Copyright 2004, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference held in
Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 36 May 2004.

This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Offshore Technology Conference or officers. Electronic reproduction,
distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written
consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print
is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was
presented.

Abstract
A recently completed FPSO conversion project shows some
novel features in FPSO design. An existing trading tanker was
selected for conversion into a 48,000-bopd FPSO unit, for a
site offshore Nigeria in a water depth of 70 meters. While
engineering of the FPSO was already underway it was
discovered that the field production characteristics were
underestimated. A crude oil throughput of 80,000 bopd was
required, which corresponds to a medium size process
installation. This happened to be in line with the contractor's
generic FPSO design and left the designers with the
challenge of fitting this medium size process installation on a
relatively small sized tanker hull.

To accommodate the increased size of the production
facilities, sponson extensions were fitted over a considerable
length of the vessel's side. By the use of sponsons the vessel's
main deck area, ballast tank volume and buoyancy were
increased considerably. However installation requirements for
the spread mooring system, large central pipe rack, separate
cable tray supports and marine deck piping still resulted in a
congested deck space, which demanded a thoroughly planned
lay-out of the main deck arrangement, pushing it beyond
existing limits, resulting in an innovative design.

This paper addresses and details the design decisions and their
backgrounds, also reviewing alternatives considered. Special
attention is given to the life extension calculations of the hull
structure and the effect on these of adding sponsons and the
cantilever supports. And finally, practical experience during
vessel conversion and construction from the conversion yard
in Dubai is discussed.

Introduction
Early December 2000 first preparations were made for the pre-
engineering for a small sized FPSO with a production capacity
of 48,000 bopd and a storage capacity of 1,000,000 bbls for
Agip Energy & Natural Resources (Nigeria) Limited (AENR).
In March 2001 a letter of intent was issued by AENR to FPSO
Mystras Producao de Petroleo Limitada (FMPP) - a Joint
Venture (JV) of Saipem and SBM - with a tight contractual
first oil date of December of that same year. An existing
Suezmax tanker Mystras II (140,000 dwt) was purchased
and laid up waiting for the conversion to commence.

Due to the early first oil date required, a separate fast track
solution was selected. The existing FPSO J amestown, also
owned by FMPP, was converted and fully refurbished between
September and November 2001 in Portugal with minimum
modifications to the existing process facilities. Hereby the
contractual date of end December 2001 could be achieved and
the FPSO J amestown would remain on site until the FPSO
Mystras with full crude oil production capacity, would
become available.

Early 2002 first field production data received from
J amestown proved better than initially expected and justified
exploring the possibilities of considering a larger unit for the
field. It was decided to retain the Mystras hull, but to fit larger
topsides on it, which left the vessel designers with a number of
challenges and implementation of some novel design features.
The contractual first oil date for the new unit was late
December 2003.

This paper is divided into three parts. The first part describes
general project information:
- project design basis,
- project organization and execution.

Prior to discussing the design features a brief description of
the process facilities and their function is described:
- process description.

In the following paragraphs the design process and decisions
made are presented:
- vessel description before conversion,
- main deck layout and design,
- sponson design,
- module cantilever support design.

In the last part some design questions are further detailed in
the following paragraphs:
- side shell fatigue,

OTC 16198
Design and Conversion of FPSO Mystras
T. Terpstra, IHC Gusto Engineering B.V.; G. Schouten, Single Buoy Moorings Inc.; L. Ursini,
Saipem Energy International S.p.a.
2 OTC 16198
- longitudinal strength,
- motion behavior,
- freeboard calculation.

Project Design Basis
The FPSO Mystras will initially receive crude oil from Okono
& Okpoho oil fields that are located in Nigeria, offshore Port
Harcourt in Block OML 119 (previously OPL 91). The OML
Block 119 block is located in the offshore Niger delta, 55 km
from Bonny Terminal at a water depth of 70 meters, see also
table 2 and figure 1 and 2.

The main functions of the installed topsides process facilities
are:
- oil separation from associated gas and process water,
- oil stabilization for storage in the FPSO cargo tanks,
- gas dehydration and compression for gas lift
requirements (Okpoho Field) and for injection in a
dedicated subsea well (Okono Field),
- produced water de-oiling and degassing before
discharge to sea.

The FPSO unit has been designed in compliance with
recognized international standards for the process facilities for
a design life of 15 years. The vessel has been converted in full
compliance with the latest IMO regulations and is classified
with the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) having the
following class notation:
- A1 Floating Production Storage and Offloading
System (FPSO), FL (15), Site Specific

The FPSO unit is designed to receive production risers from
the Okono field sub-sea completed wells and import and
export risers from the Okpoho field. Balconies for the risers &
umbilicals for the former and the latter field have been
installed on the bow and the starboard side of the FPSO
respectively. The Okono side balcony is designed for the
following risers:
- four (4) x 4inch production risers,
- four (4) x 4inch umbilicals,
- four (4) future production risers & umbilicals,
- one (1) future gas injection riser.

The Okpoho bow balcony is designed for receiving:
- one (1) x 16inch production riser,
- one (1) x 8inch gas lift export riser,
- one (1) x 20kV power cable,
- one (1) x SSIV manifold control umbilical.

A shuttle tanker will offload the FPSO at regular intervals via
the offloading riser, subsea line and CALM buoy system.

Project Organization and Execution
The main contract was divided within the J V as follows:
- topsides process facilities design & procurement
Saipem,
- vessel refurbishment and conversion design &
procurement SBM,
- spread mooring system design & procurement
SBM,
- topsides fabrication and vessel conversion FMPP,
- FPSO operation in Nigeria FMPP.

