See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259390857

Structural Integrity Assessment of Aging Fixed

Steel Offshore Jacket Platforms: A Persian Gulf
Case Study

Conference Paper June 2013

DOI: 10.1115/OMAE2013-10712

CITATIONS READS

4 1,455

9 authors, including:

Hamid Golpour M. Zeinoddini

TWI- Central Asia Khaje Nasir Toosi University of Technology
11 PUBLICATIONS 7 CITATIONS 99 PUBLICATIONS 595 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Hadi Khalili Hamid Matin Nikoo

TWI Central Asia Curtin University
4 PUBLICATIONS 7 CITATIONS 8 PUBLICATIONS 25 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Structural Integrity Evaluations of Jacket Platforms in Persian Gulf View project

ratcheting View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Pooya Ranjbar on 01 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the ASME 2013, 32th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering
OMAE32
June 9-14, 2013, Nantes, France

OMAE2013-10712

STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT OF AGING FIXED STEEL OFFSHORE

JACKET PLATFORMS: A PERSIAN GULF CASE STUDY

Hamid Golpour Mostafa Zeinoddini Hadi Khalili

TWI Persia Ltd K.N.Toosi University of TWI Persia Ltd
Tehran, Iran Technology and TWI Persia Ltd Tehran, Iran
Tehran, Iran

Ali Golbaz Yashar Yaghoubi Mahmoud Reza Adl

TWI Persia Ltd TWI Persia Ltd TWI Persia Ltd
Tehran, Iran Tehran, Iran Tehran, Iran

Pooya Ranjbar Reza Saberi Hamid Matin Nikoo

TWI Persia Ltd TWI Persia Ltd TWI Persia Ltd
Tehran, Iran Tehran, Iran Tehran, Iran

ABSTRACT
The existing knowledge on the structural integrity
assessment of offshore platforms may benefit from case studies
on the life extension evaluations of aging structures. This paper
presents a case study for the structural integrity assessment of
an existing 8 legged aging drilling platform located in the
Persian Gulf. The platform is now 42 years old and the
objective of the study is to check its fit for purpose for a life
extension of 25 years beyond 2012. The structural model is
based on the best estimates of the existing conditions of the
platform.
A number of analysis approach such as i) assessment based
on the previous exposures, ii) linear (elastic), iii) equivalent
linear (or the linear global analysis with local overload
considerations), and iv) non-linear analysis methods have been
used to estimate the structural integrity of the platform
The paper provides further background, clarifications and
proposed updates to API-RP 2A-Section 17. The paper is
divided into three parts. Section 1 is a discussion on the
background of the previous assessment study and perspective
view on why the case study platform needs to be assessed.
Section 2 and p3 include the finding of the code-
noncompliance points of the platform based on the
recommendations of API RP 2A-2007. Section 4 presents the
remedy actions recommended for the fit for purpose of the
platform.
1 INTRODUCTION
Structural integrity assessment is an ongoing procedure to
ensure the reliability of the offshore structures and the safety of
their operation. A significant number of researches have been
carried out on the structural assessment of offshore platforms
subjected to extreme loading [1,2]. Reliability based structural
assessment of platforms deck elevation was carried out by
Heredia-Zavoni et al. [3]. Dier et al. [4] conducted a
comparison of reliability analysis procedure for offshore jacket
and jack-up type platforms in the North Sea. Results of
assessment of fixed offshore platform in hurricanes Katrinia
and Rita [5] proposed some recommendation to use of section
17 of API-RP2A. Wisch et al [6] provided further background,
clarification and proposal to update section 17 API RP-2A.
Puskar et al [7] introduced a Bias Factor for correcting the
computed performance of the platforms compared to the
observed performances. Manuel et al. [8] proposed a structural
reliability assessment of jacket platforms under wave loading.
IWA and EWA are two novel methods which were presented
for non-linear assessment of offshore structures subjected to
extreme storm loads [9,10,11,12]. A review of recent
developments relating to structural reliability assessment of
fixed offshore platforms can be found in [13] and [14].
The existing knowledge on the structural integrity
assessment of offshore platforms may benefit from case studies
on the life extension evaluations of aging structures. Such case
studies form a problem based understanding of the subject and

