3,0 Worked Example 1 Production Separator Module

MSC OIL AND GAS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING – EG5069 Conceptual Design Of Topside Modules
For distribution under licence by the University of Aberdeen to registered students for the purpose of
educational purposes only. All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means whether
electronic, mechanical, photographic or otherwise, or stored in any retrieval system of any nature
without the written permission of the copyright holder.
All information contained in this document has been prepared solely to illustrate engineering principles
for educational purposes, and is not suitable for use for engineering purposes. Use for any other
purpose constitutes infringement of copyright and is strictly prohibited. No liability will be accepted for
any loss or damage of whatever nature, for whatever reason, arising from use of this information other
than for education purposes.
1
Table of Contents
3.0 EXAMPLE 1: THE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF A PRODUCTION SEPARATOR MODULE 1
3.1 BASIS OF DESIGN AND SCOPE OF CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 1

3.2 DESIGN APPRAISAL 5
3.2.1 SCHEME 1 5
3.2.2 SCHEME 2 9
3.2.3 SCHEME COMPARISON AND SELECTION 11
3.3 CALCULATIONS (MANUAL) 12
3.4 DRAWINGS 12
3.5 COMPUTER ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 15
3.5.1 IN PLACE ANALYSIS 15
3.5.2 LIFT ANALYSIS 19
3.6 NOTES ON THE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF PRODUCTION SEPARATOR MODULE 20
3.6.1 FLOOR AND ROOF SECONDARY STEEL 21
3.6.2 MAIN FLOOR BEAMS 21
3.6.3 MAIN ROOF BEAMS 22
3.6.4 NOTES ON SCHEME 1 23
3.6.5 SCHEME 1 CONNECTION DETAILS 25
3.6.6 NOTES ON SCHEME 2 28
3.6.7 SCHEME 1 AND 2 STRUCTURAL MATERIAL TAKE OFF (M.T.O) 29
3.6.7 SCHEME 1 AND 2 STRUCTURAL MATERIAL TAKE OFF (M.T.O) 30
3.6.8 SCHEME COMPARISON AND SELECTION 32
3.6.9 COMPARISON OF MANUAL CALCULATIONS AND COMPUTER ANALYSIS34
3.7 PRODUCTION SEPARATOR MODULE: ALTERNATIVE SCHEMES 39
3.7.1 NON-LOAD BEARING WALLS 40
3.7.2 BLAST RESISTANT WALLS 41
3.7.3 STIFFENED PLATE WALLS 42
3.7.4 VIERENDEEL TRUSS WALLS 43
i
3.0 Example 1: The Conceptual Design of a

Production Separator Module
3.1 Basis of Design and Scope of Conceptual Design
Basis of Design (B.O.D)
1. A Production Separator module is to be installed onto an existing installation.

2. The module dimensions are 20m long x 13m wide x 8m high as shown in Figure 3.1.
3. The module is to be open, and supported at 4 points, as shown in Figure 3.1.
4. No internal framing is permitted.
5. Preliminary mechanical data sheets are available which show the separator vessels to be 3500 mm
diameter x 14000 mm long, supported on saddles at 10000 mm centres. See Figure 3.1 and Figure
3.2.
Imposed Loading
Production Separator dry weight = 80 Tonne each (800 kN)

