FPSO hull structural design concept supporting controlled

project execution
Author Names: Timo P.J. Mikkola1), Ingrit Lilleme1), Grzegorz Mazerski1), Tomi Taponen1),
Janusz Zikowski2), Lech Tamborski2) & Przemysaw Dominiczak2).
1)

Deltamarin Ltd, Helsinki, Finland

2)
DesArt Ltd, Gdynia, Poland

Abstract
The target of the FPSO structural design is firstly to
guarantee structural integrity. At the same time it needs
to target in minimizing the limitations on the oil and gas
production related functions caused by the structural
design. The structural design concept developed for this
aim is discussed with emphasis on the practical management aspects.
The FPSO steel model is developed within a 3D product
model supporting all the other disciplines as well. The
structural analyses utilize the steel model as a basis for
FEA model development. For the structural design analyses a broad spectrum of programs is available ranging
from initial design tools to the high end state-of-the-art
analysis software. Spectral based procedures are frequently utilized. The load, strength and fatigue analysis
capabilities of the design system are illustrated with
case examples.
The work of the designers is supported by a management framework and procedures adapted for structural
design discipline and the use of state-of-the-art analysis
software.

Keywords
FPSO, FDPSO, EWTU, Offshore Installation, Hull
Steel Structure, Structural Analysis, Hydrodynamic
Analysis, Ultimate Strength, Fatigue, Accidental Loads.

Introduction
Majority of the +150 FPSO units in service and those on
order are ship-shaped either conversions from trading
tankers or new-builds. Novel concepts have been introduced such as the first cylinder-shaped FPSO installed
on Piranema Field, Brazil targeting e.g. for improved
wave induced motions, higher stability reserves and
higher deck load capacity.
The future FPSOs will be heavier for supporting much
larger topside facilities including GTL plants or more
specialized e.g. early production systems (EPS), ex-

tended well testing units (EWTU) with full drilling deck

or FDPSOs with the real fully fledged drilling capability. The ship shaped FPSOs will also in the future remain the mainstream design concept (Fig. 1): The traditional shipbuilding concepts and technology can be
utilized in their design and construction even with the
FPSO specific requirements. The ship shape is also a
clear advantage for transits.

Fig. 1:

FPSO Aoka Mizu. Courtesy of Bluewater.

The future FPSO designs must meet several increased or

even completely new challenges. The structural interaction between the hull and the topside becomes more
demanding due to the new much heavier and larger
topside production facilities. The increased topside
weight combined with extreme water depths over
1000m introduce further challenges of designing costeffective mooring and flexible riser systems as well as
for the stable station keeping requirement. Dynamic
positioning with thrusters is a completely new and
tempting challenge especially for the EWTU and
FDPSO type FPSOs.
The present paper focuses on the design of the hull steel
structure of a new-build FPSO based on direct calculation approaches utilizing advanced numerical analyses.
The structural design concept introduced builds on
DELTAMARIN and DESART experiences and resources in naval and marine design and a wide variety
of state-of-the art numerical analysis capabilities.

A)

FPSO
PRODUCT
MODEL

UPDATES

FPSO
PRODUCT
MODEL
DATA

NAVAL

LOADS

DATA

B)

NAVAL

LOADS

A major hull structure failure of an FPSO would directly endanger the safety of the personnel. At the same
time it would result in high economic consequences
through the potential environmental consequences and
lost/deferred production during shutdown. There is
therefore a strong case on safety, environmental and
economic grounds for robust and reliable hull design
where advanced hydrodynamic and structural analysis
takes the most important position.
Regardless of the design concept, an FPSO is always
treated as an Offshore Installation rather than as a
trading tanker in terms of design and reliability. Unlike tankers, FPSOs are intended to operate at a specific
site for a number of years without dry docking; so normal maintenance, inspections, and repair have to be
carried out onsite. The unit shall withstand the site MetOcean conditions covering the operating and the most
severe e.g. 100year conditions for strength and the cumulative design life conditions for fatigue. The site
MetOcean conditions play a major part in the design of
FPSOs hull, mooring, risers and topsides.
The extent and complexity of the design process varies
greatly depending on the actual project details and site
MetOcean severity. The diversity and complexity of an
FPSO structural design task becomes clear from the
class society rules (ABS 2003, 2008; DNV 2002, 2004;
Lloyds Register 2008). They offer only a limited
amount of simplified easy-to-use approaches for structural design. On the contrary the tendency is to promote
the use the state-of-the-art numerical analysis approaches for the structural design.
Designing an FPSO is always a large scale project,
where the design process requires solving many multidisciplinary problems. The structural or any other part
of the design cannot be done in isolation but in a close
and organized interaction with the other disciplines.
This calls for controlled and integrated project execution with disciplined management experience in fast
multidiscipline projects, coordination and information
flow/information management at all levels of the
project. Information management is in crucial position
and we have extremely good experience with our DeltaDoris, a web based easy-to-use document management system.
From the structural discipline timely design development, analyses, problem identification and solving are
expected, at the high and reliable technical level required. The design analyses require utilizing a broad
spectrum of programs ranging from initial design tools
to the high end state-of-the-art analysis software.

