponents are composed of the following Man-hour,
throughout the operating lifetime of the systems to provide a spares and consumable, logistics, energy consumption,
feel to the designer on the types and changes to systems that insurance COS4and onshore support cost. The costs incurred in
will meet the project operating scenarios. Typical profiles for 10SSof production is represented by equation (7):
an oil field production (also called production profiles) can be
modeled as shown in equations (1) to (3). ZP=3(t) = Q ~pDL .................................. (7)

341
 4 JONATHAN S. COLTON AND YEE WENG LOW
where Clav= Average no. of critical failures per year,
p=Probability of production reduction due to ftiiures,
D=Duration of production reductio~ and L=quantity of
production loss per time unit. Investment opportunity costs
and construction time effects are modeled as part of the
economic problem statement. Figure 9 illustrates the effects of
the cat components and their behavior with time. The time
effkct of the project schedule on construction cost is taken into
consideration in the development of the model for the various
major cost values. Figure 10 illustrates the construction
schedule for the construction of a typical FPSO vessel power
generation system. The financing opportunity cost penalty
involved with long construction time is illustrated in Figure
11. The increase in financing cost reflects loan financing for
the project. Figure 12 illustrates a particular twenty years,
three-shift per day workmode scenario in the maintenance and
operation of the power plant systems. The figure reflects a
constant power output right from the beginning of plant
operation and non-negative power start-up operating cost. It
includes maintenance and operating spares costs.
Environmental COZ cost is incorporated as a fi.mction of the
continuous power output for the plant systems taking the
information from the environmental and safety modules @
and @. Quantitative regulative rules such as C02 taxes and
safety requirements governing criticality and redundancy of
systems as required by industry regulatory bodies [8] are
modeled in modules @l and @. Here, rules governing
mechanical equipment selectio% environmental care, and
technical safety requirements are formulated into engineering
parameters and associative roles to allow numerical modeling.
Three examples of such regulatory rules are given as follows:
SO,N) < 0.2%(weight) ... .. . ... . .. ... ... .. . .. . ... ...(8)
S02 is the sulphur dioxide discharge for each particular
equipment.
D 1~~~)< D I,W=, —-’~+ S@O=J=S@OEJ
.... . ..... .. .. . . .. .. . . .. . .. .. .. (9)
Equation 9 shows a preferential rule as in equipment selection
given the discharge of nitrogen oxides discharge of equipment 1
and 2, the lower discharge value equipment is preferred.
z C02 (tax) =0.12US$/m3 forgas engines .. . .. . . .. .. .... (10)
and
z C02(tax) = 0.12US$ I litre for diesel engines ....(11)
Equations (10) and (11) show the costs of operating either gas
turtines or diesel engines as a tax operating cost. Such rules are
incorporated in the design. Reliti~lity module @ modeled the
overall reliability of the whole power generation systems. The
mathematical reliability model for the whole power generation
system is built from the two (simple series and parallel) reliability
structure models into a coherent reliability structure model. A
coherent structure is defined here as a mathematical reliabili~
342
SPE 50101
stru@re fi.mction that is monotonically increasing (iiproving
with modifications). The procedure involves first computing the
reliabMy of each of the equipment reliabdity, the basic power
system diabilii and then the complete power genemtion system
reliabii. The availability, mdainab~ and spares allocation
is solved as part of the overall design problem Wtement. Both the
availrdility and maintainability
“ numbers are used in the life cycle
cost iimction- Figure 13 ikstrates a configuration of a simple
system with redundancy consideration. The reliability fimction is
expressed in its general form as equation (12>
al(xJ= @(x,, x2,..., xn)=f
[
R @)&fi (k)
1=1 i=! 1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(12)