1 Copyright 2013 by ASME

can pinpoint practical issues and implications related to the
structural integrity assessment of the aging offshore platforms.
This paper presents a case study for the structural integrity
assessment of an existing 8 legged aging drilling platform
located in the Persian Gulf. The platform is now 42 years old
and the objective of the study is to check its fit for purpose for
a life extension of 25 years beyond 2012.
The objectives of the assessment were as follows:
To identify structural damages or deteriorations that
might affect on the further use;
To conduct a structural evaluation against the relevant
failure modes;
To identify the steps required to be taken to prevent or
minimize the potential risks;
To summarize the results of the analyses which have
been performed for the structural assessment of the
drilling platform.
The drilling platform considered in this study was installed
in a water depth of around 58.8m. It consists of a drilling work
over rig, a crane and one 50 man accommodation module. The
owner plans to add a new 100MT separator and some other
equipment. As it will be shown later the platform, in its existing
condition with the new loads fails to satisfy the structural
integrity requirements. So it will be needed some remedy
actions in which assumed that all structural damages are
properly fixed, replaced, refurbish or based on a redundancy
analysis they are proved not to pose treats to the structural
integrity. Figure 1 gives overall view of the platform in 2011.
Figure 1. Overall view of the drilling platform
2 SRTUCTURAL DEFECTS
2.1 Superstructure Inspection
Primary and secondary elements in the topside and the
layout of the equipment installed on the platform were
surveyed. This included visual inspections and thickness
measurements on accessible key structural members to
determine the general layouts and the position of the
equipment, thickness measurements of structural elements to
determine their dimension and any possible deterioration and
visual inspection of the accessible structural elements to
identify signs of deterioration, distress or other defects.
2.2 Substructure Inspection
Underwater inspection of the platform was carried out in
2011. Summary of surveys carried out are as follows:
The platform was visually inspected from the spider
deck to the seabed level. The locations of all legs,
horizontal members, horizontal diagonal members and
vertical diagonal members were recorded and visually
inspected for straightness, well-being, damage and
anomalies. Damages were reported on seven members
at spider deck level. Figure 2 and Figure 3 show
sample of damaged members in the spider deck.
Wall Thickness Survey on all underwater and splash
zone members.
Flooded Member Detection (FMD) response readings
on all underwater braces indicated that nine members
in the platform are flooded.
110 subsea welds were selected for inspection. These
welds were first cleaned and then subjected to Close
Visual Inspection (CVI) and Alternating Current Field
Measurement (ACFM) inspections. These surveys
revealed, except one weld at EL. (-) 33.53m, no crack
on any of the welds. This defected weld connection (a
weld torn off) is shown in Figure 4.
Marine Growth Survey (MGS) was carried out on one
specific leg at each level for assessment of average
percentage for hard and soft marine growth and
effective thickness calculations.
Scour Survey was carried out on a selected leg. The
scour readings by survey report ranged from 400mm
to 900mm.
In total 206 original welded anodes and 196 clamped
renewed anodes were located. A total number of 148
out of 206 original anodes are completely depleted.
Only 36 out of 206 originally installed anodes were
found to have a depletion degree below 50%. In total
seven renewed anodes were found to have depletion
degrees above 50%.
3 ASSESSMENT ANALYSES AND RESULTS
3.1 In-place Design Level Assessment
The In-place Design Level Assessment of the existing
platform was performed in accordance with the criteria of API
RP 2A-2007 [15] and AISC [16] basic allowable stresses.
Following consideration is followed in the In-place Design
Level Assessment:
All structural damages, degradations, corrosions etc.,
reported and identified in the underwater/above water
inspection were rationally incorporated in the platform
structural model.
The members of the jacket structure located in the
splash zone were modelled with considering corrosion
2 Copyright 2013 by ASME
 allowance of 0.14mm/yrs for the next 25 years (during
next 25 years of service life extension). For these
members, the sacrificed thickness plus corrosions
measured in the underwater survey were deducted
from the as-built thicknesses.
Figure 2. An example for corrosion hole on a spider
deck member
Figure 3. An example for corrosion hole on a spider
deck member
Figure 4. A weld torn off at EL. (-) 33.53 m
An apparent wave period, accounting for the Doppler
effect of the current on the waves, has been
determined [15].
A nonlinear stretching approach has been employed to
stretch the current profile to the local wave surface.
Results from the analysis show that the platform in existing
condition would not satisfy the In-place structural integrity
requirements in the Design Level Assessment. This is mainly
sourced in the piles load bearing shortcomings. Under storm
conditions, the jacket piles become subjected to axial loads
considerably above their allowable axial load bearing capacity.
They also experience high stress Utilizations Factors (UFs),
beyond the allowable limits.
Calculation results show that under 100 year storm load
condition, a total number of 60 members have had stress UFs
greater than unity. Of these, 38 members are located in the
splash zone of the platform. They are believed to suffer from
serious corrosion. All overstressed members and joints in the
In-place analysis are illustrated in Figure 5 and Figure 6.
The analysis results show that the displacements of the
platform under 100 years metocean loading are not in allowable
range. This seems to be caused by poor performance of the
piles.
3.2 Fatigue Analysis
3.2.1 Analysis Methodology
