Hose Surge Report

7/24/2019 Hose Surge Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hose-surge-report 1/17

PROVISION OF EPCIC AND LEASING

FOR LAYANG FPSO FACILITIES

Purchase Order Number: H100000271-1

Purchase Order Title: PROJECT OF SUPPLY COMPLETE PACKAGE OF FLOATING

HOSE AND MARINE BREAK AWAY COUPLING FOR

LAYANG FPSO PROJECT

Vendors Name: MIBITALIANA S.P.A.

Vendors Reference Number and Revision: Rev.

Vendor (Prepared By)

Vendor (Checked By)

Vendor (Approved By)

Document Description: MBC - Surge Analysis Report

Equipment / Tag Number(s): MARINE BREAK AWAY COUPLING

Project No. Purchase

Order

VDR

Code

Sequential No. Sheet No.(Applicable for

drawing only)

Rev

No.

LFPSO H10000027

1-1

C99 00002 00

Also Covers

VDRL codes

Purchaser review and comments shall not be assumed to indicate either responsibility or liability for

accuracy and completeness of this document or to alter any contractual terms and conditions.

Review Code and Status

Code 1 Approved - Final

Code 2Accepted with Comments Noted Incorporate Comments, Up-rev and

Resubmit. Work may Proceed

Code 3 Review not required – Do not re-submit

Code 4 Rejected - Do not proceed, revise and re-submit

Date: Sign:

TH HEAVY ENGINEERING



MIB ITALIANA S.P.A.DESIGN & ENGINEERING DEPT.

SURGE ANALYSIS

Doc. N. SUR-25444

Rev. 0

Page 1 of 16

EQUIPMENT: ATTREZZATURA:

MIBREAK 12” FB ASME B16.5 CL. 150

PRODUCTS:PRODOTTO:

CRUDE OIL

DRAWING No:DISEGNO N°:

HB0090

CUSTOMER:CLIENTE:

TH HEAVY ENGINEERING

PROJECT NAME:PROGETTO:

TH HEAVY ENGINEERING BERHADFPSO LAYANG

MIB PROJECT REF.:RIFERIMENTO MIB:

25442 / OF9033

CUSTOMER REF.:RIF.TO CLIENTE:

P.O. H100000271-1 DATED 27/05/2015

SERIAL Nr.:N° DI MATRICOLA:

AA0002

0 08.10.15 NR MZ RK First issue

Rev. Date Issued Checked Approved Description

Issued by: Checked by: Approved by:

Name: A. Deponti Name: N. Rossetto Name: R. Kröss

Sig: AD Sig: NR Sig: RK

Date: 06.10.2015 Date: 07.10.2015 Date: 08.10.2015




SURGE ANALYSIS

Doc. N. SUR-25444

Rev. 0

Page 2 of 16

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 3

2. FLUID DYNAMIC MODEL OF THE LINE ............................................................. 3

3. PETALS CLOSURE SEQUENCE ....................................................................... 11

4. SURGE ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 12

5. FUNCTIONAL TEST ........................................................................................... 14

6. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................. 16




SURGE ANALYSIS

Doc. N. SUR-25444

Rev. 0

Page 3 of 16

1. INTRODUCTION

A surge analysis is performed to define the closure time for the MIBreak unit in orderto avoid an overpressure higher than 1.33 times the design pressure, due to thewater hammer effect. A steady state analysis of the operating condition is first performed, to calculate thefluid-dynamic conditions before activation of the MIBreak unit. After this, a closure of the MIBreak’s petal valves against the flow is simulated inorder to calculate the quickest closure time that produces a peak of pressure limitedto 25.3 bar (1.33 x 19 bar). This closure time is correlated with the geometry of thedampening system, which is therefore fixed.

With the geometry of the dampening system defined above, a further analysis isperformed to simulate the functional test during the FAT, when the closure time willbe checked. As the FAT is performed with the unit empty, the corresponding closuretime will be longer than the calculated above as there will be no load from the flowacting on the petals and the petals are forced to close only by the springs of themechanism.