Production Separator operating weight = 200 Tonne each (2000 kN)
Floor area imposed load of 5kN/m2
Roof laydown imposed load of 25kN/m2 for deck plate and stringers
Roof laydown imposed load = 15kN/m2 for main roof beams and module global loading
Wind load equivalent to 1.4kN/m2
1
Figure 3.1: Layout of separator module.
2
Figure 3.2: Separator vessel supports configuration.
3
Scope of Conceptual Design
1) Design Appraisal
Prepare a design appraisal with appropriate sketches indicating two distinct and viable solutions for the
proposed new module. Indicate clearly the functional framing, load transfer and stability aspects of each
scheme for all temporary and permanent design phases, i.e. loadout, transport, lift, and in-place
(operational). Identify the solution you recommend, giving reasons for your choice.
2) Calculations (manual)
Prepare sufficient design calculations to establish the form and size of all the principal structural
elements for the temporary and permanent conditions.
3) Drawings
Prepare general arrangements plans, sections and elevations to show the dimensions, layout and
disposition of the structural elements for estimating purposes. Prepare detailed sketches showing the lift
points and one main truss joint.
4) Computer Analysis
Prepare computer analysis and design for in-place and lift conditions.
5) Design Report Notes
Prepare a brief design report covering the design appraisal calculations, connection details and
computer analysis, explaining the reasons behind your selections.
4
3.2 Design Appraisal
3.2.1 Scheme 1
Refer to Figure 3.3 Scheme 1 Layout
Structural Framing
Structural framing consists of deck plate and stringers to floor and roof that span onto main support
girders, (beam B1, B2, B4) located at 5000mm centres.
The main girders frame into trusses at grid lines A and B at node points, thus avoiding in-span bending
moments on top and bottom chords of the truss. The trusses span onto the module support points. Two
of the main girders (beams B1) directly support the separator vessels. The connections are all welded,
and designed and detailed to transfer bending as well as axial and shear forces.
This framing pattern is typical of modules, extensively used in the Oil and Gas Industry. At the module
ends (Grids 1 and 2), bracing has been added to resist wind and sea transportation forces. Truss
diagonals and columns are tubular sections. This is because tubulars have better compression resistance
than open sections for equal weight.
Load Transfer
In-place vertical loading is transferred from the secondary steel to main girders then to trusses at Grids
A and B, and hence onto module supports. The separator vessels are directly supported by beams B1.
Wind loading has not been analysed in the conceptual design because it is not critical for open module
structures of this type. However the module is strong in every aspect, and wind loading will easily be
resisted. Wind will impact on the separator vessels, surrounding pipe work and equipment and exposed
module columns, beams and braces. Taking the wind load as 1.4 kN/m2 and assuming the module to be
completely enclosed gives the wind force on trusses A and B as 1.4 kN/m2 x 20 x 8 = 224kN. This is a
small amount for such a large, robust structure. Calculations will show that the module can easily resist
and transmit such forces.
The roof and deck constructions are very strong in resisting lateral loads, and act as structural
diaphragms to transfer wind loading onto end braces, in both directions.
5
Stability
The module is well braced in both directions. The bracing systems are designed to resist all destabilising
forces for all load conditions.
Lift Condition
Refer to section B of the manual calculations.
The module will be lifted by 4 padeyes located at 10,000 centres on the main trusses using a spreader
bar. See sheet B2 of the manual calculations. The padeyes are orientated in line with the main truss
framing and are detailed in sheet A20 of manual calculations. The main padeye plate extends through
the connection so that all welds are in shear.
The lift condition imposes racking forces on the module roof. The roof is solidly constructed out of
10mm deck plate and 305x165 UB stringers and is, therefore, well able to resist these forces.
Loadout Condition
Refer to section C of the manual calculations.
The module will be loaded out on multi-wheel trailers. Preliminary layout is shown on sheet C1 of the
manual calculations. The calculations assume the use of 2 rows of Mammoet multi-wheel trailers that
are hydraulically jacked up to connect to the bottom flanges of floor beams B1 and B2. Loadout imposes
reverse bending on beams B1 and B2. These are capable of resisting loadout effects. Lateral restraints
will be added to the bottom flanges to minimise effects of lateral torsional buckling, since the bottom
flanges experience compression during loadout. The manual calculations contain simplified calculations
for the loadout condition.
Sea transportation
Refer to section D of the manual calculations.
The module will be transported on a standard 122m x 30.5m (400feet x 100feet) transportation barge.
The design assumes that the module will be vertically supported at 4 points and in both directions
horizontally.
6
Note
In assessing Lift, Loadout and Sea Transportation effects, the calculations make some standard
assumptions about the lift configuration, loadout and sea transportation methods. These aspects are the
responsibility of the Installation Contractor, who will specify requirements. In a design appraisal, the
engineer only needs to make solid assumptions and prove that the module is robust and safe.
7
Figure 3.3: Scheme 1 Layout
8
3.2.2 Scheme 2
Refer to Figure 3.4, Scheme 2 layout.
Structural Framing
Scheme 2 uses the same floor and roof layouts as Scheme 1. The floor layout is controlled by the need
to support the separator saddles at fixed locations relative to the module geometry. This resulted in the
Scheme 1 floor layout being developed. These is no advantage in changing this layout, therefore it has
been retained for Scheme 2. The main trusses in Scheme 2 are significantly different from Scheme 1.
The number of truss panels has reduced from 4 to 2 and tension bracing has been designed to transfer
floor and roof loading back to support points.
This layout introduces bending on the top and bottom truss chords, due to incoming girders B1 and B4.
The truss chords have been designed to resist the additional bending, at no great cost penalty because
the module weights remain the same for Scheme 1 and 2 (see M.T.O.).
The truss layout is less congested than Scheme 1, which is beneficial since the module is to be open i.e.
not enclosed by walls. The truss bracing is orientated to ensure tension action occurs during the in-place
(operational) condition, which is an advantage. This also reduces the bracing weight.
Load Transfer
As noted above, the main trusses have to transfer forces from B1 and B4 in bending onto connection
points. The truss diagonals transfer load in tension. The other members act as Scheme 1.
Stability
As Scheme 1.
Lift Condition
The module will be lifted in the same manner as Scheme 1, but the padeyes are located farther apart, at
20,000mm centres due to truss layout. This means that the slings and hook height have to be
increased, which could be a problem if hook headroom was limited.
Other than that, the lift system is the same as Scheme 1.
9
Figure 3.4: Scheme 2 Layout
10
Loadout Condition
As Scheme 1.
Sea Transportation Condition
As Scheme 1.
3.2.3 Scheme Comparison and Selection
Both schemes fulfil the design brief, in that they are distinct and viable. Both schemes are safe, robust
and well designed. The weights are almost identical, Scheme 2 being 2% less than Scheme 1. In this
instance, scheme 1 has been selected. It has several advantages over scheme 2. The main floor and
roof girders (B1, B2 and B4) connect directly into truss nodes. The connection details are robust and
capable of acting as fixed connections. Therefore there is a considerable reserve capacity in scheme 1,
which will be useful if subsequent weight growth occurs. The padeyes are closer together, hence lifting
slings and hook height are reduced.
11
3.3 Calculations (Manual)
Manual drafting of the two schemes can be found in a separate PDF document.
A3 Manual Sketch Sheets:

