Industry Guidance for:
Integrity, Obsolescence
and Avoidance of Fatigue
Failure
Keith Hart Energy Institute
2nd September 2010
Contents
1.
Existing Guidance Integrity management
2.
On-going - Obsolescence
3.
Future project Avoidance of vibration induced
failure in subsea systems
But first:
Formed in 2003 from:
Institute of
Energy
Institute of
Petroleum
Professional recognition
Personal development
Standards setting and
Accreditation
Well established Petroleum
Industry support programmes
Training & Conferences
Information & library services
Energy Institute
EIs Technical Programme
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC)
Standard
Test
Methods
Hydrocarbon
Management
Committees
Distribution
& Marketing
Committee
Safety &
Integrity
Management
Health
Technical
Committee
Industry Working Groups & Committees
Current Technical (STAC) Members:
EON
BP Exploration Operating Company Ltd
BP Oil UK Ltd
Centrica
Shell UK Exploration & Production
ConocoPhillips Ltd
Talisman Energy (UK) Ltd
ExxonMobil
BG Group
Chevron
ENI
Kuwait Petroleum
Maersk Oil North Sea Ltd
Murco Petroleum Ltd.
Shell UK Oil Products Ltd
Saudi Aramco
Total E & P UK plc
Total UK Ltd
Nexen
Statoil Hydro
Environment
Management
Group
1
Industry guidance on the
integrity of subsea
systems
Subsea Integrity Guidelines
- Key Messages
Part A
MANAGEMENT POLICY
Part B
DETAILED GUIDANCE
Integrity
Detailed
Management (IM)
protects the value of an asset
IM should commence during
the Project Phase (design and
manufacture for IM)
Relatively small costs at the
Project Phase can save high
costs throughout the
Operational Phase
Management processes,
roles, responsibilities etc.
explanation of the IM
the process, using Risk-Based
approach
Certain aspects must be
considered during Project Phase
The SPCS and CIS are critical to
integrity
The importance of audit and
review
Related processes
PART B
Contents
Introduction
Scope
Application
Legislative Framework
Integrity Management Schemes, Teams and Responsibilities
Definition and Sub-division of the System
Considerations at the Project Phase
Risk-Based Integrity Management
Process and Condition Monitoring
In-Service Inspection
Information Management
Maintainability, Spares and Preparedness
Audit and Review
Related Processes
Where costs lie
In
deep water and/or remote locations, generally:
cost of installation far exceeds the cost of the subsea hardware
cost of repair far exceeds the cost of the subsea hardware
Therefore
sacrificing maintainability to save on procurement
cost is a misguided philosophy
Therefore, to minimise expenditure through the life-cycle:
Better
to spend money during the design, procurement and
build stage to get:
reliability (redundancy/maintainability)
ease of inspection
comprehensive monitoring
a design to facilitate replacement of parts
Is it working?
Example - corrosion inhibition
Need
reliable flow data to calculate injection rate
Is the correct amount of inhibitor being injected?
Is the correct amount arriving at the required injection point?
Is it achieving the required purpose? (choice of inhibitor)
If any answer might be no can we determine why?
Diagnostics
Other indicators:
At
Wall loss, pitting, Groove corrosion
Microbially-induced corrosion (MIC)
Production profile and characteristics
Presence of sand (i.e. erosion)
the project stage: decide what data are required and
provide them
Data stream example - Manifold
Gas sampling
(CO2, H2S, etc.)
