Proceedings Tuesday 12th April

Proceedings for the 16th North Sea Offshore Cranes & Lifting

Conference 12th ‐14th April 2011 Stavanger, Norway.

Remember to check our web site www.liftingoffshore.comit will be continuously updated for next years conference in

Aberdeen 24th – 26th April 2012

Wednesday 13th April

Table of Contents, Wednesday 13th April

Heavy Lifting in 2,500 m water depth, Henk de Boo van Uijen,Design, construction and commissioning of a heavy lift offshore crane, Arjo van Putten, Flexible load handling solutions for multi purpose vessels, Tønnes Seierstad

Page 3Page 27Page 76

New risk based bolt maintenance procedures – improved reliability/reduced life cost of offshore cranes, Rod Corbett Special engineered bolts for critical joints in the lifting industry, Ragnar SandveLifting and handling remote monitoring and diagnostic solutions, Aaron J. Spak W A RFID inspection system the new Crosby Quic ‐ Check, inspection and identification system , Frédéric CrynenTemporary lifting facilities for the BP Magnus crane replacement, Gordon Mccombie

Page 95

Page 120Page 143

Page 169Page 192

Mob‐boat handling with offshore cranes – combination of design parameterTor RaknestangenTraining & competence in crane transfer operations; the importance of being prepared, David BrittanLifting persons with carriers suspended from offshore cranes application of European commission guidance document, Gunnar Matre

Page 227

Page 246

Page 297

Reception given by the municipality of Stavanger in the Stavanger Maritime Museum Local beer tasting program with small tapas

Page 324

ProgramMonday 11th April

12:00 Rigging of stands/booths at Stavanger Forum

From 14:00 check‐in Rica Forum Stavanger hotel

15:30 Surprise tour with bus from Stavanger Forum

18:00 Meeting in the Organising Committee, meeting room “Feistein”

20:00 Get together at Rica Forum Restaurant 21st floor

Remember to check our web site www.liftingoffshore.com it will be continuously updated with photos and program changes

ProgramTuesday 12th April

Morning session Chair: Svein Anders Eriksson

‐ 09:30 Welcome to Stavanger! Sissel Knutsen Hegdal, Stavanger city

‐ 09:40 Opening address Øyvind Tuntland, Petroleum Safety Authority

Headline; Regulatory/Safety

‐ 10:00 OMHEC Update, Arnold V. de Groot

‐ 10:15 HSE focus, Iain Paterson

‐ 10:35 Coffee / CraneExpo

Todays programTuesday 12th April

Headline: Regulatory/Safety‐ 11:05 Perspectives;

What could we learn from an incident Arnold V. de Groot

‐ 11:25 PSA focus, Svein Anders Eriksson

‐ 12:00‐13: 00 Lunch / CraneExpo

Remember to check our web site www.liftingoffshore.comit will be continuously updated with photos and program changes

Speaker

Sissel Knutsen Hegdal,

Chair of Local Board for Culture and Sport, Stavanger Municipality

Speaker

Øyvind Tuntland, Director professional competence, Petroleum Safety Authority, NO

PTIL/PSA

Opening address

Øyvind TuntlandDirector professional competence

PSA Norway

[email protected]

12h – 14th April 2011

The 16th North SeaOffshore Cranes and Lifting Conference

PTIL/PSA26.04.2011

2

• From 2000 to 2005, a 75 % reduction in yellow and red lifting incidents was achieved by the industry

• No fatalities for the last six years

Status NCS - spring 2011

All installations: Incidents in degree of seriousness “red" and “yellow"

0

50

100

150

200

250

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

No. of inciden

ts

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

25,0

30,0

35,0

Million work ho

urs

“Red" incidents“Yellow" incidentsMillion working hours

PTIL/PSA26/04/2011

3

Overall trend – new developments (?)

• Since 2007 the number of lifting incidents with a high potential for serious injury to personnel and to property have increased

All installations: Incidents in degree of seriousness “red" and “yellow"

0

50

100

150

200

250

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

No. of inciden

ts

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

25,0

30,0

35,0

Million work ho

urs

“Red" incidents“Yellow" incidentsMillion working hours

• According to some major operators, about 80 % of the lifting incidents are related to lifting operations in the drilling area

Where does it end if the newtrend is not stopped?

???

PTIL/PSA

One (very) recent incident to illustrate the new trend• A slip joint was in the process

of being lowered from vertical to horizontal position at the catwalk.

• The bails were forced 45 degrees against the elevator link blocks which broke, hence the bails were forced further out of the lifting lugs of the elevator.

• The slip joint (weighing 23 tonns) fell approx. 4 meters.

• The slip joint first hit the load rest. The riser spider, before falling to the drill floor, fell against the drillers cabin before stopping.

PTIL/PSA

Center latch elevator incident -consequences

• The load rest to the left of the slip joint was hit and jumping directly towards the signaller (flagman/lift leader) before it hit the tongue post, changed direction and stopped

• Actual consequences were material damages only

• Potential consequence could have been a fatality

PTIL/PSA

What is common to the drilling lifting incidents?

