Boat Impact Analysison Offshore Unmanfixed Well Head Platform WHP

Boat Impact Analysis on Offshore Unman fixed Well Head Platform (WHP)
Author: Prakash Bahadur Thapa and Dr. Faisal Khan

Process Engineering
Faculty of Engineering & Applied Science
Memorial University, St John’s, NL, A1B 3X5, Canada
TABLE OF CONTENT
1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Purpose.............................................................................................................................. 3
1.2 General .............................................................................................................................. 4
1.3 Scope ................................................................................................................................. 6
2 Summary and Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Platform.............................................................................................................................. 7
2.2 Conductors......................................................................................................................... 9
2.3 Bridges ............................................................................................................................. 10
3 Reference Documents................................................................................................................. 11
3.1 Project documents ........................................................................................................... 11
3.2 Existing Documentation ................................................................................................... 11
3.3 Company Documents ...................................................................................................... 11
3.4 Codes and Standards ...................................................................................................... 12
3.5 Computer software........................................................................................................... 12
3.6 Abbreviations ................................................................................................................... 12
4 Design criteria.............................................................................................................................. 13
4.1 General Requirements..................................................................................................... 13
4.2 Material Properties........................................................................................................... 13
4.3 Allowable Stresses........................................................................................................... 13
4.4 Environmental loads ........................................................................................................ 14
4.5 Soil data ........................................................................................................................... 14
5 Analysis Methodology................................................................................................................. 15
6 Impact ........................................................................................................................................... 16
6.1 Impact loads on Jacket .................................................................................................... 16
6.2 Impact loads on riser protector ........................................................................................ 16
6.3 Impact loads on unprotected conductors and other miscellaneous items....................... 16
6.4 Impact Scenarios ............................................................................................................. 16
7 Numerical Model .......................................................................................................................... 19
8 Annexes........................................................................................................................................ 20
Annex 1: WP - Boat Impact – Calculation Note
Published by: Prakash Bahadur Thapa (Boat Impact Analysis) Page # 1

Boat Impact Analysis on Offshore Unman fixed Well Head Platform (WHP),
Introduction
1 Introduction
1.1 Purpose
The objective of this document is to present the results of the boat impact re-assessment studies for the boat
impact on offshore fixed Well Head Platform (Unman Remote Platform) impact only for my study propose.
Compared to original design, the following changes have been taken into consideration for
the reanalyses:
• A water level increase due to a subsidence of 2.5m to a maximum of 6m,
• New metocean data,
• Use of latest API code (in particular for the verification of joints),
• Brownfield modifications.
The re-assessment covers both jacket and topsides structures.
The document includes the structural verifications under boat impact loads of:
• A light boat impact based on 1600t boat displacement and 0.5 m/s current.
• An accidental boat impact based on 1600t boat displacement and 1-year current (1.2 m/s).
• An accidental boat impact based on 2000t boat displacement at 1.0 m/s speed.
Re-assessment under in-service, new seismic conditions and fatigue re-assessment are presented in
separate documents.
Modelling and verifications have been performed using SACs version 5.3 and the complete SACs
re-analysis is presented offshore fixed platform- Boat Impact – Calculation Note. If necessary,
recommendations are proposed (i.e. allowable boat displacement, velocity etc).
The demonstration of operational safety in the offshore platform it is necessary to assess the risk from ship
collisions of both passing and attendant vessels. Collisions from both passing and attendant vessels into a
platform located within the complex could strike equipment or structures causing damage and possible to
release the hydrocarbons.
The overall scope of work to identify and evaluate ship collision scenarios with the platforms located within
subsea platform fixed jacket. The risk of vessel collisions from both passing and attendant vessels is
estimated.
The attendant vessel estimated collision frequencies have been based on typical vessel visiting frequencies
as assumed in the assessment. Impact energy calculations for passing and attendant vessels have been
completed and the vulnerability of equipment and structures assessed.
Passing vessel collisions from cargo vessels have the potential to lead to catastrophic or disastrous asset
and personnel damage. In this study I found the highest risk for personnel is calculated to be 1.10E-06 for
collisions with the platform jacket. The highest risk for asset damage is calculated to be 1.04E-06 for
collisions with the platform Jacket. The highest risk for environmental damage is calculated to be 1.43E-05
for collisions with the platform structure collapse.

General
1.2 General
WP consists of:
1. A jacket with 4 legs, which are battered at 1:8 in the East-West directions, the North row is battered
at 1:6 in the North direction and the South row is vertical. The working points (WP) are located at
level (+)9.582 m. The dimensions at WP are 16.50 m x 12.0 m and at mudline level ((-)45.0 m/CD)
are 25.467 m x 25.450 m.
• The jacket consists of three horizontal levels located at, with respect to Chart Datum (CD):
- Mudmat level (-) 44.218 m
- level (-) 16.118 m
- level (+) 7.382 m
• Top of legs are at level (+) 8.582 m/CD.
• The 60” outside diameter piles are driven through jacket legs, which have an internal
diameter of 64”. Piles are welded to the legs at top of jacket legs and leg spacers are located
at each structural level.
• Twelve conductor pipes are laterally supported at levels (+)7.382 and (-)16.118 m.
2. Appurtenances
• One boat access on row 1.
• One 8" dispersal tube.
Platform North
+7.382 m
WP Jacket Overview
EL. 0 Chart Datum
-16.118 m
-44.218 m -45.000 m - Mudline
Published by: Prakash Bahadur Thapa (Boat Impact Analysis) Page # 1 1

General
3. A topside which comprises three levels:

• Upper Deck at T.O.S. EL. (+) 27.000 m
• Main Deck at T.O.S. EL. (+) 21.008 m
• Cellar Deck at T.O.S. EL. (+) 16.800 m
• The deck is equipped with one crane and connected by bridge to PP platform.
Platform North
+27.000 m T.O.S
(Upper deck)
Bridge to PP
+21.008 m T.O.S
(Main deck)
+16.80m T.O.S
(Cellar deck)
Additional cellar
deck - structure 1
protections
A 2
Brownfield modifications of WP include:

• Cellar Deck - Grating removal (-3.0 t),
• Cellar Deck - Equipment removal "Closed Drain Drum - D-0011" (-4.5 t),
• Cellar Deck - Piping removal (-5.0 t),
• Main Deck - Piping removal (-2.0 t),
• Addition of structures and equipments:
- Jacket - Riser protector extension (+3.6 t),
- Cellar Deck - STR - Protections (+14.4 t),
- Main Deck - STR - Protections (+1.8 t),
- Cellar Deck - STR - Closed pipe support (+2.5 t),
- Cellar Deck - Closed pipe 36" (+4.8 t),

Scope of this study
- Cellar Deck - New piping (+2.4 t),

- Main Deck - New piping (+6.0 t),
- Main Deck - New extension (+1.2 t).
1.3 Scope
Analyses covered in this document are;
• A light boat impact based on 1600t boat displacement and 0.5 m/s current.
• An accidental boat impact based on 1600t boat displacement and 1-year current (1.2m/s).
• An accidental boat impact based on 2000t boat displacement at 1.0 m/s speed.
Excluded from this calculation note are;

• Post impact analysis.
• Impact loads on riser protectors.
• Impact loads on unprotected conductors and other miscellaneous items.