2. FLUID DYNAMIC MODEL OF THE LINE

As written above a steady state analysis of the operating condition is first performed,to calculate the fluid-dynamic conditions before activation of the MIBreak unit.The system is modelled by means of a one-dimensional computational-fluid-dynamic(CFD) approach using the software Flowmaster.The model is shown in Fig. 1, based on data defined in the following documents:

• “OFFLOADING HOSE LENGTH AND HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONTECHNICAL NOTE”

• Document THE-STE-LFPSO-11E-PP-LYT-80002 Rev A “Piping LayoutDrawing - Cargo Oil System (Main Deck)”

• LFPSO-H100000271-1-C01-00001 Rev A “HBO – General Arrangement

Drawing – String Layout”• THE-STE-LFPSO-11E-PP-PID-80002 Rev 1 “P&ID Cargo Oil System”

• “Dual Plate Check Valve characteristic.pdf”

• HP-27-28-29-30-31-32-33 “Gene Piping Arr. In Pump Rm.”

• “REF#4 THHE - Caratteristiche Tubi - 22-06-2015.xlsx”

• “REF#9 LFPSO-H100000271-1-C01-00001 - Rev00.pdf”

• “Data required for Pressure Surge Analysis - from THHE - Engi Soft.docx”

peak pressure shall govern by

piping downstream of check

valve 350-C-052 ie 24barg (1.5

* 16 barg)

OR 1.5 times the design

pressure of topsides piping

whichever is lower




SURGE ANALYSIS

Doc. N. SUR-25444

Rev. 0

Page 4 of 16

Fig. 1. One-dimensional fluid-dynamic model.

i s t h i s H B U ? i s y e s s h o w

' H B U ' t a g




SURGE ANALYSIS

Doc. N. SUR-25444

Rev. 0

Page 5 of 16

Here below the technical assumptions made for this analysis are reported, based onwhat discussed and clarified with the client.

• One pump is considered. Pump elevation above reference is null. Pump

characteristics are based on data presented at page 4 of document

“OFFLOADING HOSE LENGTH AND HYDRAULIC CALCULATION

TECHNICAL NOTE”. In particular, the flow rate through the pump is 2000

m3/h, the rotational speed is 1500 rpm and the total head at 2000 m3/h is

130.8 m. The pump characteristic curve is presented in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2. Pump characteristic curve.

• Piping from the pump (point A) to point B is modelled based on drawing

HP-27-28-29-30-31-32-33 “Gene Piping Arr. In Pump Rm.” As indicated, pump

No. 2 and line CP-11 are considered. All the pipes in this section are DN450.

Pipe lengths are presented in

• Fig. 3. Elevations are presented in

• Fig. 4. Point B has an elevation of 23.3 m above point A (pump). No valves

are considered. Junctions connecting line CP-11 to the new line are modelled

by means of mitre bend which are equivalent to tee junctions with one closed

arm.




SURGE ANALYSIS

Doc. N. SUR-25444

Rev. 0

Page 6 of 16

Fig. 3. Pipe lengths in section AB.

Fig. 4. Elevations in section AB.




SURGE ANALYSIS

Doc. N. SUR-25444

Rev. 0

Page 7 of 16

• The total length of pipes (excluding bends) between points A and point B

derived from the detailed pipe routing is 83.1 m.

• Piping from point B to point C is modelled (elevations, diameters, lengths,

elbows, valves) based on document “THE-STE-LFPSO-11E-PP-LYT-80002

Rev A Piping Layout Drawing - Cargo Oil System”. Pipes diameters vary from

a minimum of DN300 and a maximum of DN600 so that also transitions are

modelled. Pipe lengths are presented in

• Fig. 5. Elevations are presented in

• Fig. 6. Point C has an elevation of 21.5 m above point A (pump). The dual

plate check valve 350-C-052 is modelled on the base of document “Dual Plate

Check Valve characteristic.pdf”. Its closing time is 0.5 seconds. From the

graph it can be derived that the pressure drop of the DN500 valve with a flow

rate of 2000 m3/h is 0.0358 bar.

Fig. 5. Pipe lengths in sect ion BC.

Fig. 6. Elevations in section BC.