• Poor identification of operational hazards • Poor design, i.e. the special drilling lifting gear is not inherently

safe and needs to be improved to meet modern safety standards

• Difficult or impossible to verify correct locking• User information poor or not present• The lifting tools are not identified as lifting equipment and

treated as such (planning, inspection, certification, maintenance)

• Poor planning management and supervision• Some of the special drilling lifting gear have been designed

and manufactured in accordance with API 8C, now EN ISO 13535

PTIL/PSA

The industry challenge…

• All elevators should be made inherently safe by design

• Harmonized standards should be developed for all drilling lifting tools based on the principles of EN ISO 12100 1&2

o The work of CEN TC 147 WG 21 for updating of EN 13155 to include manual and mechanically operated elevators is very promising

• Remote controlled elevators (mechanical) should be used for lifting of all sizes of conductors

PTIL/PSA

The industry challenge …

• All special lifting equipment (hoisting tools) in the drilling area must be identified

• The operator and drilling contractor must establish a safe system of work and make sure the drilling hoisting tools satisfy regulatory requirements for lifting equipment

• A systematic review and risk analysis should be carried out for all special drilling lifting equipment

• The special lifting equipment should be modified or changed out according to the results from the analysis

PTIL/PSA

Let the good safetyinitiatives grow!

I wish youa good conference!

Speaker

Arnold V. de Groot, Inspector Operations, State Supervision of Mines (SSM), NL & Chairman of OMHEC

Arnold de Groot

Senior inspector SSM

OMHEC Chairman

Stavanger 12-4 2011

Guidance!On:

Safety Exchange of

information Harmonizing Documents NSOAF

Members;UK, Norway, Denmark,the Netherlands.Regulators, industry andClassification societies.

OMHEC guidance documents

OMHEC guidance on communications. OMHEC guidance for training standard. OMHEC maintenance guidance document. OMHEC standard for enterprise of

competence.

Present OMHEC workgroups Mapping of regulations on MOU’s. Lifting of Personnel offshore. Material handling in the drilling area.

Material handling in the drilling area

Why?????

Be aware and do not get caught by surprise!

The battle for safe lifting?

Don’t get caught by routine!

Fort Eben Emael, Belgium 1939Eben Emael was a giant fortress.17 bunkers from various types. Total firepower: 2100 kg. a minute. An impressive piece of Belgium defense. Inside this fortress, 60 meter under the top, underground barracksfor 1.200 soldiers. Military experts from various countries agreed that this fortress was one of the strongest in Europe.

To concur this fortress was impossible!

The fall

Underpunkter

• Guess how much time the Germans needed to get control of the fortress?

• Answer: 15 minutes and a crew of 71!

The fortress strength was its weakness!

To convinced of their own strength (laid-back).

Design based on WO I.

No studies or analyzes on new threads.

Artillerists not trained for man to man battle.

The bottom line was that the fortress failed on organization, technology and human skills.

The fortress was NOT sound!

Integrity is not about your strength but about knowingyour weak links!

Be aware and do not get caught by routine!

Know your weak spots!

Lifting operations are like good sex;

It should never be a routine!

www.OMHEC.org

Guidance by

Speaker

Iain Paterson, Health and Safety Executive HSE, UK

16th North Sea Offshore Cranes and Lifting Conference

HSE regulatory perspective

Iain PatersonTeam Leader – Materials & Mechanical Engineering Offshore DivisionHealth & Safety Executive

[email protected]

16th North Sea Offshore Cranes and Lifting Conference©Talisman







Prohibition Notice Remove persons from the ‘danger area’ during lifting operations

Immediate enforcement action





Prosecution of TalismanHSW S3£225,000 fine

Prosecution of Scaldis HSW S3 £18,750 fine

23 September 2010

Enforcement action


www.hse.gov.uk


Load testing


Load testing


The review of the broader issues surrounding the loss of RAF Nimrod MR2 aircraft XV230 in Afghanistan in 2006 by Charles Haddon-Cave QC

17.24 PowerPoint can, however, be dangerous, mesmerising, and lead to sloppy (or nil) thinking”

Final thought …..

Speaker

Arnold V. de Groot, Inspector Operations, State Supervision of Mines (SSM), NL & Chairman of OMHEC


What could we learn from an incident with a snubbing unit?

A.V. de GrootSenior Inspector State Supervision of mines

12 -4 2011


Safe lifting after Macondo

Why do we still need focus on lifting?


Risk = probability x consequencesLow risk estimate?

probability > consequences >


A satellite platform (Dutch sector) / 9 May 2010

Connected with Seafox 4 > 100 personnel on

board

well work over / hydraulic snubbing unit

miss operation / 50m tubing blows out life well

tubing penetrates two deck levels and snapped

off a two inch nozzle on a gas riser

3000 Nm3 released in 90 minutes






Failed barriers:

Design (was not fail safe), Equipment maintenance,Management of change,Procedures,Planning (and preparation for emergencies),Competence assurance ,Supervision.