The expertise of the various engineering houses within the
organizations of the J V partners was utilized to the full extent
to assist in the design of the process facilities (Saipem Energy
International (SEI)) and the vessel refurbishment &
conversion (IHC Gusto Engineering).

As result of the J V the engineering offices and construction /
fabrication sites were located all around Europe and the
Middle East. During the entire duration of the project a major
effort has been put into the various engineering scope of work
definitions, but foremost in the initial stages of the project.
Even more important was the consensus on the physical
interfaces agreed between the engineering parties and
construction sites.

This approach has led to the design, engineering, construction
and installation of the FPSO Mystras within schedule and
budget.

The actual design and conversion of the enhanced FPSO
Mystras commenced in May 2002. The contractual delivery
schedule end 2003- and the aim for cost efficiency required a
fast track approach based on the experience gained from
previous completed FPSO projects. It was decided that the
process facilities for this unit had to be based to a large extent
on the successful generic FPSO series completed over the last
two years. Hence the same topsides normally fitted on a
VLCC sized tanker were to be installed on a smaller Suezmax
type of tanker.

Process Description
The FPSO process facilities have been designed for oil
separation and stabilization, gas compression and treatment,
produced water treatment and various utility systems. The oil
processing system is designed for the following peak
production rates, which do not necessarily coincide:

OKONO & OKPOHO Fields:
- design oil production 80,000 bopd,
- design gas processing (incl. returned lift gas)
100 MMscfd,
- design water production 55,000 bwpd,
- design total liquids production 100,000 blpd.

The process facilities are installed on the upper deck and
comprise a total of 16 modules with a maximum individual
weight of 1,100 tonnes. The total process facility weighs
approximately 5,500 tonnes including flare tower and pipe
rack with the following functions:
- Module 01 High Pressure (HP) Separation
- Module 02 Low Pressure (LP) Separation
- Module 04 Flash Gas Compression
- Module 06 Gas Injection Compression
- Module 07 Gas Treatment
- Module 11 Topsides Utilities
- Module 12 Power Generation
- Module 13 Local Equipment Room (LER)
OTC 16198 3
- Module 14 Chemical Injection
- Module 16 Flare Knock-Out Drums
- Module 18 Okono Inlet Manifold
- Module 19 Okpoho Inlet Manifold
- Module 21 Oil Export and Fiscal Metering
- Module 22 Laboratory

The central pipe rack - Module 20 - is installed at centerline of
the vessel in between the modules, running from just forward
of the accommodation to the bow of the vessel. This pipe rack
supports all interconnecting piping both the marine piping
system on the lower and the topsides facilities piping on the
higher levels respectively - and provides central means of
access to all modules along the length of the vessel. A diesel
driven traveling crane with a lorry is mounted on top of the
pipe rack. The crane boom is sized to be within the reach of all
extremities of the modules including a dedicated lay down
area (Module 15) located near the supply boat mooring area
and the remaining laydown areas on the main deck. The
traveling crane has a minimum and maximum capacity of 5
tonne at 30 meter and 10 tonne at 25 meter respectively, sized
such that large pieces of topsides equipment can be
transported along the FPSO process deck.

Module 01
Module 01 provides the initial stages of the crude separation.
The incoming production fluids are heated and allowed to
settle first in the HP separator. This provides a primary coarse
separation of oil, water and gas phases.

Module 02
This module provides the final stages of separation for the
production fluids. Crude from module 01 is further separated
in the LP separator and then in the electrostatic treater,
remaining gas and water are removed from the oil. This
produces sales quality oil, which then flows to the cargo tanks
for storage until offloading. Water that has been separated
from the oil is processed to remove dissolved gas, after which
it flows to the slop tanks for settling to remove any residual oil
before overboard discharge.

Module 04
Separated gas from the HP separator on module 01 is
compressed to high pressure to allow it to be injected at the
subsea wellhead to facilitate the flow of the incoming
production fluids. Some of the gas is used as fuel on the
FPSO, both in vessels boilers and to fuel the five dual fuel
gas turbines, which drive the power generators and the main
gas compressor.

The gas compression is achieved on module 04 using two
three-stage centrifugal gas compressors and associated
suction, interstage and discharge coolers and scrubbers.

Module 06
High-pressure gas from the second stage of the main gas
compressor must be further processed to remove water before
it can be used as fuel. This drying is achieved in module 06
where the gas is washed with glycol to absorb the water. Some
dry gas is used as the normal source of fuel for all the FPSO
power requirements. The remaining gas is returned to module
04 for the final stage of compression.

Module 11
The processes described above need three main utility services
heating, cooling and electricity. The first of these two are
provided by module 11, which contains circulating hot fresh
water for process heating and cold fresh water for process and
compressor cooling. The heating for the hot water system is
achieved using steam from the vessels boilers, and cooling for
the cold water system is achieved by using seawater. Seawater
for the topsides is provided by the three (3) submerged
sewaterlift pumps installed in caissons at port side integrated
in the new sponson structure.

FPSO Power Generation
Three dual fuel gas turbine driven generators located on
Module 12 provide electric power for the FPSO. Under normal
conditions two of the three topsides High Voltage (HV)
generators are on line. These will supply all topsides and
vessel consumers. The topsides and vessel generation &
distribution system is linked via a transformer, located in the
vessel Engine Room (ER). The High Voltage (HV) and Low
Voltage (LV) power distribution for the FPSO consumers is
located in a purposely-built local equipment room located on
Module 13. The vessel emergency generator supplies power to
both the vessel and topsides emergency consumers.

Vessel Description before Conversion
The original vessel selected for conversion was an existing
single hull tanker with a diesel main propulsion plant, built in
J apan. The original hull structure is fully made of mild steel,
one of the major assets to select this vessel for conversion into
an FPSO.