Sheet A Scheme 1
Sheet B Scheme 2
Manual calculations can also be found in a separate PDF document.
A4 Manual Calculation Sheets

Section A In Place: Sheets A1 – A21
Section B Lift: Sheets B1 – B9
Section C Loadout: Sheets C1 – C5
Section D Sea Transportation: Sheets D1 – D8
The purpose of the manual sketches is to enable the engineer to develop drafting skill and creativity.
The purpose of the manual design calculations is to develop basic engineering skill that can produce
simple calculations for the main items and develop an engineering feel and judgement for subsequent
computer analysis and design. The calculations involve simplification and they only consider the most
critical items, which are based on the engineer’s experience and judgement. The extent of manual
calculations depends on the engineer’s experience and confidence. In the three examples in this course,
the engineers have carried out enough manual calculations to satisfy themselves that the modules are
adequate. From the calculations the engineers have a good understanding of how the structure works
and what the important areas are.
Full computer analysis will always be required at concept stage. When the manual assessment is good
the computer analysis will verify it.
3.4 Drawings
See figures 3.5 and 3.6.
12
Page 13 Figure 3.5: General Arrangement Drawing of Scheme 1

Page 14 Figure 3.6: Detail Design Sketches of Details 1 to 6 of Scheme 1

3.5 Computer Analysis and Design
Scheme 1 was modelled in STAAD Pro 2007, assuming all connections fixed. Results of the computer
analysis are shown below. Loadcases for in-place and lifting were considered.
3.5.1 In Place Analysis
Figure 3.7: STAAD model of Scheme 1
15
Figure 3.8: Utilization ratios of Scheme 1 code check

to AISC ASD for the in-place load condition
16
Figure 3.9: In-place bending moment diagram for the main truss.
Figure 3.10: In-place bending moment diagram for the floor.
17
B4
B1
Figure 3.11: In-place bending moment diagram for the separator

support beams B1
Note = Manual analysis assumes all beams are pinned. Computer analysis assumes the beams are fixed.
Therefore there is a moment transfer between the beams and columns. The magnitude of this moment
depends on the relative stiffness of the beams and columns, and the design and detailing of the beam
to column connections.
18
3.5.2 Lift Analysis
The module was re-analysed for the lift condition. This involves modelling slings and a spreader beam.
The results for a 60/40 split are shown in Figure 3.12.
Figure 3.12: Utilisation ratios of scheme 1 for lift analysis with 60/40 split
19
3.6 Notes on the Conceptual Design of Production Separator Module
General Notes on Worked Example 1:
3.6.1 Floor and roof secondary steel

3.6.2 Main floor beams
3.6.3 Main roof beams
3.6.4 Notes on Scheme 1
3.6.5 Scheme 1 Connection details
3.6.7 Scheme 1 and 2 Structural M.T.O.
3.6.8 Comparison of Manual Calculations and computer analysis
3.6.9 Scheme comparison and Selection
20
3.6.1 Floor and Roof Secondary Steel
In both Schemes 1 and 2, the same floor and roof secondary steel is used. “Secondary steel” refers to
the deck plate and minor support beams or “stringers” as they are commonly called. Standard floor deck
construction is used, i.e. 8mm solid deck plate which spans 1000mm onto stringers. The stringers are
located at 1000mm centres, and span 5000mm East to West, onto the main floor beams B1 and B2. The
deck plate is continuously welded to the top flange of the stringers.
The roof plate is designed as one way spanning plate, to resist 25kN/m2 imposed load. The manual
calculations refer to data taken from the Steel Designer Manual, which gives allowable plate loadings for
simply supported and fully fixed (encastre) boundary conditions. Refer to manual calculations sheets
A12 and A13. The floor plate is similarly designed to resist an imposed load of 5 kN/m2. The floor and
roof stringers are designed with continuous connections as shown in sheet A13.
3.6.2 Main floor beams
The choice of beam section for floor beam B1 controls the selection of the other floor beams B2 and B3.
Standard practice is for all of the beams to be of equal depth. This makes for good connection design
and detailing. It also assists in the loadout condition when floor beams are of equal depth, so that multi-
wheel trailers can be jacked up to the same height and make contact with the bottom flanges of the
beams.
Selection of beam B1 is important, especially its depth. Manual calculations show Z value of 18,600cm3
is required, assuming the beam is simply supported. The Engineer is free to select any section.
We will consider 3 possible sections; A, B, and C, as follows:
Section Z (cm3) III (cm4) Weight (kg/m)