The snubbing risks were identified but:

Low probability, severe consequence scenariosshould have triggered more mitigation andcontrols (including Emergency Response).

Snubbing operations on a live well were treatedas routine operations.

Risk = probability x consequences

Lifting over life process

Lifting over life process


Personal safety versus process safety

Will your process be safe by wearing a hard hat?


Maintenance Competence

Focus on your primary process!


LTI as indicator for safety on the installation?Ask for backlog on preventive maintenance and the amountof curative work orders!

The best contribution to real safety is to performyour job perfect!

Your equipment in perfect condition, perfect level of competence an planning.

Resulting in a perfect (Safe) execution.


Questions?

www.sodm.nl

Speaker

Svein Anders Eriksson, Discipline leader,

Petroleum Safety Authority, NO

PTIL/PSA

PSA focus

Svein Anders Eriksson Discipline leader

Logistics and Emergency Preparedness, PSA Norway

[email protected]

27h – 29th April 2010

The 15th North SeaOffshore Cranes and Lifting Conference

PTIL/PSA26.04.2011

2

4. Training and competence

1. Planning, selection and control of equipment

3. Risk assessment

2. Manangement oflifting operations

5 Supervision

PSA focus based on NSOAF lifting audit results

PTIL/PSA26.04.2011

3

Industry and regulatory focus is still needed on ---

Drilling lifting

equipment

PTIL/PSA

Some drilling hoisting tools …

PTIL/PSA

What is common to the drilling lifting incidents?

• Poor identification of operational hazards • Poor design where the drilling lifting gear were

not inherently safe and needed to be improved to meet modern safety standards

• Most of the drilling lifting gear have been designed and manufactured in accordance with API 8C, now EN ISO 13535

PTIL/PSA

Lack of inherentlysafe design measures

Lack of technical protective measures

Lack of information toexposed persons

Accidents and

incidents

“Swiss cheese” model

Safe design of machinery EN ISO 12100 part 1&2 (safe design of machinery)

Lack of general principles for safe design are root causes for accidents and incidents

Other issues

PTIL/PSA

One challenge – non-harmonizedstandard: EN ISO 13535

• As a result of the shortcomings of ISO 13535 (former API 8C) and the findings during our past and current investigation, PSA has launched an international market surveillance program on manually operated elevators made according to EN ISO 13535

• This program is supported by DEA in Denmark, HSE in the UK and SMM in the Netherlands

PTIL/PSA

DNV study for PSA

• Det Norske Veritas AS (DNV) has been requested by PSA to perform an evaluation of the locking mechanism on some manually operated side door elevators.

• DNV concluded that the locking mechanisms with “safety pin” did not give sufficient risk reduction effect compared to inherently safe design measures. Hence, the elevators do not fulfil the principles of safety integration given in Annex I part 1.1.2 in the Machinery Directive 98/37/EC.

PTIL/PSAWorkshop Brussels 22 March 2011

PTIL/PSA

The needs for standards from a regulatory authority’s point of view

• To set the level of safety in standards• To allow for a goal setting approach• To cover developments in technology• To provide predictability for enforcement from

regulators and for industry• To encourage safety by compliance on a

voluntary basis and to incorporate best practices

Workshop Brussels 22 March 2011

PTIL/PSA

WG1 Terminology and harmonisationWG2 Crane Safety – Design ‐ General

WG3 Crane Safety – Design – Requirements for equipmentWG4 Crane Safety – Requirements for health and safety

WG5 Crane Safety – Requirements for inspection and safe use

CEN TC147 Crane safety

26 April 2011Workshop on

11

TC147

WG11

Mob

ile crane

s

WG18

Loader crane

s

WG19

WG20

Hand

ope

rated cranes

WG12

Tower crane

s

WG13

Slew

ing jib

crane

s

WG14

Bridge and

gantry

WG15

Offsho

re crane

s

WG16

Floatin

g cranes

WG17

Winches and

hoists

WG22

Manipulating de

vices

WG21

Non

fixed attachmen

ts

PTIL/PSA

The way forward sofare in CEN

• The Machinery Working Group of the EU Commission has given CEN TC 147/WG 21 “Non-fixed load lifting attachments” a mandate to establish a harmonized standard for elevators

• Such requirements could be incorporated into EN 13155:2003/A1:2005, Cranes - Non-fixed load lifting attachments, last cited in OJ C 336 (2005-12-31).