n and H me basic reliability structure timctions. A power
system with redundancy is illustrated by Figure 13. Another
system reliabWy as depicted in F@re 14 is modeled w
RX =Rs1(O+Rs2(9+Rs3(0 ......... .................. (13)
The engineeringmodule @of Figure 4 contains the aIgebraic and
numerical modeliig between the attributes and associadve rules
defining the relationships between the attributes and the state of
the systems. Weig@ volumetric spaces, maximum and minimum
power ratings as required by NORSOK and Class&cation
Societies are modeled. This module also models the behavior and
connectivity grammar to allow placement and layout to be
optimized. The knowledge database (KDB) contains all the
objects and systems itiormation that form the system
configurations. In this knowledge database, the extensional
attributes tiormation of objects and systems that makeup the
final power generation systems are known. These information are
used as data by the ovemll design process. Such an approach is
able to utilize the prior engineering tiorrnation and knowledge
accumulated by an orgauizadon. In our approack the data are
presently stored in Microsofi EXCEL”” spreadsheet format. The
information is convertible into MICROSOFT ACCESS’’”
database form Figures 15 and 16 illustrate some of the systems
properties and attdmtes. The design process fia.mework uses
MICROSOFT VISUAL BASIC’” algorithm with its OLE object
f-es to provide a plattiormfor all the design process activities
to take place and to i%cilitate inter- connectivity between the
module. Figures 17 to 20 ilhstrate the interfhce written in Visurd
Basic where constant interfacing of iniiormation between
designers and computer is allowed. Analytical and mathematical
models in the modules were developed by using both EXCEL
fimction fmtures and VIswd Basic mathematical programming
language. The design process approach is first to allow the
analytical model be used for the optimal selection of systems
based on an object fimction statement. Then the results horn this
analytical modulewill be passed to the second anrdytical module.
The second analytical model allows the optimal placement and
layout of the systems based on the behavior grammar
2The extensionalattributesdefine the object or class of objects
in the real world. Example a car extensional attributes are ail its
aggregates,e.g., steeringwheel,seats and etc.
SPE 50101 A STRATEGIC APPROACH TO DESIGNING FPSO VESSEL POWER GENERATING SYSTEMS
connectivity between objects and systems [29]. The results of this
module are fd to the interthce computer in graphical f- that
will show choices and decisions made by the designers. Figure 20
illustrates the output based on a particular set of economic
scenario inputs. The selected equipment and all the relevant
iniiortnatioq such as the seleded model of the systm its wei~
power outpu$ machinery space parameters and the vafious cost
components are displayed for the designer to make Iin-ther design
decisions. Overall, this design process approach allows the
conceptualdesign team to visualiie the placement and layout of
the power generation systems with respect to the dfikrent
simulated power scenarios based on the latest numerical
modeling. This approach therefore bridges the gap between form
visualization of the systems that are designed to satisfjIthe
simulated operating scenarios. Basically, the design process
generates specifications based on forecasting of operating
scenarios rather than having designers having to work from
technical specifications. Future work will test the models which
are incorporated in this design method.
The present work is an on-going part of a research contribution
towards the design of huge scale engineering artitkts. The
research goal is to develop insight into designing effective and
efficient design process fiwnework that can be used cotiortably
by the industries. The design process approach discussed here is
for the design process approach to offsho~based power
generation systems design. Economic and engineering issues are
both used to guide the pms tkunevvork and forming problem
structure. The process framework supports individual modules
and main analytical modelers. Modeling of the design process