A 914x419x388UB 13,722 625,282 388
B 1000x400PG 18,941 947,025 425
(45F, 20W)
C 1200x400PG 21,851 1,311,061 427
(40F, 20W)
Plate Girders are specified as 1200 x 400 PG (40F, 20W), where 1200 x 400 is the overall depth and
width in mm. F denotes the flange thickness and W denotes the web thickness. PG design should aim
for depth to width ratios of between 3 and 4.
21
Section A is the largest rolled section available. It does not have an adequate Z value. i.e. Z = 13,722
cm3, compared to the required Z = 18,600 cm3. Sections B and C are fabricated plate girders, selected
from a list of prepared plate girder properties.
Such properties can easily be created on spreadsheets. Section C (1200 deep) gives more capacity than
Section B (1000 deep), and both are the same weight. Section C has been selected for conceptual
design on this basis. This means that the module will be 200mm higher than if Section B had been
selected.
In Scheme 1, the separator support beams B1 frame directly into truss connections, or node points. The
columns C1 will be tubulars and the main beam to column connections are designed to be fixed. These
are analysed as fixed in the computer analysis.
3.6.3 Main Roof Beams
The choice of beam sections for the roof beams is similar to the floor beams, whereby the selection of
beam B4 will control the others. The roof laydown imposed loading is given as 25kN/m2 for local items
such as deck plate and stringers, reducing to 15kN/m2 for global loading, i.e. for main roof beams and
the trusses at grids A and B. This is common practice, reflecting that local laydown areas can be subject
to heavy loading, but that it would be too severe to design the entire roof area for 25kN/m2 .
From the manual calculations a Z value of 7,878cm3 is required for beams B4.
Again consider 3 sections:
Section Z (cm3) III (cm4) Weight (kg/m)

A 838x292x226UB 7,986 339,747 226
B 800x300PG 10,228 409,088 300
(45F, 20W)
C 1000x400PG 12,956 647,778 277
(40F, 20W)
Section A is a Universal Beam (UB) Section. UB sections are normally preferable to fabricated plate
girders (PG) sections because they can be purchased directly from stockists, and do not require special
fabrication. However the floor beams have to be PG sections, therefore there is no strong incentive to
use UB’s for the roof beams.
22
Section B and C offer good PG solutions. In this case Section C (1000 deep) will be used, because it has
a greater capacity than Section B (800 deep) and is lighter. Section C has a large amount of spare
capacity, Z=12,956cm3 compared to the minimum required Z value of 7,878cm3. This is useful because
laydown loading is often difficult to quantify in reality; it is sensible to keep some reserve strength. One
drawback with selecting 1000 deep roof beams rather than 800 deep, is that it reduces the clear height
inside the module by 200mm.
As with the floor beams in Scheme 1 the main beam to column connections will be designed as fixed.
Refer to Scheme 1 Layout, Figure 3.3.
To make it easy to identify the various structural members a marking (or reference) system has been
used. For the example given here the reference system is:
- B1 to B3 = Floor beams (B3 also forms the “bottom chord” of the main East-West trusses at
grids A and B)
- B4 to B5 = Roof beams (B5 also forms the “top chord” of the main East-West trusses at grids A
and B)
- C1 = Columns of the main East-West trusses.
- D1 = Diagonals of the main East-West trusses.
- D2 = Diagonal bracing at grids 1 and 2 (North-South direction)
The overall module length of 20m and the separator saddles being spaced 10m apart makes it easy to
establish a series of North-South spanning girders at 5000mm centres. The girders coincide with the
truss layouts in Grids A and B, whereby the main girders frame directly into truss node points. This
avoids girders imposing large bending moments on truss chords, as will be seen in Scheme 2. The truss
angle of 58o is within the optimum range of 30-60o. Outside the 30-60o range the truss bracing becomes
inefficient.
The selection of the main truss layout usually depends on the Engineers preference. The 3 layouts
shown in Figure 3.13 are essentially the same, the only change being the orientation of the diagonal
braces.
23
Truss Scheme 1 (selected for design)
Truss Scheme 1a
D1 D1 D1 D1
Truss Scheme 1b
Figure 3.13: Alternative truss layouts for Scheme 1
24
The force diagram for Scheme 1 has been calculated in the manual calculations (sheet A9). The trusses
are statically determinate in the manual analysis as it is assumed that all joints are pinned. Force
diagrams can be more quickly calculated by linear computer analysis programmes such as STAAD. In
practise the trusses would form part of an overall space frame computer analysis. It is useful experience
to attempt simple manual truss analysis because it helps to develop Engineering Skill and is useful for
checking the accuracy of computer results.
Scheme 1b is more efficient than the others because the diagonals D1 are in tension, hence smaller
section sizes can be used, resulting in weight saving. In onshore building design, where there is only
one dominant load case (in-place, operational condition), this is an important advantage for Scheme 1b.
In the Oil and Gas Industry, the structural costs are only a fraction of the overall cost and there is less
necessity for structural efficiency in module design. Also, some of the diagonals may experience stress
reversal during other load cases.
Scheme 1 truss layout was selected ahead of the other schemes because the engineer wanted robust
padeye and main support details. This was based on personal choice and engineering judgement. The
influence of connection details is discussed in the next section.
3.6.5 Scheme 1 Connection Details
Refer to Section 3.4 drawings, which includes Figures 3.5 and 3.6. Figure 3.6 has been produced to
show all of the main truss connections, referred to as details 1 to 6. These details are drawn together on
the same sheet so that the relationship between the connections can be clearly seen. In conceptual
design the engineer produces preliminary connection details, that are robust and workable, these can be
developed in more details in the Detailed Engineering /Detailed Design phase. Module fabricators would
be invited to comment on the details to ensure they are fabrication friendly.
Course EG5070: Design of Connections, includes a chapter on module connections that uses details 1
and 2 and incorporates a manual design and analysis of detail 2.
Details 1 to 6 share common features. Detail 1, the padeye detail, is normally considered first in the
Engineer’s thought process, because it is so critical. Details 1 and 2 are discussed below.
The use of a padeyes shear plate in detail 1 and similar main shear plate in detail 2 sets the pattern for
the other details. Detail 3 is similar to detail 2 but includes the module support point and also fixing for
355.6x20 CHS bracing on grids 1 and 5, which are at right angles to trusses A and B. Details 4, 5 and 6
do not involve diagonal braces, but the concept of shear plates is continued.
25
Detail 1 has the following aspects:
(1) Common Work Point (WP). WP’s are necessary for accurate detailing. Fabrication drawings
cannot be produced without clear WP’s (also known as Set-Out Points). The line of action of the padeye
plate, the roof beam, the diagonal braces and columns all coincide so there are no eccentric effects due
to non-alignment of WP’s.
(2) The main padeye plate is taken through the roof beams; diagonal braces and columns, so that
all main loads are transferred in shear, which is preferable to tension. This is especially important for the
lift condition.
(3) By specifying common WPs’ and extending the main padeye plate, the 406dia. X 20WT diagonal
braces require to be slotted over the padeye plate and stopped short of clashing with the column. See
dimension X. The braces are connected to the padeye plate by a 10mm fillet weld, capacity =
2(500+500+400)x1.12 = 3136kN. Compare this with the maximum axial load from the manual
calculations of 2557kN (sheet A9).
Main Padeye Plate
Main Roof Beam
1 WP
WP
Moment M
4
Diagonal Braces
Column
Detail 1 - Main Padeye Connections
26
(4) The 406dia. x 20WT column has been taken up to the bottom of the roof beam flange inserts,
rather than being stopped short like the diagonal braces. This is so that a fixed connection can be
formed between the column and the main roof beam. In the manual calculations the connection was
assumed to be pinned however in the STAAD computer analysis it was fixed. Therefore, the connection
must be capable of transferring moment M through the joint.
(5) Plate stiffeners are shown. These have not been designed. They are necessary to transfer
moment M. The design of plate stiffeners will be considered in Course EG5070: Design of Connections,
Chapter 9.
Detail 2 - Main Truss Connections
27
Detail 2 has the following aspects:
(1) Common WP, similar to that for detail 1.
(2) Main shear plate is taken through the floor beams, diagonal braces and columns, so that load
transfer is mainly by shear – a similar conceptual to detail 1.
(3) Diagonal braces are connected onto the main shear plate in the same manner as in detail 1.
(4) The 406dia. x 20WT column is connected to the top flange insert plate, with plate stiffeners, in
order to produce fixed connections for the main floor beam, B2.
(5) Plate stiffeners are included, similar to detail 1.
”How different should Scheme 2 be?”