PTIL/PSA

Possible strategy to develop a C-standard for elevators

Start with EN ISO 13155 (Harmonised C‐standard for similar products)

Use existing ANSI/API 8C/ISO 13535‐2002 for identification of basic global requirements for such products

Identify requirements that possibly could had prevented recent incidents and accidents

Apply the MD ESHRs through EN ISO 12100‐1 and ‐2 (A standard on machine safety) and identify requirements for elevators by risk assessment

1)

2)

3)

4)

Amend EN ISO 13155 to adress elevators with requirements from 2) , 3) and 4), including hazard list and verification methods

5)

PTIL/PSA

If harmonised standards like EN ISO 12100 part 1&2 are not followed, the risk of damage to personell, fatalities or major accidents and are higher

PTIL/PSA

Safer products = less risk The key to safe drilling hoistingtools

Presumptionofcomformity

Compliancewith EHSRs

PTIL/PSA

Program part twoTuesday 12th April

Afternoon session Chair: Iain Paterson Headline; IMPROVEMENTS AND NEW TECHNOLOGYY

13:00 Case Study – Use of real time crane simulator for presimulationand training, Bård E. Bjørnsen

13:30 Design, construction and operation of offshore cranes for thewind turbine installation market, Michiel Mol

14:15 Coffee break / CraneExpo14:45 Re‐evaluation of dnv simplified formulae for crane tip

motions, Xiaoming Gu 15:30 Improved safety in bulk operations offshore, Jon Olav Kopperstad

16:10 End of day one with closing remarks, questions and reflections

Speaker

Bård E. Bjørnsen

Ship Manoeuvring Simulator Centre AS

Case Study: Use of real time crane simulator for presimulationand training for Technip Ekofisk HPS Installation

Authors: Bård E. Bjørnsen, Ship Manoeuvring Simulator Centre AS André Eilertsen, Technip NOKnut Johan Nedrelid, Technip NO

The 16th North SeaOFFSHORE CRANES & LIFTING CONFERENCEStavanger 12th – 14th April 2011

Contents

• Introduction to the Project• Challenges due to the HPS Footprint• Description of the SMS Simulator• Presimulation, Training and Offshore Installation• Summing up

2

3

Introduction to the project

Project backgroundHPS weight and dimensions

Installation vessel Skandi Arctic

4

Project background

► Project background• Ekofisk 2/4VA SSWI Project – HPS & SPS Installation• Part of the Greater Ekofisk Area Development Project• Operator/Client: ConocoPhillips• Waterdepth: 78m

Ekofisk

5

HPS weight and dimensions

►Host Protection Structure (HPS)• Dry weight incl. rigging and water filled top frame = 210.0 [Te]• Submerged weight: 140.0 [Te]• LxBxH = 31.2x31.2x9.5 [m]

6

Installation vessel Skandi Arctic

► Skandi Arctic – main dimensions• Length over all: 156.9 [m]• Length BP: 137.7 [m]• Breadth: 27.0 [m]

7

Challenges due to HPS footprint

Crane capacity and lifting heightSea fastening arrangement

Deck handling during overboarding

8

Crane capacity and lifting height

►Crane capacity• Minimum required radius for overboarding: 24.0 [m]• Static weight of HPS close to the crane capacity

9

Crane capacity and lifting height

►Rigging design• 10Te crane block must be landed on deck• Lifting height at R = 24.0m did not allow slings

long enough to connect rigging besides HPS• Solution: remove minimum 2 off hatches and

lower hook/slings through roof of HPS• Final decision to remove 4 off hatches for

increasing weather criterion to Hs,ops = 2.0m• Dry weight of structure (water filled): 180.0 Te

10

Sea fastening arrangementHPS Structure

SPS Structure

Outriggers VLS

T1

T3 T2

HPS roof hatches

11

Sea fastening arrangement

►Design of outriggers• Outriggers extending 8.5m outside vessel port side• Designed to withstand impact with waves over entire length during transit• Lifting height further reduced due to height of outriggers/grillage

12


►Use of crane tugger winches• Primary tool for controlling the overboarding• Not possible to utilize from lift-off position due to:

- HPS top frame located too close to crane pedestal- sheaves being fixed (no swivel)

13


►Use of crane tugger winches• Structure should be square to crane boom for crane tuggers to be effective• Safe distance between HPS top frame and crane pedestal• Plan for lifting the structure into this position in a controlled manner?

14


►Use of crane tugger winches• Solution: use of 4.0m high bumpers to rotate the structure around one leg• Lift HPS 3.0m off deck, rotate/boom out to R = 24.0m• Take up slack in crane tuggers before lifting HPS to 5.0m off deck and out of bumpers

15


►Bumpers for rotation of HPS• Height of bumpers: 4.0m• Marking applied at 3.0m as visual reference for crane driver during rotation/boom out• Bumpers located in the middle between overtrawlable fins/mudmat supports

16


►Use of tagging towers• 3 off tagging towers included as contingency for overboarding• T1 used to initiate rotation of structure, and as hold-back until crane tuggers tensioned• For the remaining part of the overboarding, T1-T3 used only to follow the load

Description of the SMS Simulator

Ship simulator Crane simulator

Relevant projects

17

3 full mission Ship Simulators

18

2 Crane simulators

19

Training courses

• Plattform crane• Subsea crane• Joint crane and ship simulation training

20

Crane simulator control room;Instruction, Engineering and Communication

21

Deck Operator

22

Subsea lifting operation training course

23

Technip – Presimulating lift off ”tie-in spool piece”

24

Simulator model

25

Presimulation, Training and Offshore Installation

Simulator picturesInstallation pictures

Lesson learnt

26

Connection of rigging to crane block

• Crane block lowered through roof of the structure with 1 off crane tugger attached

