The present application relates to systems and techniques for determining motion and stress in mooring lines or risers that are connected to a floating platform. More specifically, the application relates to systems and techniques for determining motion and stress in mooring lines or risers based on motion data that is acquired from multiple motion sensors that are installed above a water level on the floating platform.
In the past several decades, improvements in technology have enabled hydrocarbon resources to be extracted from offshore wells in ever-increasing water depths. Modern offshore oil platforms produce hydrocarbons from reservoirs located 25,000 to 30,000 feet or more beneath the water's surface and in water depths of 10,000 feet or more. Such platforms can accommodate large daily production rates of 150,000 to 200,000 or more barrels of oil and 40 million to 50 million or more cubic feet of natural gas. Offshore oil production accounts for approximately 30% of total global oil production and it is believed that this percentage will increase in coming years with continually improving deepwater drilling and production technologies.
While a semi-submersible platform is illustrated, there are several other types of floating oil platforms such as tension leg platforms; spar platforms; and monohull structures typically called floating production, storage, and offloading (FPSO) facilities. These types of floating platforms have slightly different structures, but they all perform the same general functions. These different types of floating platforms are necessary in deeper water where it is impractical to fix the platform to the sea floor with a rigid structure.
Oil platforms are complex structures that are typically designed with a relatively long service life (e.g., 30 or more years). Over its long life, the platform 100 is exposed to a number of external environmental excitations such as wind, waves, and currents. These excitations impart a motion in the platform, which, in turn, transfers that motion to connected structures such as risers 108 and mooring lines 110. Because these connected structures are fixed at each end, the imparted motions create stress, which can ultimately lead to failure. Failure of a mooring line 110 or riser 108 can have significant consequences such as a disruption in production, damage to platform equipment, and/or loss of containment of produced fluids. It is therefore critical to predict with reasonable certainty the response of the platform 100 to external excitations (wind, wave, current, etc.) and the resulting extreme and fatigue loading of the risers 108 and the mooring lines 110.
The present standard approach for evaluating the response of a platform to external excitations is to perform predictive and model analyses. Such analyses provide a reasonable estimate of the response of a platform to typical conditions at the platform's location (e.g., typical meteorological and nautical conditions) and to anomalistic events (e.g., hurricanes) that might be expected over the platform's service life. However, these types of predictive methods are inherently limited for the following reasons. Analytic predictive models are mathematical algorithms based on linear wave kinematic theories whereas waves in extreme seas are highly non-linear and extreme response of the platform can only be roughly approximated. Predictions based on scale model tests in a wave basin are also approximations of actual responses because the Reynolds Number non-linear effects cannot be properly scaled. In both cases the predictive models rely on hindcast metocean data which in themselves are approximate predictions of actual conditions the platform will encounter over its design life.
Some platforms are designed with instrumentation such as strain gages on the mooring lines 110 and/or risers 108 to provide an actual indication of the load at the location of the instrument. However, there are several drawbacks to the use of such instrumentation as well. First, these types of instruments only evaluate the stress or strain at the particular location of the instrument. As noted above, risers 108 and mooring lines 110 are often multiple miles long and the measured load at the location of a single instrument is not necessarily representative of the load at another location along the same component. Thus, multiple instruments are typically installed at strategically-selected locations along the mooring lines 110 and/or risers 108. Second, the instruments are prone to failure as a result of the harsh conditions in which they are installed (e.g., in high pressure seawater). Moreover, their underwater location essentially guarantees that it will be cost prohibitive to replace the instrument when it does fail. Third, the instruments must be engineered as part of the component on which they are to be installed, which can undesirably increase engineering complexity and impact scheduling. Therefore, while instruments installed on the components to be monitored provide some feedback, they still fail to provide a full view of the loads to which the mooring lines 110 and risers 108 have been exposed.
There is therefore a need to monitor, anticipate, and intervene in advance of a failure of any one of the critical mooring 110 and riser 108 elements after a floating oil platform is commissioned.