Estimation of fatigue life is of great importance in offshore
platforms. The fatigue life is considered to be acceptable and
within normal design criteria if the calculated fatigue life is
longer than the total design service lifetime multiplied by the
Fatigue Safety Factor (FSF). Otherwise, a more detailed
assessment including results from performed measurements of
action effects and/or inspections throughout the prior service
life is required.
As part of the assessment process for future service life,
consideration should be given to accumulated fatigue
degradation effects. If Levels III and/or IV surveys are made
and any known damage is assessed and/or repaired, no
additional analytical demonstration of future fatigue life is
required [15]. Alternatively, adequate fatigue life may be
demonstrated by means of an analytical procedure.
A spectral analysis technique was used to determine the
stress response for each seastate and fatigue damages for
tubular connections in the jacket structure. Dynamic effects
were considered for seastates having significant energy near a
platform's natural period. A fatigue assessment should take into
account all available information (NORSOK, N-006 [17])
including: In-service history of the structure, changes and
modifications to the weight and weight distribution, assessment
of any reported damages (including fatigue damages).
API RP 2A-2007 hints that fracture mechanics methods"
may also be employed to quantify fatigue design lives of
welded details or structural components [15]. It, however, does
not give any specific procedures for such evaluations. The only
relevant documents that touched on the issue are the NORSOK
N-006 [17] and the BS-7910 [18]. They can be, if required,
used both as the basis for calculating the fatigue strength of
tubular joints experiencing cracking or defects.
3 Copyright 2013 by ASME
 It is noted that the API RP 2A-2007 [15] has thoroughly
changed its fatigue design approach. It has chosen a closer
approach to the normative standards such as NORSOK-N004
[19], ISO-19902 [20] and DNV [21] for its fatigue
requirements. Both the tubular joint S-N curves and the
recommended SCF formulations are completely revised. Major
changes have also been made regarding the fatigue safety
factors, seawater effects, corrosion and cathodic protection,
wall thickness effects.
As per API RP 2A-2007 [15] for the fatigue life evaluation,
structural components in the jacket shall be classified according
to their consequences of failure and accessibility for inspection
and repair. It, however, remains silent of how to make
difference between the critical and non-critical elements in the
jacket structure.
In the current study, NORSOK-004 [19] instructions for the
failure critically of members have been adopted to decide about
the failure critically of the joints. NORSOK-004 [19] also
makes a difference between inspecable/non-inspectable and
failure critical/failure non-critical joints. It, conversely,
provides specific instructions for deciding about the failure
critical and non critical elements. The structural fatigue
integrity is then evaluated based on the API RP 2A-2007 [15]
requirements for the structural fatigue assessment of the
platform.
For fatigue integrity assessment of the platform, possible
fatigue damage due to pile driving is considered. For
calculating the fatigue damage of the piles, the in-air and in-sea
water S-N curves of the API RP 2A [15] have been used for
calculating the pile driving and In-place damages, respectively.
It is noted that as per NORSOK N004 [19], the in air S-N curve
may be applied for the pile driving sequence and the sea water
S-N curve shall be used for the long term wave actions
expected during the service life of the platform.
In view of the new API provisions [15]; the piles in jacket
structures need to be generally treated as structural members
which their reliable in-service inspection of welds is hardly
achievable. For this reason a fatigue safety factor of 10 was
considered for their in-service conditions. Assessments of pile
fatigue should be based on calculating the fatigue damages
both in the service and during pile driving. For the latter the
actual number of blows and the energy used during the piling
operation are required. For fatigue damage evaluation of
already installed piles a minimum safety factor of 3 shall be
used for assessment of accumulated fatigue damage due to pile
driving provided that the calculated fatigue damage is derived
based on driving records that are properly documented. In lack
of properly documented driving records, a minimum safety
factor of 5 shall be used for assessment of accumulated fatigue
damage due to pile driving if damage consequence is classified
as "substantial consequences", for fatigue evaluation of already
installed piles. In lack of properly documented driving records,
a minimum safety factor of 3 shall be used for assessment of
accumulated fatigue damage due to pile driving if damage
consequence is classified as "without substantial
consequences", for fatigue evaluation of already installed piles
(NORSOK, N-006) [17]. The API RP 2A-2007, however,
remains silent about the fatigue safety factor of the piles in the
pile driving process.
3.2.2 Modelling Considerations for Fatigue Analysis
The deck, jacket and pile models used for the fatigue
analysis are similar to those used in the In-place analyses, with
specific modifications.
The conductor fixities are defined as foully fixed at
6D below mud-line elevation (D is the conductors
diameter).
In the fatigue analysis of new platforms it is common
practice to neglect the joint flexibility of brace and
chord connections. The effect of including local joint
flexibility in the fatigue assessment of an existing
offshore structure can significantly reduce
uncertainties on calculated fatigue lives at tubular
joints especially for joints in horizontal frames
(NORSOK, N-006) [17]. By appropriate consideration
of the local joint flexibility of tubular connections,
particularly where out-of-plane bending is important,
significant increase in predicted fatigue life can be
obtained [15]. By including the local joint flexibility is