Summary and Conclusions.
2 Summary and Conclusions

2.1 Platform
2.1.1 Light Impact
A summary of the results for light boat impact on platform are given in the following table.
ANALYSIS INCLUDED
(DENTING + JACKET)
ENERGY ABSORBED
TOTAL ABSORBED
BY DENTING ONLY
ENERGY BY BOAT
DENTING EFFECT
DISPLACEMENT
TOTAL KINETIC
ENERGY TO BE
FOR ANALYSIS
ABSORBED BY
CONSIDERED
ADDED MASS
STRUCTURE
STRUCTURE
ENERGY BY
ABSORBED
ELEVATION
OF IMPACT
VELOCITY
CURRENT
NUMBER
ENERGY
IMPACT
COEFF.
SHIP
Sub.
(m) (m) (tonnes) (m/s) (MJ) (%) (MJ) (MJ) (%) (MJ) (%) (MJ)
1/B +1.200 2,500 1600 0,4 0,5 0,28 NO 0 0,00 0,280 100 0,29 - - OK
2/B +1.200 2,500 1600 0,4 0,5 0,28 NO 0 0,00 0,280 100 0,28 - - OK
3/B +12.700 6,000 1600 0,4 0,5 0,28 YES 0 0,00 0,280 100 0,29 25 0,07 OK
4/B +12,700 6,000 1600 0,4 0,5 0,28 YES 0 0,00 0,280 100 0,28 25 0,07 OK
5/B +1,800 2,500 1600 0,1 0,5 0,22 YES 0 0,00 0,220 100 0,23 25 0,06 OK
6/B +1,740 2,500 1600 0,1 0,5 0,22 YES 0 0,00 0,220 73 0,16 25 0,06 NOT OK
7/B +7.380 6,000 1600 0,1 0,5 0,22 YES 0 0,00 0,220 43 0,09 25 0,06 NOT OK
LIGHT
8/B +7.380 6,000 1600 0,1 0,5 0,22 YES 0 0,00 0,220 40 0,09 25 0,06 NOT OK
1/2 +1.200 2,500 1600 0,4 0,5 0,28 NO 0 0,00 0,280 100 0,29 - - OK
2/2 +1.200 2,500 1600 0,4 0,5 0,28 NO 0 0,00 0,280 100 0,28 - - OK
3/2 +12.700 6,000 1600 0,4 0,5 0,28 YES 0 0,00 0,280 100 0,28 25 0,07 OK
4/2 +12,700 6,000 1600 0,4 0,5 0,28 YES 0 0,00 0,280 100 0,28 25 0,07 OK
5/2 +1,800 2,500 1600 0,1 0,5 0,22 YES 0 0,00 0,220 38 0,08 18 0,04 NOT OK
6/2 +1,740 2,500 1600 0,1 0,5 0,22 YES 0 0,00 0,220 45 0,10 21 0,05 NOT OK
7/2 +7.380 6,000 1600 0,1 0,5 0,22 YES 0 0,00 0,220 100 0,22 3 0,01 OK
8/2 +7.380 6,000 1600 0,1 0,5 0,22 YES 0 0,00 0,220 100 0,26 2 0,01 OK
Impacts on jacket legs – no plasticity occurs.

Impacts on jacket vertical diagonals – plasticity is NOT limited to the impacted member.
Impacts on jacket horizontal at el. +7.380m – plasticity is NOT limited to the impacted member.
Minimum pile safety factor is 2.04 > 1.5
The WP platform CANNOT absorb the energy corresponding to a light boat impact.
As such it is recommended that a derogation on boat impact conditions be raised to reduce the impact
energy;
1. 2.5m to 6.0m subsidence
• 1600 tonne @ 0.3 m/s or,
• 600 tonne @ 0.5m/s.

2.1.2 Accidental Impact

A summary of the results for accidental boat impact on platform are given in the following table.
ANALYSIS INCLUDED
(DENTING + JACKET)
ENERGY ABSORBED
TOTAL ABSORBED
BY DENTING ONLY
ENERGY BY BOAT
DENTING EFFECT
DISPLACEMENT
TOTAL KINETIC
ENERGY TO BE
FOR ANALYSIS
ABSORBED BY
CONSIDERED
ADDED MASS
STRUCTURE
STRUCTURE
ENERGY BY
ABSORBED
ELEVATION
OF IMPACT
VELOCITY
CURRENT
NUMBER
ENERGY
IMPACT
COEFF.
SHIP
Sub.
(m) (m) (tonnes) (m/s) (MJ) (%) (MJ) (MJ) (%) (MJ) (%) (MJ)
1/B +1.200 2,500 1600 0,4 1,2 1,61 NO 0 0,00 1,613 100 1,64 - - OK
2/B +1.200 2,500 1600 0,4 1,2 1,61 NO 0 0,00 1,613 100 1,67 - - OK
3/B +12.700 6,000 1600 0,4 1,2 1,61 YES 0 0,00 1,613 100 1,62 - - OK
4/B +12,700 6,000 1600 0,4 1,2 1,61 YES 0 0,00 1,613 100 1,62 25 0,40 OK
5/B +1,800 2,500 1600 0,1 1,2 1,27 YES 0 0,00 1,267 36 0,45 32 0,40 NOT OK
6/B +1,740 2,500 1600 0,1 1,2 1,27 YES 0 0,00 1,267 60 0,75 32 0,40 NOT OK
1600t @ 1,2 m/s
ACCIDENTAL
7/B +7.380 6,000 1600 0,1 1,2 1,27 YES 0 0,00 1,267 62 0,79 25 0,32 NOT OK
8/B +7.380 6,000 1600 0,1 1,2 1,27 YES 0 0,00 1,267 46 0,59 25 0,32 NOT OK
1/2 +1.200 2,500 1600 0,4 1,2 1,61 NO 0 0,00 1,613 100 1,63 20 0,32 OK
2/2 +1.200 2,500 1600 0,4 1,2 1,61 NO 0 0,00 1,613 100 1,63 25 0,40 OK
3/2 +12.700 6,000 1600 0,4 1,2 1,61 YES 0 0,00 1,613 100 1,61 20 0,32 OK
4/2 +12,700 6,000 1600 0,4 1,2 1,61 YES 0 0,00 1,613 100 1,62 20 0,32 OK
5/2 +1,800 2,500 1600 0,1 1,2 1,27 YES 0 0,00 1,267 64 0,81 25 0,32 NOT OK
6/2 +1,740 2,500 1600 0,1 1,2 1,27 YES 0 0,00 1,267 50 0,63 20 0,25 NOT OK
7/2 +7.380 6,000 1600 0,1 1,2 1,27 YES 0 0,00 1,267 35 0,44 25 0,32 NOT OK
8/2 +7.380 6,000 1600 0,1 1,2 1,27 YES 0 0,00 1,267 62 0,79 25 0,32 NOT OK
Impacts on jacket legs – plasticity occurs without causing structural collapse.

Impacts on jacket vertical diagonals – plastic hinge forms at the impacted location.
Impacts on jacket horizontal at el. +7.419m – a plastic hinge forms at the impacted location or in the case of
the horizontal members on row B, structural collapse occurs.
Minimum pile safety factor is 1.46 > 1.25
The WP platform CANNOT absorb the energy corresponding to an accidental boat impact.
As such it is recommended that a derogation on boat impact conditions be raised to reduce the impact
energy;
1. 2.5m to 6.0m subsidence
• 1600 tonne @ 0.7 m/s or,
• 550 tonne @ 1.2m/s.

2.2 Conductors
The following sketch indicates the possible impact scenario of the supply vessel “Seabulk Badamyar”
with the WP conductors supported near row “2”.
Existing
Impact
Zone
Impact
Zone
New
It is recommended that either;

1. An exclusion zone is created (if one does not already exist) near row “2” of the platform or,
2. The conductors and supporting structures are verified for boat impact.