posed of a state-of-the-art software modules, many

different models and procedures for automatic data
transfers.
In the present system the FPSO design is developed
within a 3D CATIA product model supporting all disciplines. The structural analysis system is developed on
using large number of initial design tools of the different Class Societies. For the FEA Femap and HyperMesh
are used for the model and result processing and ANSYS, NASTRAN and RADIOSS for analyses. Additional software is available for more specialized nonlinear and multiphysics analyses. Several programs are
available for the naval architectural support such as
NAPA and AQWA.
For the structural design development the product model provides an up-to-date link to the actual FPSO design
enabling reliable interfacing between the various disciplines. For the structural analysis the product model provides an up-to-date geometry, steel model and weight
data as a basis for the structural analysis which at first
utilizes various available easy-to-use procedures (Fig. 2
a). This analysis relies on the traditional ship design
procedures and it is especially well suited for the prismatic ship shaped FPSO hull section.

CONCEPT
UPDATES

FPSO-Specific Design Features

GLOBALFEA
STRUCTURAL
ANALYSIS

B.C.

LOCALDESIGNS

LOCAL FEA

Fig. 2:

Initial structural design process utilizing A)

easy-to-use procedures and B) FEA.

The FPSO designs include various non-prismatic hull

details such as all the topside support foundations on
deck, turret/hull interface, a moonpool area and derrick
supports. Their initial stage structural analysis can be
based on previous project data. A more accurate checking of such details, however, requires the use of FEA.

FPSO Structural Design Process

The procedures and software applied for the FPSO
structural design need to support fast decision making
and concept alternative assessment especially during the
front end stages. During the later stages the effectiveness is still needed. However the range of capabilities of
the software becomes equally important. The broad
range of the analyses implies a need for a system com-

Fig. 3:

Sample FPSO steel model and section of corresponding FEA model.

The development of the FPSO model within a CATIA

product model facilitates effective use of 3D FEA already during the initial design stage (Fig. 2 b). The FEA
model is easily produced with the effective modeling
routines and utilizing the automatically transferred
geometry and property data (Fig. 3). This capability
facilitates fast checking of non-prismatic cross sections
and other details of the hull design concepts. This even
though such a FEA model will inevitably utilize simplified load and weight modeling. During the concept and
early design stages the easy-to-use and rapid modeling
procedures facilitate repeated reproduction of even the
complete global FEA model after major design modifications.