SURGE ANALYSIS

Doc. N. SUR-25444

Rev. 0

Page 8 of 16

• The total length of pipes (excluding bends) between points B and C derived

from the detailed pipe routing is 91.15 m.

• Valves and elbows are considered between point B and point C while side

branches are neglected.

• Valves are modelled based on Flowmaster component database as follows:

o Valves 350-V-132 and 350-V-022 are modelled as butterfly valves;

o Valve 350-C-052 is modelled as a swing check valve;

o Valve 350-XOV-021 is modelled as a globe valve.

Valve pressure drops at 2000 m3/h are reported in Tab. 1.

Valve Pressure drop (bar)

350-V-132 0.0201153

350-V-022 0.0201153

350-C-052 0.0358043

350-XOV-021 0.298508

Tab. 1. Valves pressure drops at 2000 m3/h based on Flowmaster componentdatabase.

• Pressure drops across oil metering skid are based on data presented on page

6 of document “OFFLOADING HOSE LENGTH AND HYDRAULIC

CALCULATION TECHNICAL NOTE” and are presented in Fig. 7.




SURGE ANALYSIS

Doc. N. SUR-25444

Rev. 0

Page 9 of 16

Fig. 7. Oil metering skid pressure drops as a function of oil flow rate.

• Hose properties are based on documents “REF#4 THHE - Caratteristiche Tubi

- 22-06-2015.xlsx” and “REF#9 LFPSO-H100000271-1-C01-00001 -

Rev00.pdf”. In particular the length of the hose between point C and MBC

(MIBreak 12”) is 239.4 m while the length of the hose between MBC and point

D is 44.9 m.

• The operating conditions are 30 °C at atmospheric pressure (1.0132 bar).

Crude oil physical properties at these conditions are reported in

• Tab. 2. Density and viscosity are computed as the average values of the ten

samples presented in document “REF#3 Reference1 oil samples.xlsx”.

Saturation pressure is the average value between minimum and maximum

values provided in document “Data required for Pressure Surge Analysis -

from THHE - Engi Soft.docx”. Bulk modulus is derived from the API gravity of

the values provided in document “Data required for Pressure Surge Analysis -

from THHE - Engi Soft.docx”. Again the average values of the ten samples

provided is considered.

Add basis/assumption for

hose/riser elevation i.e. from

topsides to bottom of riser




SURGE ANALYSIS

Doc. N. SUR-25444

Rev. 0

Page 10 of 16

Mass Density kg/m3 772.8714935

Viscosity Pa s 0.001520114

Saturation Pressure bar 0.83295

Bulk Modulus GPa 1.104029831

Tab. 2. Crude oi l physical properties at 30 °C and atmospheric pressure (1.0132bar).

A steady state analysis is performed, in which a flow rate of 2000 m3/h is imposed atthe pump together with a pressure of 1.55 barg at its suction, to obtain a pressure of3.1 barg at point D, as specified. Simulation results are presented in Tab. 3 and compared with provided data.

Data Results Difference (%)

Pump Rot. Speed (rpm) 1500 1500 0.000%

Pump Flow Rate (m3/h) 2000 1999.98 -0.001%

Pump Head (m) 130.8 130.79 -0.004%

Pressure@A (barg) 11.34 11.46 1.097%

Pressure@D (barg) 3.1 3.1 0.000%

Pressure Drop@Oil Metering (bar) 0.845 0.845 -0.006%

Pressure Drop@Check Valve (bar) 0.036 0.036 -0.021%

Pressure Drop@Hose (bar) 4.574 4.556 -0.384%

Pressure Drop@Section AD (bar) 8.240 8.364 1.510%

Tab. 3. Results of the steady state analysis are compared with provided data.

In tab. 4 the resulting inlet boundary conditions for the MIBreak unit are presented.

Inlet Total Pressure Pa 592218

Inlet Static Pressure Pa 569432

Inlet Velocity m/s 7.654

Inlet Mass Flow Rate kg/s 429

Inlet Volumetric Flow Rate m3/s 0.556

Tab. 4. Results at MIBreak inlet.