Isolation valve
operated
T
Corrosion/erosion
probe output
P
T
FSM
P
FSM
SCM
performance
Chemical injection
performance
Temp, pressure,
flow rate data
Allocation of data streams
Data Type
Operators
Integrity Engineers
Reliability Engineers
Subsea Engineers
Temp, pressure, flow
rate, etc
Confirm safe to
continue operating
Confirm operation
within SOL
Sensor
performance data
(MTBF, &c)
Sensors OK /or/ PM
task to plan
Isolation valve
operated
Task complete
Requirement to
Valve condition
calculate new
monitoring data
corrosivity in each leg
Gas sampling (CO2,
H2S, etc)
Confirm safe to
continue operating
Assessment of
corrosivity
Sensor performance
data (MTBF, &c)
Chemical injection
performance
Requirements
achieved
--
Achieving availability
(system condition
monitoring)
Achieving availability
(system condition
monitoring)
Pumps, IRCDs,
umbilical cores OK
/or/ PM task to plan
Corrosion / erosion
probe output
Achieving protection
(anticipate
corrosivity)
Confirm corrosion
under control, or calc
remaining life
--
SCM component
performance data
(MTBF, &c)
SCM OK /or/
intervention required
SCM performance
Daily data
stream
Confirm ability to
control system /or/
shut-down required
Operation
management
Integrity
assessment
Availability
assessment
Valve status
--
Probes OK /or/ PM
task to plan
Inspection &
maintenance
planning
Material selection & specification
Subsea, and especially in deep water, replacing a corroded circlip can
cost as much as replacing a valve actuator
Saving small change on minor items, or simply not paying attention to
them, can cause large costs to Operations (money and reputation)
Examples from the Guideline:
Circlip retainers: supplied in precipitation hardened stainless steel, that
fractured by hydrogen embrittlement resulting from the cathodic protection
Couplers: supplied in non-seawater-resistant grades of stainless steel (e.g.
Nitronic 60) and incorrectly heat treated such that they failed by inter-granular
corrosion
Fasteners: made from 316 SS that corroded and failed because of lack of
electrical continuity with the cathodically-protected structure
Subsea control module valve: high strength internal components that failed
by corrosion due to seawater ingress into the control fluid
Low alloy steel fasteners: that failed by hydrogen embrittlement due to
excessive hardness
Procurement QA
Overlap here with Reliability e.g. API RP 17N
Importance of ensuring, throughout supply chain, that manufacturers
stick rigidly to specification parent materials and consumables
adopt best practice in manufacture
carry out necessary testing correctly
handle materials correctly
learn from mistakes
Detailed audits of suppliers
Do not scrimp on FAT or SIT these are cheap compared to cost of
Recovery
Repair
Deferment of production
Start-up
Procurement QA
Installation and Commissioning
Well Intervention Operations
Many operational benefits recommend this be the norm
Reliability, Maintainability and Data Accessibility
Ensure required interventions understood when installed, too late
Piggable Systems
Take a few months paying for lack of attention to detail lasts years
Maximise baseline data benefits last for years
Reliability well-established processes to avoid failure
Maintainability make as easy as possible to maintain
Data Accessibility identify degradation, conduct diagnostics
Risk Assessment
Carry out in full during design, with Operations input, but
Try to avoid relying on mitigation by operational task
2
Industry guidance on the
reliability & obsolescence of
subsea systems
(in collaboration with Subsea UK)
Existing Documentation on
Obsolescence
The main, general industry standard is EN (BS) 62402:2007
Obsolescence management Application guide
This looks at obsolescence management mainly from the
point of view of a main/first tier supplier in any industry:
looking down the supply chain to his suppliers (OCM)
and up the supply chain to his clients.
The standard addresses both reactive and proactive
approaches to obsolescence management (OM).
Has been a primary source, but the information has been
reworked in two ways:
Select those parts of the full spectrum of management
techniques best applicable to subsea systems
Take the point of the view of the end-user the Operator
as well as the First Tier Supplier
Existing Documentation on
Obsolescence
Another useful reference document has been Part 8.13
Obsolescence Management of the Defence Logistics
Support Chain Manual, JSP 886, which has already adapted
EN (BS) 62402 for the defence end-user.
New Guidance on reliability &
obsolescence
The EI title is Guidelines for the Management of Subsea
Reliability and Obsolescence.
Reliability of subsea systems in projects is well covered by
API RP 17N, so no point reiterating (although it does not say
much about operations a deficiency under discussion
currently, apparently).
Therefore, EI guidelines concentrating on unreliability i.e.
how to manage components, modules, etc, where change is
required (thus matching the obsolescence issue).
Common point here is maintainability (accessibility, etc, for
replacement) and this is covered in another code: EN 60300
(various parts) Dependability management, another useful
source.