There is no easy answer to that question. The intention in developing 2 schemes is to develop the skill
of engineering judgement and creativity, which will build self-confidence.
Refer to Scheme 2 Layout, Figure 3.4.
Scheme 2 uses the same floor and roof layouts as Scheme 1 but changes the main trusses at Grids A
and B. It introduces bending stresses into the top and bottom chords of the trusses, and the diagonal
members are longer than in Scheme 1. These points are usually seen as disadvantages, but in this case
the chords can easily take additional bending stress (see manual calculations) and the diagonals are in
tension, hence length is not important.
Note in Scheme 2, reversing the truss diagonals to create Scheme 2a (see Figure 3.14) would not be
desirable, since these would be in compression and therefore clearly inferior.
Differences between schemes such as method of lifting (i.e. spreader beam or no spreader beam),
loadout method and choice of padeye or padear connections, do not contribute to scheme
distinctiveness. Two good schemes are required, not interchangeable variations that could equally be
applied to either scheme.
28
Truss Scheme 2 (selected for design)
Truss Scheme 2a
Figure 3.14: Alternative truss layouts for Scheme 2
29
3.6.7 Scheme 1 and 2 Structural Material take off (M.T.O)
Item Description M.T.O Calculation Weight

(kg)
1 Roof Deck Plate 20 x 13 x 78.5 kg/m2 20,410
2 Roof Stringers 12 x 20 x 40 kg/m 9,600
3 Roof Girders B4 5 x 13 x 277 kg/m 18,005
4 Rood Girders B5 2 x 20 x 277 11,080
2
5 Floor Deck Plate 20 x 13 x 62.8 kg/m 16,328
6 Floor Stringers 12 x 20 x 31 7,440
7 Floor Girders B1 2 x 13 x 427 kg/m 11,102
10 Floor Vessel Support Stools 1250 high x 3000 wide x 4 x 20 plate 2,355
(157 kg/m)
11 Truss Columns C1 5 x 8 x 191 kg/m x 2 15,280
12 Truss Diagonal D1 4 x 9.43 x 191 x 2m 14,409
13 End Bracing (grid 1 and 2) D2 4 x 166 kg/m x 10.3 6,839
Total 152,619
Adding the items that cannot be calculated at this stage (conceptual design stage):
14 Connection allowance = 5% of 1 – 13 above 7,630
15 Secondary and tertiary items such as pipe supports, access platforms, 15,262
cable and instrument supports = allow 10% of 1 – 13 above
Net Weight = items 1 – 15 175,511kg
176tonnes
Material Take Off for Scheme 1
30
Item Description M.T.O Calculation Weight