The tanker Mystras II has the following main particulars:
Builder: Mitsui Shipbuilding & Engineering Co. Ltd.
Yard number: 1017
Class : Lloyds Register of Shipping
: 100A1 Oil Tanker
: LMC & IG SYS
Length over all : 271.000m
Length between PP : 260.000m
Scantling Length : 257.826m
Breadth moulded : 44.000 m (excl. sponsons)
Breadth moulded : 55.400 m (incl. sponsons)
Depth moulded : 22.400 m (main deck)
Depth moulded : 22.061 m (sponsons)
Draft at Summer Load Line: 17.021 m
Keel plate thickness : 26.50 mm
Deadweight : 138,930 ton
Blockcoefficient : 0.818 (excl. sponsons)
Blockcoefficient : 0.690 (incl. sponsons)
Design speed : 15 knots (excl. sponsons)

Main Deck Layout and Design
In table 1 the main differences between a typical VLCC and a
Suezmax tanker are illustrated. From this table it is evident
that on a VLCC 43% more deck space is available to fit the
4 OTC 16198
same process facilities. The consequences of fitting the larger
generic topsides design for a VLCC onto a smaller Suezmax
tanker are illustrated in figure 3 and 4 and table 1, resulting in
a congested main deck area.

In the very beginning of the project it was decided to use a
3D-computer program to model the complete vessel main deck
and topsides process facilities. This was not only to have
better control of the main deck arrangement but also better
coordinate the involvement of various engineering disciplines.

The master 3D model was initially developed by the topsides
design team to arrange and locate the process modules such
that an optimum process design was obtained. This was
achieved in combination with the vessel concept design.
Hereafter the ownership of the 3D model shifted to the vessel
design team. This team used the model to further develop
main deck piping layout and detailed routing of cable trays,
escape routes and further clash checking of the mooring lines
with the main deck equipment.

The main structural, equipment and systems that governed the
design and sequence of the 3D model built-up are listed and
described in more detail here under:
- spread mooring system and riser installation,
- center line pipe rack,
- topsides module support structures,
- marine piping systems,
- topsides cable trays.

The FPSO general arrangement is presented in figure 5.

Spread Mooring System and Riser Installation
The FPSO is spread moored and connected to the seabed via
four bundles of three mooring chains each connected to uni-
joint chain hawses integrated in the hull structure. There are
two balconies accommodating the riser porches and hang-off
connection for umbilical are positioned at the bow, Okpoho
field, and at starboard, Okono field, forming the connection
with inlet module 19 and 18 respectively.

For installation of the mooring chains and risers and
umbilicals a mooring and riser installation arrangement on the
FPSO main deck has been developed using permanent
installation winches and sheaves on main deck guiding the
wire to the mooring chain hawses and riser balconies. The
design adopted on FPSO Mystras is derived and further
evolved from a recent FPSO project also moored in West
African waters.

On this recent FPSO project a single permanent hydraulic
driven winch, located at the forecastle deck, served pulling of
both risers and mooring lines. This arrangement had the
following characteristics:
- one single hydraulic winch,
- winch capacity 175 SWL,
- wire diameter 72mm,
- 8 wire guide sheave blocks located along main deck.

A single winch was selected at the time because of cost
reasons. However, during the design phase it appeared that a
significant amount of additional sheavs had to be installed,
which offset the cost benefit of a single winch. Furthermore
pulling in of the wire and changing connection to other
mooring lines proved to be difficult and very time consuming
during installation at the time, especially handling the heavy
wire end socket weighing in excess of 300kg. Secondly the
mooring arrangement had been given a lower priority during
the design stage at the time resulting in less optimal wire
routing clashing at several locations with the main deck
piping.

Based on experience from previous projects, for FPSO
Mystras two separate hydraulic driven installation winches
were ordered each served by a separate hydraulic power unit
(HPU) and the main deck mooring and riser installation
arrangement was given highest priority during the concept and
subsequently design stages. The FPSO Mystras installation
arrangement has the following characteristics:
- two hydraulic winches,
- winch capacity 90 SWL,
- wire diameter 58mm,
- 6 wire guide sheave blocks located along main deck.

The forward winch is located at the forecastle deck at portside
at the base of the flare tower and serves the forward mooring
chains and the bow balcony. The aft winch is positioned at
starboard at frame 59/60, serving the aft mooring lines and the
side balcony, see figure 16. Due to restricted deck area, even
locating the HPUs became of an problem. To resolve this and
also to remain out of hazardous areas, the HPUs and
associated control panels are positioned at an elevated level
alike the process decks. An additional advantage of this
configuration is the improved operators view over a part of
the wire routing.

Various sheaves are located along the FPSO main deck to
guide the installation wire in straight lines to mooring boxes
and balconies. At centerline fore and aft two sheaves are
positioned underneath the pipe rack, from where the
installation wires leaves for the fore and aft mooring boxes
respectively. The angles relative to the vessels longitudinal
axis were critical since they correspond with the mooring
chain orientation of the field layout.

A characteristic difference with the earlier design is the
principle of pulling in the mooring chains through the chain
hawses and the single-piece-cast steel hawses with a 45
degree-bend.

To avoid this on FPSO Mystras straight chain hawses were
used in combination with removable bolted vertical rollers
mounted to two rails at each mooring box. The rollers assured
proper alignment to the horizontal deck sheaves that are
located at 640mm above deck at centerline. The bolted
configuration allowed positioning of the roller in-line with the
different angular orientation of each individual chain, which
was eased by pre-drilled holes, see figure 15. The vertical
rollers are robustly constructed from plate material assuring
OTC 16198 5
proper passage of the chain, wire end socket and 58mm wire
and can be relocated using the central traveling crane.