2.3 Bridges
The following sketches indicate the possible impact scenario of the supply vessel “Seabulk Unman fixed
Well Head Platform” with the bridge connected to WP.
Also indicated are the bridge landing vertical braces, these are within the new impact zone of the platform
with 2.5m to 6.0m subsidence
Bridges Bottom of Steel :
T - PP-WP bridge : 20.50m / LAT
BRIDGE
EL +20.50m
(ie lowest bridge BOS)
BRIDGE LANDING
VERTICAL BRACE
SUPPLY VESSEL
SEABULK BADAMYAR
MSL associated with
6.0m subsidence
7.70
LAT
0 6 10 20
It is recommended that an exclusion zone is created (if one does not already exist) around the
bridges and the bridge landings.

Codes and Standards.
3.4 Codes and Standards

Specification for Structural Steel Buildings. Allowable Stress
60. AISC 9th Ed.
Design
Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Construction
61 API RP2A-WSD 21st Ed.
Fixed Offshore Platforms. Working Stress Design (Oct. 2007)
Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Construction
62. API RP2A-LFRD (2003)
Fixed Offshore Platforms. Load and Resistance Factor Design.
63. AWS D1.1 Structural Welding Code
Environmental conditions and environmental loads (April 2007;
64. DNV-RP-C205
amended April 2010)
3.5 Computer software

70. SACS 3D structural program version 5.3
3.6 Abbreviations
WP Wellhead Platform
EL Elevation
ESDV Emergency Shut Down Valve
AISC American Institute of Steel Construction
API American Petroleum Institute
AWS American Welding Society
LAT Lowest Astronomical Tide
DWD Design Water Depth

Platform Design Criteria.
4 Design criteria
The design criteria used for the Jacket structural analyses are extracted from the Structural Design
Basis and the Structural Design.
4.1 General Requirements

Unless stated otherwise, all standards and specifications listed in § [3] of this document shall apply for
the structural re-assessment of WP.
4.2 Material Properties

The mechanical steel properties are:
• Young modulus E = 205000 MPa,
• Shear modulus G = 78900 MPa,
• Poisson ratio ν = 0.3,
• Volumic mass ρ = 7850 kg/m3.
Steel grade for main structure and piles will be S355 which nominal yield stress is equal to 355 N/mm². Deck
main structure steel grade is S235 and S355.
For code check purposes the following yield strength (Fy) shall be used, depending on material thickness (t).
The following table shows the steel yield stress function of the thickness t for S355 and S235 steels:
MINIMUM TENSILE
MINIMUM YIELD STRENGTH (N/mm2)
STRENGTH (N/mm²)
STEEL GRADE Nominal thickness (mm)

> 16 > 40 > 63 > 80 > 100 > 100
≤ 16 ≤ 100
≤ 40 ≤ 63 ≤ 80 ≤ 100 ≤ 150 ≤ 150
S 355 355 345 335 325 315 295 470-630 460-620
S 235 235 225 215 215 215 195 360-510 350-500
4.3 Allowable Stresses

Allowable stresses for each analysis are presented hereunder:
ANALYSIS CONDITION ALLOWABLE STRESSES

Basic AISC-API
Light boat impact rd
+ 1/3 increase
Boat Impact
Accidental boat Basic AISC-API
impact + 1/3rd increase

Platform Design Criteria.
4.4 Environmental loads

No environmental loads are considered for boat impact conditions.
Post impact analysis has not been considered.
4.4.1 Corrosion
For the re-assessment of WP, a 6 mm corrosion thickness allowance is taken into account on the
tubular members of the structures located in the splash zone:
• Topsides legs up to EL+18.6m / LAT
• Piles above Jacket legs, horizontal and X-braces (between -3.00 m / LAT and +18.6 m / LAT)
• Jacket legs (between -3.00 m / LAT and +18.6 m / LAT)
4.4.2 Marine growth

The marine growth distribution is defined in the following table:
ELEVATION (wrt DWD) THICKNESS ON RADIUS DENSITY
Above +1.65m N/A -
Between +1.65m and -10.00m 100.0 mm

1400 kg/m3 (in air)
Below -10.00 m 200.0 mm
4.4.3 Water Depth

The original estamated of water depth only for this study at the offshore complex site is 45.0m / LAT. Due to
reservoir compaction, a global subsidence effect has been identified at the field location; in 2010, a
subsidence of 2.5m was estimated. The subsidence effect is global, ie all the platforms are subject to the
same subsidence.
The re-assessment of the structure takes into account a maximum subsidence of 6.0 m.
Design Water Depth (DWD)
The subsidence effect is accounted for by considering an increased water depth: design water depth is taken
as the sum of the original water depth (45.0m / LAT) and the subsidence.
• DWD = 45 + 2.5 = 47.5m for 2.5m subsidence
• DWD = 45 + 6.0 = 51.0m for 6.0m subsidence
4.5 Soil data

Soil properties are extracted from ref. [1]
• Static P-Y curves are used.

Analysis and Methodology.
5 Analysis Methodology
The boat impact is performed with the “Collapse” module of SACS, considering non-linear structure
behaviour. The following methodology has been adopted:
LIGHT IMPACT ACCIDENTAL IMPACT

Impacted member: Impacted member:
Remain elastic and to be Plastification is allowed (local
checked with 1/3rd allowable and bending deformation).
stress increase.
Boat impact on Leg
Other Jacket members: Other Jacket members:
Remain elastic and to be Plastification is allowed but
checked with 1/3rd allowable overall collapse shall be
stress increase. avoided.
Plastification is allowed up to Plastification is allowed up to
system. system.
Remain elastic and to be Plastification is allowed but
Boat impact on Bracing checked with 1/3rd allowable overall collapse shall be
(diagonal or horizontal) stress increase. avoided.
Failure (rupture) is considered
to be achieved at a strain of:
S235 20%
S355 15%
S420 10%
Pile axial capacity
1.50 1.25
Safety Factor
Boat impact analysis considers:

• Gross operating weight
• No environmental condition
• Static P-Y curves
Member local denting parameters are:

• Ellinas formula, as recommended in ref. [61].
• Energy absorption through denting is limited:
o in order to prevent impact on pile inside leg, or
o to 25% of total impact energy

Impact and Analysis Calculation.
6 Impact
6.1 Impact loads on Jacket
The jacket structure has been re-assessed against 3 types of boat impacts:
1. As per original project specification:
a. An accidental boat impact based on 2000t boat displacement at 1.0 m/s speed however, as
less onerous than 1600t at 1.2 m/s, this case has been ignored.
i. 1.40 MJ for broadside impact
ii. 1.10 MJ for bow/stern impact
2. As per project specification:
a. A light boat impact based on 1600t boat displacement and 0.5 m/s current.
b. An accidental boat impact based on 1600t boat displacement and 1-year current, 1.2 m/s.
The boat can strike either a jacket leg, bracing or horizontal member at sea level. The vertical height of the
collision zone has been determined from consideration of vessel draft, operational wave height and tidal
elevation.
6.2 Impact loads on riser protector

Impact loads on riser protector are excluded from the current studies.
6.3 Impact loads on unprotected conductors and other miscellaneous items

Impact loads on unprotected conductors and other miscellaneous items are excluded from the current
studies.
6.4 Impact Scenarios

For both light and accidental impact, the impact scenarios are based on the following criteria:
• Stern and broadside impact on corner legs
• Bow/stern impact on braces of levels and braces of rows

6.4.1 Impact scenarios on WP Rows A & B

Impact Zone
New
Impact Zone
Existing
L/
2
L/
2
Figure 2 - Elevation Row A

Due to symmetry assumed also valid for row B
Scenario 1 and 2
On jacket legs at level EL (+) 1 200 for subsidence of 2.5m
Scenario 3 and 4
Scenario 5 and 6
On jacket vertical diagonal for subsidence of 2.5m
Scenario 7 and 8
On jacket horizontal at level EL (+) 7 382 for subsidence of 6.0m
See annex [1] for details of impact loads.

