Load-Carrying Capacity Analysis On Derrick of Offshore Module Drilling Rig
Load-Carrying Capacity Analysis On Derrick of Offshore Module Drilling Rig
Load-Carrying Capacity Analysis On Derrick of Offshore Module Drilling Rig
net
The Open Petroleum Engineering Journal, 2014, 7, 29-40
29
Open Access
School of Mechanical Engineering, Yangtze University, Jingzhou 434023, China; 2School of Materials Science and
Engineering, Henan University of Science and Technology, Luoyang 471023, China
Abstract: Offshore module drilling rig has become an important equipment of offshore oil and gas development, especially, the significantly future application in the field of deep water. Due to the long time working and complex working
conditions of in-service derrick of offshore module drilling rig, analysis of its load-carrying capacity assessment is of
great significance. Field test shows that in common the derrick of offshore module drilling has an intrinsic defect of stress
concentration in addition to external damages including initial bending and load eccentricity. In this paper, the finite element method is combined with field test method, two assessment methods are put forward, respectively. Stress concentration detection on derrick main rod is carried out by using metal magnetic memory detector, and the detection results show
that larger degree of stress concentration phenomenon exists on eleven rods of derrick, and stress concentration degree of
individual rod is serious. Loading stress test and finite element analysis are carried out on the derrick of offshore module
drilling rig. According to comprehensive comparison, it is concluded that hoisting capacity for the derrick cannot reach
4500 kN. Two kinds of structure reinforcement scheme are proposed, and comparison results show that the reinforcement
scheme with four legs can improve the actual load-carrying capacity of the derrick. Reinforced derrick can achieve the
new design value of derrick carrying capacity. In this study, the evaluation method is correct, which can analyze the derrick carrying capacity of offshore module drilling rig more objective and accurate, and we also provide a new train of
thought and reference for the steel structure carrying capacity assessment.
Keywords:Assessment method, derrick, finite element analysis, load-carrying capacity, offshore drilling rig, stress concentration detection.
1. INTRODUCTION
With the exploration and development of offshore oil and
gas going into the deep water, application of offshore module drilling rig (OMDR) with large load-carrying capacity is
used increasing widely. For example, dual derrick drilling
unit has been applied well in ocean drilling operation [1-3].
Recently, a majority of drillings and workovers used in china
offshore platform have entered late period of service, and
many of them have also been modified, destroying the original structure and carrying characteristics. Many derricks of
module drilling rig are carried out capacity assessment after
being used 5-6 years or even more than 10 years and can be
used for new drilling, which not only lack of accumulation
of testing data, but also increase the risk of initial defects that
the derrick exists. The assessment results of derrick carrying
capacity of OMDR directly determine whether the derrick
continues to be used, be repaired or be replaced. Because of
the expensive cost to replace derrick on offshore platform,
the higher costs for transport and installation than the rig
itself, scientific and objective assessment methods, considering various factors, assessing capacity of derrick accurately,
should guarantee production safe and efficient, and are of
great significance in various aspects.
*Address correspondence to this author at the School of Mechanical Engineering, Yangtze University, Jingzhou 434023, China;
Tel: 0086-716-8062600; Fax: 0086-716-8062081;
E-mails: [email protected] or [email protected]
1874-8341/14
At present, derrick assessment method is established according to the limited test data on derrick and the theory of
strength, stiffness, reliability and stability. The above assessment of derrick through linear extrapolation of the limited test data is not comprehensive and scientific. Current
studies mostly focus on theoretical method and model with
no damage defect [4-6]. Guo and Fukumoto [4] proposed the
theory which concerned with the post buckling behavior and
ultimate load-carrying capacity of thin-walled cold-formed
and welded stub columns subjected to a constant load eccentricity or a constant compression eccentricity. Rodsan and
Chiorean [5] presented an efficient computer method for
inelastic and large deflection analysis of flexibly jointed steel
frames. Han and Liu [6] calculated the ultimate carrying capacity by using three-dimensional degenerated curved shell
elements. In recent years, the carrying capacity assessment
method of derrick with initial defects and the modified
model research have some progress [7-8]. Han et al. [7] proposed a novel method based on the partial model updating
theory, where the test stresses of the main load-carrying
member rods are taken as the key indicators and the relevant
design parameters as the input updating objects. Liu et al. [8]
deduced the damage functions which reflected three modes
of structure damage. The modified model with considering
external damage is put forward by this research, but it has
not been verified very well on the spot, and just considering
three kinds of common external damage including corrosion,
rod bending and eccentric load. Through field test, it is found
2014 Bentham Open
Guan et al.