(kg)
1 Roof Deck Plate As scheme 1 20,410
2 Roof Stringers “ 9,600
3 Roof Girders B4 “ 18,005
4 Rood Girders B5 “ 11,080
5 Floor Deck Plate “ 16,328
6 Floor Stringers “ 7,440
7 Floor Girders B1 “ 11,102
8 Floor Girders B2 “ 9,711
9 Floor Girders B3 xx 2x20x427 kg/m 17,080
10 Floor Vessel Support Stools As scheme 1 2,355
11 Truss Columns C1 xx 3x8x191x2 9,168
12 Truss Diagonal D1 xx 4 x 12.81 x 191 kg/m 9,787
13 End Bracing (grid 1 and 2) D2 As scheme 1 6,839
Total 148,905
Adding the items that cannot be calculated at this stage (conceptual design stage):
14 Connection allowance = 5% of 1 – 13 above 7,445
15 Secondary and tertiary items such as pipe supports, access platforms, 14,891
cable and instrument supports = allow 10% of 1 – 13 above
Net Weight = items 1 – 15 171,241kg
171tonnes
Material Take Off for Scheme 2
xx The only items that change from Scheme 1.
31
3.6.8 Scheme Comparison and Selection
The better the schemes are, especially Scheme 2, the more difficult it is to select one for detailed
design. This can be frustrating but it shows that the Engineer who developed the schemes is developing
good conceptual design skill, and is on the way to becoming a good Engineer.
Two good schemes which are difficult to choose between is better than the alternatives, such as, the
“good” scheme and the “bad” scheme, or being unable to develop a second scheme. The Institution of
Structural Engineers examiners acknowledge that creating a good second scheme is perhaps the most
difficult part of the Professional Examination for Chartership. The skill needs to be developed rather than
ignored.
Some methods of selecting a preferred scheme are mentioned below:
Table of Comparison:
Some Engineers prepare tables with categories such as:
- Constructability
- Welding
- Installation
- Efficiency
- Simplicity
- Redundancy
- Fabrication
- Weight
- Maintenance
The two schemes are assessed in each of these categories and the scheme with the highest marks is
selected. Tables like this are useful, but they can be very subjective; there can be a temptation to score
the marks so that the preferred scheme wins.
Weight Comparison
Weight comparison can be a good indicator. In module design weight is very important, especially as it
has a multiplying effect on the supporting structure or jacket. If the design appraisal takes place after
both schemes have been designed, then accurate weight comparisons can be made. In the case shown
here, both schemes have been designed and M.T.O. shows Scheme 1 having a net weight of 176
Tonnes (175,511 kg) and Scheme 2 having a net weight of 171 Tonnes (171,241 kg). These weights are
so close as to be considered identical as far as conceptual design is concerned.
32
If one scheme was significantly lighter and both schemes were technically acceptable, the lighter
scheme would probably be selected.
Note that the MTO table shows that many items are common to both schemes. Only three items change
from scheme 1 to scheme 2. This shows how difficult it can be to separate the schemes on a ‘weight’
basis.
As discussed previously, for this example scheme 1 has been selected. It has several advantages over
scheme 2. The main floor and roof girders (B1, B2 and B4) connect directly into truss nodes. The
connection details are robust and capable of acting as fixed connections. Therefore there is a
considerable reserve in capacity in scheme 1, which will be useful if subsequent weight growth occurs.
The padeyes are closer together, hence lifting slings and hook height are reduced.
33
3.6.9 Comparison of Manual Calculations and Computer Analysis
In the conceptual design phase, the recommendation of this course is to start with simple manual
sketches, drawings and calculations, as shown in the manual calculations for this section. This should
produce simple, robust modules with good connection details that can be verified by subsequent
computer analysis.
Manual calculations are too simple on their own. They must be used as a basis for scheme development
and gaining engineering “feel” for the structure. They also serve as self-check on computer output.
For this example, a three-diamensional computer model was generated in STAAD using the exact
loading and member sizes developed from manual design. The module was analysed for in-place and lift
conditions, since these are the two most critical conditions. Output results are shown in Figures 3.8 and
3.12 for these conditions showing that all members are within AISC allowable code limits. This confirms
that the manual calculations were good and set a good basis for subsequent computer analysis.
The assumptions used in analyzing the main trusses are very important. In the manual calculations all
members are pinned so the truss only takes axial forces. In computer analysis, member end fixity
results in bending moments as well as axial forces. To illustrate the effects of moving from manual to
computer design and analysis, consider the following four (4) methods of truss analysis, outlined as
Case 1 to Case 4, shown below.
The connection details need to be carefully detailed to ensure they act as the analysis assumes, or the
analysis needs to change to reflect reality.
K value modifications were related to the actual connections detailed. For members C1, k values of 0.8
were specified, since these members are designed to be fixed. For members D1, which have gusset
plate connections, k values of 0.8 and 1.0 were taken. In subsequent analysis, each connection detail
would be meticulously designed and members, welds or gussets modified if necessary.
34
Case 1: All joints pinned (k=1.0)
Method of analysis, manual or 2D computer