6.4.2 Impact scenarios on WP (Row 2)
Figure 3 - Elevation Row 2

Scenario 1 and 2
Scenario 3 and 4
Scenario 5 and 6
On jacket vertical diagonal for subsidence of 2.5m
Scenario 7 and 8
On jacket horizontal at level EL (+) 7 382 for subsidence of 6.0m
See annex [1] for details of impact loads.

Numerical Model.
7 Numerical Model
The numerical model is fully described in annex [1]

Annexes.
8 Annexes

Unman fixed Well Head Platform Boat Impact Calculation Note.

TABLE OF CONTENT
TABLE OF CONTENT
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 3
1.1. General............................................................................................................................................. 3
1.2. Scope ............................................................................................................................................... 5
2. Summary of results ....................................................................................................................... 6
2.1. Light boat impact .............................................................................................................................. 6
2.2. Accidental boat impact ..................................................................................................................... 7
3. Reference documents ................................................................................................................... 8
3.1. Project documents ............................................................................................................................ 8
3.2. Codes and standards ....................................................................................................................... 8
3.3. Other documents .............................................................................................................................. 8
4. Numerical model ............................................................................................................................ 9
4.1. General Description .......................................................................................................................... 9
4.2. Modification from In-service model ................................................................................................... 9
4.3. Material behaviour ............................................................................................................................ 9
5. Boat impact analysis description .............................................................................................. 10
5.1. Design assumptions ....................................................................................................................... 10
5.1.1. Impact Energy ................................................................................................................................................. 10
5.1.2. Energy absorption ........................................................................................................................................... 10
5.1.3. Denting ........................................................................................................................................................... 11
5.1.4. Member Local Buckling ................................................................................................................................... 11
5.1.5. Joint Strength .................................................................................................................................................. 11
5.1.6. Joint flexibility .................................................................................................................................................. 12
5.1.7. Strain hardening.............................................................................................................................................. 12
5.1.8. Pile plasticity ................................................................................................................................................... 12
5.1.9. Load sequence ............................................................................................................................................... 13
5.2. Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 13

5.3. Impact scenarios ............................................................................................................................ 14
6. Light boat impact ......................................................................................................................... 15
6.1. Impact analyses ............................................................................................................................. 15
6.1.1. Leg impacts (B1, B2, B3, B4, 21, 22, 23, 24) ................................................................................................... 15
6.1.2. Bracing impacts with plasticity limited to impacted member (B5, 27, 28) ......................................................... 16
6.1.3. Bracing impacts with plasticity not limited to impacted member (B6, B7, B8, 25, 26) ....................................... 16
6.2. Pile axial capacity ........................................................................................................................... 18

6.3. Equivalent impact data ................................................................................................................... 18
7. Accidental boat impact ............................................................................................................... 19
7.1. Impact analyses ............................................................................................................................. 19
7.1.1. Leg impacts (B1, B2, B3, B4, 21, 22, 23, 24) ................................................................................................... 19
7.1.2. Bracing impacts causing a plastic hinge at impact location (B5, B6, 25, 26, 27, 28) ........................................ 20
7.1.3. Bracing impacts causing structure collapse (B7, B8) ....................................................................................... 21
7.2. Pile axial capacity ........................................................................................................................... 23

7.1. Equivalent impact data ................................................................................................................... 23
Appendix 1 – Light impact plots ............................................................................................................
Appendix 2 – Accidental impact plots ...................................................................................................

INTRODUCTION
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. General
The Unman fixed Well Head Platform designed for the offshore gas production, approximately 60 km in
offshore field. In the jacket we provide 4-legged platform is checked for a 6 m subsidence. Indeed, due to
reservoir compaction, a global subsidence effect has been identified at the field location; The a
subsidence of 2.5 m was estimated. The subsidence effect is assumed global, ie all platforms located at the
field are subject to the same subsidence. In this study i try to explain abot the impact in the jacket.
Figure 1 - Unman fixed Well Head Platform (WP)

INTRODUCTION
The WP platform consists of:

 A jacket with 4 legs which are battered at 1:8 in the East-West directions and the North row is battered at
1:6 in the North direction and the South row is vertical. The working points (WP) are located at level (+)
9.582 m. The dimensions at WP are 16.50 m x 12.0 m and at mudline level ((-) 45.0 m/CD) are 25.467 m
x 25.450 m.
The jacket consists of three horizontal levels located at, with respect to Chart Datum (CD):
- Mudmat level (-) 44.218 m
- level (-) 16.118 m
- level (+) 7.382 m
Top of legs are at level (+) 8.582 m/CD.
The 60” outside diameter piles are driven through jacket legs, which have an internal diameter of 64”.
Piles are welded to the legs at top of jacket legs and leg spacers are located at each structural level.
Twelve conductor pipes are laterally supported at levels (+)7.382 and (-)16.118 m.
Appurtenances
- One boat access on row 1.
- One 8" dispersal tube.
Platform North
+7.382 m
EL. 0 Chart Datum
-16.118 m
-44.218 m -45.000 m - Mudline
-
Figure 2 - WP jacket overview

INTRODUCTION
 A topside which comprises three levels:

- Upper Deck at T.O.S. EL. (+) 27.000 m
- Main Deck at T.O.S. EL. (+) 21.008 m
- Cellar Deck at T.O.S. EL. (+) 17.058 m
The deck is equipped with one crane and connected by bridge to PP platform.
Platform North
+27.000 m T.O.S (Upper deck)
Bridge to PP
+21.008 m T.O.S (Main deck)
+16.80 m T.O.S (Cellar deck)
Additional drain
deck - structure 1
protections
A 2
Figure 3 - WP topside overview
1.2. Scope
The purpose of the present calculation note is to check the behaviour of the jacket in the scenario of both
light boat impact and accidental boat impact.
Analysis is performed in accordance with the Boat Impact Design Brief Ref.02. The jacket structure is
checked according to API-RP-2A (Ref. 04) and AISC (Ref. 05) requirements.
The purpose of the present document is to present the boat impact analysis. The structure description
(numerical model, loading, etc.) is not extensive and the WP- In-service ASSESSMENT calculation