• Crane block lowered through roof of the structure with 1 off crane tugger attached

• Crane tugger reconnected to HPS top frame by use of man riding basket

27

Overboarding step 1

• Lift HPS to 3.0m above deck• T1: take up slack

28

Overboarding step 2

• Rotate HPS around aft STBD leg/boom out to R = 24.0m• T1: follow the load• Take up slack in crane tuggers

29

Overboarding step 3

• Lift HPS to 5.0m above deck and out of bumpers• Adjust orientation of HPS with crane tuggers

30

Overboarding step 4

• Slew the crane at constant radius• Start taking up slack with T2 once leg is clear of the crane pedestal

31

Overboarding step 5

• Slew the crane at constant radius• Follow the load with T1 and T2

• Slacken off T1 before wire interferring with the crane pedestal

• Follow the load with T2 and T3

32

Overboarding step 6

• Structure 90° to vessel side in position for lowering through the splash zone

33

Lowering through splash zone

• Crane tuggers kept tensioned until structure in the water • Crane tuggers slackened off

34

35

Lessons learned from simulator exercises

• Familiarising crane driver/deck foreman with the project -> feedback

• Optimize position for winches and tagging towers on deck

• Visualisation useful for detection of clash/snag points

• Video presentation for information and briefing purposes

36

In addition: Test lift during mobilisation

► Test lift with all wires connected• Familiarisation of crane driver and deck crew• Final check to ensure no clash/snag points• Good to use video for discussion and briefing/familiarisation of crew

37

Summing up

38

Summary

► Training and familiarisation• Simulation is real time and reasonable realistic, • Simulation is valuable tool for understanding and planning the job• Simulator training is a first approach for familiarisation• On board Test lift is important for familiarisation of deck crew• Simulator Visualization/video is of great value for briefing personnel onboard

39

Thank you!

Speaker

Michiel Mol, Expert Engineers, GustoMSC, NL

Background: Technical University Delft, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Specialization in Transport Technology, Graduated (Masters) May 1998. Present occupation GUSTOMSC, Schiedam, Product Development Department, expert engineer. Involved in Wind Turbine Installation

Cranes, Pipe Laying Systems, Heavy Lifting Equipment, J‐lay systems, Offshore removal transport.Presentation: Design, Construction and operation of offshore cranes for the wind turbine installation market

GustoMSC

Design, Construction and operation of offshore cranes for the

Wind Turbine Installation market

Michiel Mol

The 16th North Sea Offshore Cranes & Lifting Conference

Stavanger, 12th April 2011

page 2

Equipment for offshore Wind Turbine Installation

Goal of Presentation

Introduction to Offshore Wind

Equipment for offshore WTI

Integrated design

Developments

Please ask

page 3


Contents of presentation

GustoMSC Offshore WTI Crane & vessel design Developments Conclusion

page 4

SBM Offshore Group

SBM Offshore NVGustoMSC (501)

SBM GroupOperationsOffice / WW (2141)SBM- Atlantia

(736)

Houston

Schiedam

Monaco

Total number of employees: over 5100 representing 38 nationalities

SBM Malaysia(280)

Kuala Lumpur

page 5

SSCV Hermod, Heerema (5,000 + 4,000 t) * HLV Oleg Strashnov, Seaway Heavy Lifting (5,000 t) - 2011 DCV Balder, Heerema (4,000 + 3,000 t) *, incl. fly-jib DPV 7500, COOEC (4,000 t) - 2010 SSCV DB 101, McDermott (ex-Narwhal, 3,500 t) * DB 52, McDermott (ex-Thor, 2,000/3,000 t) * Titan 1, 2*, 3 and 4 (600/800 t) Stanislav Yudin, Seaway Heavy Lifting (2,500 t) * Ispolin (1,200 t) Kuroshio (2,500 t) * Daiichi Yutakago, Moricho (1,500 t) Svanen, Ballast Nedam (8,200 t) * Swing Thompson (1,200 t) Pacific Horizon (1,000 t) * MPI Adventure (1,000 t) - 2011 MPI Discovery (1,000 t) - 2011 Wind Lift 1, BARD (500 t) - 2009 ARB-3, Saudi Aramco (550 t) - 2010 Brave Tern, Fred. Olsen Windcarrier (800 t) - 2012 Bold Tern, Fred. Olsen Windcarrier (800 t) - 2012 Seajacks Zaratan, SEAJACKS (800 t) - 2012 NG-9000C-HPE, Drydocks World (800 t) - 2012 Sea installer, A2SEA (800 t) - 2012

GustoMSC cranes

Tomorrow presentation!

page 6

Wind Turbine Installation

Exploration Construction Production

Jack-up

Semi-submersible

Vessel

GustoMSC Construction units

page 7




page 8

Getting started;„Just do it‟ with the tools available.