stage several kinds of analyses are performed including

hydrodynamic and static or even aeroelastic for defining
loads, linear elastic stress/strain for strength and fatigue
and more specialized non-linear high speed structural
dynamics with large deformation and failure. A large
number of models are built and processed; hundreds of
load cases are defined, solved and post-processed. Many
design iterations are conducted to respond with fast
feedback concerning consequences of design modifications.
Great care is paid to load and weight modeling utilizing
the product model, the hydrodynamic and -static analysis software while targeting balanced design load cases.
The FEA model is loaded with external hydro- and
aerodynamic and buoyant pressures, mass inertial forces
due to ship motions and internal pressures in tanks. The
idea is to use a common global FEA model which is
used for global hull strength analysis and fatigue screening. But this is used as well for producing boundary
conditions for all the local FEA models for more detailed analyses.
At this stage the global FEA model cannot be frequently
reproduced. A new revision initiates checking and reanalyzing a series of detail analyses as they rely on the
global model for their boundary conditions. As a consequence the quality of the global FEA model becomes
paramount for the accuracy and reliability of the structural design. The global FEA model needs to be updated
throughout the project but in a strictly controlled way. A
revision log is necessary tool for keeping track of the
various design changes implemented in the model.
Global FEA model
The global A-level hull FEM model shall provide a
reliable description of the overall stiffness distribution.
The mesh density of the model shall be sufficient to
describe deformations and nominal stresses in the primary members of the hull. The model incorporates two
other important structural parts of the FPSO, i.e. the
supporting interface structures of the topside and the
station keeping system (in particular the mooring system). The model should be built in sufficient detail to
describe properly elastic and inertial coupling between
the hull and those two other structural systems. This is
the reason for building the model with a mesh finer than
usually accepted when global ship models are created. It
is particularly important when internal turret system is
applied having significant impact on the global stiffness
distribution of the hull. Actually, the modelling should
be as detailed and complete as practicable possible and
reasonable within the model management and processing limits. In general, the density of the mesh describing
the hull structure is similar to the mesh commonly developed when building the so called 3 cargo hold
models. The topside framing and stools are modelled by
coarse mesh, but with use of shell elements.

Fig. 4:

General Configuration of the Analysis

System.

During the basic design (FEED) stage the global FEA

model will become much more complex (Fig. 4). At this

Local detail B-level Structural Sub-models

Where the 3-D global analysis is not comprehensive
enough to determine adequately the stress distribution in

the hull girder or in the main supporting structures,

additional analyses are performed with use of FEM submodels. In the fine mesh sub-models, care is to be taken
to represent the structures stiffness as well as its geometry accurately. Boundary displacements obtained
from the global model are transferred to the sub-models
as boundary conditions. In addition to the boundary
constraints, the pertinent loads are reapplied to the fine
mesh of the sub-models. A large number of local structural details need to be considered for this analysis:
i ) A large part of a typical midship cargo area containing storage and ballast tanks, typical transverse bulkheads and web frames the analysis is oriented on
transverse structural strength assessment; external hydrodynamic pressure is corrected to be more realistically distributed on the hull wetted surface; the interaction with topside structures is taken into account.
ii) Hull/turret or hull/spread mooring interface structures; loads from mooring lines and risers taken into
account.
iii) Foundations and hull supporting structures of: topside modules, deck crane pedestal, riser hang-off platform, riser pull-in system, offloading system, helideck,
azimuth thrusters of DPS, etc.; all possible load components with the most onerous combinations taken into
account.

However a seakeeping analysis as described by Mazerski & al. (2010) is required for design load analysis already for the early phase concept development.
The basis for the environmental design loads of an
FPSO are the vessel responses in the site environment.
For the great majority of structural details the 1st order
wave frequency loads dominate and a spectral based
analysis in frequency domain is sufficient. In this case a
panel model (Fig. 5) and the AQWA diffraction/radiation program is utilized for producing various
Response Amplitude Operators (RAO) which are then
processed through the spectral procedures to a number
of design load cases.
Time domain non-linear analysis is necessary for capturing non-linear load effects and low frequency loads.
This may be required for predicting effects like bow
impact, slamming and green water, for example.
a)

Local fine mesh C-level Structural Sub-models

The fine mesh models are specifically dedicated to relatively small local structural areas where significant
stress concentration effects are expected. They are produced as next level sub-models and are used in the local
ultimate strength and fatigue capacity assessment of
those special areas. Boundary deformations/boundary
forces are transferred from the coarser models (B-level
models) as boundary conditions. All the pertinent loads
are preserved and reapplied to the new mesh, together
with new ones considered as loads specific to the particular local area.
The local fine mesh models may be required for example for the analysis of hopper knuckles, bracket and
flange terminations of main girders, longitudinal stiffener connections, topside stools, supports of turret bearings and other moonpool structural elements, supports
of fairleads and chain stoppers.