SUMMARY OF CALCULATION RESULTS
2. SUMMARY OF RESULTS
2.1. Light boat impact
TOTAL TOTAL
IMPACT BOAT ADDED BOAT PILE
SUBS. KINETIC ABSORBED
ROW IMPACT MEMBER LEVEL DISPL. MASS VEL. PLASTICITY SAFETY RESULT
ENERGY ENERGY
COEF. FACTOR
(m, /LAT) (m) (t) (m/s) (MJ) (%) (MJ)
1 LEG 2B 1,20 2,5 1600 0,4 0,5 0,28 102,9 0,288 NO 2,14 OK
2 LEG 1B 1,20 2,5 1600 0,4 0,5 0,28 101,5 0,284 NO 2,34 OK
3 LEG 2B 12,70 6 1600 0,4 0,5 0,28 102,2 0,286 NO 2,04 OK
4 LEG 1B 12,70 6 1600 0,4 0,5 0,28 100,2 0,281 NO 2,19 OK
IMPACTED
5 X-BRACE 1,80 2,5 1600 0,1 0,5 0,22 102,5 0,226 3,07 OK
MEMBER
B
IMPACTED NOT
6 X-BRACE 1,74 2,5 1600 0,1 0,5 0,22 73,0 0,161 3,12
MEMBER OK
IMPACTED NOT
7 HORIZONTAL 7,38 6 1600 0,1 0,5 0,22 42,7 0,094 2,81
MEMBER OK
IMPACTED NOT
LIGHT 8 HORIZONTAL 7,38 6 1600 0,1 0,5 0,22 39,8 0,088 2,88
MEMBER OK
BOAT
1 LEG 2A 1,20 2,5 1600 0,4 0,5 0,28 103,0 0,288 NO 2,36 OK
IMPACT
2 LEG 2B 1,20 2,5 1600 0,4 0,5 0,28 100,3 0,281 NO 2,39 OK
3 LEG 2A 12,70 6 1600 0,4 0,5 0,28 102,1 0,286 NO 2,27 OK
4 LEG 2B 12,70 6 1600 0,4 0,5 0,28 100,8 0,282 NO 2,21 OK
IMPACTED NOT
5 X-BRACE 2,19 2,5 1600 0,1 0,5 0,22 38,1 0,084 3,49
MEMBER OK
2
IMPACTED NOT
6 X-BRACE 2,18 2,5 1600 0,1 0,5 0,22 45,6 0,100 3,47
MEMBER OK
IMPACTED
7 HORIZONTAL 7,38 6 1600 0,1 0,5 0,22 100,1 0,220 3,26 OK
MEMBER
IMPACTED
8 HORIZONTAL 7,38 6 1600 0,1 0,5 0,22 120,1 0,264 3,33 OK
MEMBER
Table 1 - Light boat impact result summary

Leg impacts:
No plasticity occurs. Pile safety factors are greater than 1.5 - Acceptable.
X-brace impacts B5 and horizontal brace impacts 27 and 28:
Plasticity is limited to the impacted member. Pile safety factors are greater than 1.5 - Acceptable.
X-brace impacts B6, 25, 26 and horizontal brace impacts B7, B8:
Plasticity is not limited to the impacted member – Not acceptable.
The maximum energy that can be absorbed by the platform with the current design basis is 84kJ, with the
following maximum equivalent set of parameters:
Added mass Boat impact velocity V Kinetic energy absorbed

Boat displacement (t)
coefficient (m/s) by jacket (kJ)
Equivalent 1600 0.1 0.309 84
impact
data 611 0.1 0.5 84

SUMMARY OF CALCULATION RESULTS
2.2. Accidental boat impact
TOTAL TOTAL
IMPACT BOAT ADDED BOAT PILE
SUBS. KINETIC ABSORBED
ROW IMPACT MEMBER LEVEL DISPL. MASS VEL. PLASTICITY SAFETY RESULT
ENERGY ENERGY
COEF. FACTOR
(m, /LAT) (m) (t) (m/s) (MJ) (%) (MJ)
1 LEG 2B 1.20 2.5 1600 0.4 1.2 1.61 101.9 1.223 YES 1.46 OK
2 LEG 1B 1.20 2.5 1600 0.4 1.2 1.61 103.7 1.244 YES 1.58 OK
3 LEG 2B 12.70 6 1600 0.4 1.2 1.61 100.5 1.206 YES 1.46 OK
4 LEG 1B 12.70 6 1600 0.4 1.2 1.61 100.9 1.211 YES 1.53 OK
PLASTIC NOT
5 X-BRACE 1.80 2.5 1600 0.1 1.2 1.27 35.7 0.428 2.96
HINGE OK
B
PLASTIC NOT
6 X-BRACE 1.74 2.5 1600 0.1 1.2 1.27 59.4 0.713 2.94
HINGE OK
STRUCTURE NOT
7 HORIZONTAL 7.38 6 1600 0.1 1.2 1.27 62.3 0.748 2.16
COLLAPSE OK
STRUCTURE NOT
ACC. 8 HORIZONTAL 7.38 6 1600 0.1 1.2 1.27 46.2 0.554 2.49
COLLAPSE OK
BOAT
1 LEG 2A 1.20 2.5 1600 0.4 1.2 1.61 101.3 1.216 YES 1.54 OK
IMPACT
2 LEG 2B 1.20 2.5 1600 0.4 1.2 1.61 101.1 1.213 YES 1.61 OK
3 LEG 2A 12.70 6 1600 0.4 1.2 1.61 100.2 1.202 YES 1.57 OK
4 LEG 2B 12.70 6 1600 0.4 1.2 1.61 100.8 1.210 YES 1.53 OK
PLASTIC NOT
5 X-BRACE 2.19 2.5 1600 0.1 1.2 1.27 63.7 0.764 2.90
HINGE OK
2
PLASTIC NOT
6 X-BRACE 2.18 2.5 1600 0.1 1.2 1.27 49.6 0.595 3.19
HINGE OK
PLASTIC NOT
7 HORIZONTAL 7.38 6 1600 0.1 1.2 1.27 34.8 0.418 2.84
HINGE OK
PLASTIC NOT
8 HORIZONTAL 7.38 6 1600 0.1 1.2 1.27 62.3 0.748 2.57
HINGE OK
Table 2 - Accidental boat impact result summary
Leg impacts:
Plasticity occurs without causing structural collapse. Pile safety factors are greater than 1.25 - Acceptable.
X-brace impacts and horizontal brace impacts 27 and 28:
A plastic hinge forms at the impact location which prevents a reliable analysis – Not acceptable.
Horizontal brace impacts B7, B8:
Structural collapse occurs – Not acceptable.
The maximum energy that can be absorbed by the platform with the current design basis is 84kJ, with the
following maximum equivalent set of parameters:

Equivalent 1600 0.1 0.709 442
impact
data 540 0.1 1.2 442

REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
3. REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
3.1. Project documents
01. MM-YAD-00-DORI-224001 Structural Design Basis Rev.01
02. MM-YAD-00-DORI-224002 Structural Design Brief Rev.01
03. NA Boat Impact – Design Brief Rev.01
3.2. Codes and standards

The latest edition of the following codes and standards are applicable to the project.
th Specification for Structural Steel Buildings. Allowable Stress
04. AISC 9 Ed.
Design and Plastic Design.
API RP2A-WSD 21 Ed.

st Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and
05. Construction Fixed Offshore Platforms. Working Stress
(Oct. 2007)
Design.
Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and
06. API RP2A LRFD-2003 Construction Fixed Offshore Platforms. Load and Resistance
Factor Design.

NUMERICAL MODEL
4. NUMERICAL MODEL
Only modifications from the In-service numerical model are presented in this document. Further information
is available in the In-service calculation note (Ref. 08).
4.1. General Description
The model consists of:
- Jacket and Topside structures,
- Piles,
- Appurtenances defined as dummy structures.
8" Dispersal tube
+7.382 m
EL. 0 Chart Datum
Boat landing
Riser protectors
New 10" risers

-16.118 m
-44.218 m -45.000 m - Mudline
4.2. Modification from In-service model

20” conductors are not included in the current studies, as per Boat Impact Design Brief (Ref. 03).
4.3. Material behaviour
As a default setting, the Collapse module runs non-linear analyses. However, some part of the structure may
be defined as remaining elastic in order to simplify analyses. In our study, the topside structure is set as
elastic as it does not undergo large deformations.

