IADC/SPE 74504 Avoiding Catastrophes in Dynamic Positioning; Integrating Key Parameters Using a Systems Approach

Lew Weingarth/West Hou, Inc

Copyright 2002, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference This paper was prepared for presentation at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in Dallas, Texas, 2628 February 2002. This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the IADC or SPE, their officers, or members. Papers presented at the IADC/SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the IADC and SPE. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Finally, a brief analysis will offer how to best implement the systems approach on future projects, from both the owner and operator viewpoints. The analysis will cover how the systems approach impacts the following: Making certain that lessons from prior catastrophes are incorporated in the current project Utilizing the relative strengths of in-house and third party personnel Understanding effective DP operator training Enhancing troubleshooting and downtime avoidance

Abstract Recent newbuild and major upgrade deep water Dynamically Positioned (DP) rigs have been plagued by station-keeping difficulties. Many of these problems have been attributed to the DP system, the power management system, or the DP operators capabilities. Maximum efficiency and minimum non-productive (down) time for DP rigs can best be achieved by using an approach that considers all of these factors simultaneously a SYSTEMS approach. DP operation successes and failures will be illustrated using case studies from five drilling rigs with which the author has personal experience. Each of these cases will demonstrate the inter-dependence of critical equipment and systems that allow a rig to maintain position. Additionally, the paper will describe latent problems identified, as well as describe why a systems approach would have avoided them. Primary emphasis will be on the symbiotic relationship between the DP and power plant management control systems, as well as the resident anti-blackout software in both. Cases will illustrate: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Whos right, DP or power management? The DP rabbit and power plant turtle. How lack of DP operator knowledge can defeat even the smartest software. When does too much redundancy reduce reliability? What happens when one computer doesnt notice the other one died, or why is it critical that BOTH systems be designed as parts of a whole?

Definitions And Clarifications DP Dynamic Positioning System. A control system that operates propellers, referred to as thrusters in this paper, to maintain a specified location in relation to the well. DPO - DP Operator. An individual who operates the DP system. PMS, VMS or DMS Power Management System, Vessel Management System or Data Management System. Another name for the Power Management System. A control system that monitors various electrical and other operational parameters around the rig, and starts and stops main generator skids. ECR Engine Control Room. The control room where the VMS controls are located, plus manual controls for diesel engines and generators. For the purpose of this paper, the following simplifications of power terms may aid understanding by the readers. Power. Power is the term used for the horsepower of the diesel driving a generator, the kW of the generator, or the kW of a motor turning a propeller or rotating the pipe. The efficiency of each of these devices normally must be considered when looking at power management. For this paper, however, all devices efficiencies are assumed to be included in power calculations. kW Kilowatts 1,000 Watts. A measure of power.

LEW WEINGARTH

IADC/SPE 74504

MW Megawatts 1,000 kW. Power Factor (pf) Power factor measures the phase relationship between voltage and current in an electrical device. Put more simply, power factor measures what percentage of electrical energy is actually performing work. In practice, DC rigs normally see pf in the range 0.4 - 0.8 and AC rigs normally see pf in the range 0.8 - 0.9. Overview Frequently, rigs experience difficulties in holding position, or station. This can occur even after extensive testing of the DP system, and, after receiving validations that all systems are acceptable. If a systems approach that integrates all shipboard systems and insists on qualified DPOs is not used, problems can be expected to occur. The integrated systems approach prioritizes and balances the objectives of each system such that the component systems do not compete. The non-integrated case studies in the remaining sections of this paper describe a variety of problems that has occurred. It will be shown how an integrated systems approach may be employed to eliminate the identified problems. Consider the three major systems that may be integrated for a successful systems approach: 1) the DP system, 2) the Drilling system, and 3) the power plant responsible for delivering power to each of them, i.e. the power management system. 1. The DP system objective, simply stated, is to maintain position in any weather condition encountered. To accomplish this objective, the system controls the thrusters so that they maintain the heading and position of the vessel in response to set-point heading and position commands. These DP system commands dynamically position the vessel relative to the wellhead. Normally five to eight thrusters can be individually controlled to supply thrust at any angle by commanding power to the thruster motors from 0 to 100% at any azimuth. Heading is the primary control variable because of its impact on the power required to maintain position. Changes of as little as 5% in heading can require as much as 30% more power to operate, depending on the shape of the vessel. Other input parameters include wind speed and direction, the gyrocompass, and a vertical reference unit. The vessel position relative to the wellhead is determined by an acoustic position reference system that has a beacon/transponder array on the sea floor. Another position reference is supplied by GPS (Global Positioning System). Of course, redundant references as well as control systems are used to improve reliability. With this number of control parameters, it is easy to understand the sophistication of the DP system. One key feedback parameter related to the drilling operation is supplied by the BOP MUX system. This is the