believed that substantially less fatigue damage occurs
than is predicted using conventional rigid-joint
assumptions. In the current study, the joint flexibility
based on the Fessler approach, which best suits a
linear analysis, has been used.
For assessment of the fatigue degradations the model
considers a time period of 68 years starting from the
platform installation (1969) and ends to the new target
life of the platform (2037). Half of the past (1969 to
2011) actual reported corrosion, according to the
underwater survey, plus the half of the future (2012 to
2037) assumed corrosion were deducted from the as-
built thickness of each member. Such a model appears
to represent a reasonable approximation for the mean
cross section of each member during the whole service
life (from 1969 to 2037).
Marine growth may have a detrimental effect on
fatigue life of members due to the increase in local and
global wave loading. A marine growth profile should
be specified for the average thickness and roughness
expected at the platform site over the service life [15].
With this model the marine growth thicknesses is the
mean value for the 0.8x(hard + soft) measurements
in each elevation from the underwater survey in 2011.
This is based on ISO-19902 [20] that states the marine
growth reaches to its maximum early years after
installation. This is believed to represent an average
fouling thickness during the past history and future of
the platform. It is noted that in general, a marine
growth thickness close its mean value over the
4 Copyright 2013 by ASME
 structure life seems to be appropriate for the fatigue
analysis.
The extent of degradation from anomalies in the
member in the fatigue model is as same as that In-
place model.
3.2.3 Fatigue Analysis Results
The results from the fatigue analysis are summarized in
Table 1. The table shows that the platform, in existing
condition, would not satisfy the fatigue requirements. Design
fatigue lives of 109 joints in the jacket structure are shorter
than the target service life (68 years). Also pile segments below
mud-line have fatigue live shorter than 68 years.
Table 1. Summary of the fatigue analysis results
Existing Retrofitted
Description
Condition Structure
No. of Joints with Damage > 1.0 109 13
Minimum Fatigue Life 0.03 year 0.2 year
Maximum Damage (Minimum Life)
14.9 13.4
of Pile Circumferential Butt Weld
(4.6 year) (5.1 year)
Below the Seabed
3.3 In-place Ultimate Strength Assessment
3.3.1 Push-over Analysis Methodology
Existing fixed offshore structures which do not satisfy the
requirements of the Design Level assessment may be
considered adequate for metocean loading if they meet the
requirements for non-linear Ultimate Strength analysis [15]. An
Ultimate Strength Analysis is generally believed to provide an
insight estimate on the load bearing performance and capacity,
indicate the weak links, failure modes, the ultimate strength as
well as the post-yield behavior of the structure. The Ultimate
Strength analysis may be carried out either as quasi-static
analyses (push-over) or as dynamic time-domain analyses. For
the Ultimate Strength Level Assessments, metocean criteria are
specified in terms of factors relative to resultant load from 100-
year environmental conditions. When a push-over analysis is
complete, the ultimate lateral load bearing capacity of the
structure is expressed in terms of Reserve Strength Ratio
(RSR). RSR is the ratio of a platforms ultimate lateral load
carrying capacity to its 100-year lateral environmental loading,
as basis [15].
Ultimate Lateral Load
RSR (1)
100 year environmental load
For Ultimate Strength Level analysis in assessment category
A-1, the minimum required Reserve Strength Ratio (RSR) is
1.6 [15].
A finite element program which specifically developed for
estimating the ultimate strength of space frame structures and
identifying the associated collapse mechanisms is employed to
carry out the series of non-linear quasi-static collapse analyses.
The program is based on energy variable principals and
includes the effects of large displacements, material non-
linearity and coupling between axial and lateral strains.
The procedure adopted for the push-over analysis consists
of two steps. In the first analysis step the total gravity load is
incrementally introduced to the model. In a second analysis
step, the 100-year storm load, for the extreme environmental
condition, is incrementally introduced to the platform. The
monotonic lateral load is gradually increased to induce member
yielding and/or buckling and to eventually lead to the global
collapse event in the platform.
3.3.2 Modelling Considerations of Pushover Analysis
The model used for the pushover analysis is similar to that
used in the In-place analysis with some modifications as list
below:
For the structural assessment purpose, lower values
for effective length factors (k) (than those commonly
used for a new design) may be used when justified
[15]. Eurocode 3 [22] recommends an effective
buckling length equal to 0.75L or less (L is the
member length) for hollow section brace members in
welded lattice frames. For the Ultimate Strength
assessment, the effective length factors (k) for K
bracings, diagonals and X bracings were taken as 0.7.
These lower values were based on results of recent
laboratory tests and analytical studies. The length was
taken face-to-face of the legs [23].
The lateral p-y nonlinear springs, attached to the pile
nodes, were modelled using the static capacity
estimates, as opposed to the cyclic p-y springs used
for a new design. This is because centrifuge model
tests have indicated that for push-over analysis, the
static lateral soil capacity provides a better ultimate
strength prediction [23]. The contributions of other
factors, such as loading rate (or strain rate effect),
cyclic loading, reconsolidation (time effect), and aging
effect, which would vary the basic API static capacity
estimate were not considered in this analysis.
For the Ultimate Strength assessment of the case study
platform, the load bearing of conductors were
included in the push-over analyses. No pile group
action was considered on the load and deflection