In the illustrated embodiment, four motion sensors 202 are shown positioned near the outer perimeter of an upper deck of the platform 100, but the number and position of the motion sensors 202 is application-specific and can vary. The motion sensors 202 should, however, be spaced such that they collectively provide an indication of the overall motion of the platform 100. In one embodiment, three to nine motion sensors 202 are spaced about the platform 100.
The inventors have determined that the motion at any platform location can be determined based on the outputs of the motion sensors 202. In a preferred embodiment, acceleration outputs from the motion sensors are utilized to determine the six degrees of freedom (heave, sway, surge, yaw, roll, pitch) rigid body motions at the platform 200's center of gravity. The motion at any motion sensor 202 is a function of the motion at the platform 100's center of gravity and the sensor 202's location. Thus, for the set of motion sensors:
where m represents motion, pos represents position, the subscripts 1 through n correspond to the n motion sensors, and the subscript CG corresponds to the platform 100's center of gravity. The functions that relate the motion at a given sensor location to the motion at the center of gravity (f1 through fn) can be determined, for example, through a simple transformation matrix. Given the complexity of floating platforms, they are modeled in detail using three-dimensional modeling software during the design of the platform. The three-dimensional model specifies in detail the size, shape, location, and materials of construction of the components of the platform 100. From this existing three-dimensional model, the functions that relate the motion at a given sensor location to the motion at the center of gravity can be determined through finite element analysis. As will be understood, the locations in which the motion sensors 202 are actually installed must be precisely specified to obtain accurate relationships.
The set of functions collectively form a transfer function. In a preferred embodiment, the transfer function is expressed in terms of a transformation matrix that relates the measured motions at each of the sensors 202 to the motion at the platform 100's center of gravity.
The motion at the platform 100's center of gravity can then be calculated for a given set of measured motion values from the inverse of the transformation matrix.
A similar process can be utilized to determine the motion at other points of interest based on the calculated value of the motion at the center of gravity (mco). For example, in one embodiment, the motion (e.g., the six degrees of freedom motion) at each riser or mooring line hang off point (i.e., the point at which the riser or mooring line attaches to the platform 100) is computed from the calculated motion at the center of gravity according to the following analogous equations.
where the subscripts mooring 1 to mooring j correspond to the hang off locations for the j mooring lines, the subscripts riser 1 to riser k correspond to the hang off locations for the k risers, transformCG to mooring is a transformation matrix that relates the motion at the platform 100's center of gravity to the motion at each of the j mooring line hang off locations, and transformCG to riser is a transformation matrix that relates the motion at the platform 100's center of gravity to the motion at each of the k riser hang off locations. Just as with the relationship between motion at the sensor 202 locations and motion at the platform 100's center of gravity, the relationship between motion at the mooring and riser hang off locations and motion at the platform's center of gravity can be determined through finite element analysis. It will be understood that motion can be expressed in different ways (e.g., displacement from baseline, rate of displacement, acceleration, angular rate, etc.) and thus the term motion as used herein encompasses the different ways of expression. Just as the motion sensors 202 may measure acceleration in three orthogonal axes, the motion at a particular point of interest (e.g., platform center of gravity, mooring line or riser hang off etc.) might be expressed at least partially as acceleration in three orthogonal axes and the transformation functions will account for the way in which motion is measured by the sensors 202 and expressed at the point of interest.
It will be understood that it is not strictly necessary to calculate the motion at the platform 100's center of gravity. Instead, the motion at any point of interest can be calculated directly from a relationship between motion at that point of interest and motion at the locations of the motion sensors 202. Nonetheless, the inventors find the determination of the motion at the platform 100's center of gravity to be a useful value from which motion at other points may be derived as well as other useful performance data and to calibrate actual to anayltic/scale model predictions. This latter calibration is useful to reconcile and improve confidence in analytic model predictions in the future.