To ease exchanging the existing flow lines and risers from
FPSO J amestown the riser arrangement on the starboard
balcony on FPSO Msytras has been kept identical. For the
forward balcony a new arrangement was defined. Pulling in of
the flow lines was achieved via an A-frame structure, see
figure 17 and 18. The A-frames accommodate a movable
vertical sheave to allow straight pulling trough the riser
porches, possible due to flow lines leaving the porches at an
angle of 3 degrees.

Center Line Pipe Rack
The design of the centerline pipe rack used for the generic
FPSO series has been copied and adopted for installation
onboard the Mystras. Due to the different size in vessel the
length of the initial design has been decreased and the frame
spacing was changed from 5,200 mm to 5,000 mm to
ensure a proper alignment with the vessel under deck
structures. Due to the installation of the traveling crane on top
of the pipe rack, the original rack width had to be maintained.
This determined the transverse position of the topside modules
on the vessel main deck. As indicated before the central pipe
rack supports the marine piping systems located on top of the
transverse structural beams approximately 1m above main
deck level. The process piping is supported on the higher
levels of the pipe rack - 4.0 meters above upper deck level in
order to align with the top of the topsides modules decks.

Since the majority of the cargo tank access hatches is located
in way of the extremities of the transverse pipe rack supports it
was envisaged that hatches had to be relocated due to clashes
but this proved to be not the case. Free access to all hatches is
possible. However in order to be able to route the various
mooring installation and riser pull in wires special slots were
cut in the transverse supports to have free running of the wires
to the various locations on port side, starboard side, forward
and aft.

Topside Supports
A column support principle has been used for supporting the
process modules, a simple and relatively light lattice structure
with maximum transparency for passing through deck piping,
cable trays and access.

Transfer of hull girder deflection to topsides modules is
isolated by means of flexible gusset plates, which are full
penetration welded to the main deck to enhance fatigue
strength.

In general three vertical columns in transverse direction are
used to support the module. Only the inner bay is used for
diagonal braces to cope with roll motions. The outer bay is
used for running cable trays and escape routes.

FPSO Mystras has a hull frame spacing of only 5,000mm,
compared to the 5,200mm-pancake girder spacing of the
generic FPSO topsides design. This would cause
misalignments. Adjusting the spacing in the modules to
5,000mm would cause too much engineering rework and the
advantage of copying the previous design would be lost, since
it would imply a redesign of the modules and equipment
supports.

Alternatively it was decided to incline the vertical columns
connecting the topsides main girders with the vessel web
frames positions. Not only the main girder arrangement was
different but also the vessel longitudinal stiffener spacing was
different. This also asked for inclining the vertical columns in
transverse direction, resulting in an arrangement of double
inclined vertical columns.

Marine Piping Systems
The design of the topsides modules and subsequent support
structures was more or less fixed due to the design adopted
from the Generic FPSO units. The task of routing large
diameter piping on the vessel main deck and interconnecting
the various structures and equipment Inert Gas vent stacks,
Fire water deluge boxes & Crude oil offloading - caused a few
headaches. Also the fact that there was hardly any deck area or
space left on the main deck to relocate any structure,
equipment or piping. Many interface meetings were necessary
to discuss and agree on the various scenarios and possibilities
of changing certain structural or piping items but more than
once resulting in new challenges.

The routing of the installation steel wires coincided with the
marine piping systems mainly forward of the accommodation
on starboard side and near the forecastle area, mainly due to
the required height of the wires above the upper deck. The
wire routing at the various locations was modeled in the 3D
model and by re-routing various structures and piping the
majority of the clashes were resolved at the design stage.

Spool pieces were required to be left out for proper running of
the mooring lines during installation of the vessel on site and
to avoid last minute surprises that already critical coated
systems had to be disconnected. Secondly the spool pieces are
such located that during pulling in of the future risers
production can continue without disconnecting the critical
pipe systems.

Cable Tray Routing
Routing of the cable trays and their support structures was one
of the most difficult tasks to accomplish. The cable trays are
positioned beneath the topsides modules and are supported
from the main deck via dedicated support structure and are
derived from the generic FPSO design series where the
principle was first used.

The trays are supported from the main deck instead of
suspending them from the module pancake structures to allow
early cable pulling and maximum outfitting prior to module
installation. Construction at the fabrication yards and transport
to the installation yard were consequently improved. A
disadvantage is the height of the trays and in cases some cable
pulling is done after module installation. A disadvantage is
that additional staging is then required at main deck level and

6 OTC 16198
this hampered other outfitting work carried out
simultaneously.

The trays had to be routed such that no tank hatches are
obstructed, to allow proper handling during evacuation from
the cargo tanks and lifting of equipment into and from the
tanks. Routing was done such that they fitted in between the
columns and braces of the module supports. Beneath module
04, however, trays were routed around the middle columns
since no other space was left.

Only beneath module 12 power generation - and Module 13
LER -, with the highest concentration of cables - trays are
suspended from the module itself, since the number and
arrangement of the tubular supports prohibited support from
the main deck.

Sponson Design
The increase in physical size and weight of the process utilities
could not fit anymore on the original relative small deck and
would also exceed maximum draught in fully laden condition.
Consequently the contractual 1,000,000 bbls at a density of
0.82 t/m
3
could not be loaded.

To overcome this several design options were considered
including lengthening the vessel or adding sponsons.
Lengthening the vessel would not only imply inserting a new
mid body, but also reinforce the existing ship structure over a
distance of 0.4L to cope with increased bending moments.
This option was considered as too expensive and would
disrupt the conversion time frame drastically.