SEA-1250 “Buzzard (1982), Photo courtesy Deme / GeoSea : GustoMSC designed jack-up Buzzard

Present installation methods

page 9

And it works!Speed & project risk

Photo courtesy Deme / GeoSea : GustoMSC designed jack-up Buzzard

SEA-1250 “Buzzard (1982) and SEA-900 “Vagant” (1995),


page 10

Offshore Wind Turbine

Foundation: mono pile, tri-pod, jacket etc transition piece

Topside: tower Turbine: nacelle, hub, rotor blades

Installation with a jack-up


page 11

Mono pile & transition piece

Photos courtesy Mammoet


page 12

Steel tower

Photo courtesy Mammoet

Guides & bumpers?


page 13

Nacelle installation

Vagant


page 14

Nacelle


page 15

Hub and blades

Photo‟s courtesy A2Sea, MPI


page 16


MPI Resolution

JB-114

Stanislav Yudin

Buzzard and VagantSvanen

JB-114

Stanislav YudinStanislav Yudin

Buzzard and VagantBuzzard and VagantSvanenSvanen

Buzzard and Vagant

Thialf

page 17

Projected Development

Data collected in February 2010 Source: EWEA, European Wind Energy Association, Pure Power, p.47

Annual wind power installations EU(2000-2030)

2020

2010

Offshore wind

page 18

„Existing‟ and „new‟ WTI Equipment

Crane capacity increaseMany (dedicated) units entering the marketGustoMSC significant position as integrated developer


page 19




page 20

WTI CRANE REQUIREMENTS

Lifting Lift capacity Load variation Lifting height Lifting speed

Operational conditions Wind load Floating capabilities Transit & survival

Accuracy No guides and bumpers

Load spectrum WTI frequent usage

Crane and vessel design

Dedicated WTI cranes

page 21

VESSEL REQUIREMENTS

Vessel loading capacity, jacking height Loading capacity & area Water depth Number of legs Crane position

Environmental conditions Sailing Jacking Survival

Sailing speed Cycle time Vessel design

Load spectrum Frequent use of jacking system


page 22

Integrated design of vessel, jacking system and crane

Global Hull FEA


Photo slides

Photo slides

page 25

Improved deck efficiency: Long crane boom Limited deck space Minimum radius Crane obstructed by jack-up leg

Solution: „CRANE AROUND LEG‟

Consequence: Crane load in jack house Crane and jack house integration Interface is very important Minimize risk; one responsible party Cost


page 26


Jacking system loads during crane operation

Can be governing to be checked

Survival Wave Operational Wave + Crane

page 27


page 28

What‟s new?

1968 two GustoMSC Cranes Around Leg on board “Cowrie One” (SHELL)

What‟s new?


page 29


1000 t crane for MPI

800 t Leg crane

500 t cranefor Bard

page 30




page 31

Courtesy: NREL

WTI development

page 32

300 nautical miles300 nautical miles

UK plans for 2020 (Round 3)

WTI development

page 33

Jacket foundation development?Feeder concepts?

Foundation Installers?Water depth?

Photos courtesy RePower

Beatrice 2 x 5 MW @ ± 42 m water depth

WTI development

page 34

WTI developmentWater depth 60 - 70 mLift capacity 1200 ton

12 m chord legGLC-1200X-ED

Lift-off functionality

page 35

WTI development

Lift-off functionality

page 36

WTI development

Lift-off functionality hoist speed A lift-off case study Crane stiffness Supply vessel particulars Hoist speed Heading Hs/Tp Hook-on DAF Reaction time Automation level

page 37

Onboard Wave and Motion Estimation (OWME)Motion prediction 60 seconds aheadImprove Lift-off performance

Joint Industry Development Project (SBM involved)

WTI development

page 38

Floating wind farms in water depths of 60 m and deeper

Floating wind

WTI development

page 39

WTI Maintenance

Limited loadFull heightLimited deck space requiredReversed Installation & component exchangeCost effective solutions required

WTI development

page 40

Turbine Installation in one piece

WTI development

•Single use vessel•Supply chain management (investments)•Complexness/proven concept•Cost effectiveness

GustoMSC proposal, 2002 Based on XY cantilever system

page 41




page 42

Presentation conclusion

WTI is becoming a mature market.

WTI units have converged

Majority is self-propelled jack-up, 6 -10 turbines, 800 - 1000 t crane.

It is essential to properly balance vessel, jacking unit and crane.

Crane Around The Leg concept improves deck efficiency and crane operations

Separation foundation and turbine installation

Development directions not easy to predict

Cost effectiveness is crucial.

page 43


Questions?

Thank you for your attention

www.GustoMSC.com

Speaker

Xiaoming Gu IKM Ocean Design AS

Background: He has 12 years of academic and industry experience in Civil/Structure engineering. He obtained his first degree in Civil Engineering from Southeast University, Nanjing, China in 1998 and PhD in Structure Engineering from

Nanyang Technological University, Singapore in 2005. Before started in IKM Ocean Design AS, Stavanger in 2007, he had been working in China and Singapore as an engineer in industry and a researcher in the university. He is currently a

Senior Structure Engineer and mainly working on subsea structure design and analysis.Presentation: Re‐evaluation of DNV simplified formulae for crane tip motions

1

IKM OCEAN DESIGN

Zero injuries – an overall objective!