BOAT IMPACT ANALYSIS DESCRIPTION
5. BOAT IMPACT ANALYSIS DESCRIPTION

The purpose of the analyses is to check the structural integrity of the WP jacket under boat impact
conditions. Two scenarios are considered:
 A 1600 t light boat impact at a velocity of 0.5 m/s
 A 1600 t accidental boat impact at a velocity of 1.2 m/s
Impact Boat Loaded Displacement Boat Velocity

Light boat impact 1600 t 0.5 m/s
Accidental boat impact 1600 t 1.2 m/s (1 year current)
A collapse non-linear analysis is run to compute impact energy.
5.1. Design assumptions

The design assumption used for the boat impact re-assessment structural analyses are based on the Boat
Impact Design Brief (Ref. 03).
5.1.1. Impact Energy

The vessel kinetic energy to be absorbed during the collision is:
1
Ek  Ds (1  a)v 2
2
With:
Ek: kinetic energy (kJ)
DS: Boat displacement (1600 tonnes)
a: Added mass coefficient:
 0.1 for bow/stern impact
 0.4 for broadside impact
v: Boat impact velocity:
 0.5 m/s for light impact
 1.2 m/s for accidental impact (1-year current velocity)
IMPACT ENERGY
Bow/stern: 220 kJ
Light impact
Broadside: 280 kJ
Bow/stern: 1267 kJ
Accidental impact
Broadside: 1613 kJ
5.1.2. Energy absorption

The kinetic energy of the vessel at collision will be absorbed by
 Local plastic deformation of the impacted member called denting,
 Elastic/plastic deformation of the impacted member,
 Global deformation of the jacket,
 Boat local deformation (conservatively neglected in the present study)

5.1.3. Denting
The member local denting is accounted by the Ellinas formula (ref.06). Denting is limited to 25% of the total
energy. This mode of absorption is not applicable to jacket legs when it contains a pile as the pile prevents
denting formation.
5.1.4. Member Local Buckling

The criteria used to consider the local buckling of a member cross section is based on API RP-2A LRFD
(Ref.06).
5.1.5. Joint Strength

For tubular connections, joint strength check is based upon API RP 2A-LRFD (Ref.06).
For combined axial loads and bending moments in the brace, the following interaction equation shall be
satisfied (formula E.3-4 of Ref.06):
1
   PD   M D   MD  
2 2 2
1           1.0
 2   j  Puj    j  M uj  ipb   j  M ui  opb 
Where: PD : axial load in the brace member

MD : bending moment in the brace member
Puj : ultimate joint axial capacity
Muj : ultimate joint bending moment capacity
Фj : ultimate strength resistance factor for tubular joints
ipb subscript = in-plane bending
opb subscript = out-of-plane bending
The ultimate capacities are defined as follows:
Fy T 2
Puj  Qu  Q f
sin  (kN)
Fy T 2
M uj   0.8d   Qu  Q f
sin  (kN.m)
Qf is a design factor to account for the presence of longitudinal factored load in the chord.
Qu is the ultimate strength factor which varies with the joint and load type.
Fy is the yield strength of the chord member.
Øj is the resistance factor for tubular joints. See table below which shows Ø j values in accordance with the
API-LRFD:
Compression Tension K In-plane Out-of plane
T, Y, X T, Y, X joints bending bending
Øj 2.57 2.11 2.51 2.81 2.61

The following figure described geometrical parameters for simple tubular joints:
SACS software uses stresses instead of loads for this verification, with allowable joint stresses calculated as
follows:
 j  Puj
ft 
S
 j  M uj
fb 
W
Where S is brace cross section area (mm²)
W is brace inertia modulus (cm3)
5.1.6. Joint flexibility

Joint flexibility is taken into account. The Collapse module can optionally consider the flexibility of a
connection which has a tubular chord. It is based on equations proposed by Fessler for the connection
flexibility. Those relate the local axial, in-plane moment, and out-of-plane moment to the corresponding
deflection and rotation of the member ends (to get more information about ‘Joint flexibility’ SACS option,
refer to COLLAPSE SACS manual §4.5.1 - Joint flexibility).
5.1.7. Strain hardening

The strain hardening ratio considered is H = 0.005.
5.1.8. Pile plasticity

Pile plasticity is taken into account above and below the mudline.

5.1.9. Load sequence

For each COLLAPSE analysis, the following sequence is applied:
 Gravity loads ( load combination ‘STAT’),
 Impact load (load condition ‘SIxx’), according to impact location.
The impact load is incremented automatically until the boat energy is dissipated and automatic unloading
follows. Each impact case is modelled as a 10000 kN point load.
No environmental conditions are included when boat impact loading is applied on platform.
5.2. Methodology
The boat impact is performed with the “Collapse” module of SACS, considering non-linear structure
behaviour.
The following methodology is adopted:
LIGHT IMPACT ACCIDENTAL IMPACT

Remain elastic and to be checked with Plastification is allowed (local and
1/3rd allowable stress increase. bending deformation).
Boat impact on Leg
Remain elastic and to be checked with Plastification is allowed but overall
1/3rd allowable stress increase. collapse shall be avoided.
Impacted member:
Impacted member:
Plastification is allowed up to
Plastification is allowed up to system.
system.
Other Jacket members:
Boat impact on Plastification is allowed but overall
Bracing (diagonal collapse shall be avoided.
or horizontal) Other Jacket members: Failure (rupture) is considered to
Remain elastic and to be checked with be achieved at a strain of:
1/3rd allowable stress increase. S235 20%
S355 15%
S420 10%
Pile axial capacity

Safety Factor 1.50 1.25
To check the pile axial capacity, a static analysis is performed applying the gravity loads and the boat impact
equivalent static loads. The pile axial load is determined and compared to the pile axial capacity to compute
the pile safety factor. It should be greater than 1.5 for light impacts and 1.25 for accidental impacts.

5.3. Impact scenarios

For both light and accidental impact, the impact scenarios are based on the following criteria:
- Stern and broadside impact on corner legs,
- Bow/stern impact on braces of levels and braces of rows.
Figure 4 – Row B impact locations Figure 5 - Row 2 impact locations
Scenario 1 and 2: On jacket legs at level EL (+) 1 200 for subsidence of 2.5m.
Scenario 3 and 4: On jacket legs at level EL (+) 12 700 for subsidence of 6.0m.
Scenario 5 and 6: On jacket vertical diagonal for subsidence of 2.5m.
Scenario 7 and 8: On jacket horizontal at level EL (+) 7 382 for subsidence of 6.0m.
Analyses are performed for rows B and 2 only. Due to symmetry, they are assumed also valid for rows A and
1, respectively.

LIGHT BOAT IMPACT
6. LIGHT BOAT IMPACT

6.1. Impact analyses
As defined in the Boat Impact Design Brief (Ref. 03), leg impacts should not make any member plastify.
Brace impact allows for impacted member plastification.
Table 3 displays the analyses results. Collapse module output plots are provided in Appendix 1.
6.1.1. Leg impacts (B1, B2, B3, B4, 21, 22, 23, 24)
No plasticity is observed for leg impacts, which is acceptable. The following Force/Displacement graph at
impact location for impact 21 illustrates this type of behaviour. See Appendix 1 for the detail of plasticity
locations and Force/Displacement graphs.

LIGHT BOAT IMPACT
6.1.2. Bracing impacts with plasticity limited to impacted member (B5,

27, 28)
Plasticity occurs on impacted members only, which is acceptable. The following Force/Displacement graph
at impact location for impact 27 illustrates this type of behaviour. See Appendix 1 for the detail of plasticity
6.1.3. Bracing impacts with plasticity not limited to impacted member

(B6, B7, B8, 25, 26)
Plasticity occurs on members that are not impacted, which is not acceptable. The Force/Displacement graph
is similar to the one presented for brace impact with plasticity limited to impacted member. See Appendix 1
for the detail of plasticity locations and Force/Displacement graphs.

