Patent Grant
9096987
The disclosure herein relates generally to compliant tower platforms for offshore drilling and production of mineral resources.
This section is intended to introduce various aspects of the art, which may be associated with exemplary embodiments of the present disclosure. This discussion is intended to provide a framework to facilitate a better understanding of particular aspects of the disclosure. Accordingly, it should be understood that this section should be read in this light, and not as admissions of prior art.
Offshore oil and gas production has been conducted from platforms secured to the ocean bottom for many years. In designing such platforms, engineers must understand the environmental forces that result both from offshore winds, waves, and currents, and from earthquakes. The wind, wave, and current storm condition that engineers consider in designing an offshore platform generally involves surface wave energy with a period in the nine to sixteen second range. On the other hand, earthquakes generally involve energy with a period in a range from zero to two seconds. To the extent possible therefore, engineers design offshore platforms with frequency responses outside of these two period ranges. This design focus of the engineering community can be referred to as “isolation,” or “detuning,” of the platform's response from environmental excitation.
Among the types of platforms that have been used in the offshore industry are Steel Piled Jackets (SPJs) and Compliant Towers (CTs). SPJs differ from CTs in the manner of the detuning of environmental energy from the response of the platform. The SPJ, a rigidly-designed structure, typically has a natural period in the approximate range of two to four seconds—substantially below the principal range of storm energy but above the range of earthquake energy. On the other hand, CTs, which are flexibly-designed structures, have a natural period in the approximate range of twenty to thirty seconds—substantially above the principal range of both storm energy and earthquake energy. Generally, SPJs are economically viable structures in water depths less than approximately 1,000 feet, whereas CTs are economically viable structures in water depths greater than approximately 1,000 feet.
The surface facilities of offshore platforms, referred to generally as the topsides or as the decks, are also subject to earthquake energy effects. In particular, the surface facilities of SPJs are subject to earthquake energy effects due to 1) the close relationship between the natural period of SPJs and the period range of earthquake energy; 2) the two part energy amplification to which such SPJ surface facilities are subjected, first via the propagation of the motion through the soil column system and second, through the interaction of the soil system with the SPJ structure; and 3) the further amplification of equipment response through surface facility module vibration. For all these reasons, among others, engineers continually search for mechanisms to isolate surface facilities from earthquake energy.
The earthquake excitation challenge has been previously addressed via methods of isolating the deck from the lower substructure of the SPJ. For example, the paper “Structural platform solution for seismic arctic environments—Sakhalin II offshore facilities”, Clarke, Buchanan, Efthymiou and Shaw, Proceedings of Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Tex., OTC 17378 (2005), proposes the use of a friction bearing to dynamically isolate the deck of a gravity-based concrete structure. However, the friction bearings depend on vertical load and hence vertical acceleration for effectiveness. This dependence may result in deck uplift, with a consequent risk of toppling or shearing of the deck due to excessive horizontal and vertical accelerations. In addition, surface friction deterioration of the bearings in the marine environment generally requires continuous monitoring and maintenance.
CTs are less significantly influenced by earthquake excitation, due to the nature of their design. CTs yield to excitation energy by oscillating around a bottom underwater section (or base) in a controlled inverted pendulum manner. This oscillation creates an inertial restoring force which opposes the applied forces. That restoring force may also be augmented using one or more alternatives such as guy lines, buoyancy tanks and pile assemblies. See, for example, U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,610,569-A, 4,696,601-A, and 4,696,603-A.
The earthquake-compliant offshore platform disclosed in WO/1998/058129-A is a substantially vertical, space-frame structure extending upwardly from the floor of the body of water to a point located above the surface of the body of water. The platform has foundation means for attaching the space-frame structure to the floor of the body of water and a deck structure attached to the upper end of the space-frame structure. The natural vibration period of the platform is designed to be greater than the primary excitation period of earthquake energy and less than the primary period of storm energy. As noted above, however, such designs are generally only economically feasible in relatively deep water, typically greater than approximately one thousand feet.