Defining Design Loads

The FPSO hull structural design needs to consider both
the still water loads and the environmental loads. The
first vary between the ballast and full load conditions
and the latter are described through the statistical MetOcean data. The still water conditions are defined in the
FPSOs Loading Manual. Application of these load
cases in the structural model is straightforward. However it requires careful and good modeling accuracy.
Environmental loads on FPSO hull are induced by
waves, wind and current. Already the statistical analysis
of MetOcean data alone for the operational and extreme
wave and wind conditions as well as for the long term
design life conditions can be used for early estimations.

b)

Fig. 5:

a) FPSO seakeeping model with pressure contours in head sea. b) Wave loads on FE model.

In addition to the site loading conditions, the additional

one corresponding to transfer voyage must be taken as
well. The transit from fabrication yard to the site is a
one-off short duration event. Nevertheless it often yields
to surprisingly high design loads which may even be
design drivers. The effect of the transport can be mitigated by route selection. A dry transport would be
tempting but is at present hardly a realistic option.

Strength Analysis and Design Development

The ultimate strength capacity of the FPSO steel structure must be checked against yield and buckling limits.
Corresponding structural analyses require using the
global A-level model for hull girder longitudinal and
transverse strength capacity. The use of the B-level
local model is usually sufficient for the strength evaluation of local primary/secondary structures.
The combinations of the various loading conditions and

Probability density (-)

load parameter for the fatigue. The WBM response of a

ship-shaped FPSO is similar to tankers for which rule
values are readily available for fatigue design purposes
as given e.g. by (DNV 2003). This data if used for
FPSOs results typically in high conservatism (Fig. 6)
the main contributing factor being the true FPSO site
MetOcean conditions.
The MetOcean wave data and the vessel WBM responses are the key data required for the fatigue control
of an FPSO design at the early phases. First estimate of
the fatigue severity of the FPSO site can be based even
on the wave scatter data only, with no relation to the
actual vessel structure. In the case example (Fig. 6, 7)
the fatigue life at the actual site becomes 6.5 times of
that at the North-Atlantic based on the scatter data only
(Lilleme 2009). With the use of the vessel WBM response the factor is increased to 14 (Fig. 6, 7) as the
short wave content is much higher in the site wave data
but the WBM for short waves is low. The reduced fatigue damages due to the site wave data correspond in
this case to a stress concentration of 1.9 (scatter data
only) or 2.4 (vessel WBM and scatter data).

ln(WBM)

environmental loads result in a vast number of different

load cases. Therefore a selection procedure is applied as
developed by Hachmann (1991) and Liu, Spencer & al.
(1992) and adopted in ABS (2001). In this approach the
criticality of the load cases is described by a Dominant
Load Parameter (DLP). For FPSO several DLPs must
be applied such as global cross section forces, different
acceleration components at various locations and motion parameters yielding to different design load cases.
The design driver load cases are determined based on
statistical spectral analysis of the values of the DLPs. A
set of design wave load cases defined based on the extreme DLP values are then applied for the actual
strength analysis. The design waves are regular waves
selected and scaled to reproduce the environmental
wave load part of the DLPs.
The actual load cases in FEA models require transferring acceleration and pressure loads from the seakeeping model. A significant source of error in the load
transfer is the weight data. In practical projects the
product model, naval architectural models or the structural models all contribute to the correct weight and
weight distribution data. As a result the weight data
applied in the analyses is always an approximation and
a compromise.
For a successful load transfer the seakeeping and the
structural models need to use the same weight data. This
means that the weight, COG and the inertia terms of the
seakeeping model correspond to the weight and weight
distribution of the FEA model. A fine tuning between
the two models is usually made by modifying the actual
FEA weight distribution.
Additional important source of imbalance is in the different panel and FEA representation of the wetted hull
form. Normally this results in only a small imbalance
which can be corrected with suitable small modifications in the accelerations. Significant imbalance is usually attributed to errors in models. A systematic control
of the weight data and load balance is however important.

North-Atlantic Wave Data

Site Wave Data

Site

DNV
0

North-Atlantic

8
10
12
14
Sea state period, Tz (s)
3

16
4

ln(ln(1/Q))

Fig. 6:

Long term WBM responses on a Weibull plot.

Wave scatter data shown in small graph.

