New deepwater subsea equipment qualification system eases execution, improves reliability

Proactive qualification approach aims to optimize accountability in system hierarchy and levels of technical definition.

Equipment design and performance lessons are difficult to institutionalize without a formal process to link design with qualification and quality requirements. Industry learnings should be captured to avoid repeat failures and to transfer industry experience to next generation resources. The qualification process should consistently focus on critical design features, be failure-mode based, and capture industry experience and lessons learned, including new failure mechanisms. Qualification of a design also should be linked to QA/QC. Critical features may need tighter acceptance testing based on operator service conditions.

A successful qualification approach also has to establish a mechanism to document and communicate functional requirements and potential failure mechanisms to vendors and to their supply chain, particularly second- and third-tier suppliers who unknowingly may provide critical sub-components. In heated market conditions, qualification processes should accommodate the realities of supply-chain management and provide features to efficiently incorporate new suppliers. Additionally, “operator tinkering” needs to be rationalized. This may result in misalignment with vendors’ standard product lines and lead to new qualification requirements and to unforeseen risk due to manufacturing changes.

Proactive qualification

Similar to industry job safety analyses or hazard identification programs, subsea equipment qualification and reliability should be approached proactively. Rather than focusing only on reactive numeric failure analysis, EMDC uses a proactive qualification to objectively evaluate the equipment qualification and quality programs.

EMDC believes its proactive qualification approach can be optimized by applying the following strategies:

• Focus the evaluation at the component level within the system hierarchy
• Reference vendor part numbers to lock down technical definition and associated manufacturing/quality processes.

This allows operators to identify and track – in terms of technical definition, qualification, and quality assurance – a set number of common components that can be optimized in various system configurations across a number of projects. Management at the component level also minimizes the cost of pre-stocking strategies (for both the vendor and operator) as client configuration preferences still are relatively low at this level. Local content directives also may require that the larger equipment packages be assembled in-country.

It also enables robust management of change and communication processes between the operator and vendor. This approach has three key underlying processes that allow for its success:

• Component breakdown into primary “building-blocks”
• Implementation of generic failure mode assessment (FMA)
• Implementation of generic product qualification sheets (PQS).

Component-level breakdown is consistent with American Petroleum Institute categories. A comprehensive component-level breakdown can cater to field-specific configurations. The FMA approach is based on a simplified version of aFailure Mode Effects and Criticality Analysis, often used as a design tool within the industry (e.g., recommended as a technology qualification tool in DNV-RP-A203). The FMA highlights component-specific failure mechanisms and critical design features. PQS involves developing generic datasheets, similar to topsides-proven Instrumentation, Systems, and Automation Society (ISA) datasheet processes.

Qualification is improved using this proactive part number-datasheet approach because it supports a structured process to improve visibility of technical information and to fit many vendors’ internal tracking systems. This improves management of detailed design changes, as well as facilitates procurement, contracting, and tracking of lessons learned. Additionally, this process applies to proven, field-tested components to increase efficiency of the qualification process and to reduce the need to redefine qualified or field-proven equipment.

As the focus of EMDC’s qualification approach is on the inherent value of the use of component specific datasheets, an important first step is to identify typical deepwater subsea development components. Using API standards and past experience, EMDC has identified 11 component categories (e.g., valves, hydraulic/chemical controls, electric controls, coatings and insulation) for a total of approximately 75 components (e.g., valves: ball, gate, and needle; electric controls: flow meters and wet mate connectors) based on function and class. Once subsea components are identified and categorized, they are documented consistently in individual PQS.

FMA systematically identifies component failure modes and mechanisms, and the tests needed to qualify a component relative to its intended function. The basis for the FMA templates is derived fromDNV RP-A203, which applies to components and equipment for offshore developments. Its objective is to ensure the technology functions reliably within specified limits. This is important because it allows operators to proactively identify failure risks and to test components and equipment before project execution.

The strength of the FMA process is that it allows operators to identify critical qualification tests and acceptance criteria that encompass testing of potential failure mechanisms. For example, EMDC completed a FMA on a thermoplastic hydraulic flying lead (HFL) component and identified 51 potential failure mechanisms. However, a regrouping of the FMA data identified only nine unique qualification tests required to evaluate all potential failures. Narrowing the qualification into these nine tests optimizes the time spent testing and analyzing the HFL. The FMA process increases visibility of failure modes and acceptance criteria which improves qualification testing as full life-cycle requirements are better understood.