framework and problem structure is explained and discussed.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefidly acknowledge Kvaerner ASA (Norway)
and Kvaerner 011 and Gas (Norway) for sponsoring the on
going research in marine systems design which this paper is a
part.
REFERENCES
1. Simoq H., ‘The Sciences of the Artificial. Third ed. 1996:
MIT Press. 231.
2. Erichsen, S., Management of Marine Design, Ist ed. 1989:
Buttcrworth, UK.
3. Frauendorfer, K., Glavitsc& H., and Bather, R, cd.
Optimization in Planning and Operation of Electric Power
Systems: Lecture Notes of the SVOIUASRO Tutorial. , ed.
K. Frauendorfer, Glavitsck H., and Bather, R 1993,
Physics-Verlag Tlnq Switzerland.
4. WiIIenbreciq J.H., and Thomas, H. R, ed. Planning
Engineer@g, and Construction of Electric Power Generation
Facilities. 1st ed. . 1980, John-Wiley & Sons.: NY. USA.
869.
5. Sullivm RL., Power System Planning. Ist ed. 1977:
McGraw-Hill International Book Company. 324.
6, D’Souq RB., Delepine, Y. M., and Cordy, A. R An
Approach to the Design and Selection of a Cost-Effective
343
5
Floating Production Storage and Offloading System. in 26th
Annual Offshore Technology Conference. 1994. Hou.stq
Texas. USA.: SPE, OTC 7443.
7. Corrigu M.M., Iboy, W. van. and Hong, Z. T. Luihua 11-
1 Development - MAXIMO Systematic Maintenance
System. in 1996 Offshore Technlogy Conference. 1996.
Houston: OTC 8190.
8. httphww.nts.no, NORSOK STANDARDS, 1997.
9. Assayag, S., Prallow E., and %rtori, F. Improvements in
Design of Converted FPSOS Regarding 20 Years Operation
without Docking. in 1997 Offshore Technology Conference.
1997. Houston, Texas, USA: SPE, OTC 8389.
10. Davi~ C. Development of a Gas Field Of&hore
Thailand Using an FPSO. in 1997 Offshore Technology
Conference. 1997. Houstoq Texas. USA.: SPE, OTC 8377.
11. Milhnaker, A., Y% L., and Adhun, J. The Challenges of
Lufcng 22-1 Development. in 1997 OEkhore Technology
Conference. 1997. Housto~ Texas. USA.: SPE, OTC 8466.
12. Brennaq T.J., Palmer, K. L., Kopp, R J., KIUplli~ A. J.,
Stagliano, V., and Burtraw, D., A Shock to the System
Resbucturing American’s Electricity Industry. 1st @ ed.
T.P. Breman. 1996, Washington Resources for the Future.
138.
13. P* G., and Beitz, W., Engineering Design. 2nd@ cd. K
Wallace. 1996: Springer-Verlag. 544.
14. Fraatz, J.P., Koster, T. E., Y% L., Haire, W. M., and
Shimamur~ Y. Luihua 11-1 Development - Design and
Fabrication Considerations for the FPSO Nanhai Sheng Li.
in 1996 Ot%hore Technology Conference. 1996. Houstow
Texas. USA.: SPE, OTC 8188.
15. Voorsh O.v. Operational Experience of FPSO Uisege Germ.
in 1996 OtTshore TecbnoIogy Conf%reace. 1996. Houstonj
Texas. USA.: SPE, OTC 8071.
16. Seoles, L., Qniley, N. and Sozonoff, S.S. Tanker-Based
Floating ProductioIx Start-up and Operational Experience
with FPSO II over the First Eighteen Months. in 15th
Offshore Technology Conference. 1983. Houstom Texas.
USA.: SPE, OTC 4545.
17. Voors~ O.v,, BaaQ J. de., LoenhouL van., and Kreke~ M.
Conversion of Existing Tanker to North Sea FPSO Use. in
27th Annual Ofi%hore Technology Conference. 1995.
Housto~ Texas. USA.: SPE, OTC 7724.
18. Jaquith, P.E., et al., A Parametric Approach to Machinery
Unitization in Shipbuilding. Journal of Ship Prodnctiow
1998. 14(1) p. 59-84.
19. EIvelro~ D.R, Concument Engineering in Ship Design.
Journal of Ship Production 1997. 13(4): p. 258-269.
20. Yamashita, I. Shipbuilders’s Viewpoints on Future Marine
Pm@ion Systems”. in Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Marine Engineering. 1973. Tokyo. Japan.
21. Iyer, RR, and Grossmaq 1. E., Optimal Multiperiod
Operational Planning for Utility Systems. Computers
Chemical Engineering, 1997. 21(8) p. 787-800.
22. W&endorf, F., Corominas, J., Espana, A., and Puigjaner,
L., A General Formulation for the Synthesis of Combined
Heat and Power Systems with Minmum Annual Cost.
computers Chemical Engineering, 1997.
21(Supplemeatary): p. S481-S486.
23, Fuji% K., Yoshida, K., Akagi, S., and Hirokawa, N.
Genetic Algorithm Based Optimal Phnning Method of
Energy Plant Conjurations. in Computers in Engineering
Conference. 1996. Irvine, California. USA.: ASME.
24. Mai~ L.O.A., Vldal de Carvallo, L. A., and Qasshq R Y.,
6 JONATHAN S. COLTON AND YEE WENG LOW SPE 50101