Fatigue Control
An FPSO hull includes a vast amount of potentially
fatigue critical details. The main fatigue loads are
caused by waves and external forces such as mooring,
riser or topside support loads, for example. The fatigue
design against the external loads can typically be solved
as detail design issues. However the fatigue design
becomes easily a demanding challenge with too high
global nominal stresses from hull girder wave bending
moment (WBM). And this is dictated by decisions made
very early in the project.
The topside supports causing a stress concentration on
the main deck are an example. The local stresses are
further increased by the topside support static and dynamic loads. Meeting the required high fatigue safety
factor requires reasonably low level of the hull girder
wave bending stresses as the use of locally reinforced
scantlings at the main deck i.w.o. the topside supports
proves often ineffective.
Consequently the WBM becomes the main controlling

Fig. 7:

The effect of scatter data and vessel WBM

response on the relative fatigue load.

The WBM for the FPSO is processed utilizing the site

MetOcean data and the sea-keeping model WBM RAO
results. The amount of work required is so modest that
this analysis is updated every time the sea-keeping
model is updated. Yet this result combined with experiences from previous projects provides a good basis for
the fatigue control already in the early project phases.

Fatigue Design
The difficulty of fatigue detail design is associated with
the complexity of the numerical procedure combined

with the large numerical models and the vast amount of

potentially fatigue critical details. The structural fatigue
assessment requires a consistent combination of the
effects of the global and local responses with systematic
employment of spectral analysis methodology, the Rayleigh model and local nominal hot spot stress S-N curve.
The local hot spot stress response can in most cases be
evaluated accurately only with detailed C-level 3D FEA
models. Their utilization requires simultaneous analysis
with the A-level and sometimes even the intermediate Blevel models. The load response may consist of two or
even more simultaneous load processes which cannot be
analyzed with a single structural model within the design process at least. As an example the fatigue loading
for the mooring and riser supports are often produced by
a mooring/riser designer. Besides, the low frequency
component may be significant for example in the mooring fatigue loads whereas the hull girder stress response
is typically dominated by the 1st order wave loads. Close
to the mean water line the stress responses become nonlinear due to the effect of intermittent wet and dry surfaces. Accounting for this effect can be done by introducing corrections for the external pressure distributions
at the cost of additionally complicating the analysis
procedure.
Several of the fatigue critical FPSO details are loaded
by two simultaneous load processes. Examples being all
foundations loaded by the external support loads and the
global hull girder loads. For some structures also the
wind loads are relevant for fatigue and their effect needs
to be combined with that of the wave loads. In most
cases the fatigue damages for the two loads are analyzed
separately. There is seldom sufficient data on the actual
stress response spectra to support accurate combining
the responses for damage analysis. The approximate
combined damage equations (Mikkola et.al. 2003; DNV
2005) need to be used as direct damage summation is
clearly un-conservative.
In practice the fatigue design process of structural details is controlled utilizing a hierarchical set of different
analysis procedures and numerical models with increasing accuracy. Typically the increased accuracy is associated with increased complexity and effort. Consequently first screening type fatigue analysis approaches
are applied which are perhaps less accurate but easy to
apply. Their results are utilized for ranking similar
structural details based on their fatigue criticality. Theoretically it is sufficient to conduct more accurate fatigue
analysis only for the worst detail of each case. Also the
practical design experience often allows reducing the
number of details requiring further analysis.
The use of the FEA models for fatigue at early design
phases is especially important in case of non-prismatic
hull details. The moonpool area of an FDPSO is an
example where even the preliminary global FEA models
serve for analyzing the force flow in this cross section.
A good design and increased scantlings will be required
at the corner area which is analyzed using a refined FEA
model (Fig. 8). For this detail the long term WBM response alone provides for a reasonably accurate fatigue
estimation.

As soon as the global and local FEA models become

available they can be utilized for fatigue analysis. A
long term stress distribution is produced in Weibull
form utilizing spectral based procedures. For the first
level fatigue analyses the stress response is taken from
the global (A-level) FEA models. The stress response
selected is considered to represent the DLP for the actual hot spot detail studied. A corresponding fatigue
design wave is selected and scaled based on the Weibull
scale parameter at the 10-4 probability level. The fatigue
analysis conducted is typically a screening type analysis. If a final more accurate fatigue analysis is made
then the detailed C-level FEA model must be applied
with the developed Weibull distribution. A separate
Weibull distribution combined with a limited set of
scaled fatigue design waves are required for each detail
analyzed.
The accuracy of this simplified fatigue design wave
Weibull-type approach depends heavily on the hot spot
area design in the hull and its modeling by the A-level
and C-level models. The approach becomes accurate
when the selected global stress truly represents a DLP
for the local hot spot stress responses. The analysis
accuracy can be improved by applying the local stress
responses from local detail A-level FEA models directly
in the spectral analysis. This approach provides for
improved analysis accuracy for cases with complex
local stress responses. Its use is however laborious and
time consuming and as such its usage should be carefully considered.