angle, or tilt from vertical, of the first joint of riser above the BOP. For proper drilling operations, this angle is normally minimized in order to reduce wear on the subsea equipment and insure the ability to disconnect the LMRP (Lower Marine Riser Package) in emergencies. The vessel position setpoint is changed based on this angle. . This is normally a DPO function. This setpoint change is necessary because of changes in offset (difference between vessel and the wellhead centerline), current, depth, mud weight, riser tension, etc. affect the non-linearity of the riser 2. The drilling operation, i.e., rotating pipe, lifting, lowering, and making up drill pipe and casing strings, pumping mud, etc., requires widely varying amounts of power. It is the responsibility of the driller to recognize the power requirements of these operations and to ensure that the power plant can deliver what is needed to execute the operators program as quickly and efficiently as possible. This is accomplished by their selection of SCR (Silicon Controlled Rectifier) assignments of the drilling equipment. 3. Six to twelve diesel powered generators deliver power for the vessel. Each generator has individual controls to ensure operation within their mechanical envelope. These individual control systems feed specific data to the power management system (PMS). The DP system also feeds specific data to the PMS. The PMS sends power output setpoints to each generator as well as power status data to the DP system. Some believe that having multiple, and separate power systems, or busses can increase the reliability of the power plant. Both generators and loads are placed to minimize catastrophes when individual equipment fails. The latest generation of rigs have PMS/VMS/DMS, hereafter referred to as simply VMS. This system takes signals from each of these three control systems. (DP, BOP, and VMS) and manages conflicts. To the extent that this is done with the understanding of the capabilities, limitations, and requirements of each system, this represents the state-ofthe-art systems approach. The VMS performs the power management function, monitoring individual generator loads and preventing blackouts by constantly telling the DP and the drilling system computers how much power is available. It will then allocate power, including rationing, or phase back. Correctly designed and operated, this system is effective at preventing blackouts better than each individual system by itself. Although the control objectives of the three systems provided above are relatively straightforward, it is not difficult to imagine the complications that are introduced when integrating them all.

IADC/SPE 74504

AVOIDING CATASTROPHES IN DYNAMIC POSITIONING; INTEGRATING KEY PARAMETERS USING A SYSTEMS APPROACH

Case Studies Case 1: Whos Right, DP Or Power Management? A DP drillship was upgraded in 1997 with a new DP and VMS. The DP software on this rig is responsive and powerful. The DP software includes many features that allow a talented DPO to adjust for best performance and minimal operating cost in anything from calm seas to hurricanes. These features, if set correctly, prevent a drive off during normal drilling operations. They can also be adjusted to enhance safety and station keeping in a hurricane. DPOs on this rig are selected from personnel who do not have training in closed loop control system or power plant theory. In this case, the DPOs set the DP power limit incorrectly. In the first operational state described below, heading changes caused the DP system to use all the available power and phase back the driller, even though plenty of power was available for both functions. This was demonstrated by the operation illustrated in the second plot Consider Figure 1 and Figure 2. Both display 20 seconds of time. The only difference between them is the setting of the DP power limit. Figure 1 shows a 5 degree heading change with the DP power limit set at maximum. The DP system uses all the available power for a few seconds to start the ship turning, after which power consumption drops off to the level before the turn started. Notice the blue line describing the drilling load. The topdrive and mud pumps nearly stopped for a few seconds when the DPO entered the heading change.

To resolve the problem of interrupting drilling operation, procedural compromises were made to optimize DP system for normal circumstances. Unfortunately, this change simultaneously reduced the ability to respond to DP emergencies. Figure 2 shows another heading change made the same day, after the DP power limit was set correctly for mild weather. Note that the DP system still uses all available power when the heading change is made, but the DP power limit was a much lower number. This time, DP still has access to plenty of power for station keeping, but the driller has not had to interrupt drilling operation.

Figure 2 A better solution would be to take a systems approach, realizing and compensating for the limitations of computers. Despite recent advancements in software and hardware, DP systems are still fairly dumb machines, certainly no substitute for a skilled DPO. DP, like any control system, achieves better performance if the operator has the technical training to understand the system. For maximum performance it is not sufficient to simply buy hi-tech machines. DP must be viewed as part of a complex SYSTEM that integrates the DP, the VMS, and the drilling system, with technically trained professional DPOs. The latter being the key component of that system. Case 2: The DP Rabbit And Power Plant Turtle. On two recently built drillships, the different characteristics of the diesels, DP, and VMS resulted in several blackouts.