The foregoing discussion of need in the art is intended to be representative rather than exhaustive. There remains a need for improved ways of decoupling or isolating the deck of offshore platforms from the energy which results from earthquakes.
The present disclosure relates to a compliant deck tower comprising a working deck structure and at least one articulated leg, where the attachment point between the deck structure and each leg is flexible but stabilized, or stiffened, against rotational movement. Embodiments may for example employ universal joints or structural flex joints at the attachment points. The stabilization against rotational moment provides a restoration couple sufficient to establish a natural vibration period greater than the peak period range of earthquake energy but less than that of storm energy.
Embodiments of the present disclosure may also involve use of a sub-structure attached to the at least one leg and affixed to or partially submerged in the floor of a body of water. The contact points between the legs and the sub-structure may be by slender beams fixed within or upon said sub-structure. Such slender beams allow the attachment points to be flexible but stabilized, or stiffened, against rotational movement.
In a further embodiment, the compliant deck tower comprises a deck structure, two or more platform legs extending from the deck structure to the sea bottom, or to one or more base structures affixed on or within the sea bottom, and a plurality of isolation bearings supporting said deck structure on said platform legs. In this embodiment, a portion of the deck structure may extend below the horizontal plane of the contact points between the bearings and the deck structure.
The foregoing has outlined rather broadly the features and technical advantages of the present disclosure in order that the detailed description that follows may be better understood. Additional features and advantages will be described hereinafter which form the subject of the claims of the disclosure. It should be appreciated by those skilled in the art that the conception and specific embodiments disclosed may be readily utilized as a basis for modifying or designing other structures for implementing the purposes of the disclosure. It should also be realized by those skilled in the art that such equivalent constructions do not depart from the spirit and scope of the disclosure as set forth in the appended claims. The novel features which are believed to be characteristic of the disclosure, both as to its organization and method of operation, together with further objects and advantages will be better understood from the following description when considered in connection with the accompanying figures. It is to be expressly understood, however, that each of the figures is provided for the purpose of illustration and description only and is not intended as a definition of the limits of the present disclosure.
While the present disclosure is susceptible to various modifications and alternative forms, specific exemplary implementations thereof have been shown in the drawings and are herein described in detail. It should be understood that the description herein of specific exemplary implementations is not intended to limit the disclosure to the particular forms disclosed herein. This disclosure is to cover all modifications and equivalents as defined by the appended claims. It should also be understood that the drawings are not necessarily to scale, emphasis instead being placed upon clearly illustrating principles of exemplary embodiments of the present disclosure. Moreover, certain dimensions may be exaggerated to help visually convey such principles. Further where considered appropriate, reference numerals may be repeated among the drawings to indicate corresponding or analogous elements. The present disclosure and its advantages will therefore be better understood by referring to the attached drawings in which:
To the extent that the following detailed description is specific to a particular embodiment, however, this is intended to be illustrative only, and is not to be construed as limiting the scope of the disclosure.
Nomenclature and Notation
The words and phrases used herein should be understood and interpreted to have a meaning consistent with the understanding of those words and phrases by those skilled in the relevant art. No special definition of a term or phrase, i.e., a definition that is different from the ordinary and customary meaning as understood by those skilled in the art, is intended to be implied by consistent usage of the term or phrase herein. To the extent that a term or phrase is intended to have a special meaning, i.e., a meaning other than the broadest meaning understood by skilled artisans, such a special or clarifying definition will be expressly set forth in the specification in a definitional manner that provides the special or clarifying definition for the term or phrase.
For example, the following discussion contains a non-exhaustive list of definitions of several specific terms used in this disclosure (other terms may be defined or clarified in a definitional manner elsewhere herein). These definitions are intended to clarify the meanings of the terms used herein. It is believed that the terms are used in a manner consistent with their ordinary meaning, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, but the definitions are nonetheless specified here for clarity.
Battered support member: The term “battered support member” refers to the substructure of a platform in which the support members are designed to have an inclination angle relative to the seafloor that is not substantially vertical. Platforms with battered support members may otherwise be substantially similar to steel piled jackets, or may be, for example, gravity based structures.