A new inserted mid body would require a total of 1,200 tonnes
of steel. However cutting the vessel in two in dry-dock, cutting
all existing ship systems and disruption all activities on the
main deck would incur a large cost and seriously jeopardize
delivery date. Adding sponsons evolved as the single viable
option with minimum disruption on conversion schedule.

Addition of sponsons to the side shell should overcome the
following restrictions in the existing vessel:
- increase deadweight,
- increase deck space area,
- enhance side shell fatigue life,
- provide a secondary barrier against supply boat
impact.

The first conceptual design comprised sponsons having a
width of 5.7 meters extending from frame 61 up to frame 91,
a distance of 150 meters, viz. 58% of ships length, and would
cover virtually the complete cargo tank area. Maximum deck
space would be created and the spread mooring integration
structures could be directly integrated in the new steel
structure, without affecting the internal existing ship structure.

However, the sponson length of 150 meters extended beyond
the parallel mid body and this would increase complexity and
fabrications costs. Secondly the additional amount of
buoyancy created was far in excess of what was minimally
required. Only extending the sponsons over half the depth of
the vessel solved this, but this would seriously hamper side by
side mooring of a supply boat at low draught condition and
could cause fenders getting stuck underneath the bottom of the
sponsons.

Eventually the required amount of buoyancy was met by
extending the sponsons over a distance of 90 meters, equal to
two cargo tanks, viz. crude tank no. 3 and 4. An inclined plate
forms the sponson bottom, with the upper knuckle at 6,300mm
A.B. and the connection to the original side shell at 3,700mm
A.B. in-line with the lowest original side shell longitudinal.
This option did not solve the lack of deck space sufficiently to
support the most forward and aft modules. Cantilevering some
modules and supporting them by large brackets welded to the
side shell solved this.

A challenge left for the designers was how to connect the
sponson top to the existing main deck structure. Traditionally
in tanker design welding to the gunwale, connection of side
shell to main deck and one of the most critical components in
a tanker, is not desirable and often not allowed by Class. In
table 3 three options studied are presented:
- removing existing round gunwale and inserting
square section flush with sponson deck,
- top of sponson only extended up to first existing side
shell longitudinal at 1,100mm below main deck,
- top of sponson flush with main deck, however
connecting plate welded perpendicular to the
gunwale.

The first option appeared too expensive, mainly due to the
amount of additional new steel required and the significant
scaffolding internally required in the cargo tanks 3 and 4. This
would extend the dry-dock-period by three weeks and further
increase costs. The second option would solve welding in
critical areas but would not increase deck area. Fitting a
grating deck flush with the main deck could have solved this.
However, the additional amount of secondary steel and
increased maintenance offset the benefits.

The most viable option appeared to be welding perpendicular
to the radiused gunwale plating with minimal impact on
schedule and costs. In close corporation with Class the
structural integrity was validated. The main disadvantage of
the third option is the V-groove appearing between sponson
and main deck, since it could collect water and prohibit proper
draining of the main deck. Also it would obstruct safe access
of personnel. Fitting a removable 8mm-thick plate solved the
latter problem. To allow for proper drainage of the main deck,
removable plugs in every transverse fire coaming on the main
deck is fitted. This allows drainage to the aft slop tanks.
Filling the V-groove with mastic was disregarded since it
would hamper in service inspection and could initiate
corrosion.

Utilizing higher tensile steel, quality AH36 and DH36, for the
sponson longitudinal members allowed for a significant
weight reduction of 200 tonnes on a total of 2,000 tonnes. The
transverse frames are made of mild steel. To assure sufficient
fatigue strength of the new structure special consideration was
OTC 16198 7
given to bracket details and stringer toes in compliance with
Tanker Structure Co-operative Forum guidelines [3], resulting
in a fatigue life well in excess of 75 years.

As a consequence of fitting the sponson tanks, higher shear
loads in fully laden condition are introduced into the web
frames. The no 3 and 4 wing tank cross-ties-to web frame
connections were overstressed and have been replaced by new
and modified designed brackets. The modifications and the
sponson structure are presented in figure 6.

Not foreseen during the basic design phase was the interaction
between the sponson lower knuckle and the fenders of the
outfitting quay after completion of sponson assembly in dry-
dock. The ballast system in the sponson tanks was not
completed and topsides not yet installed at that time.
Consequently the lower knuckle at 3,700mm A.B. extended
beyond the quayside fenders not allowing adequate mooring of
the vessel.

A creative solution was found in welding three berthing skirts
underneath the sponson bottom plate as demonstrated in
figure 12. The longitudinal position of the skirts matched the
position of the quayside fenders, the FPSO being moored at a
predefined position.

The temporary berthing skirts served their purpose well.
During a severe storm in late April 2003 several ships were
damaged and some broke from their mooring line in a port in
Dubai. However, no damage was found after inspection at the
connection of the skirts and the sponsons.

Module Cantilever Support Design
The relative short sponson length combined with a 8.8-meter
wide pipe rack and pre-designed topsides resulted in four
modules cantilevering over the original side shell just fore and
aft of the sponsons. Unfortunately this also included the
heaviest module 04 weighing 1,100 tonnes.

Placing the outer vertical columns diagonally and welding to
the main deck was initially considered. However, this resulted
in an inefficient load transfer to the hull structure in such a
way that internal reinforcements would be required, since the
outer column would be less effective in transferring vertical
loads. A solution to support the modules was found in welding
large brackets to the side shell supporting the outer vertical
columns, see figure 13 and 19.

The cantilever supports are aligned with the first side shell
longitudinal measured from deck level to avoid local welding
in the gunwale area and is positioned at 1,100mm below deck
at side. Since regular access is not required to the cantilevers,
the lower elevation to main deck is not considered as an issue
here.