Figure 1

The diesels on these vessels are of a type that is optimized for steady loads rather than the rapidly changing drilling and DP loads required for drilling operation.

LEW WEINGARTH

IADC/SPE 74504

DP system adjusts thrust twice per second, limited by a power available number that it receives from the VMS. VMS runs much slower than DP, updating the power available figure every two seconds. Although the DP system knew the total power available, it would demand power at a faster rate than the diesels could deliver. For example, even though the DP power demand never exceeded 100% of the generators capacity, it might change from 50% load to 90% load twice as fast as the diesels could ramp up, causing them to slow down and shut down. On the next update, the VMS would ramp down the power available signal to the DP system to protect the diesels. Unfortunately, this was after the rig had already blacked out. Similar to case study #1, this rig had adjustable DP power limits. Also, like the original operating scenario in case #1, these limits were set too high. A fairly simple, though somewhat clumsy, solution was found. The VMS software was modified to simply shut off all the thrusters for two seconds when it detected the diesel engines slowing down. During the two-second hiatus, it recalculated the power available signal to send to DP. This prevented blackouts with only a minimal affect on station keeping performance, or so it was thought. What does shutting all power off to thrusters do to power plant load, particularly when following it up with a higher demand? The problem could have been avoided with a systems approach. A systems approach would have specified one or more of the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. Diesels that can follow rapid changes in demand. A DP power ramp that matched the capability of the diesels. A faster VMS system; one that could control the power available signal to DP in real time. DPOs with an understanding of power plant theory, who could adjust the DP power limits to avoid the problem entirely.

DP load and 4 MW in use by other shipboard systems. The DP power limit was set at maximum. The DPO made a 30-degree heading change. When he entered the heading change, the DP system quickly ramped the thrusters up to 6 MW. The main engines could not provide power this fast so they slowed down, which resulted in a decrease of the frequency. VMS noticed the slowdown and shut off all thrusters for two seconds. This reduced the load on the power plant, but made DP fall behind on the commanded turn. When power returned two seconds later, DP allocated even more power than the previous time, which resulted in the diesels again overloading and another thruster shut down by VMS. This cycle repeated four times before the rig finally reached the commanded heading, and thruster command dropped below a level the diesels could supply. At no time did the DP operator make any attempt to mitigate the problem, and when questioned afterwards emphatically stated that it was a power plant problem and had nothing to do with DP. This problem results when one views the diesels, DP, VMS, and DPOs as separate issues. Had all of these systems been integrated by using a systems approach, this event would not have occurred. In this example, a weak coordination of diesels, DP, and VMS was defeated by DPO lack of technical understanding. Case 4: When Does Too Much Redundancy Reduce Reliability? DP drilling rigs are all built to either classification DP 2 or DP 3. What do these classifications mean? DP 2 classification indicates equipment redundancy loss of any piece of equipment will not cause loss of station keeping ability. DP 3 classification indicates compartment redundancy loss of any compartment will not cause loss of station keeping ability. It would seem that DP 3 is superior to DP 2. Being able to survive the loss of an entire compartment is pretty impressive. However, DP 3 operation often can provide less reliability than DP 2. In order to meet classification DP 3, the rig must have at least two engine rooms and at least two power distribution busses. If the rig has three thrusters at each end, two will be on one buss and one on the other buss, as shown in this drawing. Figure 3 also shows two generators operating out of the four available in each compartment.

Case 3: How Lack Of DP Operator Understanding Can Defeat Even The Smartest Software. This case is a follow on to case 2. The VMS software had been modified to drop the thrusters whenever a blackout was pending. This prevented blackouts, but failed to consider all scenarios. On location one night the weather was very calm. The seas were flat and the wind about 15 knots. The diesels were running at about 40% load. There was 16 MW of generator capacity online, with a total load of 7 MW, 3 MW of

IADC/SPE 74504

AVOIDING CATASTROPHES IN DYNAMIC POSITIONING; INTEGRATING KEY PARAMETERS USING A SYSTEMS APPROACH

Figure 3 With eight 4.5 MW generators and six 5 MW thrusters this looks like a safe situation. The 7.8 MW thruster load is less than half of the 18 MW capacity of 4 generators, and less than the 9 MW capability now operating in one engine room. Lets look closer. If the starboard engine room fails, the rig will lose station even though plenty of power is available. The problem is that two of the three forward thrusters will stop, requiring the one remaining 5 MW forward thruster to supply 5.4 MW of thrust, which it cannot do. This is graphically depicted in Figure 4:

Figure 5 There are not many differences with this configuration; the same thruster loads exist with a slightly more even power distribution among generators. However, what happens in this scenario if the starboard engine room fails as depicted in Figure 6?