Compliant tower: The term “compliant tower” refers to platforms which are flexibly designed to sustain significant lateral deflections and forces in response to environmental loads. Compliant towers are typically attached to the seafloor by a piled foundation in a manner similar to that described below for steel piled jackets.
Deck: The term “deck,” or “deck structure,” is used in the broad sense to mean the portion of an offshore platform that supports surface facilities and equipment above a water surface.
Gravity-based structure: The term “gravity-based structure” or “GBS” means a structure designed to remain on location primarily or only because the weight of the structure imposes sufficient loading on the seabed to render the structure safe from sliding or overturning. In some embodiments, a GBS may include caissons or other additional devices configured to provide additional means of securing the GBS to the seafloor, but will generally exclude the use of piles.
Platform: The term “platform” or “offshore platform” refers to the family of structures used in the oil and gas industry to develop and produce oil and gas from offshore fields. Platforms are generally bottom-founded structures, as opposed to floating structures.
Steel piled jacket (“SPJ”): The term “steel piled jacket,” or “SPJ,” is a type of platform designed to support substantial vertical load and to be resistant to lateral forces and moments resulting from environmental loads. The “jacket,” also referred to as the “substructure,” of the platform, is typically a space-frame structure fabricated from welded steel pipes with legs that are substantially vertically attached to the sea floor with steel piles. The steel piles are thick steel pipes which are driven either through jacket legs or through pile guides on the outer members of the jacket legs and penetrate into the sea bed.
Substructure: The term “substructure” refers to the portion of an offshore platform that extends from the seafloor, or optionally a base module placed on the seafloor, to the deck. The term “stiff substructure” refers to a substructure that is intended to resist, and not be compliant in response to, environmental forces. The term stiff substructure may for example be used in discussions related to steel piled jackets or gravity based structures.
Universal joint. The term “universal joint, ” and the similar terms, “U joint,” “Cardan joint,” “Hardy-Spicer joint,” and “Hooke's joint” is a joint in a rigid rod that allows the rod to ‘bend’ in any direction and that is commonly used in shafts that transmit rotary motion. It may consist, for example, of a pair of hinges located close together, oriented at 90° to each other, connected by a cross shaft.
Description
Reference will now be made to exemplary embodiments and implementations. Alterations and further modifications of the inventive features described herein and additional applications of the principles of the disclosure as described herein, such as would occur to one skilled in the relevant art having possession of this disclosure, are to be considered within the scope of the disclosure. Further, before particular embodiments of the present disclosure are disclosed and described, it is to be understood that this disclosure is not limited to the particular process and materials disclosed herein as such may vary to some degree. Moreover, in the event that a particular aspect or feature is described in connection with a particular embodiment, such aspects and features may be found and/or implemented with other embodiments of the present disclosure where appropriate. Specific language may be used herein to describe the exemplary embodiments and implementations. It will nevertheless be understood that such descriptions, which may be specific to one or more embodiments or implementations, are intended to be illustrative only and for the purpose of describing one or more exemplary embodiments. Accordingly, no limitation of the scope of the disclosure is thereby intended, as the scope of the present disclosure will be defined only by the appended claims and equivalents thereof
In the interest of clarity, not all features of an actual implementation are described in this disclosure. For example, some well-known features, principles, or concepts, are not described in detail to avoid obscuring the disclosure. It will be appreciated that in the development of any actual embodiment or implementation, numerous implementation-specific decisions may be made to achieve the developers' specific goals, such as compliance with system-related and business-related constraints, which will vary from one implementation to another. For example, the specific details of an appropriate computing system for implementing methods of the present disclosure may vary from one implementation to another. Moreover, it will be appreciated that such a development effort might be complex and time-consuming, but would nevertheless be a routine undertaking for those of ordinary skill in the art having the benefit of the present disclosure.