Synthesis of Utility Systems by Simulated Annealing. Table 1: Economic and Technical Requirements for FPSO
Computers Chemical Engineering, 1995. 19(4): p. 481-488. Svstems.
25. McDonrd& J.R, The Forecasting of Growth of Demand for
Electrical Energy, in Modern Power System Phumh% X
Wang, and McDona14 J. R, Editor. 1994, McGraw-Hill. p.
Economic and TecMcaI Som’ces
1-88. Requirements
26. Wang, X., Power System Probabilistic production
Simulatio% in Modern Power System Planning X Wan% Short Project Time Frame:
and McDonal& J. R, Editor. 1994, McGraw-Hill. p. 166- Constructinganew FPSO takes 18 to [30~ [6], [31]
246. 24 months
27, Rasanen, M., Ruusune~ J., and Hammalaine~ R P., Conversion of an existing vessel [9], [10], [14], [11], [32],
Object-Orricnted Modeling Software for Electric Load takes 12to16months - r151
Analysis and Simulation. SIMULATION, 1996. 66(May)
Flexibility to serve a number of small [6], [30], [31], [14], [q,
p. 275-288.
28. Sch- M., SamSung Weighs Retreat on Auto Output - oil fields - [33],
Korea’s Economic Woes Curb Ambitions of Firms, in The Complex or unique operating Ml, [301, [31], [91, [101,
Wall Street Jomnal. 1998: NY. USA. p. A17. %tiOS and power pmfiies [14], [11], [32], [33], [34],
29. Lomangino, P., Grammar-and Optimization-based requirements to be c&3sidemd- [35], [3q
Mechanical Packaging in GWW School of Mechanical Long equipment operational life [6], [30], f9], [10], [14],
Engineering. 1995, Georgia Institute of Technology: (more than 20 years) J33], [34], [35]& [3q
Atlanta. p. 379.
Life cycle crests(capi@ operation& [31], [9], [10], [14], [11],
30. Nergaard, A,, Leaning, K., and Levett, C. Smcdvig
Production Unit 380- A New Concept. in 1996 Offshore maintenance and downtime) reduction [32], [71, [33], [34], [35],
Technology Conference. 1996. Housto~ Texas. USA.: SPE, J36], [16]
OTC 8257. High expectation on availability and [31], [9], [10], [14], [11],
31. Berkel, P.v. Managing Design and Construction of the reliability expected [15], [q, [33], [34], [36],
Central North Sea FPSO. in 1996 Offshore Technolo~ [lq, [3q
Conference. 1996. Houstow Texas. USA.: SPE, OTC 8074. Stringent safkty and environmental [6], [30], [31], [9], [10],
32. Pihi, S. Novel Cost Effective Installation Approach for
standards and regulations. [14], [1 1], [15], ~, [33],
Marginal Field - The Lufeng 22-1 Field Development in
[34], [35], [3q
China. in 1997 Of%hore Technology Conference. 1997.
Housto% Texas. USA.: SPE, OTC 8404. Compactand light weight J34], [351
33. Drawe 111,W.J., Raj, A., and Rawstron. P. J., Technical and
Economic Considerations in Developing Oilkhore Oil and
Gas Prospects Using Floating Production Systems. Marine Table 2 Des@ Issues for off-shore and land-based power
Technology, 1986. 23(3): p. 253-270. generation systems.
34. Grw H,G. Compact Systems for Power Generation and Oftsho* Land-
Nkrogen Injection. in 20th Annual Offshore Technology
Design Issnes based based
Conference.1988.HoustonjTexas.USA.: SPE,OTC 5840.
Systems Systems
35. Barsness,E.J., and MilIer,R T. PrehminaryDesignof a 10
MWE OTEC Power Plant and 50 MWE OTEC Power Power Growth Prediction I I (+)3
Modules.in 1M AnnualOffsshoreTechnologyConference. Power Demand Variation within I 1
1979.Huston,Texas.USA.: SPE, OTC 3587. one period (+)
36. Robcrton, R Hydro Electric Energy Solution for the Troll Number of Power Profiles (+)
Platform and Onshore Plant. in 1997 Of&here Technology Number of Operating Modes (+)
Conference.1997.Housto~ Texas.USA.: SPE,OTC 8415.
37. Smiti D.W., and Mawby, M. J. Use of Safety System Life Cycle Cost
PerformanceStandardsto Optimize Platfbrm Maintenance. Sd%tyReguktiOIIS
in 1997 OffkhoreTechnologyConference. 1997. Hous@ Environment Issues (+)
Texas.USA.: SPE,OTC 8363. -!3 Environment and
Condidons (+)
operational support (+)
Reliability I I
Weight and Size Issues (+) i
Equipment Opemtmg “ Life Issues I I (+)
TransportaMity (+)