Due to the double inclination of the module vertical columnar
supports, approximately 10% out-of-plane load is imposed to
the cantilevers. This required additional external stiffening to
obtain sufficient bending stiffness in the horizontal plane. The
outer longitudinal bay of module 04 accommodates pitch
bracings, see figure 13, further imposing horizontal loads on
the cantilevers. Three external longitudinal T-shaped stiffeners
connecting the cantilever supports have been welded to the
side shell to avoid internal reinforcements.

The possibility of a supply boat colliding with the cantilever
module supports was addressed in Hazid and Hazop studies.
From the safety analysis it appeared that the cantilever
supports are relatively well protected between sponson ends
and the mooring structure. However, an accidental case of one
vertical support including cantilever support being damaged
was reviewed. The ultimate limit state analysis performed
proved that the module support structure has sufficient
residual strength and can cope with the loss of one damage
support.

Design Aspects

Side Shell Fatigue
A deterministic fatigue assessment of the longitudinal ship
structure was conducted using ABS Safehull

Phase A
procedure for the FPSO with and without sponsons.

A novelty in the fatigue assessment within Safehull

A, is that
two separate models have been created:
- tanker without sponsons, FPSO 3C,
- FPSO with sponsons, FPSO 5C.

For both models SEALOAD calculations have been carried
out. The results with respect to the FPSO3c model show the
damage of the vessel accumulated during her life as trading
tanker. This could be used to assess the remaining fatigue life
of the ship as FPSO without sponsons. Performing SEALOAD
calculations with the FPSO5c model gave results as if the ship
had sailed all her service years with sponsons. This would
produce unrealistic calculation results.

Therefore the results for both models were manually corrected
using a spreadsheet program based on the following formula:

c FPSO SH
c FPSO SH
c FPSO
S
c FPSO SH c FPSO R
L
L L
L L
3
5
3 2
3 5 3

...(1)

By correcting the data sets this way, the true damage
accumulated to the existing structure is calculated, plus the
effect of new sponsons in its future life is taken into
consideration.

While applying the correction to the original results, the
following assumptions were made:

0
2
=

S
L
for the new sponsons.
1
3
5
=

c FPSO SH
c FPSO SH
L
L
for the new sponsons.

8 OTC 16198
The original ship structure is made of mild steel with web
frame stiffeners directly welded to the flange of the side shell
stiffeners. These structural details are classed as F
2
-details,
showing an enhanced fatigue life compared to the overlap
connections frequently used in 25-year old tanker structures.
The latter type should is classed as a G-detail, showing poor
fatigue strength.

A local hull strength reassessment for site-specific
environmental conditions based on so-called environmental
severity factors of type was performed. The -type factors
reflect the difference in design loads between site specific and
unrestricted service of the vessel. The FPSO Rules do not
allow -factors below 0.5; although that for benign
environments like West Africa the average calculated -
factors are 0.35.

Adding sponsons changed the original side shell partly into an
inner longitudinal bulkhead, the latter not being exposed
anymore to so-called intermittent wetting. The fatigue analysis
revealed that the majority of the original tanker structure
fatigue life already had been consumed by the tankers trading
history. The differences on future fatigue life enhancement
with and without sponsons on the existing side shell were only
marginal; the local external wave pressures in benign
environment are mild anyway and do not significantly
contribute to the cumulative fatigue damage. The only fatigue
damage contribution with sponsons stems from the small
dynamic hull bending stresses and internal dynamic tank
pressures. The differences would have been more pronounced,
and in favor of an FPSO with sponsons, in case the FPSO
would have been moored in harsher environment.

A moderate total of 28 backing bracket reinforcements were
required in the region of the former splash zone and were
welded at longitudinal SL 16, 17 and 18 at the aft side of every
transverse oil tight bulkhead.

Longitudinal Strength
Re-assessment of hull structural strength for benign
environment FPSOs result in reduced scantlings, with a
minimum of 85% of those for unrestricted service.
Consequently hull girder strength had to be recalculated as
well.

For FPSO Mystras the hull girder strength has been reassessed
for Nigerian conditions, the sponsons largely compensate for
loss in section modulus. Although the sponsons do not extend
beyond 0.4L amidships (sponson length is 0.33L), they have
been included in the longitudinal strength, an assumption
verified by the ABS Safehull

Phase B analysis. Due to the

asymmetric sponson shape the neutrals axis shifts upward.
This is compensated by an increase in moment of inertia; the
section modulus at bottom remains unchanged without
affecting bottom plate renewal criteria.

In fully laden condition the empty sponson tanks reduce the
sagging still water bending moment by approximately 15%
compared to the trading tanker practice, caused by additional
buoyancy amidships. In light draught condition filling of the
sponson ballast tanks reduces the hogging bending moment.
The sponson cross section is such designed that in light
draught the lower part is emerged from the water, not to
further imposing any additional buoyancy forces on the hull.

Motion Behavior
The FPSO roll motions without modified bilge keels were too
severe for the original generic FPSO topsides design and this
would result in undesirable down time. The maximum roll
angle on site exceeded 12 degrees. Therefore further action
had to be undertaken to reduce this.

Adding sponsons did not sufficiently reduce roll motion as
expected, although an increase in radiated damping from
1.64% without sponsons to 3.11% with sponsons. The relative
ineffectiveness in reducing motion behavior, and thus roll
damping effect, of the sponsons is explained by the sloped
bottom plate, which allow a relative smooth water flow around
it. The alternative of redesigning the sponson sloped bottom
plate into a horizontal one was soon disregarded in the concept
design phase due to the possibility of supply boat fenders
getting stuck underneath at portside and to limit any slamming
effects. The latter effect was considered less of an issue in
benign environment.