31
H p (x) ( A m1 )
20
14
175
11
15
55
48
63
43
65
69
15
140
97
47
135
13
140
164
173
20
180
nodes; (2) The junction of derrick and platform are the nodes
of the model. Comprehensive consideration, the size of FEA
element is 0.1m, by meshing, and there are 15590 nodes and
11736 elements for this model of FEA, which are shown in
Fig. (3).
3.2. Constraints
Derrick is installed on the drill floor, and the derrick floor
can be taken as a rigid body because of its big stiffness. The
A-bracket inclined leg of mast support is fixed connection
with the drill floor, and six degrees of freedom are restricted.
The A-bracket backside inclined leg of mast support is connected with the drill floor by 4 pins, and five degrees of
freedom are restricted at the pin nodes, the rotational degree
Guan et al.
Fig. (4). Strain curves of loading process for the test point No. 9.
Table 2.
The actual measured strain values under the load of 1462.3 kN.
Point No.
Strain Values
( )
Point No.
Strain Values
( )
Point No.
Strain Values
( )
Point No.
Strain Values
( )
95.8
191.1
17
35.2
25
156.7
85.4
10
181.1
18
42.1
26
140.9
57.9
11
143.3
19
50.1
27
116.5
79.4
12
161
20
46.4
28
140.3
63.6
13
139.1
21
87.2
29
124.8
54.5
14
133.2
22
90.2
30
56.7
47
15
149.9
23
60
31
117.3
67.1
16
134.4
24
78.1
32
117.4
Table 3.
Point No.
Stress Value
(MPa)
Point No.
Stress Value
(MPa)
Point No.
Stress Value
(MPa)
Point No.
Stress Value
(MPa)
89.4
178.4
17
32.2
25
146.2
79.8
10
169
18
40.3
26
131.5
54
11
133.7
19
56.3
27
108.7
74
12
150.3
20
43.2
28
131
59.4
13
129.9
21
81.4
29
116.5
50.8
14
124.3
22
84.2
30
52.9
43.8
15
139.9
23
56
31
109.5
62.5
16
125.4
24
72.9
32
109.6
of freedom around the pin shaft direction (Z) is not restricted. The vertical legs of mast support is connected with
the drill floor by 2 pins, and five degrees of freedom are restricted at the pin nodes, the rotational degree of freedom
around the pin shaft direction (Z) is not restricted. Meanwhile, vertical frame legs of auxiliary derrick lower is connected with the drill floor by 2 pins, and five degrees of
freedom are restricted at the pin nodes, the rotational degree
of freedom around the pin shaft direction (Z) is not restricted. The mast support is connected with lower derrick by
2 pins, five degrees of freedom are restricted at the pin
nodes, and the rotational degree of freedom around the pin
shaft direction (Z) is not restricted. The above description is
shown as Fig. (5). In addition, the connection points between
lower derrick and auxiliary derrick are 6, they are all handled
as hinge, that is, five degrees of freedom are restricted at the
pin nodes and the rotational degree of freedom around the
pin shaft direction (Z) is not restricted.
3.3. Loads
The loadings mainly include the following types:
Dead Load: Including the weight of crown, traveling
block hook, top drive and guide rail, racking platform and
derrick. Besides weight of the derrick, other loads are applied on derrick through the crane beam.
Working Load: Including the static hook load and rope
work force, the maximum hook load is 4500 kN according to
the requirement, and their acting position is as the same with
that of dead load.
Setback Load: Including the force acting on derrick because of thribble weight and wind load suffered by pipe, and
the setback load is acted on corresponding node of derrick
along the horizontal direction by the beam on racking platform.
Wind Load: Including three kinds of wind speed and
three kinds of the wind direction. According to API SPEC
4F [11], the extreme wind speed of offshore drilling derrick
is 48 knots in working condition, 70 knots for unexpected
situations, and 93 knots for expected situations. In order to
33
Table 4.
Guan et al.
Maximum
Hook
Load
Rated
Drill
String
Load
Maximum
hook load
Serious
workover 1
1.4
0.6
Serious
workover 2
1.4
0.6
Serious
workover 3
1.4
0.6
Normal
drilling 1
0.6
Normal
drilling 2
0.6
Normal
drilling 3
0.6
Waiting
for the
weather 1
Waiting
for the
weather 2
10
Waiting
for the
weather 3
11
Protect
equipment 1
12
Protect
equipment 2
13
Protect
equipment 3
No.
Working
Condition
Working
Rope
Force
Setback
Load
Setback
Wind
Load
Back
WIND
LOad
Lateral
Wind
Load
Front
Wind
Load
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Wind
Speed
(knot)
Top
Drive
Torque
8 .0
Magnitude
Earthquake
48
48
48
48
48
48
70
70
70
93
93
93
Table 5.