3 symbol indicates greatcdheavier emphasis than the other

without this symboi,

344
SPE 50101 A STRATEGIC APPROACH TO DESIGNING FPSO VESSEL POWER GENERATING SYSTEMS 7

-q------. -* Heat Ouput

Exhaust Gas Gut
o [-,,. u
Boiler WI o* * *U
:::,,--:::
--:.-.-.,-
0 ‘-:;
r
o J7~B
c1 s
Sources- Heat Power Operating power
hlpllt Ge~eratiO~ Modes Demand
System Growth
Configurations and
Fuel
Scenarios
>
I
1

I
Figure 3: A diagrammatic guide to a electrical power
t
T 1 generation problem requirements.

II
,-------- !
Air In
:
,?
Generator #1 + ! Geaerator #2

)
la Transformer
c
Condense
)
T Power Out

Figure 1: A typical power generation system conflgtwation.

jh-g’Y524Jq~
............................. Modules

;
I
.........------
------
I
...........------
..........----
...... --, /
Analytical
Modeler I
Q Concept
Design
Team

Figure 4: A design process for FPSO vessel power generation

o Ss(-)kw
systems.

Figure 2: FPSO vessel line schematic of electric power

generation systems (adapted ilom [9]).

345
8 JONATHAN S. COLTON AND YEE WENG LOW SPE 50101

m- -*— Pmfl&
$fmar Fwr Ph.me$ ProfVe lhrae Phases Pfofik
; ‘%? W2w p view

b@c opemthlg Prtmp

r?vii

Figure 5: Oil fields production profiles design guide for designer.

[ FP$X) vessel systems utier m’ofiie~~

Vwi$si
millingS@8m Puwfi F@.p.irement iv V&a
[ “
Vtwis,d CW-LmdqI FC+W Requirements

+ ......—. “.. , -,- - ., .. .... ..,,.....

~ f}f!fd.,twdi~ Power PnWe \
;, ..._,-. . . .. ,., .
$

P.. ow
%
. . ...... - .- . . . ......—.
--------------..-,--+ ... . .......—... . ...
P,with * eomcsptmdkg ~ to k provided by \
,-.dcsigrter--- . - ,. . .... . . .. . . ..+. ... . .. ..”....--. .—.. ...... ... .. .. .. ...;
i
.—.—

Figure 6: FPSO vessel systems power requirement design guide designer.