characteristics of these soil springs.
No wave-in-deck loading was considered to occur in
the case study platform. This is because the topside
remains sufficiently above the storm waves crest.
For calculating the wind loads acting on the platform
topside the one-hour wind speed was used in a push-
over analysis [23].
For the Ultimate Strength Level analysis of steel
platforms, instead of nominal yield strength, the mean
yield strength of the steel material can be used [15].
As an example, for an A36 steel material, with the
nominal yield strength of 36 ksi (23.5 kN/cm2), mean
yield strength of 42 ksi (27.5 kN/cm2) was considered
in the Ultimate Strength Level analysis. This indicated
around 17% increase in the material yield strength and
5 Copyright 2013 by ASME
 is intended to account primarily for the increase from structure has no overloaded elements when it is subject to
nominal to mean strength [23] loading past the elastic range. The analysis is similar to a
The effect of including Local Joint Flexibility (LJF) in design level analysis with the exception that the typical factors
the Ultimate Strength assessment of an existing of safety associated with axial, bending, shear and other
offshore structure can significantly reduce loading conditions are withdrawn. Other sources of
uncertainties on calculated strength of at tubular conservatism such as the use of high k-factors and mean yield
joints. By including the local joint flexibility is strength instead of nominal yield strength may also be
believed that substantially less joint failure occurs than removed. The intent is to approximate performance of the
is predicted using conventional rigid-joint platform members when loads are above allowable stress but
assumptions. In the current study, MSL joint flexibility below actual yield or buckling. It is noted that the Linear
equation which best suits a non-linear analysis was Global analysis provides a rather conservative estimate of the
considered. Ultimate Strength Analysis.
3.3.3 Push-over Analysis Results API RP 2A considers a factor of safety of 1.67 for yield
Results from the push-over analysis showed that the governed failures (combined axial tension and bending) and
platform in existing condition would not satisfy the 1.67-2.0 for stability governed failures (axial compression and
requirements for the Strength Level Assessment. The most hydrostatic pressure) in steel tubular members. Where the one-
unfavorable environmental loading was associated with storms third increase in allowable stresses is taken into consideration,
approaching the platform from the True West which the the corresponding factors of safety for each of the two
minimum RSR falls below 1.6. aforementioned cases will be 1.25 and 1.25-1.5, respectively.
The main cause for the poor structural performance of the Per API RP 2A-21st Edition, the safety factor for the static
platform appeared to be shortcoming in its piling system. The strength capacity of the tubular joints is 1.7. API RP 2A-2007
exterior piles started to punch through the sea bed as a result of has lowered this safety factor to 1.6. This was to remove parts
incremental increase in the environmental loads. The piles were of the conservatisms which are widely believed to exist in the
not able to mobilize the axial resistance required in API joint capacity equations. The new joint capacity still
compression for counter balancing the environmental and includes a safe side mean bias of at least 17%. Where the one-
gravitational loads (including extra equipment). The punch third increase in allowable stresses is taken into consideration,
through of the piles was followed by excessive tilting in the the factor of safety for the joint static capacity will be 1.2 for
pile/structural system which led to formation of plastic hinges API RP 2A-2007 [15] and 1.28 for API RP2A-21st Edition.
along the piles and eventually a total failure in the platform. So, the Utilization Factors (UFs) obtained from the Linear
Global analysis (with the one-third increase in allowable
Table 2: Reserve Strength Ratio (RSR) stresses) will be compared with the UF limits discussed above
Existing to see if the platform can pass the Ultimate Strength assessment
Directio Wave Direction Retrofitted prerequisites.
Conditio
n No. (from True North) Structure The seismic load on the structure is determined using the
n
1 NW 1.39 2.00 smooth, normalized design spectra provided in the API RP 2A-
2 W 0.88 1.64 2007 [15]. The platform is considered to be located in a soil
3 SW 1.28 2.00 type C. The resulting spectrum from the earthquake with a
4 S 1.53 2.00 return period of 1,000 year is applied equally along both
principal axes of the structure. An acceleration spectrum of
5 SE 1.39 2.00
one-half that for the given effective ground acceleration was
6 E 0.96 1.64
considered in the vertical direction. All three spectra are
7 NE 1.17 1.93
applied simultaneously and the responses are combined. The
8 N 1.75 2.00
individual modal responses of the structure for each direction
(along X, Y and Z) are combined using Complete Quadratic
3.4 Seismic Ultimate Strength Assessment Combination (CQC) technique. Subsequent combinations of
3.4.1 Seismic Analysis Methodology directional responses are based on the Square Root of the Sum
The seismic Ultimate Strength assessment was conducted of the Squares (SRSS) method.
for the 1,000-year return period earthquake event with a PGA 3.4.2 Modelling Considerations for Seismic Analysis
equal to 0.126. The model used for the seismic analysis is similar to that
As an alternative to a nonlinear assessment such as a quasi- used in the push-over analysis with some modifications as list
static pushover or a dynamic nonlinear time history analysis, it below:
may be possible to use a Linear Global Analysis for the The mass of the structure used for the dynamic
Ultimate Strength assessment of an offshore platform [15]. The analysis is simulated on the basis of a consistent mass
platform will pass the Ultimate Strength assessment assumption. The mass model comprises the structural
requirements if a linear elastic analysis indicates that the