Fig. 8:

Relative fatigue damages i.w.o. moonpool corner area.

The Load Component or Full Spectral methods are an

alternative approach to the direct local stress based
spectral analysis (DNV 2003, 2008). The loads are split
into clearly defined individual unit load components
such as global hull girder bending, unit accelerations
and external pressure loads. Load components are
represented by their own transfer functions derived by
the sea-keeping analysis. The stress response at particular detail location is determined by a linear complex
superposition of the stress responses to the unit load
component loads. The Load Component approach becomes practically equally accurate compared to the
local stress based spectral analysis provided the stress
response is accurately represented by the superposition
procedure. This requires e.g. separation of the global
and local stress responses utilizing correct boundary

conditions in the analysis. The treatment of the external

wave pressure load represents an additional complexity.
This can be solved by representing the external pressure
distribution with a reasonably coarse panel grid. The
pressure distribution in each grid is treated as a separate
unit load component.
With the Load Component approach the size of the
spectral analysis task is greatly reduced as the number
of the unit load component loads is much smaller compared to the number of unit wave loads.

events may occur (explosion and/or fire). Special protection structures can be designed and installed on deck
to prevent those situations. Their load-carrying capacity
should be checked by computational analysis,
(Figs.9,10).

Special Analysis Challenges

Designing against accidental conditions is an example
of the specialized analysis challenges of an FPSO
project. The selection of relevant design accidental
conditions is dependent on the selected safety philosophy of the project and Class guidelines as specified e.g.
in DNV (2004a, 2005). The most common accidental
events to be investigated are: collision with another
vessel, dropped objects including helicopter crash, explosions and fire.
Typically the accidental conditions are characterized
with high-speed (impact) transient dynamic loads. The
structural response caused by the impact energy dissipation involves large deformations and strains far beyond
the elastic range. In the case of fire, the material properties should be defined as temperature dependent and a
heat transfer coupled analysis involved. In the case of
explosion event with an associated blast loading effect,
the fluid/structure interaction process should be modelled and solved interactively.
Often the accidental conditions are taken into account
utilizing approximations and applying generally accepted design concepts. This approach cannot necessarily guarantee effective or even safe design. The strength
of the escape route structures is essential for safety.
However the complex nature of conditions during fire or
explosion can be revealed only through careful analysis.
Simple strengthening of the structures may not be the
correct way to increase safety.
At present a rigorous numerical analysis of the accidental conditions is possible with the available state-of-theart software. The FPSO project can benefit from the
rigorous accidental condition analyses through increased safety of the personnel and the whole facility.
The non-linear transient dynamic FEM analysis in an
explicit approach is usually applied to solve the problems of this kind. Special FEM models (B-level) dedicated to such an analysis are built and processed by
explicit dynamics computer programs.
In general, the hull structure capacity to resist loads
arising during accidental events should be checked with
all possible consequences taken into account to ensure
that the general structural integrity is preserved and the
whole structure remains stable. For example, dropped
objects are not critical to the global integrity of the hull
but they can damage the topside production modules
directly or indirectly by destroying their skids and support structures, also the major pipelines on deck can be
damaged. As a consequence of this event more serious

Fig. 9: Structural damage due to impact of dropped object.

The associated load is characterised by kinetic energy

governed by the object mass and its velocity at the instant of the impact. The kinetic energy is dissipated as
strain energy in the impacted structure and in the
dropped object. The load-bearing capacity of the structure is sufficient if the response of the structure, developing in time, finally reach the stable balance condition
and does not collapse in a more global sense, (Fig.10).

Fig. 10: Typical dynamic response plot of the impacted

protection structure.