LIGHT BOAT IMPACT
ENERGY TO
TOTAL TOTAL ABSORBED ENERGY
IMPACT BOAT BOAT BE
IMPACT SUBSIDENCE KINETIC ENERGY BY STRUCTURE ABSORBED BY
ROW MEMBER LEVEL DISPLACEMENT ADDED MASS VELOCITY DENTING ABSORBED PLASTICITY RESULT
NUMBER COEFFICIENT ENERGY EFFECT (JACKET & DENTING) DENTING ONLY
BY JACKET
(m, /LAT) (m) (t) (m/s) (MJ) (MJ) (%) (MJ) (%) (MJ)
1 LEG 2B 1.20 2.5 1600 0.4 0.5 0.28 NO 0.28 102.9 0.288 - - NO OK
2 LEG 1B 1.20 2.5 1600 0.4 0.5 0.28 NO 0.28 101.5 0.284 - - NO OK
3 LEG 2B 12.70 6 1600 0.4 0.5 0.28 YES 0.28 102.1 0.286 25.0 0.07 NO OK
4 LEG 1B 12.70 6 1600 0.4 0.5 0.28 YES 0.28 100.5 0.281 25.0 0.07 NO OK
5 X-BRACE 1.80 2.5 1600 0.1 0.5 0.22 YES 0.22 IMPACTED
102.5 0.226 25.0 0.055 OK
B MEMBER
6 X-BRACE 1.74 2.5 1600 0.1 0.5 0.22 YES 0.22 IMPACTED NOT
73.0 0.161 25.0 0.055
MEMBER OK
7 HORIZONTAL 7.38 6 1600 0.1 0.5 0.22 YES 0.22 IMPACTED NOT
42.7 0.094 25.0 0.055
MEMBER OK
8 HORIZONTAL 7.38 6 1600 0.1 0.5 0.22 YES 0.22 IMPACTED NOT
39.8 0.088 25.0 0.055
MEMBER OK
1 LEG 2A 1.20 2.5 1600 0.4 0.5 0.28 NO 0.28 103.0 0.288 - - NO OK
2 LEG 2B 1.20 2.5 1600 0.4 0.5 0.28 NO 0.28 100.3 0.281 - - NO OK
3 LEG 2A 12.70 6 1600 0.4 0.5 0.28 YES 0.28 101.3 0.284 25.0 0.07 NO OK
4 LEG 2B 12.70 6 1600 0.4 0.5 0.28 YES 0.28 100.8 0.282 25.0 0.07 NO OK
38.1 0.084 18.2 0.04
2 MEMBER OK
45.6 0.100 20.9 0.046
MEMBER OK
7 HORIZONTAL 7.38 6 1600 0.1 0.5 0.22 YES 0.22 IMPACTED

100.1 0.220 3.2 0.007 OK
MEMBER
8 HORIZONTAL 7.38 6 1600 0.1 0.5 0.22 YES 0.22 IMPACTED

120.1 0.264 2.3 0.005 OK
MEMBER
Table 3 - Light boat impact analysis

LIGHT BOAT IMPACT
6.2. Pile axial capacity

The pile safety factor (ratio of the pile induced axial load upon the pile capacity) should be greater than 1.5.
The in-soil pile submerged weight is 1196 kN. The axial loads are calculated based on the boat impact
equivalent static loads, without taking account of pile weight. According to the In-service analysis (Ref. 08),
the pile axial capacity is 26900 kN.
The table below gives the minimum safety factors in compression.
Axial load In soil pile Total axial Pile capacity

Impact Pile SF
(kN) weight (kN) load (kN) (kN)
B1 A2 11375 1196 12571 26900 2.140

B2 A1 10322 1196 11518 26900 2.335
B3 A2 11289 1196 12485 26900 2.155
B4 A1 10396 1196 11592 26900 2.321
B5 A2 7552 1196 8748 26900 3.075
B6 A2 7434 1196 8630 26900 3.117
B7 A2 8372 1196 9568 26900 2.811
B8 A2 8131 1196 9327 26900 2.884
21 B1 10216 1196 11412 26900 2.357
22 A1 10064 1196 11260 26900 2.389
23 B1 9950 1196 11146 26900 2.413
24 A1 10283 1196 11479 26900 2.343
25 A1 6509 1196 7705 26900 3.491
26 A1 6567 1196 7763 26900 3.465
27 A1 7049 1196 8245 26900 3.263
28 A1 6870 1196 8066 26900 3.335
Table 4 - Light boat impact pile capacity
The minimum safety factor is 2.140 > 1.5.
6.3. Equivalent impact data
The jacket is not able to sustain the light boat impact energy. The maximum energy that could be absorbed
by the jacket structure including denting effect is 84 kJ < 220 kJ.
For information, the maximum energy that the jacket could sustain corresponds to the equivalent impact
data:

Equivalent 1600 0.1 0.309 84
impact
data 611 0.1 0.5 84

ACCIDENTAL BOAT IMPACT
7. ACCIDENTAL BOAT IMPACT

7.1. Impact analyses
As defined in the Boat Impact Design Brief (Ref. 03), leg impacts as well as bracing impacts allow for
plastification of the structure but overall collapse should be avoided.
Table 5 displays the analyses results. Collapse module output plots are provided in Appendix 2.
7.1.1. Leg impacts (B1, B2, B3, B4, 21, 22, 23, 24)
Limited plasticity occurs for leg impacts, which is acceptable. The following Force/Displacement graph at
impact location for impact 21 illustrates this type of behaviour. See Appendix 2 for the detail of plasticity

7.1.2. Bracing impacts causing a plastic hinge at impact location (B5,

B6, 25, 26, 27, 28)
Plasticity occurs and forms a plastic hinge at the impact location which creates a mechanism and does not
permit the analysis to converge. The absorbed energy given in the result table corresponds to the last step
before analysis convergence stops. The following Force/Displacement graph at impact location for impact
25 illustrates this type of behaviour. See Appendix 2 for the detail of plasticity locations and
Force/Displacement graphs.
The curve inflection corresponds

to a plastic hinge lock-in at
impact location
The graph shows 3 structural steps:

- elastic behaviour until yielding,
- plastic behaviour until plastic hinge lock-in at the impact location,
- plastic hinge mechanism until unloading.

7.1.3. Bracing impacts causing structure collapse (B7, B8)

Plasticity occurs and causes the structure collapse, which is not acceptable. The following
Force/Displacement graph at impact location for impact B7 illustrates this type of behaviour. See Appendix
2 for the detail of plasticity locations and Force/Displacement graphs.