6 Copyright 2013 by ASME

 mass, displaced water (added) mass, contained mass identified in the course of the assessment analyses in existing
and marine growth mass. condition. It should be noted that some of the overstressed
An inertia coefficient (Cm) equal to 1 has been members and joints are not represented in Figure 5 and Figure
considered for calculating the added masses for the 6 to minimize interferences. These figures also schematically
submerged member including marine growth. Care has show those members and joints which their stress UF exceeded
been taken to avoid double calculating the entrapped the acceptable limits in more than one analysis (In-place and
and added masses of the leg/pile elements seismic analyses). They are nicked named in figures as
The water depth is taken at the Mean Sea Level overstressed members in more than one analyses.
(MSL). All members below this water depth have an Overstressed Members
added mass value. in In-place Analysis
Actual live load (instead of maximum live load) and
75 percent of the maximum supply and storage loads Overstressed Members in
may be considered [15]. Selecting this ratio for the Seismic Analysis
live loads is inline with the ISO 19902 [20] Overstressed Members in
recommendation that say: the mass used in the seismic more than one Analysis
dynamic analysis shall be consist 75% of the variable
actions
No environmental load is assumed to act concurrently
with the seismic loads.
As per previous version of API RP 2A-21st Edition,
where the strength level design horizontal ground
motion was 0.05g or greater, the tubular joint capacity
was determined for either the tensile yield load or the
compressive buckling load of the members framing
into the joint. For this, twice the strength level seismic
loads, in combination with the gravity loads, had to be
introduced to the platform model. The resulting
punching shear or nominal stresses had to remain
below the allowable stresses. This was the common
practice for fulfilling the previous API RP 2A-21st
Edition seismic joint capacity requirements. This
criterion has been later waived by the API RP 2A-
2007 [15], and as a result, no load combination with
twice of the seismic load has been considered in the
seismic assessment of the platform.
For assessment purposes the loads applied to the joints
should be the actual loads, rather than those based on
the strength of the braces connecting to the joint [15].
This is another indication that a load case with
duplication of the seismic load will not be necessary.
3.4.3 Seismic Analysis Results
Analysis results showed that the platform, in existing
condition, would not satisfy the seismic requirements for the
Ultimate Strength level assessment. The stress UFs in the
topside members are relatively high. This is mostly because the
existing topside structure appears to suffer from inadequate
lateral restraint. In fact, around 12 slender and relatively tall
columns, with no lateral bracing system, are currently carrying
the burden of a heavy living quarter. The analysis results show Figure 5: Whereabouts of overstressed members
that, under the earthquake action, a soft storey will be most
probably formed in this location.
3.5 Summary of the Analysis Results
Figure 5 and Figure 6 present the graphical summary on the
whereabouts of code-noncompliance joints and members