Product qualification sheets

The PQS that EMDC uses are based onISA-TR20.00.01. These ISA datasheets, published originally in 1956, are used by oil and gas operators and vendors throughout the topsides industry.

Operators incorporate new datasheets based on need. The basis of the EMDC Subsea Systems process is to establish a similar standard that aligns the operators and vendors for deepwater development projects, with additional emphasis on the uniform display of qualification information. Currently, EMDC has identified 75 generic component datasheets specific to deepwater subsea development. A unique PQS will be generated for each component vendor.

The PQS helps achieve qualification, quality, and reliability objectives by a standardizing presentation the following:

1. Component identification information, including:

• Type of component or assembly and description
• Vendors and sub-suppliers
• Part and bill of material numbers
• Drawing number
• Assembly procedure number

2. Service conditions and operating parameters, including:

• Water depth
• Operating pressures and temperatures
• Material class and requirements
• Design life

3. Preferred configurations and characteristics, including:

• Operational equipment selection
• Location and orientation of elements
• Preferred coatings
• Labeling and markings

4. Qualification testing requirements, including:

• Applicable industry standards and codes
• Acceptance requirements
• Performance verification information

5. Quality requirements and inspections, including:

• Inspection and testing requirements (e.g., FAT and SIT)
• Dimensional verification requirements
• Documentation requirements
• Material identification and traceability.

Continuous improvement

The process improves reliability by migrating toward standard documentation and components for which continuous improvement programs can be established. Poor equipment performances or field failures often are vendor specific and cannot be managed or enhanced in a generic database. The performance/failure issue likely will have a root-cause associated with a component’s design, manufacture/assembly procedure, or QA/QC programs. By referencing the vendor’s part number, the PQS provides a link to specific vendors’ internal tracking systems and interfaces with manufacturing and quality systems.

The FMA templates also help capture design lessons learned from poor equipment performances or field failures. Original qualification becomes leveraged as the deepwater subsea industry evolves. Subsea product lines are optimized or improved. This is driven by development complexities, operating experience, and lessons learned. Detailed documentation supports a structured management-of-change program for increased reliability from modifications to proven designs. Broadening the PQS approach on an industry basis will accelerate reliability improvement, as a common communication mechanism enables more effective documentation of field failures. Additionally, the qualification documentation can be a training and reference tool, as the captured lessons learned provide information to maximize efficiency, reliability, and resources.

Advantages for vendors, operators

The streamlined PQS documentation facilitates project execution for both vendors and operators. Using PQS datasheets, vendors can communicate to sub-suppliers the detailed requirements for components, equipment, and other critical information. The PQS process can maximize vendor efficiencies and facilitate tendering, bid evaluation, and project execution for proven common components. By managing vendor resources more efficiently, a project team can focus on project-specific issues to reduce time spent early in the project life on equipment qualification reviews.

Operators increase project oversight on purchasing to minimize engineering costs and to reduce contingencies. As resources are constrained by short schedules, this standardized process allows vendors and operators to quickly access information and to efficiently address issues, which increase on-time deliveries.

The standardized approach also provides higher visibility of qualification using clear documentation to facilitate operators’ fit-for-service determinations. It provides a structured starting point for management of design changes, upgrades to new service conditions, and of qualification gaps. Operators also can leverage qualification information across projects. For adaptability to different field configurations, the component breakdown feature is ideal because it migrates toward use of standard components throughout the deepwater subsea industry.

The systematic qualification process also may facilitate local content. The qualification process not only allows established vendors and suppliers to participate on proven goods, but also provides a better mechanism for adding new vendors and suppliers. The datasheets and assessments also can be used as training and reference tools, allowing local contributors to understand what is required to provide reliable components and equipment.

EMDC believes that this subsea qualification approach is a proactive reliability enhancement framework to objectively evaluate vendor qualification programs. EMDC offers it for consideration as a new recommended practice for the rapidly evolving deepwater subsea industry. However, the principles, processes, and tools generated through this initiative can also apply broadly to other functional areas where equipment reliability is critical.