Code check values shown (i.e. utilization ratios)
Axial forces only, no bending moments
All code checks < 1.0, therefore OK
This is similar to manual analysis calculations, sheets A1-A21
Figure 3.15: Unity Check for Case 1
Figure 3.16: Axial Forces in Truss Tension (red) and Compression (blue)
Case 1 will have no bending moments. Only tension (shown above in red) and compression (shown
above in blue) will be present.
35
Case 2: Diagonals Pinned (k=1.0), All else Fixed (k=0.8)

This is a simple 2D STAAD computer analysis, with roller supports. Diagonal members are pinned,
representing their fixity onto gusset plates, as shown in detail 2 – main truss connection detail. All other
connections are fixed, representing fully welded connections. All code checks < 1.0, therefore OK
Figure 3.18: Bending Moment Diagram for Case 2
36
Case 3: All joints Fixed (k=0.8)
This is a similar 2D model to Case 2 except that diagonal members are fixed. All code checks < 1.0,
therefore OK.
37
Case 4: All joints Fixed (k=0.8) (3D)

This is 3D model with all of the joints fixed. All code checks < 1.0, therefore OK.
38
3.7 PRODUCTION SEPARATOR MODULE: ALTERNATIVE SCHEMES
In the example shown, the 2 schemes are trusses. Refer figures 3.3 and 3.4.
These schemes were developed because of the following features of the Basis Of Design (BOD):
• Position of separator support feet and weight and size of separators leaves little room for
developing other options. The module is effectively a steel box around 2 large vessels that have
to be supported at specified locations.
• Module is to be open, i.e. no walls required. When modules have to be enclosed, the walls can
be made to act as structural diaphragms, resulting in different options.
• There is no other dominant requirement, such as blast design criteria or crane.
With these limitations, it is difficult to develop anything other than 2 truss schemes. However if the BOD
was changed, different schemes would be easier to consider.
In this section, some quick calculations and sketches have been produced to illustrate some of the
effects of introducing significant changes to the BOD.
Refer to Section E of the manual calculations. The calculations accompany the following notes.
39
3.7.1 Non-load bearing walls
Refer manual calculations sheets E1 and E2.
Many modules require to be fully enclosed, especially accommodation modules. The standard structural
method of achieving full enclosement is by using solid floor plates and non-load bearing walls.
These walls typically consist of profiled steel cladding panels that span onto horizontal side rails. Side
rails span onto existing truss column members, or to “wind posts” that span from floor to roof. All
members are designed to elastic stress levels. Openings for doors and services are easily
accommodated. Walls are required to resist wind loading; typical wind force is around 1.4 kn/m2, which
is not normally critical. AISC and BS codes allow increases in allowable stresses when wind is
considered.
Because these walls are non-load bearing they do not affect the module’s structural integrity, and are
non-critical as far as conceptual design basics are concerned. I.e. they are considered as secondary
items, similar to stairs, and walkways. The presence of non-load bearing walls would not significantly
affect the choice of module schemes.
40
3.7.2 Blast resistant walls
Refer manual calculation sheets E3 to E7
Blast loading and structural resistance will be considered in this MSc programme in the Year 2 topic
“Blast and Fire Engineering”. It is a complex subject, requiring a thorough understanding before it can
be applied to practical module design. It is such an important load case however that a brief mention of
it will be noted here.
For this example, a simple method of considering blast is to assume the blast loading is statically applied
to the walls in a similar manner to wind loading. The blast wall shown in the manual calculations is a
proprietary profiled steel wall that spans simply-supported from floor to roof. This is designed plastically,
to an allowable stress of 0.84 x ultimate tensile stress (UTS). Local wall buckling failure may occur
before plastic capacity is reached, but this can be checked at a later stage. For this course, it is sufficient
to assume plastic behaviour can be achieved.
The reactions are transferred into the roof and floor by plan bracing systems. Note, these plan-bracing
systems were not required for the non-blast scenario. The reactions are taken through the plan bracing
to Grids 1 and 2, and hence through the vertical bracing systems at these grids, into the module
“foundations” i.e. the 4 module support points. The profiled blast wall is located about 750 mm away
from gridline A, so that it can be allowed to deform plastically, with large displacements. The wall must
be far enough away so that is does NOT impact on the truss members, that are 406 mm diameter.
Thus the blast wall is “de-coupled” from the main module framing.
Conceptual design must show how blast loading is dealt with. In this example, the blast load has been
simply calculated, a clear load transfer system identified, and simple calculations produced to show how
the forces are transmitted.
As always, detailing is important. Engineers need to develop drafting and sketching skills, so that they
can visualise how their structures work, particularly the connections. In sheet E6, a cross section
through the blast wall and its connections onto the module, is shown. The roof and floor plating is
extended to take the blast wall. The blast load reaction of 100 kN/m width is transferred through the
local plating, into the main roof and floor connection details at beams B4 and B1-B2, and into the plan
bracing systems. This requires the blast wall to span 8000mm full height from floor to roof. An
alternative detail is shown in sheet E6 as well. In this case the blast wall spans 7000 mm to the
underside of roof beams B5, and the blast reactions require to go into the bottom flange of B5, causing
torsion that will overstress B5.
41
3.7.3 Stiffened plate walls
Refer manual calculation sheets E8 to E10
Stiffened plate, or stressed skin, construction will be considered in this MSc programme in the Year 3
topic “Design of Stiffened Plates”. Like blast loading, stiffened plate construction is a complex subject,
requiring a thorough understanding before it can be applied to practical module design.
In the manual calculations a simple attempt to illustrate stiffened plate walls is shown. Here the walls
are designed to transfer all vertical and horizontal loads and they are critical to the module integrity.
There is no requirement for trusses on Grids 1, 2, A and B. This is a fundamental change to the
structural framing, load transfer and stability aspects of the module.
In this simplified example, the wall acts as a deep plate girder spanning 20m between module supports.
The flanges are designed to take the bending moment, and the web takes the shear force. The resulting
stresses are low, because the girder is 8 m deep, and thus has very large web depth, and distance
between flanges.
In sheet E10, an attempt is made at drawing what the wall stiffening arrangement may be like, when
the module geometry and constraints are added. The padeyes are retained in their previous positions,
and a door opening is included. Wall components 1 to 4 are sketched in possible positions, as a starting
point for wall design. The presence of the separator vessel support beams B1 requires robust
connections into the wall, and, as always, detailing is very important.
42
3.7.4 Vierendeel Truss Walls
Refer manual calculations sheets E11 and E12.
Another theoretical alternative to standard truss schemes is to consider vierendeel truss walls. In these,
the truss diagonal braces are removed, and the truss relies on rigid joint action for strength. Vierendeel
trusses are statically indeterminate, and need to be analysed by computer. However an approximate
method of analysis is described in the Steel Designers Manual and in Blodgett’ s famous textbook. This
involves assuming points of contra-flexure at mid-height of each “column” and mid-span of each
“beam”, which makes the structure statically determinate, and hence solvable by manual analysis.
Sheet E12 shows the results of STAAD Pro analysis with module supports located at 20m centres, as per
BOD, and with module supports moved inboard to 10m centres, thus directly supporting the large
separator reactions. The results vary enormously. If the module supports could be moved inboard, to
10m centres, then vierendeel trusses may be worth considering. If necessary, temporary bracing could
be added for sea-transportation and lift conditions, to be removed after installation.
43

