ROV docking interface tool
Publication Date: 2015-Jan-15
The IP.com Prior Art Database
Didier Renard – TECHNIP
The present document deals with subsea remote interventions in the offshore oil & gas field, more specifically on subsea manifolds, umbilical termination units, umbilical distribution panels, umbilical distribution manifolds and subsea Christmas trees.
Very often when assessing ROV interventions in particular on Company Provided Items, Technip discovers that the subsea hardware is not ROV friendly, requiring corrective actions such as additional welding of grab bars, not always feasible due to clashes and space constraints. Proposed idea consists in using existing valve interface ROV bucket plus a self-locking/ROV unlocking docking interface with ROV handle
2/ PRIOR ART AND PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED:
Prior Art consists of standard ROV grab bar as defined in ISO-13628-8 and/or API 17H
However, such grab bar is fixed, welded where there is room for it rather than where really needed, and not always within reach of the ROV manipulator-grabber.
When grab bar is “missing” and/or hardware supplier refuses to add one, temporary ROV deployed magnets with ROV handle interfaces have been used, providing there were room to stick/unstick them where needed, and strong magnetic field was not interfering with nearby installed subsea instrumentation.
Herebelow standard grabs bar shown on subsea hardware, plus magnets used as contingency grab points
SECTION B - DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION AND PROBLEM SOLVED
The purpose and object of the invention.
Include a written description and supporting drawings so as to describe the configuration and relationship of the components. Use numerals to identify parts correspondingly designated in the drawings. Drawings should illustrate the invention in the environment in which it would be used. When possible, reference the problem the invention solves and the disadvantages of the prior structure or process. The drawings and description should emphasize any new structural or arrangement features of the invention.
SECTION C - ADVANTAGES OF THE INVENTION
Describe new or improved results because of invention. Use test results and data if available. Advantages should be given in terms of commercial significance and the manner in which the invention is an improvement over the prior art.
SECTION D - ALTERNATIVES
To indicate the full scope of the invention, alternative methods, materials, or construction of the invention which
would accomplish the same result, should be described.
On several occasions, systematic and detailed design reviews as per Technip ROV-friendly Design rules, of in-house as well as third-party-provided subsea structures, have revealed that some much needed ROV grab bars to stabilize the vehicle, were either missing, not properly positioned versus the task to perform or just unsuable due to their akward position near obstructions or fragile components. Such findings are recurrent since subsea production hardwa...