New Guidance on reliability &
obsolescence Unreliability
New Guidance on reliability &
obsolescence
The guidelines will address:
What is obsolescence and what is its impact
Which management strategies are best applicable to subsea
facilities/systems
How is that management applied at each stage in the life cycle
Roles and responsibilities
Obsolescence monitoring and reviews, and their frequency
Data capture and management
New Guidance on reliability &
obsolescence Contents (Draft 1A)
1. Introduction
2. Aims & Objectives
3. Scope
4. Definitions
5. Application
6. Legislative framework
7. Obsolescence
8. Review of equipment
9. Life cycle management of
obsolescence
10. Roles & responsibilities
11. Obsolescence monitoring &
reviews
12. Information management
13. References
14. Abbreviations
15. Appendix A Management
strategies
New Guidance on reliability &
obsolescence
The guidelines address both the Operator and the First
Tier Supplier
Key points:
The Operator must have an OM strategy in place which has
been thought through.
May be a purely reactive fix on break, but the implications must
be fully understood.
Written around a proactive OM strategy, which might be
managed by the Operator, in-house
If Operator requires long term obsolescence and unreliability
support from the Supplier, then an agreement will have to be put
in place
New Guidance on reliability &
obsolescence
Key points (contd.):
Supplier should also have an OM strategy, associated with
product quality and reputation, which should benefit the
Operator to some extent (may be limited)
Recovery steps are similar to reactive response, but proactive
strategy provides the time to apply them in a controlled
response, and permits cost forecasting
Encourages the Operator to develop an Obsolescence
Management Plan (OMP) to reflect the above
The Supplier should develop an OMP to reflect the business
plan.
New Guidance on reliability &
obsolescence
Currently being prepared under EI STAC Project
No S015
Shaped to be complementary with, and in a similar
style, to the existing Guidelines for the
Management of Integrity of Subsea Facilities
Being overseen by an industry Steering Group
1st Draft for comment issued August 10
3
Future - Development of
Industry guidance on the
avoidance of vibrationinduced fatigue in subsea
pipework
Subsea experience
Assessment of subsea systems to
vibration-induced fatigue has been largely
limited to vortex-induced vibration (VIV)
of riser systems and unsupported pipeline
spans (i.e. environmental loading)
Until recently, operational experience has
indicated that vibration caused by internal
flow (i.e. process excitation) has not been
a significant issue subsea
However, piping vibration due to process
excitation has started to become an issue
on manifolds and jumpers in part,
associated with increasing flowrates
Additional problems have been
experienced with valves and
instrumentation
Challenges
Hidden threat
z
No obvious sign that vibration is occurring (possible exception is flow induced
pulsation from a riser, which may be heard topsides)
Obtaining measurements on existing subsea equipment
z
z
z
z
The ideal would be to measure dynamic strain at fatigue sensitive locations
In practice, on existing equipment, can only measure vibration accelerations at
remote locations
In-situ monitoring is expensive
Limited real-time capability
Uncertainties in simulation/prediction
z
z
z
Level of excitation
Coupling of excitation to piping system
Mass loading/damping
EI Managed JIP AVIFF Guidelines
Guidelines for the Avoidance of Vibration
Induced Fatigue Failure in Process
Pipework - first published 1999.
Public domain methodology to assess the
risk of a piping vibration issue.
In 2004, copyright transferred to The
Energy Institute (EI)
In 2005, a new JIP was initiated to update
and improve the original MTD Guidelines
document.
2nd edition was published in January 2008.
Now known as the EI AVIFF Guidelines
Sponsors: BG, BHP Billiton, BP,
ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips, LR,
Nexen, Petrofac, Shell, Total, HSE
Proposed methodology
Concept/FEED
Screening assessment
Detailed simulation
Detailed design
Monitoring system specification
Construction
Verification
Operation
Monitoring &
assessment
Proposed way forward
Obtain funding form the EIs Technical Programme (STAC) Nov 10
Form a Steering Group from key industry personnel
Expand on each section in the proposed methodology
Use applicable elements of the EI AVIFF document (especially
screening methodology)
Integrate learning points from experience gained on subsea
issues
Integrate learning points from flexible risers JIP
Use of data captured on existing subsea equipment (vibration
measurement data and process/operational data) to validate
approach. (Data already available and held by Bureau Veritas will be
used).
Other Guidance relevant to Sub
sea operations that are being
revised:
Relevant publications
Design & operational guidance on cathodic
protection systems of offshore structures & subsea
installations (formerly an MTD publication)
Flexible hose management guidelines (with HSE &
O&G UK)
Guidelines for the management, design, installation
& maintenance of small bore tubing systems (with
HSE & O&G UK)
Thank you
www.energyinst.org