Conceptually, but without limitation, embodiments of the present disclosure isolate the deck of an offshore platform from energy which would otherwise be transferred to the deck from the substructure-soil system. The energy isolation results from the inverted pendulum compliant nature of the platform. The deck of the platform acts as the pendulum mass. The legs of the platform act as the pendulum string, via connections to both the deck and the substructure, with contact points at the top of the legs that permit swiveling in the horizontal direction, thus permitting deck motion. The restoring force for the pendulum is provided by structural elements that constrain the deck motion. Embodiments of the present disclosure may also use supplemental damping devices to augment the damping of the constraining structural elements.
The natural period of vibration of the inverted pendulum is a function of the deck's mass and elevation above the substructure, and the amount of rotational constraint provided by the structural elements. For a given deck mass, the deck's natural period can be moved away from, which may also be referred to as detuned from, the dominant period of the substructure-soil system by adjusting either or both of the deck height and the stiffness of the rotational constraints. For a compliant deck with four supporting legs and a uniformly distributed mass, the generalized equation representing this relationship is T=2 [{m (H*H+d*H/2)/4 Kr}]1/2, where T=natural period, m=mass of the deck, H=elevation of the deck bottom from the top of the substructure leg, d=height (or depth) of the deck from the deck bottom to the deck surface, and Kr=required rotational resistance per deck leg. For example, for a compliant deck tower with m=33,600 tons (30,000 metric tons), H=16.4 ft. (5 m), d=49.2 ft (15 m), and a target period of T=5 seconds, the required restoration moment Kr=545,796 kips·ft/rad (740 MNm/rad).
Although the deck's period is selected principally to achieve horizontal isolation, some degree of vertical isolation results from energy dissipation via the coupling of the horizontal and vertical motions through the deck's motion. Furthermore, the compliant deck tower's nature has the potential of decoupling the deck from such forces as ice load vibration and wave loading.
Embodiments of the present disclosure, such as depicted in
In addition, as noted above, some prior art structures depend on vertical load, and hence vertical acceleration, to isolate the horizontal stiffness that provides much of the detuning sought. In embodiments of the present disclosure, the restoring force is provided via axial or bending stiffness of structural elements, or both, and hence is substantially independent of vertical loads and accelerations.
Deterioration of deck-leg isolating structures can often occur at or near the surface of the body of water, for example by exposure to waves when the weather or surface friction deteriorates the exposed surfaces. Universal joints act with minimal surface friction, thus minimizing the impact such deterioration may have on overall system performance.
As noted above, and further exemplified by section 18 in
Universal joints, and any similarly operating U-joint, Cardan joint, Hardy-Spicer joint, or Hooke's joint, are well known in the industry and may be appropriately employed in embodiments of the present disclosure. Other connection means for achieving the energy isolation objectives of the present disclosure will be known to those skilled in the art, such as for example isolation bearings and friction dampers. See, for example, U.S. Pat. No. 7,419,145-B2.
The arrangement of the embodiment in
In another embodiment of the present disclosure, the compliant deck tower makes use of structural flex joints at the top, and optionally at the bottom, of the rigid support legs 12 to provide both rotational flexibility and restoring moment. These can be placed as illustrated for the universal joints 13 in
A computer simulation was carried out to demonstrate the deck isolation response characteristics of the embodiment of
In alternative embodiments of the present disclosure, deck isolation can be achieved by using horizontal isolation bearings that are supported at a level in proximity to the deck's vertical center of gravity so as to minimize deck overturning moment and deck uplift. For purposes of such embodiments “in proximity to” means that the bearing contact points are slightly above, at the same level, or slightly below, the vertical center of gravity of the deck structure. In an earthquake, vertical acceleration can reach one gravitational unit or higher. With such vertical acceleration, the use of isolation bearings alone could potentially result in toppling the deck—dumping the deck partially or entirely off the structure. In addition, the combination of vertical and horizontal acceleration could allow the structure to move with respect to the isolation bearings, and, in the extreme situation, to slide off the platform structure. Thus, locating a lower portion of the deck structure within a fixed support frame attached securely to the support legs, or fitted between the support legs themselves, provides additional horizontal stability.