Figure 6 After loss of an entire engine room, the remaining two generators on the port side are only running at 87% capacity. We may want to start another engine, but there will be no loss of station. Net result: no operating interruption. Figure 4 OK, now lets look at Figure 5, which is the same rig operating in DP 2. The two busses are tied together. The loads are the same as the previous scenario. There are other reasons why it might not be advantageous to run a rig in DP 3. Reliability - Most diesels are more reliable if run at loads greater than 50%. In DP 3 it may be impossible to achieve this most reliable condition.

LEW WEINGARTH

IADC/SPE 74504

Up to rated capacity, higher generator loads generally means less maintenance and downtime. Maintenance - Thrusters and diesels require periodic maintenance. If operating in DP 3, shutting down any engine or thruster removes a greater percentage of backup capability, compared to operating in DP 2. Fault clearing - If a generator faults, the remaining units must be able to provide sufficient current to open the breaker(s). One generator may not be sufficient to open the breaker. If not, this would require running three generators on each buss regardless of power consumption, which would increase downtime.

it was relatively easy for the ECR watchstander to keep enough power on line. The DPOs were degreed Electrical Engineers, highly trained and skilled in power plant theory, electronics, and closed loop control system theory. The DP room was isolated from the rest of the rig, and entrance restricted, allowing the DPOs to concentrate on DP. During an emergency it is often critical to diagnose technical problems in seconds to prevent losing location. The quiet operating environment and technical expertise of the DPOs prevented many driftoffs over the years. So back to the original question: what happens when the DP system doesnt notice the VMS computer has died? The DPO gets an alarm light telling him VMS has failed. He makes a mental note to notify the ECR a few minutes earlier than normal of impending need for more power. The Watchstander in the ECR moves himself and his teapot over to the manual engine control panel. What happens when the DP system doesnt notice the VMS computer has died? For all practical purposes nothing worth mentioning happens, because in this case a SYSTEMS APPROACH was taken from the initial design right through to manning of the rig. Well-designed backup manual controls and technically skilled crews provide what the computers lack understanding of a DP Drilling rig as a SYSTEM. The track record of this rig speaks well for the systems approach methodology. This rig, despite operating about half the time in areas with storms, surface currents, and rip tides, has only lost station once in the last 17 years, and not once in the last decade. How to Implement the Systems Approach on New Rigs The best means to assure that a new DP rig will be successful is to follow a SYSTEMS DESIGN approach from inception through completion to manning. In the design stage, all systems that can cause a blackout should be considered simultaneously. The major components to consider are the main engines, DP, VMS, drilling controls, and DPOs. Each of these sub-systems should be designed to do as much of their own control as possible. This provides the following benefits: 1. simplifies each system, 2. matches performance criteria between all other systems, and 3. maintains their individual functionality when other systems fail.

However, operating in DP 2 mode is not without offsetting risk. The rig must make sure that the protective relays are set up correctly and tested regularly. Likewise, power management must be coordinated throughout all the rig systems. Case 5. What Happens When One Computer Doesnt Notice The Other One Died. The Sedco/BP 471 has been in continuous operation as a DP Drillship since 1978. Until a recent upgrade, the computer systems on this rig used 1970 technology. This case study considers the rig from 1978 2001, before the recent upgrade. The DP and VMS computers run independently of each other, with the only shared data being the time and date. The DP system monitors power consumption by the thrusters and drilling systems, and limits thrust according to a calculation of available power, in compliance with parameters set by the DPO. The VMS simply monitored engine load and started more engines as needed. The equipment failure rate on this rig was at least equal to modern drillships, but the Sedco/BP 471 has moved off location in excess of 2% of water depth only one time since 1984. As with almost all losses of location, that event was the result of human error, and preventable. Why does this old DP rig perform so much better than the new DP rigs? The 471 has a major advantage over modern DP rigs. The rig owner took a systems approach during design, construction, and manning. The view of the vessel as a SYSTEM was carried through into every phase of operation. Specialists in engine control room (ECR) operation were hired to man the engine control console. The ECR was set up to allow complete and easy manual operation in case of computer failure. Since DP took care of preventing blackouts,