346
SPE 50101 A STRATEGIC APPROACH TO DESIGNING FPSO VESSEL PCRNERGENERATING SYSTEMS 9

,,. ,,, ,.. , ... .

,., ..,, .,

Figure 7: Simulation of an oil field profile by approximation design guide for designer.

lMitiea Pmer Proiile ConstructkxrTime Effect on Project

-+-Design and Mmtnistraliw

costs

I&J-l
1
1.027
+Capilal EquipmentCosts

J5EEEE7 +

-
InstallationC.3+MS

Commissioning COS*

-x- Insumnca and Pmpci

o 2 4 6 LogisticCOSts
-.- Reinwsbnentand
Ywre 0.84 ~
UnraminlyCa8k
-+ Gwrall Pr@eciCostEW
o 5 10 15
Months

Figure 8: A typical vessel utilities power profiles.

costs.

347
10 JONATHAN S. COLTON AND YEE WENG LOW SPE 50101

—
m—~- lmq~~
r3.,4--- .-..--...-.—.. -—..-.--.. =..-..- .. .. —.——— ——=.
3
i.e. -- -—-.—————–-—-—- ___ _=.-
1 !
0,72-

0.1-

i Om- I

~ ~m

I
)
O.w

02 +CMmw I
0.02-

, 0 I
,. 1 3 6 7 9 n 13 m V m
0
0 2 4 e w 10 *2 %4 18 mmhwn
nm. m-
—.— ~.. —

Figure 11: Construction time effect on investment costs. F@re 12: Operational and long term cash flow
model.

b,
A

? f

o s,
o
S3

s
Q

.,,
Figure 13: Reliability model for a system S1with redundancy. Figure 14: A gas turbiie and diesel power generating system.
,. .,,., . . . .. . .. ..
.,’ ...: ‘,.,..”. .. :..,.:, .,,, :. ., ,’- ,. .,.,, . ...,. :,. .,, ,,” “,

r
”
,. ‘,,

“k,:,
; ~’,:
,3” ,!?.2: ‘~ .%.$$2,502
,4
W1’ii
Hdii!i
,,, ,9”
“ ,6” Ew.kpyti
y .’ Qh.iicCHii .@r*l, “: .%2 ““‘ $$22$.+

M.** C$TG
BSA(w
.../.,, ,,, ,... . .. . . . ./.

F@ure 15: Data of some gas turbine electric generators.

348
SPE 50101 A STRATEGIC APPROACH TO DESIGNING FPSO VESSEL POVVERGENERATING SYSTEMS 11

Figure 16: Data of some gas and steam turbine combination electric power generating systems.

Figure 17: Conceptual design guidelines for the design of FPSO vessel power generating systems.
.... .. . . .,,. . .. ... ... . .. . ., ,.
S’-** -m =-ts@-

‘m’-””’’”:”’
cMPi3Ymrm@e R.3&J&
,,, ., ,,, ,.,., ,, .. . . ~“,
. ..
““-
. ,,
““’
w~*,a& “,, ,, ; ,,,:’ ,,’ -:, ‘,. .
h+mlm%$at
.,, ,,, , ,,, :,, ,., , .:.,., ,,. , ;.. ”
ent ~ Raquimomnl “’
.,,. ,:, ,. .,/ ,., , .,,
.,.1, ,, ,“” “:,;,’: ,.,:..::.:”:,.,
+ S@?W F+ORSOK & %@r-
:.” j,+;,” .:,:’” ., ::.,.:
& EIMrlxnnewkl %mdr&ML ~,
,., ,, “:., uemrti!kia Eauiymwn% tie *aiwted m.~~ q W
::. ,,. /...= . Sptem %* G@ma? !sL’lUl&t *Nd *GO,>”%,* Whtm
‘&nw7$ RWak4My R@@mmm@s
‘f,’,
,’, , ,, ,, “,j\” ‘$,, ‘“: .“
..1 ,. ,,.
“~q u~ct .- .-....” . . .. ....~ . . . . . .. . . . ... . ... . . . .
... ,. ., :,, ,’. ,., ,,
* W*IU KWuim&nt+
., .,. ...
-m SY%ieanEfHMcy
,: . . . :.~. ,’,. . ~’:’wstig?~: ‘
cimomlc Me@J;+~iwI .3i an M ,,;k.&&;..,:,; ‘- :“, ;-., >,<.,. :,, ‘
-+ .Wtil, VM ,m.wm a~r~m tme.%m@9L.
~mm~ ; --~ ., - ‘
~~ -’Q, “ “, -d”,
.,