To further reduce motion behavior it was decided to modify
the existing bilge keels. The original bilge keel depth of
500mm has been increased to 650mm.

The tanker original bilge keel was constructed of five separate
individual sections with a brake at the hulls main block
assembly seam welds, which eased shipyard construction at
the time. The final configuration of the bilge keel has a
continuous length of 130 meters; the original seam brakes
being plated in and thus also contributes to the longitudinal
strength of the vessel. The maximum roll angle for the
modified bilge keel arrangement does not exceed 9 degrees.

Freeboard Calculation
Calculation of minimum freeboard for FPSO Mystras proved
to be subject to interpretation of the moulded breadth, and thus
the corresponding C
BF
, of the hull at 85% of the depth.

Due to the addition of the sponsons the freeboard mark had to
be newly defined. Especially the relative short length of the
sponsons, only 33% of the vessels length, gave room to
different interpretation during the design process. Also the
sponson shape option whereby the sponson deck was aligned
with the first existing side shell stiffener 1,100mm below
main deck was not clearly identified in the current
International Load Line Convention (ILLC) 1966 regulations.

However, during the design phase it was generally recognized
that the sponsons increase reserve buoyancy and thus
improves safety.




OTC 16198 9
According to ILLC 1966 the correction on the tabular
freeboard is calculated using the following formula:

Tab
BF
SF *
1.36
0.68 C
C
+
= (2)

A larger block coefficient, in excess of 0.68 results in a larger
minimum required freeboard. Note that for block coefficient
lower than 0.68 no correction is applied.

The theoretical background for a higher freeboard in case of a
C
BF
>0.68 is based on the resultant upward force in a seaway.
Freeboard and super structures create reserve buoyancy. They
may be identical for two vessels with similar main particulars,
although these vessels may have different block coefficients
and thus displacements.

Due to a C
BF
higher and mass a smaller upward acceleration
will be exerted on the hull. Thus fuller vessels would require
more reserve buoyancy to obtain similar seaworthiness.

During the sponson design phase the following options were
considered:
- original breadth of 44 meters and hull volume
including sponsons at 85% of depth,
- new breadth of 55.4 meters after conversion and
corresponding volume including sponsons at 85% of
depth,
- remain original freeboard and further ignore any
effect of the sponsons hereon.

The option based on the existing breadth and including
sponson volume at 85% of depth resulted in a freeboard
reduction. Taking the new breadth of 55.4 meters into account
resulted in a 400mm smaller freeboard compared to the
original. However, due to the straight continued deck camber
over the sponsons the new deck line would be 360mm lower
relative to the original deck line. Although the maximum
draught could be increased by 40 mm, the scantling draught
became the governing factor. In close liaison with Class it was
eventually decided to weld the freeboard mark at exactly the
same height above base line on the sponson side shell as the
original Plimsoll mark was located.

Vessel Conversion in Dubai
The vessel refurbishment activities started in August 2002 at
Dubai Dry-Docks with the initial required hull structure
refurbishment to allow the FPSO unit to remain on station for
the 15-year design life of the unit. In preparation of the vessel
conversion the yard had already started to remove the majority
of the main deck piping systems and upper deck structures, the
original accommodation interior and the obsolete marine
equipment in the engine room. The actual conversion works
started beginning 2003. The conversion and refurbishment
design was based on the philosophy to retain as much as
possible of the original vessel systems, arrangement and
equipment especially the marine systems and add the
necessary systems and equipment for the 15-year design life as
an FPSO unit.
Sponson Fabrication
Sponson fabrication commenced early 2003 in the yards own
plate shop and was completed two months later; a monthly
steel throughput of 1,000 tonnes. The sponsons were
subdivided into seven blocks, each further split in a lower and
an upper section. The larger of the two, the lower section,
weighs 80 tonnes. Lifting of a lower section is pictured in
figure 7.

Block assembly commenced late February and was fully
completed late March 2003 in the yards largest dry-dock.
This dock measures 520m by 100m and is equipped with four
cranes, two of them having 120 tonnes lifting capacity. The
sections were lifted into position along the vessel side shell
until temporary connections were made after which welding
started. This operation took 8 10 hours for the lower
sections.

The complete sponson block assembly went relatively
smoothly without any major problems encountered. Although
at the aft end blocks it appeared that the actual hull lines
deviated from the original lines plan, resulting in some gaps
between sponson bottom and existing shell plating. Fitting
some insert plates however, relatively easily solved this. The
connection of the sponson to the existing gunwale showed an
excellent fit.

The sponson fabrication and assembly is illustrated in figure 8
through 11.

Upper Deck Marine System Installation
Installation of the marine piping system started after the T-
beam supports for the central pipe rack had been fitted on the
centerline of the vessel. It was decided earlier on in the project
to prioritize the routing the centerline piping systems in order
to deliver the piping detailed design drawings to the
conversion yard for fabrication and installation well before the
top sections of the pipe rack were lifted and installed. This
would facilitate the installation and hook-up of the piping
systems. This approach resulted in only small-bore piping to
be fitted after pipe rack installation. The detailed design for
the piping branches for the various systems to be connected to
the cargo and ballast tanks took more time than expected
mainly due to the many engineering disciplines involved in the
vessel upper deck structures arrangement and piping layouts as
already indicated earlier in the document.

One of the more difficult parts in the piping detailed design
was the routing of the new piping system to be connected to
existing openings in the vessel upper deck such as for the
Crude Oil Washing (COW), Inert Gas and Cargo Rundown
systems. The original vessel drawings indicated a location
different from that of the actual openings in the deck. During
the installation of the interconnection spools it became clear
that the additional green material indicated on the design
drawings served its purpose.