7 Copyright 2013 by ASME

 Overstressed Joints
in In-place Analysis
Overstressed Joints
in Seismic Analysis
Overstressed Joints
in both In-place &
Seismic Analysis
Figure 6: Joints with not acceptable UC
4 RETROFITTED STRUCTURE
As a result of current assessment, the drilling platform is
not fit for purpose for 25 years life time extension in the
existing potential developments. Therefore, retrofit actions
were considered.
4.1 Remedy Options
The remedy options considered for the platform are
outlined below:
Foundation Improvement:
To improve the performance of the platforms
foundation and to limit the platform displacements,
two different solutions might be proposed:
Solution 1: For increasing the foundation capacity,
four new 660mm (26 inch) drilled insert piles to be
installed. These piles are placed into a socket drilled
underneath each existing skirt pile. The socket will
have a diameter of around 762 mm (30 inch) and will
continue to a depth around 90m below the seabed. The
annulus between the new insert piles and the
socket/skirt pile will be fully grouted by ejector. Some
local strengthening might also be needed to be
introduced to the jacket members immediately
connected to the skirt piles.
8 Copyright 2013 by ASME
Solution 2: External bracing of the platform can also
be considered as an alternative mitigation to improve
the overall structural, as well as the foundation
performance. This falls in line with the API 2SIM [24]
recommendation. Appropriate struts and/or a set of tie-
down elements which externally brace the jacket
structure to the seabed could be considered.
Renovating the Spider Deck:
The analysis results indicated on a very poor structural
performance in the spider deck of the platform. As
part of the remedy actions, the existing spider deck
needs to be replaced by a new one or a new spider
deck to be placed immediately above the existing one.
Reducing Marine Growth:
Inspection results show an up to 60mm accumulation
of marine growth. Removal of the marine fouling to
limit its thickness to 38mm is proposed.
Low Fatigue Life Joints:
In order to enhance the fatigue life of the accessible
joints with insufficient fatigue life, they are suggested
to be hammer pinned properly. This improves the
fatigue strength of welds significantly.
Damaged Joints:
With reference to underwater survey report, nine
members are already flooded. Therefore, these
members should be cracked as well. It is essential that
the end joints of this member to be subjected to more
precise crack detection methods such as Magnetic
Particle Inspection (MPI). In case of finding a deep
cracks, the joint should be toe grinding and
strengthened by means of a stressed grouted clamp.
Restraining the Topside:
As it was mentioned before, under the seismic loading
a soft story will most probably occur in the columns
supporting the accommodation units. Lateral bracing
of these columns is necessary to provide necessary
resistance to earthquake loading. The measures
include introducing some lateral bracings between the
columns supporting the living quarter and
strengthening a number of members with poor
performances under combination of gravity and lateral
loading.
Other Restraining Measure:
Some other local strengthening measures for weak
failed members (angle and channel) in In-place
analysis in main deck are also necessary to considered.
Corrosion Protection System:
The basic assumption for modification of sacrificial
anodes at the time of new extension of the facilities is
using the proportion rate of current in different
location of the platform which is within the adequate
level of protection. Therefore, number of anodes,
weights and value of depletion has been considered
for the future anode retrofit and inspection in the 25
 years later. It was recommended to replace anodes,
which are more than 70% depleted.
4.2 Retrofitted Analysis Results
On the basis of additional studies with consideration of
remedial proposals and recommendations mentioned in section
5, it can be concluded that, potentially, retrofitted structure
could fulfill the code requirements.
Calculation results of the retrofitted structure for 100 year
storm load condition indicated a significant improvement on
the structural performance of the platform. However still a total
number of 6 jacket members had stress UFs greater than unity.
The maximum UF of these members was 1.07. In addition,
Total number of 39 joints still had UFs greater than unity.
However, the platform displacements under 100 years
metocean loading were below the allowable limits. Also, the
piles stress UFs were in the acceptable ranges.
Piles had a minimum factor of safety of 1.32 in storm
condition. This falls below the API RP 2A-2007 limit (which
should be 1.5) for the axial load bearing of the piles [15]. The
piles axial load bearing capacity, however, might be assumed
acceptable based on other recommendations such as ISO
19902-2004 [20]. It considers the minimum factor of safety of
1.25 for the assessment purpose of the platforms.
The results of In-place analysis of retrofitted structure
showed that the platform might not satisfy the Design Level
assessment requirements and non-linear analysis of the
structure should be fulfill the Ultimate Strength requirement.
With the retrofit plan which included four new insert piles, the
RSRs in all wave incidents were greater than 1.6. This
reiterates the fact that the platform, in its existing conditions, is
suffering from inadequacy in its pile load bearing; when it is
tested to meet the Ultimate Strength Level requirements. Table
2 shows the results of retrofitted structure.
To evaluate the fatigue degradations in the retrofit
condition, two different structural models, each representing
the platform conditions during the past and future time periods,
have been used. The total fatigue damage is then calculated by
adding together the damages predicted by the two different
models.
In retrofitted condition, by employing some remedy actions
(like hammer peening) only design fatigue lives of 13 joints
remain shorter than the intended service life (68 years). Extra
remedial solutions can be proposed for upgrading the fatigue
performance of these joints. In the retrofitted condition, fatigue
life of pile segments has been improved; however, the fatigue
lives are still shorter than 68 years.
Analysis results showed that with remedy actions the
number of overloaded members in the jacket has been reduced
to zero. Only 2 secondary members will have unacceptable
stress UF. The results of a non-linear ultimate strength analysis
showed that the overloads in these joints are local and can be
relieved through redistribution to alternative loads. The
minimum RSR under 1,000 years return period earthquake in
retrofitted condition was 1.96. This indicated that the retrofitted