Figure 18: Optimization criteria modeling of power generating systems design.

349
12 JONATHAN S. COLTON AND YEE WENG LCJfd SPE 50101

Figure 19: Schematic illustrations of power generation systems for designer.

.,
ma VewM&wx ~ ~
.,
,+ 4&&& ~+ u~~~ “~a.. ... . . :,... ,,. “..,.,, ;. ~ ~’~*a*” .. . . ..

:,c Te?dwlk.3J i:
/ t--gc+k ~~
/ .@~I=ti&tiEh+Qwx& ‘{:!?? :. ...” P2
,,
,,. . ... ..... .- .. ~:.-. A.. ---- .. . .. . .. ----- .,, . . .. -.-.. -++. +...”=.
;- *a* &haws TFW3 M SFs&4mw - -““ -. =:---
.,
/ e L&J TM* G@@l’JS
~ ~ O*X4 Gsmxatot SYWW
,: &SWrtl EMrrc!wak% !s$lwr~ ~~
; & m@ fh~@&Q~~
! !7 Ga$-ftwbii ;;,
{ d LMese+ EngineI+ c. .... .. ... . ,. .,.:.,.,.:.. .. .......... .&..-,... .?
,.,-. ,..
,, .--.,. ..+.,..-.... .... .. .. .. ,.,. . . ... ,.....,. ,...J... , .,....”—..
~’
\- ug R-* p{iJ&&wn ‘. P&uw?OPmfikw&d km”; ;

/ @ 1. 13-&uFCIWPhases P&e
; r 2. “* ThCeo I=%@s P@!?
;:
~, ~ 3. P&J&3*,,~*w& F’r&& ;i~ uS$’#&@l ~ ““ :
: fl ~.Ch&gned SMOG& %%”. i!
‘...... .... ,.. ,.-. . . . ..”.:: .. .. . . . ;.- . ,. ...”.. . . .... ... . .. ..+ . .- J
‘~ ## R~s&@ @8 fi~ ~z ~~ “,,,: ““- .:-nb* ~ “~

i P %?4t7.%cIA CM T* et FWd Uwix

r ,.,. ,,:% ,, ;,,,”
: @’SCGoah&Mkd Fktds C$wb .;~ “
,:&3 : ‘,. .,, ~.,:,
: .,-, .. . . ...... . ”..,....,, . .. . .. . . ~ .. ... ... -------- .,..+”..- ..=. -——+.-t ;
..=.
.,,.,
....—. ...... u...
-.........,,- ......:
~ $kkxxb’n d FFw3 %tal PowiwsJ@#ils
-----
--.-’
.;
.!
; c Oii!$u’tg r CMw?a&g r stL9KwJmg
“’
;
‘ wm_*3 ”’,. “.’ “’
: t- foxwtsion @ i..wiikw t“ Eiwr#?nt5y
~,
L. ,,- ,,.. .. .. .. . .... . ... . . ... . .& ... . . ..- . . .. .. . . ... .... ... .. . ...._>., .:

Figure 20: Data output (or BOM of system) for power generation system design process.

350