SURGE ANALYSIS

Doc. N. SUR-25444

Rev. 0

Page 11 of 16

3. PETALS CLOSURE SEQUENCE

When the break load is reached, the MIBreak unit is activated to separate and petalsclose with the sequence here below described.In the first open configuration petals are covered by the internal sleeve, where oil canfreely flow. As the HBU starts closing, the large petals close immediately while thesmall petals closure is slowed down by the hydraulic dampening system. See thesequence in the table below, where the rotation angle is considered starting from theclosed position.

Pos.Petal angle

Petals ConfigurationLarge Small

Pos.1

60 60Fully open.

Petals are covered.

Pos.2

0 60

Pos.3

0 50

Pos.4

0 40

Pos.5

0 30




SURGE ANALYSIS

Doc. N. SUR-25444

Rev. 0

Page 12 of 16

Pos.6

0 20

Pos.7

0 10

Tab. 5. Petals closure sequence.

4. SURGE ANALYSIS

Closure of the MIBreak’s upstream petal valve against the flow is simulated in orderto calculate the minimum closure time that produces a peak of pressure lower than25.3 bar, i.e. 1.33 x design pressure that is 19 bar.The calculated closure time corresponds to a defined geometry of the is correlatedwith the geometry of the dampening system. The wave speed a is computed by the relation:

Where ρ is the liquid density (kg/m3), k the bulk modulus of liquid (N/m2), d the pipe

internal diameter (m), t the pipe thickness (m), E the Young's Modulus of pipe

material (N/m2) and the pipe restraint factor (usually set equal to 1). A wave speedof 220 m/s is considered for the flexible hose while a wave speed of 1115 m/s isconsidered for the steel pipes.

Please add ref for

wave speedassumption




SURGE ANALYSIS

Doc. N. SUR-25444

Rev. 0

Page 13 of 16

Fig. 8. Surge analysis - Small petal angle Vs. Time.

Fig. 9. Surge analysis - HBU closure Vs. Time

(1 represents fully open HBU, 0 representes ful ly closed HBU).




SURGE ANALYSIS

Doc. N. SUR-25444

Rev. 0

Page 14 of 16

Fig. 10. Surge analysis - Pressures upstream of the HBU (red) and downstream

of the check valve (blue).

A computed maximum pressure of 25.04 barg occurs upstream of the HBU with aclosure time of 5.4 sec. Another point of high pressure is downstream of the checkvalve where the pressure reaches the maximum value of 24.14 barg. In Fig. 10pressures at these two points are presented.

5. FUNCTIONAL TEST

As explained in the introduction, an additional analysis is performed to simulate thefunctional test during the FAT, when the closure time will be checked without anyflow at ambient temperature (20 °C assumed in the analysis).

With the geometry of the dampening system defined as result of the surge analysis,the corresponding computed closure time of the petals during the functional test,when there is no load from the flow acting on the petals and the petals are forced toclose only by the springs of the mechanism, is 21.8 s. The small petal angle variationas a function of time is presented in Fig. 11. This corresponds to the HBU closurepresented in Fig. 12.

this shall be reduced to

below 24barg.

Is the description correct?

Believe steady state pressureat upstream of MBU should be

higher than downstream of

check valve due to positive

elevation diff. Please check

and confirm ie. red should be

downstream check valve and

blue should be upstream of

MBU.

Clarify point for this pressure

clarify point for this pressure?




SURGE ANALYSIS

Doc. N. SUR-25444

Rev. 0

Page 15 of 16

Fig. 11. Functional test - Small petal angle Vs. Time.

Fig. 12. Funct ional test - HBU closure Vs. Time(1 represents fully open HBU, 0 representes ful ly closed HBU).




SURGE ANALYSIS

Doc. N. SUR-25444

Rev. 0

Page 16 of 16

6. CONCLUSIONS

This surge analysis defines the ideal closure time for the MIBreak unit in order toavoid a water hammer effect higher than 1.33 times the design pressure.The needed closure time results 5.4 sec in the operating condition of the transfer line.This defines the geometry of the dampening system that when subjected tofunctional test in empty condition gives a closure time of 21.8 sec. This is thecharacteristic value for this MIBreak unit, that will be checked in the Factory Acceptance Test.

Hose Surge Report

Documents

Transcript of Hose Surge Report