OTC-27853-MS

Topsides Engineering by Modular Simulation Models

Neda Felorzabihi, Jeffrey Feng, Hoss Shariat, and Michael Wilson, KBR

Copyright 2017, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, 14 May 2017.

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 have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 OTC copyright.

Abstract
In recent years as the offshore industry strives for alternate ways to lower price and increase project
efficiency, topsides are often designed and built based on modular design due to the compact process layout,
lack of personnel accessibility for site fabrication and also similarity in design of process units involved in
most of offshore projects. The modularization process requires a robust simulation model that can quickly
perform screening exercises at early stages of the project and be able to validate the detail design from
module sub-contractors as the project progresses. This article presents the application and benefits of a
modularized, off-the-shelf dynamic simulation tool to support the modular design of an offshore platform
during the whole lifecycle of the project, from conceptual design (Pre-FEED), to Front End Engineering
(FEED), to EPC, to commissioning and start-up and to post-start-up (normal operation).
Modular-off-the-shelf dynamic simulation tools will support the modular design of the offshore project
by modeling each individual modular section of the plant using standard off-the-shelf template models that
have been built to meet project requirements. The off-the-shelf models can also be replaced with customized
models according to modular design of the plant and based on the data available at each phase of the project.
The dynamic simulation tool has supported various projects for life cycle analysis, for verification of
design, testing and verification of control strategy, for operation support during start-up, and troubleshooting
and debottlenecking of operation of the plant with proven cost savings. This methodology was originally
developed for installations in the United States and later was adopted for the design and engineering in
other part of the world. In this article, case studies will be presented as well as the benefit achieved in the
application of the modular simulation tools for topsides engineering.
Based on the project scope, the modular simulation domain may vary from a single compression module
to an entire topside facility for any floater with modular design such as an FPSO, semi or FLNG, associated
wells and flowlines as well as linkage to third party software.

Introduction
Today, the challenging offshore industry strives for maximum productivity from their existing or upcoming
facilities in order to be able to compete in this volatile market. The operating companies need to secure their
investments and maximize their production by leveraging market intelligence and best practices. One of
these best practices is a life cycle modular operation simulator which can accurately and reliably monitor,
predict and optimize their operation.
2 OTC-27853-MS

Following are some of the typical modules on production topsides that are most critical in the simulator
and the commonalities that often exist between facilities:

Inlet Manifold to include arrival risers, chock and boarding shutdown valves

Oil Treating and Separation train that typically comprises of parallel trains of multi-stages of oil
treater, oil transfer and associated vapor recovery system
Compression system that has parallel trains of multi-stage compression to accommodate the wide
range of throughputs at different stages of field life, high-differential across compressors to allow
for gas export, gas lift and gas injection
Water Injection system that has multiple vessels for separation, high horse power pumps for water
injection
Gas Dehydration which includes the contactor and the regeneration system

As shown in Figure 1, the flowsheet of each facility may be unique, but equipment units on some of
the topsides modules such as oil separation and gas compression are typically standard unit operations.
Therefore, standard simulation models can be built for those modules. On the other hand, the configurations
of power generation and vapor recovery vary considerably between facilities and are not suitable for the
modular model approach.

Figure 1Case Study 1, Topsides Riser and Inlet Manifold Schematic Diagram

KBR has developed a library of standard models that meet the following requirements:

On commercially available simulation platform

Re-usable. Each module represents a unit operation such as compressor, separator and basic control
schemes such as anti-surge loop for compressor and level/pressure control for a separator. Standard
graphs are embedded in each module.
Scalable. Specification of each module is flexible to accommodate a wide range of operating
conditions. For example, the compressor has a library of operating curves, so the user can choose
the curve that is closest to a particular facility.
OTC-27853-MS 3

Fully converged with a set of boundary conditions. The module is initiated with a set of conditions,
so the module is fully converged when it is dropped on to the flowsheet. Because the simulation
starts with a converged solution, a new converged condition is easier to achieve when the user
connects the module to other units and the boundary conditions change.
In this paper we present some case studies of application of modular operations simulation projects for
major international oil companies during the whole lifecycle of the project.

Life Cycle and Model Characteristics

Once the modular advanced simulation project is kicked off, the topsides dynamic model will be built based
on the specific design of the plant (i.e. having single or dual production trains, the choice of crude oil export
system, separation and gas processing system etc.). This will be accomplished by using the available library
of corresponding modules which will best fit the requirements of the project. Each module template model
is then updated with sufficient details based on project equipment design data, P&ID's, system hydraulics
and volumes, valve dynamic characteristics, major control loops, pressure relief devices and control logics.
During the Pre-FEED or FEED phase of the project, for purpose of model building and updating the
simulation modules as per requirement of the projects some input data is selected based on the library of
past projects such as compressor performance curves (based on the project operation point). During the EPC
phase of the project, the template models will then be updated based on supplier data.
To further illustrate the concept of modular models, the components of an Oil Train modular model are
listed below:

Three-phase separator with an option of a boot

Level control valve for each compartment

Inlet control valve and outlet control valve on the gas side

Default inlet composition with gas, oil and water

Converged solution with 50% liquid in each compartment

Simulation graphs of oil level, water level, gas pressure and flowrate of inlet and outlet streams

Scenarios
Once the dynamic model is built, the model is validated against the steady state simulation model or based
on the plant data. This confirms the validity of the model and is mandatory before implementation of any
scenarios or case studies.
The level of details and the objective of the dynamic study at each project phase are tabulated below.