OPTIMALSOLUTIONS


Re-evaluation of DNV Simplified Formulae for Crane Tip Motions

By: Xiaoming Gu, Helge Nesse, Per R. Nystrøm

1. Why simplified formulae for crane tip motions are needed?

2. DNV simplified formulae

3. A comparison study

4. Proposed change on the formulae

5. Conclusions and limitations

Table of contents


Offshore lifting operation

• Highly weather dependentWind, wave, current...

• Vessel dependentSize, shape, COG, crane configuration...

• Lifting object dependentSize, shape, weight, position...

• ExpensiveNok 300.000/day ex. fuel, equipments and project personnel for a typical installation vessel in North Sea.



Hydrodynamic analysis

• To define an acceptable weather window for the selected installation vessel

• To widen the range of suitable installation vesselfor the selected operation season

• To provide load information for the lifting object design



By refined numerical analysis

• Pro (technically) Time domain Coupling of multibody system

• Con (economically) Overkilled for tendering stage or light lifting Complicated and time consuming

Source: http://www.sintef.no



Need for a simplified method

• Tendering stage

• Light lift for small size objects



Relevant DNV standards

• DNV Rules for Planning and Execution of Marine Operations, 1996 Part 2 Chapter 5- Lifting Part 2 Chapter 6- Sub Sea Operations

• DNV RP-H103, Modeling and Analysis of Marine Operations, 2010 Chapter 4- Lifting Through Wave Zone-Simplified Method



Input required for the simplified method

• Sea state Wave height Wave period

• Geometry of lifting objects Shape Project area on horizontal plane Perforation ratio Etc.

• Position of lifting objects Well above sea level Within splash zone Below surface

• Crane tip motions Vessel hydrodynamic characterisitcs (RAO) Vessel heading Crane boom configuration Stiffness of hoisting system

Information available

To be calculated



What to do with the crane tip motions?

• By refined numerical analysis?

or

• By simplified formulae?

My answer: Why go back to the numerical analysis if you have choosed to use a simplified method?



DNV formulae

• Part 2 Chapter 6 Section 2- Design Loads, DNV Rules for Planning and Execution of Marine Operations, 1996

• Chapter 4- Lifting Through Wave Zone-Simplified Method,DNV RP-H103, Modeling and Analysis of Marine Operations, 2010

• Chapter 9 Lifting Operations, Section 9.2- Light LiftsDNV RP-H103, 2010

Eq. 1

Eq. 2

Eq. 3

2. DNV simplified formulae

How about the formulae’s performance?


A comparison study

Comparison between results from

• Refined numerical analysis-Orcaflex

and

• Simplified formulae-Part 2 Chapter 6- Sub Sea Operations, DNV Rules for Planning and Execution of Marine Operations, 1996



Vessel data

Edda Flora

Courtesy of Østensjø Rederi AS



Vessel RAOSurge Sway Heave




Assumptions


• The duration of lowering through the wave zone is assumed 30 mins.

• Vessel heading 45 deg 0 degrees are waves from ahead while 90 degrees are waves from port

• Vessel speed 0 km/h



Results

Crane tip displacement

The crane tip displacement ct is underestimated by 10~35% using Eq. 1



Crane tip velocity

Results

The crane tip velocity vct is overestimated with a safety margin of 20~60% using Eq. 2 (the conservatism varies from 20% to 40% while Tz falls in a range between 6.5 s and 10.5 s, 60% is only for Tz=12.5 s)



Crane tip acceleration

Results

The crane tip acceleration act is overestimated with a safety margin by 40~200% using Eq. 3



A re-look at the formulae

Eq. 1

Eq. 2

Eq. 3

222 sinsin PRHct lb

222sinsin

2

P

P

R

R

H

Hct T

lT

bT

v

2

2

2

2

2

22 sinsin

4

P

P

R

R

H

Hct T

lT

bT

a



Proposed changes

Eq. 4

Eq. 5

Eq. 6

P

zP

R

zR

H

zHct T

TPl

TTP

bT

TP 222 sinsin

222sinsin

2

P

P

R

R

H

Hct T

lT

bT

v

2

2

2

2

2

22 sinsin4

PRH T

P

T

R

T

Hct P

lP

bP

a

4. Proposed changes


Results from modified formulae

Crane tip displacement

25~55% safety margin- Eq. 4

4. Proposed changes



Crane tip velocity

20~60% safety margin- Eq. 2/5

4. Proposed changes



Crane tip acceleration

25~65% safety margin- Eq. 6

4. Proposed changes


Conclusions

• A simplified method of hydrodynamic calculation is in need.

• The conservatism achieved by the DNV formulae for crane tip motion are not consistent

• The results obtained from the proposed formulae are conservative with a consistent safety margin

Limitations of this study

Only one vessel was investigated

5. Conclusions and limitations

25

Thanks!