platform can pass the API RP 2A-2007 assessment criteria [15].
5 CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents a case study for the structural integrity
assessment of an existing aging 8 legged drilling platform
located in the Persian Gulf. The platform is now 42 years old
and the objective of the study is to check its fit for purpose for
a life extension of 25 years beyond 2012.
The structural integrity assessment were carried out based
on the best estimates of the existing conditions of the platform
data on future equipment on the topside, besides several design
assumptions.
As a result of the study, it has been found that the drilling
platform is not fit-for-purpose for 25 years life extension in its
existing condition and potential development for future. The
platform failed to satisfy the structural integrity requirements
for the In-place Design Level Assessment, the Strength Level
Assessment criteria for metocean loading, the requirements for
the earthquake Ultimate Strength level assessment, plus the
fatigue requirements.
The methodologies used for these assessments incorporate
guidelines from offshore codes. It had been tried to highlight
possible gaps between the regulations for the structural
assessment of offshore platforms and to bridge the gaps.
Further feasibility studies were also conducted to introduce
a remedy for enhancement of the structural performance of the
platform. It was shown that the platform could fulfill the code
requirements, provided that specific remedy actions measures
are implemented.
The current case study provides a problem based
understanding of the structural integrity assessment of the
existing offshore platforms. It pinpoints some practical issues
and implications related to the structural integrity assessment of
the aging offshore platforms. The results can extend existing
knowledge on the structural integrity assessment of offshore
platforms.
6 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank the IOOC for providing the data
required for modeling of the platform.
7 REFERENCES
[1] Wang L., Chen K., and Bucknell J., Structural Reliability
Assessment of Offshore Platforms under Hurricane
Events, Proceeding of the 26th International Conference
on Offsore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering,
OMAE2007, California, USA
[2] Puskar FJ., Verret SM., and Hariharan A., Performance
of Steel Jacket Platforms in RecentGulf of Mexico
Hurricanes Proceeding of the 26th
InternationalConference on Offsore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering, OMAE2007, California, USA
[3] Heredia-Zavoni, E., Campos, D., and Ramirez, G.,
Reliability Based Assessment of Deck Elevations for
Offshore Jacket Platform, ASME Journal of Offshore
9 Copyright 2013 by ASME
 Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Vol. 126, pp 331-336,
2004
[4] Dier, A. F., Morandi, A. C., Smith, D., Birkinshaw, M.,
and Dixon A., A Comparison of jacket and jack-up
structural reliability, Marine Structures, Vol. 14, pp 507-
521, 2001
[5] Energo Engineering, Inc.,Assessment of Fixed Offshore
Platform Performance in Hurricanes Katrina and Rita,
FINAL REPORT, Prepared for: U.S. Department of the
Interior, Mineral Management Service Engineering and
Research Branch, May 2007,
[6] Wisch, D. J., Puskar, F. J., Laurendine, T. T., O'Connor,
P.E., Versowsky, P. E. and Bucknell, J., An Update on
API RP 2A Section 17 for the Assessment of Existing
Platform, OTC 16820 Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 36 May
2004
[7] Puskar, F. J., Ku, A. P., Sheppard, R. E., Hurricane Lili's
Impact on Fixed Platforms and Calibration of Platform
Performance to API RP 2A, OTC 16802, , Houston,
Texas, U.S.A., 36 May 2004
[8] Manuel, L., Schmucker, D.G., Cornell, C.A., and Carballo
J.E., A reliability-based design format for jacket
platforms under wave loads, Journal of Marine
Structures, Vol. 11, Issue 10, Pages 413-428, 1998
[9] Golafshani AA., Bagheri V., Ebrahimian H. and Holmas
T., Incremental wave analysis and its application to
performance-based assessment of jacket platforms,
Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Volume 67,
Issue 10, 2011, pp 1649-1657
[10] Golafshani AA., Ebrahimian H., Bagheri V., and Holmas
T., Assessment of offshore platforms under extreme
waves by probabilistic incremental wave analysis,
Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Volume 67,
Issue 5, 2011, pp 759-76
[11] Zeinoddini M., Matin Nikoo H., Estekanchi H.,
Endurance Wave Analysis (EWA) and its application for
assessment of offshore structures under extreme waves
Applied Ocean Research, Volume 37, August 2012, pp
98-110
[12] Matin Nikoo, H., Zeinoddini, M., Estekanchi,
H.,Probabilistic Estimation of Offshore Jacket platforms
Capacity Using Incremental Random Wave Analysis
(IRWA), International Journal of Maritime Technology,
Accepted 2012
[13] Moan, T., Recent research and development relating to
platform requalification, ASME Journal of Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Vol. 122, pp 20-32,
2000
[14] Onoufriou, T., and Forbes, V. J., Developments in
Structural system reliability assessments of fixed steel
offshore platforms, Reliability Engineering and System
Safety, Vol. 71, pp 189-199, 2001
View publication stats
[15] American Petroleum Institute, Recommended Practice
for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore
Platforms - Working Stress Design, API RP 2A WSD,
21st Edition, supplements 2-3, October 2007
[16] American Institute of Steel Construction, Manual of
Steel Construction-Allowable Stress Design, AISC 316-
89, 9th Edition
[17] Standard N-006, Assessment of Structural Integrity for
Existing Offshore Load-Bearing Structures, 1st Edition,
March 2009
[18] Guide on Methods for Assessing the Acceptability of
Flaws in Structures, 2005CAP 437 Offshore Helicopter
Landing Areas, Guidance on Standards, August 2005
[19] Standard N-004, Design of Steel Structure, Rev. 2,
October 2004
[20] Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries, Fixed Offshore
Platform, 2007, ISO 19902, Petroleum and natural gas
industries - Fixed Steel Offshore Structures, 1st edition,
December 2007
[21] Det Norske Veritas, Fatigue Design of Offshore
Structures, DNV-RP-C203, October 2011
[22] CEN, Eurocode 3, Design of Steel Structures, General
Rules and Rules for Buildings, European Committee for
Standardization, 2005
[23] PMB Engineering, Inc., Benchmark, Ultimate Strength
Analysis - Sample Application of API RP 2A, Section
17, Joint Industry Projects (JIPs) Prepared for American
Petroleum Institute (API), September 1997
[24] American Petroleum Institute, Structural Integrity
Management of Fixed Offshore Structures, ANSI/API
Recommended Practice 2SIM, 1st Edition, Ballot Draft 1
API 2Sim
10 Copyright 2013 by ASME