Table 1Level of Details and the Objective of the Dynamic Study at Each Project Phase

Project Phase Level of Details and Key Objectives

Pre-FEED PFD level; to confirm the pressure rating of the topsides (i.e. 300#, 600# or 600# for the separator) and
basic layout (e.g. single vs. parallel trains)

FEED P&ID level; to develop the design specification of equipment such as equipment design pressure, number
of control loops, and the driver power requirement

Detailed Engineering Equipment details such as separator internals, compressor curves and Control valve Cv; the objective is to
confirm the equipment sizing and vendor design
4 OTC-27853-MS

Case Study 1 (Pre-FEED HIPPS Study)

Project Summary
The client has launched a new project for development of one of its large deep-water fields. The field
development project includes a new FPSO (Floating Production Storage and Offloading) which is connected
to subsea accumulations via risers, subsea trees and production equipment. The FPSO includes liquid
processing, gas compression, water injection and power generation.
As part of this project Field Development Overpressure Study, KBR conducted an Over-pressurization
Dynamic Study for the project FPSO topsides. This section summarizes some of the results of the dynamic
simulation study for overpressure protection.
The objective of this study was to investigate the potential overpressuring of the topside inlet manifold/
separation system when the topsides is shut-in and the pipeline/riser are packed at high pressure and the
topside boarding shutdown valve (SDV) is inadvertently opened with fully open topside choke valve.
The study was conducted with the following detail objectives:

To determine if the topside inlet system could be overpressurized if the topside boarding valve is
inadvertently opened when the flowlines are packed at a high pressure with a fully open choke
valve.
To investigate the possibility of protecting the system (with an acceptable SIL rating) without the
usage of High Integrity Pressure Protection System (HIPPS).
To assist the client in developing the proper specification of separator design pressure, choke valve
Cv, number of choke valves, and relieving capacity.

Modular Dynamic Simulation Modeling

During Pre-FEED, the exact configuration of equipment was not defined. However, the basic characteristics
of the system were adequately defined, including well head pressure, location of the platform relative to the
wellhead, overall throughput and the arrival pressure at the topsides.
Even with the limited availability of details, a dynamic simulation model was put together with the
Manifold Module (the riser to the inlet separator) and the Separator Module (a control valve at the inlet and
level control valve at the outlet). After the basic model was configured and converged, the fluid property and
the normal operating pressure of the separator were modified. In addition, the system volume was adjusted
to match with the anticipated layout.
By using the modular modeling approach, a full-functional dynamic simulation model was quickly
developed. The only component that required customization was the choke valve. The choke valve model
was customized based on the choke valve supplier data and in order to correctly handle supercritical fluid
(i.e. fluid which has a lean composition and may behave more like a gas than a liquid) in supercritical region.
A schematic diagram of the topsides system modeled for this project is shown below.

Base Case Assumptions/Input Data

The following is a summary of the input data and assumptions used for the base case of the study.

Flowlines initially packed at the max shut-in pressure

SDV initially at close condition

Choke valve fully open

Separator Design Pressure based on 900#, 600# and 300# cases

Separator initially at HLL

OTC-27853-MS 5

Assume liquid/water outlet is blocked

Manifold sizes short

Flowline volume based on furthest drill center

Implementations
Starting from the shut-in condition (inlet isolation valve SDV1 fully closed) and using the assumptions and
input data given above for the base case, the following actions were imposed on the simulation:

At time = 1 second, the inlet isolation inadvertently re-opens

When the separator pressure reaches a high-pressure set point (to be optimized by the study), the
safety valve SDV2 quickly closes
After the pressure in the separator increases to PSV set pressure, the safety relief valve opens to
release pressure and sends excess flow into the flare system

Study Options
In this study, the following parameters were used as study options and were varied in the simulation to keep
the separator maximum pressure as close as possible to the design pressure. These parameters include:

Separator Design Pressure

Choke Valve Cv

Relieving Capacity

SDV Stroke time

Simulation Results

Sensitivity cases were performed with different separator design pressure and closure time of safety
valves. The results of 300# were higher than the client acceptable pressure rating and flare design rate (400
MMSCFD). Also, the 900# option was not a favorable option due to the size and space requirements of
the high pressure piping, valves and inlet separator. Therefore, the 600# option was selected as the final
design. The final results are shown in the following figure. Figure 2.a is the pressure vs time and Figure
2.b is the flare load.