ENERGY TO
TOTAL TOTAL ABSORBED ENERGY
IMPACT BOAT BOAT BE
IMPACT SUBSIDENCE KINETIC ENERGY BY STRUCTURE ABSORBED BY
ROW MEMBER LEVEL DISPLACEMENT ADDED MASS VELOCITY DENTING ABSORBED PLASTICITY RESULT
NUMBER COEFFICIENT ENERGY EFFECT (JACKET & DENTING) DENTING ONLY
BY JACKET
(m, /LAT) (m) (t) (m/s) (MJ) (MJ) (%) (MJ) (%) (MJ)
1 LEG 2B 1.20 2.5 1600 0.4 1.2 1.61 NO 1.61 101.9 1.641 - - YES OK
2 LEG 1B 1.20 2.5 1600 0.4 1.2 1.61 NO 1.61 103.7 1.670 - - YES OK
3 LEG 2B 12.70 6 1600 0.4 1.2 1.61 YES 1.61 100.5 1.618 25.0 0.403 YES OK
4 LEG 1B 12.70 6 1600 0.4 1.2 1.61 YES 1.61 100.9 1.624 25.0 0.403 YES OK
PLASTIC NOT
5 X-BRACE 1.80 2.5 1600 0.1 1.2 1.27 YES 1.27 35.7 0.453 13.4 0.17
B HINGE OK
PLASTIC NOT
6 X-BRACE 1.74 2.5 1600 0.1 1.2 1.27 YES 1.27 59.4 0.754 23.2 0.295
HINGE OK
STRUCTURE NOT
7 HORIZONTAL 7.38 6 1600 0.1 1.2 1.27 YES 1.27 62.3 0.791 25.0 0.317
COLLAPSE OK
STRUCTURE NOT
8 HORIZONTAL 7.38 6 1600 0.1 1.2 1.27 YES 1.27 46.2 0.587 25.0 0.317
COLLAPSE OK
1 LEG 2A 1.20 2.5 1600 0.4 1.2 1.61 NO 1.61 101.3 1.631 - - YES OK
2 LEG 2B 1.20 2.5 1600 0.4 1.2 1.61 NO 1.61 101.1 1.628 - - YES OK
3 LEG 2A 12.70 6 1600 0.4 1.2 1.61 YES 1.61 100.2 1.613 25.0 0.403 YES OK
4 LEG 2B 12.70 6 1600 0.4 1.2 1.61 YES 1.61 100.8 1.623 25.0 0.403 YES OK
PLASTIC NOT
5 X-BRACE 2.19 2.5 1600 0.1 1.2 1.27 YES 1.27 63.7 0.809 25.0 0.317
2 HINGE OK
PLASTIC NOT
6 X-BRACE 2.18 2.5 1600 0.1 1.2 1.27 YES 1.27 49.6 0.630 21.0 0.267
HINGE OK
PLASTIC NOT
7 HORIZONTAL 7.38 6 1600 0.1 1.2 1.27 YES 1.27 34.8 0.442 3.9 0.05
HINGE OK
PLASTIC NOT
8 HORIZONTAL 7.38 6 1600 0.1 1.2 1.27 YES 1.27 62.3 0.791 10.4 0.132
HINGE OK
Table 5 - Accidental boat impact analysis

7.2. Pile axial capacity

The pile safety factor (ratio of the pile induced axial load upon the pile capacity) should be greater than
1.25.
The in-soil pile submerged weight is 1196 kN. The axial loads are calculated based on the boat impact
equivalent static loads, without taking account of pile weight. According to the In-service analysis (Ref. 08),
the pile axial capacity is 26900 kN.
The table below gives the minimum safety factors in compression.
Axial load In soil pile Total axial Pile capacity

Impact Pile SF
(kN) weight (kN) load (kN) (kN)
B1 A2 17179 1196 18375 26900 1.464
B2 A1 15869 1196 17065 26900 1.576
B3 A2 17189 1196 18385 26900 1.463
B4 A1 16387 1196 17583 26900 1.530
B5 A2 7883 1196 9079 26900 2.963
B6 A2 7961 1196 9157 26900 2.938
B7 A2 11250 1196 12446 26900 2.161
B8 A2 9624 1196 10820 26900 2.486
21 B1 16318 1196 17514 26900 1.536
22 A1 15535 1196 16731 26900 1.608
23 B1 15930 1196 17126 26900 1.571
24 A1 16377 1196 17573 26900 1.531
25 A1 8077 1196 9273 26900 2.901
26 A1 7228 1196 8424 26900 3.193
27 A1 8260 1196 9456 26900 2.845
28 A1 9263 1196 10459 26900 2.572
Table 6 - Accidental boat impact pile capacity
The minimum safety factor is 1.463 > 1.25.
7.1. Equivalent impact data
The jacket is not able to sustain the light boat impact energy. The maximum energy that could be absorbed
by the jacket structure including denting effect is 442 kJ < 1267 kJ.
For information, the maximum energy that the jacket could sustain corresponds to the impact data:

Equivalent 1600 0.1 0.709 442
impact
data 540 0.1 1.2 442

APPENDIX 1 – LIGHT IMPACT PLOTS

































APPENDIX 2 – ACCIDENTAL IMPACT PLOTS





























Published by: Prakash Bahadur Thapa (Boat Impact Analysis) Page # 1 102



Boat Impact Analysison Offshore Unmanfixed Well Head Platform WHP

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Boat Impact Analysison Offshore Unmanfixed Well Head Platform WHP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Boat Impact Analysis on Offshore Unman fixed Well Head Platform (WHP)

Author: Prakash Bahadur Thapa and Dr. Faisal Khan

Published by: Prakash Bahadur Thapa (Boat Impact Analysis) Page # 1

Published by: Prakash Bahadur Thapa (Boat Impact Analysis) Page # 1

-44.218 m -45.000 m - Mudline

Published by: Prakash Bahadur Thapa (Boat Impact Analysis) Page # 1 1

3. A topside which comprises three levels:

Brownfield modifications of WP include:

Published by: Prakash Bahadur Thapa (Boat Impact Analysis) Page # 1

- Cellar Deck - New piping (+2.4 t),

Excluded from this calculation note are;

Published by: Prakash Bahadur Thapa (Boat Impact Analysis) Page # 1

2 Summary and Conclusions

Impacts on jacket legs – no plasticity occurs.

Minimum pile safety factor is 2.04 > 1.5

Published by: Prakash Bahadur Thapa (Boat Impact Analysis) Page # 1

2.1.2 Accidental Impact

Impacts on jacket legs – plasticity occurs without causing structural collapse.

Minimum pile safety factor is 1.46 > 1.25

Published by: Prakash Bahadur Thapa (Boat Impact Analysis) Page # 1

It is recommended that either;

Published by: Prakash Bahadur Thapa (Boat Impact Analysis) Page # 1

Bridges Bottom of Steel :

T - PP-WP bridge : 20.50m / LAT

Published by: Prakash Bahadur Thapa (Boat Impact Analysis) Page # 1

3.4 Codes and Standards

3.5 Computer software

Published by: Prakash Bahadur Thapa (Boat Impact Analysis) Page # 1

4.1 General Requirements

4.2 Material Properties

STEEL GRADE Nominal thickness (mm)

4.3 Allowable Stresses

ANALYSIS CONDITION ALLOWABLE STRESSES

Published by: Prakash Bahadur Thapa (Boat Impact Analysis) Page # 1

4.4 Environmental loads

4.4.2 Marine growth

ELEVATION (wrt DWD) THICKNESS ON RADIUS DENSITY

Above +1.65m N/A -

Between +1.65m and -10.00m 100.0 mm

4.4.3 Water Depth

4.5 Soil data

Published by: Prakash Bahadur Thapa (Boat Impact Analysis) Page # 1

LIGHT IMPACT ACCIDENTAL IMPACT

Boat impact analysis considers:

Member local denting parameters are:

Published by: Prakash Bahadur Thapa (Boat Impact Analysis) Page # 1

6.2 Impact loads on riser protector

6.3 Impact loads on unprotected conductors and other miscellaneous items

6.4 Impact Scenarios

Published by: Prakash Bahadur Thapa (Boat Impact Analysis) Page # 1

6.4.1 Impact scenarios on WP Rows A & B

Figure 2 - Elevation Row A

See annex [1] for details of impact loads.

Published by: Prakash Bahadur Thapa (Boat Impact Analysis) Page # 1

6.4.2 Impact scenarios on WP (Row 2)

Figure 3 - Elevation Row 2

See annex [1] for details of impact loads.

Published by: Prakash Bahadur Thapa (Boat Impact Analysis) Page # 1

Published by: Prakash Bahadur Thapa (Boat Impact Analysis) Page # 1

Published by: Prakash Bahadur Thapa (Boat Impact Analysis) Page # 1

Annex 1: WP - Boat Impact – Calculation Note

Published by: Prakash Bahadur Thapa (Boat Impact Analysis) Page # 1

5.2. Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 13