Managing Project Execution

The excellence of the structural design and analyses
procedures alone does not guarantee success in the hull
structural design. The analyses need to focus on solving
the practical structural design issues for the benefit of
the FPSO design. The structural designers ought to
minimize the limitations on the FPSO oil and gas production related functions caused by the structural design
requirements. This calls for not only high quality interface and data management but also for strict control of
all the structural design and analysis tasks. It is equally
important that the structural designers and analysts co-

operate with the experts of all the other disciplines.

The structural design discipline applies the matured
project management tools common for the design
project and all other disciplines. The structural design
analyses for an FPSO, however, are highly sophisticated, laborious and often time consuming tasks not
easy to manage. Therefore working procedures have
been developed specially for executing the structural
design tasks (Fig. 11).

working within common project management framework and utilizing state of the art modeling and analysis
software. The team utilizes a 3D product model common with other disciplines and a full range of FEA and
sea-keeping programs. The product model allows for
direct interfacing between the structural design and
other disciplines. Direct data transfer from the product
model to the FEA systems improves the efficiency and
model quality. Structural analysis programs and procedures are tuned to the requirements throughout the different project phases.
A management system and adapted working procedures
have been implemented supporting the use of sophisticated numerical analyses within a safety oriented FPSO
design project.

References

Fig. 11:

Concept for managing FPSO structural design.

Structural analysis plan is a project specific document

produced during the early project stage or even in bidding phase. It incorporates the rule and project design
basis requirements into a project specific description of
the design conditions, design load specifications and
resulting analysis tasks. It combines the lessons learned
from previous projects into the modeling and analysis
approaches applied for the project. Developing the analysis plan in close co-operation with the client and class
guarantees a good starting point for the design analyses.
The analyses are documented utilizing a common document structure. It is equally important to document the
analysis models as well. This is realized through an
analysis log which also serves for the need for identifying the documented results with the analysis models.
The first revision of the analysis document includes a
more detailed description of the analysis task basing on
project design basis, Class rules and on the projects
Structural Analysis Plan. The best practice is to get
client approval for this revision at least on informal
basis before entering into the laborious modeling and
analysis tasks.
During the analysis execution the discipline management needs to follow the progress and review intermediate results as a routine. The structural analysis and
design need to interact, sometimes on a daily basis. The
decisions made on structural design must consider effects on other disciplines as well and not forgetting the
manufacturing aspects.

Conclusions
The FPSO hull structural design concept introduced
consists of an experienced designer and analyst team

ABS (2001). SafeHull-Dynamic Loading Approach

for Floating Production, Storage and Offloading
(FPSO) Systems.
ABS (2003). Guide for the fatigue assessment of offshore structures.
ABS (2008). Guide for building and classing floating
production installations.
DNV (2002). Structural design of offshore ships,
Recommended practice DNV-RP-C102.
DNV (2003). Fatigue assessment of ship structures,
Classification note no. 30.7, pp. 129.
DNV (2004). Structural design of offshore ships,
Offshore standard DNV-OS-C102.
DNV (2004a). Design against accidental loads, Recommended practice DNV-RP-C204.
DNV (2005). Safety principles and arrangements,
Offshore standard DNV-OS-A101.
DNV (2008). Fatigue design of offshore steel structures, Recommended practice DNV-RP-C203.
Hachmann, D (1991). The Calculation of Pressures on
a Ships Hull in Waves, Schiffstechnik, Vol 38.
Lilleme, I (2009). Fatigue load assessment procedure
for floating production storage and offloading unit,
Diploma Thesis, Espoo, pp. 70.
Liu, D, and Spencer, J et al. (1992). Dynamic Load
Approach in Tanker Design, Transactions SNAME,
Vol 100.
Lloyds Register (2008). Rules and regulations for the
classification of a floating offshore installation at a
fixed location.
Mazerski, G., Mikkola. T.P.J. & Ajanko, R. (2010).
Integrated approach to hydrodynamic analysis in
design of offshore floating structures, paper to be
presenter at PRADS 2010 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Mikkola, T.P.J., Silvola, Arjava, J.-P., Ajosmki, A. &
Kukkanen (2003). Fatigue Design of Offshore
Floating Structures, Proceedings of 13th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference,
Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A., May 25.-30.