Figure 2Case Study 1, Base Case (600#) a) 1st Stage Separator Pressure and b) Flare load
6 OTC-27853-MS

Additional sensitivity cases were carried out based on the size of choke valves. The results show that the
maximum separator pressure increases with the size of choke valve. The results established the approximate
size of choke valve that should be considered for the facility.
The example demonstrated that modular modeling approach could successfully addressed important
design issues at an early stage of a project, even with limited study budget.

Case Study 2 (EPC Phase-Dynamic Study)

Project Summary
The client has launched a project to develop the proven resources of two of its independent groups of
reservoirs. The development of the two reservoirs was based on subsea production and gas and water
injection wells connected to a Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO) vessel supporting:
accommodation, processing, associated systems and utilities, oil storage and export/offloading facilities,
gas and water re-injection and gas export.
The schematic below depicts a general block diagram of this offshore project.

Figure 3Case Study 2, FPSO Topsides Schematic Diagram

The Main objective of the Project was to:

1. Construct a modular dynamic simulation model (validated against the steady state model).
2. Run a set of dynamic simulations using the above model in order to enable the following:

To establish optimum tuning parameters and confirm valve sizes and set points for all major
control loops.
To confirm the requirement for hot gas bypass valves on the HP & HHP compressors (and other
compressors if required), to prevent surge on compressor shutdown and provide the sizing for
the valves.
To confirm the adequacy of the proposed compressor anti-surge control system and recycle
valve sizing for all compressors.
To examine start-up and shutdown behaviour and verify the recommended procedures or
highlight improvements.
To examine effects of overpressure transients on FPSO topsides facilities.

To demonstrate that the response of the shutdown system is adequate to prevent loss of
containment or excessive temperature excursions due to a failure of the control system or other
major process upsets.
OTC-27853-MS 7

To examine the adequacy of the control system in preventing production trips during normal
operation and to allow identification of any improvements that may be made to the control
system.
To confirm the adequacy of the pressure control scheme of the MP and LP separators.

To examine degraded modes of operation.

To check preservation activities impact on topsides.

Modular dynamic simulation study

The modular topside process dynamic model was developed using the library of KBR standard template
models for topsides which have been developed and continuously maintained for more than 20 years. The
project simulator model was then updated with sufficient details based on equipment as-built supplier data,
P&ID's, system hydraulics and volumes, valve dynamic characteristics, major control loops, pressure relief
devices and control logics.

Scope of the Model

The scope of the model included the following Topsides systems:

Reservoir A & B risers starting from topsides boundary (Topside/Subsea Flowline interface)

Reservoir B MP Separation

Reservoir A LP Separation (2 parallel trains)

Electrostatic dehydrator and LLP Separator (2 parallel trains)

LLP, LP & MP (2 parallel trains), HP & HHP Compression

Gas Dehydration

Export gas lines up to topsides boundary (Topside/Export pipeline interface)

Results summary
A total of 54 cases were performed for different combinations of initial conditions, scenarios and equipment
design data (e.g. fast vs slow valve stroke time). With the modular models, the overall flowsheet simulation
could be quickly re-converged to a new condition (e.g. start vs end of life) and a consistent presentation of
results was already available when the model was put together. This greatly reduced the model development
time and increased the time that was allocated to scenario analysis and design improvement.
The following figures show the results of one of the cases trip of one compressor. Figure 4.a shows
that the remaining compressor was able to move to a new operating condition at a higher throughput
without exceeding the driver power limit. However, Figure 4.b shows that the tripped compressor could
experience coastdown surge using the vendor-provided valve Cv's. After consulting with the compressor
vendor, the coastdown surge was deemed excessive since it occurred at a high speed. Design alternatives
were investigated. The final solution was to add an on/off anti-surge "shutoff" valve in parallel with each
anti-surge valve to prevent surge on coast down. The sizes of the parallel valves were determined by this
simulation study. Figure 4.c shows the LP compressor remained outside of surge during coastdown with the
addition of a parallel valve to the LP Compressor anti-surge valve.
8 OTC-27853-MS

Figure 4Case Study 2, a) LP Compressor operating point Train B with vendor-provided valve Cv, b) LP Compressor
operating point Train A with vendor-provided valve Cv c) LP Compressor operating point Train A with parallel shutoff valve

Conclusions
For offshore topsides where the process and the equipment were standardized, the Modular Simulation
Model approach has proven to be an efficient means to quickly and inexpensively analyze the dynamic
behavior of the facility, even at an early development stage. The Modular Models significantly reduce the
model development time while maintaining the basic rigor of the models to allow for further enhancement
at a later stage.