3,0 Worked Example 1 Production Separator Module

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

3,0 Worked Example 1 Production Separator Module

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3,0 Worked Example 1 Production Separator Module

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MSC OIL AND GAS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING – EG5069 Conceptual Design Of Topside Modules

3.0 EXAMPLE 1: THE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF A PRODUCTION SEPARATOR MODULE 1

3.1 BASIS OF DESIGN AND SCOPE OF CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 1

3.0 Example 1: The Conceptual Design of a

Basis of Design (B.O.D)

1. A Production Separator module is to be installed onto an existing installation.

Production Separator dry weight = 80 Tonne each (800 kN)

Figure 3.1: Layout of separator module.

Figure 3.2: Separator vessel supports configuration.

Scope of Conceptual Design

5) Design Report Notes

3.2 Design Appraisal

Refer to Figure 3.3 Scheme 1 Layout

Refer to section B of the manual calculations.

Refer to section C of the manual calculations.

Refer to section D of the manual calculations.

Figure 3.3: Scheme 1 Layout

Refer to Figure 3.4, Scheme 2 layout.

Other than that, the lift system is the same as Scheme 1.

Figure 3.4: Scheme 2 Layout

Sea Transportation Condition

3.2.3 Scheme Comparison and Selection

3.3 Calculations (Manual)

A3 Manual Sketch Sheets:

Manual calculations can also be found in a separate PDF document.

A4 Manual Calculation Sheets

See figures 3.5 and 3.6.

Page 13 Figure 3.5: General Arrangement Drawing of Scheme 1

Page 14 Figure 3.6: Detail Design Sketches of Details 1 to 6 of Scheme 1

3.5 Computer Analysis and Design

3.5.1 In Place Analysis

Figure 3.7: STAAD model of Scheme 1

Figure 3.8: Utilization ratios of Scheme 1 code check

Figure 3.10: In-place bending moment diagram for the floor.

Figure 3.11: In-place bending moment diagram for the separator

3.5.2 Lift Analysis

3.6 Notes on the Conceptual Design of Production Separator Module

General Notes on Worked Example 1:

3.6.1 Floor and roof secondary steel

3.6.1 Floor and Roof Secondary Steel

3.6.2 Main floor beams

We will consider 3 possible sections; A, B, and C, as follows:

Section Z (cm3) III (cm4) Weight (kg/m)

3.6.3 Main Roof Beams

Section Z (cm3) III (cm4) Weight (kg/m)

3.6.4 Notes on Scheme 1

Refer to Scheme 1 Layout, Figure 3.3.

Truss Scheme 1 (selected for design)

Figure 3.13: Alternative truss layouts for Scheme 1

3.6.5 Scheme 1 Connection Details

Detail 1 has the following aspects:

Main Padeye Plate

Main Roof Beam

Detail 1 - Main Padeye Connections

Detail 2 - Main Truss Connections

Detail 2 has the following aspects:

(1) Common WP, similar to that for detail 1.

(5) Plate stiffeners are included, similar to detail 1.

3.6.6 Notes on Scheme 2