Contact: [email protected]

Speaker

Jon Olav Kopperstad, Evotec AS , NO

Background: High school of technical college.Chief Mechanic, seismic research vessel, Geco Prakla, Mecanical Support Engineer, Geco Prakla Project Engineer (VDCG‐ vessel design & conversion group) Sales Manager Odim As, Sales & Marketing Manager Hydrakraft, Business Unit Manager, Odim Offshore Supply, SVP Marine Equipment, Evotec AS

Presentation: Bulk Hose Securing Unit (BHSU)

Offshore Cranes & Lifting ConferenceStavanger, 12th. – 14th. April 2011

Presentation by Jon Olav Kopperstad

BHSU Bulk Hose Securing Unit

26.04.2011 3

Content• BULK HOSE SECURING UNIT (BHSU)

• Introduction / background• Project participants• System description• Conclusion

Norsk Hydro’s Kick-Off meeting in Stavanger October 2003

Agenda: Safe Cargo Handling

Logistics on NCS in Statoil:

26.04.2011 5

Annual outbound deck tonnage : approx. 600.000

Annual outbound bulk tonnage : approx. 1.050.000

Numbers taken from Statoil presentation May 2010

North Sea Offshore rigs / plattforms (NCS)

26.04.2011 6

MODU’s: Approx. 40 units

Production units Approx. 58 units

Total no. of Offshore Units(NCS): approx. 100 units

Assumption:

26.04.2011 7

Every offshore units have one hose conection in average every day 100 connections every day

700 connections every week

2.800 connections every month

33.600 connections every year

An intensive and repeatedly handling operation.

Most of the major oil companies have expressed their intension to increase the safety level for this type of operation.

26.04.2011 8

Norsok Standard R‐002‐B1 “Bulk hose transfer stations on offshore installations shall be designed with hoses on power driven hose reels or similar, preferably with an automatic connection system on the supply vessel”

Norsok Standard R‐003 ‐ 6.1.8 Loading and un‐loading of Bulk

Rutiner for håndtering av bulkslanger mellom innretninger og forsyningsfartøy i Statoil

Guide-lines and procedures

26.04.2011 9

26.04.2011 10

Murphy's lawsIf something can go wrong it probably will.

So, why not be pro‐active.

It’s only a matter of time

BULK HOSE SECURING UNIT

26.04.2011 11

“Statoil contributes to improve safety in bulk operations offshore “

Statoil and Evotec formed in November 2009 a partnership through Statoil`s LOOP program. Statoil contributed financially in the development of Evomec` safety concept, "Bulk Hose Securing Unit" (BHSU).

The prototype is now installed and tested on the Eidesvik vessel "Viking Queen", and has been used in bulk operations since 1 December 2010.

Feedback from the personnel involved is positive. Use of BHSU both simplifies and improves the working conditions for crane operators and deck personnel in the handling of bulk hoses.

“Evomec`s BHSU‐system improves the safety during bulk operations offshore.”

26.04.2011 12

BHSU - Project main purpose

Develop a system which remove personnel from exposed areas during critical Bulk Hose Handling operations.

26.04.2011 13

BHSU - Project main design criteria BHSU - An automated Bulk Hose

Securing System• To remove personnel from exposed area

during Bulk Hose Handling.• Easy to retrofit on existing fleet• No adaption are required on rig side or

existing bulk hoses.• Handle various types and dimensions of

Bulk hoses.


26.04.2011 14

26.04.2011 15


26.04.2011 16

26.04.2011 17

26.04.2011 18

• The successfull prototype test-periode officially ended March 01-2011

• The BHSU is still in operation onboard Viking Queen.

• Already used in more then 100 hose connections.

26.04.2011 19

Statoil celebrated the occasion with marzipan cakeparty onboard Viking Queen together with ship-crew and representatives from Evotec.

26.04.2011 20

BHSU – Advantages discovered based on experience• Vessel can keep longer distance from rig.• Easier to receive/secure Bulk Hoses with

short hoses and/or small cranes.• Make Hose Handling less sensitive for

various weather conditions. • Easier for the Crane Operators to deliver

the hoses.• Easier to adjust to required length of hose

onboard vessel.• Simplify multi Bulk Hose handling.

Conclution

26.04.2011 21

BHSU - Project main achievements

Removed personnel from exposed areas during bulk hose handling.

26.04.2011 22

BHSU - Project main achievements

To a safe position with a good overview of the Bulk Hose Handling Operation.

Conclution

26.04.2011 23

Thank you for your attention !

Social program Tuesday 12th April

16:45 Bus transport from Stavanger Forum to the harbor. 1,5 – 2 hour boat trip with an aperitif, small tapas and some great surprises aboard in the

fjords. Conference dinner with a spectacular Norwegian cultural program inthe Hall of Gloppe, with a Norwegian Nymph and Peter Mitchell!

23:00 Bus back to night cap in Stavanger

Remember to check our web site www.liftingoffshore.com

Remember to check our web site www liftingoffshore com it w

A social happening, theconference on tour

The End 03:47