IADC/SPE 74504

AVOIDING CATASTROPHES IN DYNAMIC POSITIONING; INTEGRATING KEY PARAMETERS USING A SYSTEMS APPROACH

Any subsystem that uses enough power to blackout the rig should have the ability to monitor the power plant and control its own power usage as needed. This will improve reliability, reduce response time, and simplify troubleshooting. If each subsystem prevents itself from overloading the power plant, blackout will become nearly impossible. The small cost and size of transducers today, combined with the widespread use of PLCs to operate machinery, makes this economically and technically feasible. Additionally, responsive main engines should be chosen. The main selection criteria should be to make sure the diesels and generators can provide the power needed by the DP and drilling systems, at the rate they demand, and at the power factor they create. The engines should only share the minimum number of auxiliaries to prevent single point failures. The DP system should be able to monitor generator load, power factor, frequency, and other important parameters, not for control of the engines, but to predict problems and prevent blackouts. The DP console should be physically separated from normal operations, in a separate room, so that the DPOs can concentrate on operating the DP system. The VMS should be focussed on starting engines and not take an active part in DP or Drilling operations. It should have the ability to monitor what DP and the drilling controls do in order to predict the need for additional engines. The drilling controls should also take care of themselves, much as the DP system does. Similar to DP, the drilling controls should be able to monitor generator load, power factor, frequency, and other important parameters, again not for control of the engines, but to predict problems and prevent blackouts. The DP Operators should be chosen by technical ability. The ideal DPO is one who understands the programming, the computer, all PLCs, networks, and inputs and outputs, plus the thrusters, motors, and generator plants. With this set of skills, coupled with the reliability of modern DP systems, driftoffs should become a thing of the past. Driveoffs, of course, have always been the result of operator error. The design of all subsystems should be reviewed with the history of DP vessels in mind. This review should include internal experts to make sure past problems are avoided. Third party consultants, who can bring in the DP experience of other companies, should also be included. As with most decisions, involving more people will result in a better decision. Another key to operational success is to make sure that, during the commissioning stage, adequate technical

expertise is applied and that testing is thorough. Thorough testing means more than checking each input and output. It must include blackout recovery and endurance exercises. A review of project deliverability would suggest that most drilling construction projects could be better managed. The core business of drilling contractors is drilling, which they do well. However, construction projects often end up the responsibility of their operational engineering staff, where training and experience in project management would not be expected. If the appropriate additional and skilled staff is not hired to cover the added workload, this results in overloaded staff, increased stress, and reduced performance. Projects would be more successfully executed if a consulting professional project manager were engaged with the authority to determine what level of support the existing staff requires. Given that most drilling contractors dont have newbuild or major upgrade projects continuously, the best solution is probably a mix of outside consultants and internal expertise. For an additional $7 million, 20 consulting engineers could be hired for a 24-month project. $7 million is a lot of money, until you compare it to the average cost overrun of new construction DP rig projects. This methodology is not unknown. All of these ideas come from existing drilling contractors, though no drilling contractor follows all of them. One drilling contractor follows most of these ideas. This particular contractor has only one deepwater rig, but that rig has arguably the best DP and power management performance in the industry. They followed the philosophy of having each subsystem control its own power, and attempting to hire DPOs with the skills to operate a computerized control system. As a result, that DP rig is practically impossible to black out, and DP performance is exemplary. Unfortunately, this contractor also followed the industry standard of understaffing the construction and commissioning stages, and thus had high initial downtime. The lost opportunity cost most certainly outweighed by orders of magnitude the cost of additional help. Conclusion As you can see from this paper, the concept of a systems approach to DP design and operation is relatively simple. The adequate control of individual systems can be complicated unto themselves, but if each of these dependent systems do not consider the others, catastrophe is just around the corner. Although simple in concept, this systems approach requires a much higher breadth of knowledge than does the individualistic approach. Such individuals are more difficult to find, especially in times of a building boom such as recently experienced.

LEW WEINGARTH

IADC/SPE 74504

Bonus Observations For no extra charge, consider the following: Free hint #1 If the protective relay coordination, power management design, and commissioning are given proper attention, the rig will probably never have a blackout. Free hint #2 If the DPOs are degreed and experienced electrical engineers from control system backgrounds, the rig will probably never lose location. Free hint #3 Find out if the DP and VMS were tested as a unit during sea trials, or separately. I have heard lots of people, even 3rd party surveyors, say DP was OK but problems in the power management system caused blackouts. This indicates that acceptance testing didnt take a systems view. You cannot separate DP, power management, and DPO skills when surveying or commissioning DP drilling rigs if your desire is to determine fitness for purpose.