FPSO Installation Offshore
The offshore installation started early J anuary 2004 and was

10 OTC 16198
completed within a twelve-day period. First oil was
successfully produced on J anuary 14, 2004, see figure 24.

In figure 21 and 22 the hook-up and connection of the
mooring lines and riser is illustrated. Only at the bow balcony
some minor clashes were encountered, which could be easily
solved.

Conclusion
This paper presents the design and conversion of FPSO
Mystras.

The FPSO Mystras is an extraordinary FPSO compared to the
more regular designs based on VLCC sized tanker hulls. On
FPSO Mystras relative large topsides are fitted based on the
contractor's generic FPSO topsides design. These are fitted on
a relatively small Suezmax tanker hull. The relatively large
generic process modules were used to cope with the increased
field production characteristics during the course of the
project.

A creative solution to cope with the increased production
capacity was found in adding sponsons to the original tanker
hull structure with the following advantages:
- increase deadweight,
- increase deck space area,
- enhance side shell fatigue life,
- provide a secondary barrier against supply boat
impact.

The FPSO was succesfully completed and commisioned early
in J anuary 2004.

Nomenclature

C
B
= Block Coefficient
C
BF
= Block Coefficient at 85% of depth
L = Hull Length, L, m
B = Moulded Breadth of Hull, L, m
D = Moulded depth of Hull, L, m
SF
Tab
= Tabular freeboard
SF
Reg
= Regulated freeboard
E = Modulus of Elasticity, m/Lt
2
, N/mm
I = Moment of Inertia, L
4
, mm
4
S = Web frame spacing, span of stiffener, L, m

Z
= Vertical deflection of hull structure, L, mm

X
= Longitudinal elongation of hull, L, mm
c = Height of deck above hull neutral axis, L, m

2
= Ship i
th
route environmental severity factor
for existing tankers where historical ship
routes wave environment for the service life
of the vessel differed from those of the
North Atlantic Ocean.

3
= Site environmental severity factor for
existing tanker converted to a FPSO
L
SH
= Fatigue life calculated in Safehull

M
SW
= Still water bending moment, mL
2
/t
2
, Nm
Q
SW
= Still water shear force, mL/t
2
, N

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank management of IHC Caland (SBM
and Gusto), Saipem (SEI) and AGIP for granting permission
to publish this paper. The authors express their special
appreciation to their colleagues for their support and advice.

References
[1] Terpstra T. e.a.: FPSO Design and Conversion; A
Designers Approach, proc. OTC 13210 presented at the
2001 OTC Houston, TX, April 30-May 3.
[2] American Bureau of Shipping; Guide of Building and
Classing Floating Production Installations, J une 2000.
[3] Tanker Structure Co-operative Forum (TSCF), Guidance
Manual for Tanker Structures, 1997


OTC 16198 11

Tables

Table 1 Main Particulars
Item Symbol Unit Typical VLCC
Tanker
Typical Suezmax
Tanker
L
O.A.
- m 343.0 271.00
L
P.P.
- m 330.0 260.00
B
Moulded
- m 51.80 44.00
D
Moulded
- m 27.40 22.40
T
Design
- m 21.40 17.02
Deadweight - tonnes 277,000 138,930
Displacement tonnes 299,965 159,100
Block
Coefficient
C
B
- 0.820 0.818
Deck space A m
2
13,260 9,240



Table 2 Field Characteristics Okono and Amenam Field
AMENAM Field OKONO Field
Water Depth 62.8 m 71.75 m

Clarke 1880 (MOD)
Minna Datum
WGS 84 Spheroid
Latitude 04 00 09.90 North 03 59 21.516 North
Longitude 07 47 03.74 East 07 17 28.641 East
NTM Mid Belt (8.5 East) Datum Nigerian Mid-Belt TM Projection
Northings 340 m North - 1,083.2 m North
Eastings 591,00 m East 536,346.0 m East



Table 3 Sponson to Deck Options
Option A Option B Option C


Item








Description Gunwale removed Sponson deck lowered V-groove at gunwale
Structural Integration good good moderate
Deck Space good reduced good
Drainage of water good good moderate
Capital expenditure high low low
Schedule Impact 3 weeks none none

12 OTC 16198

Figures



Figure 1 Location OPL 91 field Offshore Nigeria




Figure 2 Okono and Okpoho Field Layout
OTC 16198 13


Figure 3 Process Arrangment of FPSO Mystras


Figure 4
A
Layout VLCC size FPSO


Figure 4
B
Layout Suezmax size FPSO
14 OTC 16198




D N
DN
D N
DN
DN
DN
UP
DN
DN
DN
DN
DN
DN
DN
D N
DN
DN
DN


Figure 5 FPSO General Arrangement



OTC 16198 15









Figure 6 Midship Section Drawing











16 OTC 16198




Figure 7 - Installation First Block Figure 8 First Block Fitted





Figure 9 Progress, February 23, 2003 Figure 10 Progress, March 16, 2003





Figure 11 Sponsons finished, March 29, 2003 Figure 12 Berthing Skirts


OTC 16198 17







Figure 13 Module 04 Cantilevers Figure 14 FWD PS Mooring Box Structure





Figure 15 Vertical Rollers Figure 16 Aft Installation Winch




Figure 17 Bow Balcony Figure 18 Side Balcony
18 OTC 16198


Figure 19 Congested Deck Area Figure 20 Top View Process Facilities



Figure 21 Riser Hook-up Figure 22 Mooring Line Hook-up




Figure 23 FPSO Mystras leaving Dubai Figure 24 First Oil Production, January 14, 2004