More specifically,
In one embodiment for a four-legged platform substantially similar to the platform depicted in
While the techniques of the present disclosure may be susceptible to various modifications and alternative forms, the exemplary embodiments discussed above have been shown by way of example. It should again be understood that the disclosure is not intended to be limited to the particular embodiments disclosed herein. Indeed, the present disclosure includes all modifications, equivalents, and alternatives falling within the spirit and scope of the appended claims.
This application is the National Stage of International Application No. PCT/US2011/035712, filed 9 May 2011, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application 61/359,923 filed Jun. 30, 2010 entitled COMPLIANT DECK TOWER, the entireties of which are incorporated by reference herein.
| Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind | 371c Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PCT/US2011/035712 | 5/9/2011 | WO | 00 | 11/26/2012 |
| Publishing Document | Publishing Date | Country | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| WO2012/003044 | 1/5/2012 | WO | A |
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4152087 | Zaleski-Zamenhof et al. | May 1979 | A |
| 4191495 | Rivacoba et al. | Mar 1980 | A |
| 4389141 | Cumings | Jun 1983 | A |
| 4474508 | Vos et al. | Oct 1984 | A |
| 4474729 | Schoening et al. | Oct 1984 | A |
| 4610569 | Finn et al. | Sep 1986 | A |
| 4696601 | Davenport | Sep 1987 | A |
| 4696603 | Danaczko et al. | Sep 1987 | A |
| 4696604 | Finn et al. | Sep 1987 | A |
| 4717288 | Finn et al. | Jan 1988 | A |
| 4810135 | Davenport | Mar 1989 | A |
| 5553977 | Andersen et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
| 6299384 | Glasscock et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
| 6324795 | Stiles et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
| 6325566 | Devine | Dec 2001 | B1 |
| 6385918 | Robinson | May 2002 | B1 |
| 6955467 | Chang et al. | Oct 2005 | B2 |
| 6966154 | Bierwirth | Nov 2005 | B1 |
| 6971795 | Lee et al. | Dec 2005 | B2 |
| 7270186 | Johnson | Sep 2007 | B2 |
| 7419145 | Lee et al. | Sep 2008 | B2 |
| 20030068203 | Khachaturian | Apr 2003 | A1 |
| 20030099413 | Lee et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030223659 | Lee et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
| 20040131287 | Lee et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20050100253 | Chang et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
| 20060174555 | Zayas et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060193542 | Bradford et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060260221 | Kemeny | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20070044395 | Lu et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070220815 | Kemeny | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070261323 | Hubbard et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070283635 | Lee et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20090016822 | Maher et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090064798 | Xia | Mar 2009 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 62-165353 | Jul 1987 | JP |
| 05009921 | Jan 1993 | JP |
| 11-280024 | Oct 1999 | JP |
| 2000-249189 | Sep 2000 | JP |
| WO 9858129 | Dec 1998 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| Clarke, C.S.J., et al. (2005), “Structural platform Solution for Seismic Arctic Environments—Sakhalin II Offshore Facilities”, Proceedings of Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, OTC 17378. |
| Khurana, S. (1998), “Patents protect deepwater platform concepts”, Oil and Gas Journal Jun. 22, 1998. |
| Naeim, F., et al. (1999), “Design of Seismic Isolated Structures, From Theory to Practice”, John Wiley & Sons. |
| Maus, et al. (1986), “Platform Report—Exxon Study shows Compliant Piled Tower cost benefits”, Ocean Industry, March. |
| McNulty, A.J.W, et al. (2002), “New developments in the Design of Concrete Gravity Substructures”, Proceedings of Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, OTC 14189. |
| Will, S.A., (1999), “Design of the Baldpate Compliant Tower”, Proceedings of Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, OTC 10915. |
| Will, S.A., et al. (2006), “Benguela-Belize Compliant Piled Tower: Tower Design,” Proceedings of Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, OTC 18068. |
| PCT/US2011/035712, International Search Report, dated Aug. 18, 2011. |
| English (machine) translation of JP 62-165353 Abstract, 1 page. |
| English translation of JP 11-280024, 6 pages. |
| English translation of JP 2000-249189, 8 pages. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20130089379 A1 | Apr 2013 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 61359923 | Jun 2010 | US |