35
No.
Working Conditions
60.898
-171
Serious work-over 1
52.994
-164
Serious work-over 2
55.183
-164
Serious work-over 3
56.357
-125
Normal drilling 1
47.058
-130
Normal drilling 2
50.119
-129
Normal drilling 3
50.553
-130
26.055
-32.3
43.046
-47.1
10
42.149
-47.2
11
Security equipment 1
23.869
-28.7
12
Security equipment 2
49.235
-51.2
13
Security equipment 3
47.758
-51.4
Guan et al.
fa
f
f
+ bw + bz 1.0
Fa Fbw Fbz
(1)
where
UC =
f by
fa
f
+ bx +
Fa Fbx Fby
(2)
37
Table 6.
Guan et al.
Cross Section
The Average
Value of Axial
Stress (MPa)
The Bending
Stress of X
Direction (MPa)
The Bending
Stress of Y
Direction (MPa)
Strength
Coefficient
A-A
B-B
-85.8 MPa
-104.0 MPa
7.4
4.3
41.7
45.6
146.2
178.4
1.52
4276
on the back legs of the upper derrick (back legs reinforcement scheme) which is shown in Fig. (10a); the second
method is welding reinforcement plates to the four H-beam
on the front and back legs of the upper derrick (four legs
reinforcement scheme) which is shown in Fig. (10b). The
structure of reinforcement is welding 10 mm plates on the
front and back of H-beam. The FEA is carried out respectively on the derricks with two method reinforcement
schemes, and the results are shown in Figs. (11 and 12).
From Fig. (11), when back legs reinforcement scheme is
adopted, the weakness points (where the value of UC is
maximum) of load-carrying capacity lie on the front legs
comparing with the previous results, the max value of UC
reflecting load-carrying capacity of derrick legs is smaller
than that of the value which is derived without reinforcement
situation, but the value is still larger than 1, so the derrick
carrying capacity is promoted, but it still cannot meet the
requirements of hoisting capacity of 4500 kN. Fig. (12)
shows the value of UC of derrick leg in four legs reinforcement scheme, the weakness points of carrying capacity lie on
the back legs. The max value of UC is less than 1, it means
that the derrick carrying capacity is promoted obviously by
using four legs reinforcement scheme, and the derrick can
meet the requirements of hoisting capacity of 4500 kN.
Therefore the four legs reinforcement scheme is adopted to
restore the derrick carrying capacity.
CONCLUSION
Based on the load-carrying capacity assessment and
structure reinforcement for derrick of OMDR, the results can
be drawn as follows:
Fig. (10). (a) Back legs reinforcement scheme. (b) Four legs reinforcement scheme.
39
Fig. (11). UC diagram of back legs reinforcement scheme.
Fig. (12). UC diagram of four legs reinforcement scheme.
(3) Thought the repeated comparison and analysis calculation by FEA software, in order to make the derrick hoisting capacity reach 4500 kN, the method that welding reinforcement plates to the four H-beam on the front and
back legs of the derrick can be used, and the thickness of
weld plates is 10 mm, but the further SCD should be carried out after the completion of the reinforcement.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors confirm that this article content has no conflicts of interest.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was jointly supported by Natural Science
Foundation of Hubei Province of China (No. 2013CFC127),
Guan et al.
[7]
[8]
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
D.Y. Han, Z.F. Li, and G.Q. Zhou, Ultimate bearing capacity
analysis of derrick steel structures based on partial model updating
theory, Engineering Mechanics (in Chinese), vol. 24, no. 10,
pp. 175-179, 2007.
.M. Liu, G.Q. Zhou, and D.Y. Han, Study on simulation for ultimate bearing capacity of oil-derrick with damage, Journal of System Simulation (in Chinese), vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 1781-1784, 1788,
2009.
A.A. Doubov, Diagnostics of metal items and equipment by
means of metal magnetic memory, In: Proceedings of ChSNDT 7th
Conference on NDT and International Research Symposium, October 27-October 30, 1999, Shantou, Guangdong, China, 1999, pp.
181-187.
Quality supervision & inspection center of well control equipment
for petroleum industry, SY 6326-2012. The specification for grading and evaluating the loading capacity on derricks and substructure of the drilling rig and working rig (in Chinese). Beijing: China
Petroleum Industry Press, 2012.
American Petroleum Institute, API SPEC 4F Specification for
Drilling and Well Servicing Structures. Washington, D.C.: API
Publishing Services, 2008.
American Institute of Steel Construction, ANSI/AISC 360-05 Specification for Structural Steel Buildings. Chicago: AISC Board of Directors, 2005.