The motion and stress at any location along any of the mooring lines 108 or risers 110 can be determined from the calculated motion at that mooring line or riser's hang off point using known dynamic analysis modeling algorithms. Such algorithms may be embodied in a public domain, licensed, non-linear, time-domain finite element software such as OrcaFlex or SESAM. The software only requires the motion at the hang off point to compute stresses or tensions at any select point along the riser or mooring line at each instant of time. The software is widely accepted and utilized by industry as to the accuracy of stress and tension predictions.
Thus, the motion and stress can be determined at any location in any mooring line 108 or riser 110 from the outputs of the motion sensors 202 that are conveniently installed above the water level on the platform 100. This technique provides much more data (i.e., motion and stress at any location) than is provided by dedicated instruments such as strain gages, which only measure strain at the discrete location at which they are installed. In addition, motion sensors 202 are much easier to install, less expensive, and can be installed much later in the design process than such dedicated instruments.
Referring to
In a preferred embodiment, the inputs that are received by the monitoring system 302 from the motion sensors 202, water current sensors 312, and wind sensors 314 are time-stamped, and the time-stamped data is provided to a computing device 304 via a communications network 308. In one embodiment, the communications network 308 is a wide area network such as the Internet and the computing device 304 is located remotely from the platform (e.g., onshore). The numerical relationships that define the motions at desired points of interest (e.g., the center of gravity, riser and mooring line hang off locations, and any other points of interest) for measured motions at the motion sensor 202 locations and the numerical relationships that define the motion and stresses in the mooring lines 110 and risers 108 for a given hang off location motion are embodied in a computer program 306 that is executed by the computing device 304.
In one embodiment, the program 306 continually computes the motion and stress at each point along each mooring line 110 and riser 108 for each point in time for which motion sensor data is provided. As will be understood, computing these values for every location is computationally demanding and requires a large amount of computing power. Thus, in an alternate embodiment, the program 306 continually computes the motion and stress for only a preselected number of locations along the mooring lines 110 and risers 108 for each point in time for which motion sensor data is provided. The preselected locations may be selected as locations of particular interest such as locations at which extreme conditions might be expected. In another alternative embodiment, the program 306 continuously computes the motion and stress for only a preselected number of locations along the mooring lines 110 and risers 108 for each point in time for which motion sensor data is provided and computes the motion and stress at other non-selected locations along the mooring lines 110 and risers 108 on a coarser time scale (i.e., not for every time for which motion sensor data is provided). As will be understood, limiting the number of locations for which motion and stress are computed and increasing the coarseness of the time resolution of such calculations, decreases the computational demand. Thus, the temporal and locational resolutions of the calculations are preferably user-selectable parameters of the program 306. In any event, all motion sensor data may be retained (e.g., in a memory associated with the computing device 304) such that motion and stress can be computed for any location with any desired level of resolution at any point in time from historical data.
The program 306 may also provide a user interface through which the user can view desired data. In one embodiment, the computing device 304 includes a web server by which it provides access to the graphical user interface to a remote computer 310 operating a web browser and providing the proper access credentials.
In the displacement chart interface 404, instantaneous displacement at the selected location is plotted along with an instantaneous displacement warning level. As with the stress values, an alert may be generated if the instantaneous displacement exceeds the instantaneous displacement warning level. While displacement is shown in the interface 400 as a single magnitude value, in an alternate embodiment displacement in each of three orthogonal dimensions may be illustrated.
In one embodiment, the program 306 continuously evaluates whether an alert should be generated for any monitored location. Generated alerts may be consolidated in a dashboard type interface that allows the user to explore the alert in more detail (e.g., to browse to the stress and displacement interface 400 associated with the alert). In addition, alerts may be communicated such as via an email that provides a link to the dashboard interface.
While various specific embodiments and applications have been described for purposes of illustration, numerous modifications and variations could be made by those skilled in the art without departing from the scope of the invention set forth in the claims.
This application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application having Ser. No. 62/652,433 filed on Apr. 4, 2018 which is incorporated by reference herein.