Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2769
WS Atkins, 920 Memorial City Way Suite 700, Houston, TX 77079, USA
Email: liangsheng.wang@atkinsglobal.com (L. Wang);
fraser.munro@atkinsglobal.com (F. Munro);
steve.simoni@atkinsglobal.com (S. Simoni)
ABSTRACT
Structural assessment is a key part of the structural integrity management
(SIM) process for ensuring the fitness-for-purpose of offshore fixed platforms. This
paper presents a comprehensive life cycle structural performance assessment
approach for the offshore fixed platforms. Non-linear pushover analysis is used to
perform the structural assessment, in which the platform capacity is characterized in
terms of the platforms reserve strength ratio (RSR). Comparison of the platform RSR
and the target RSR specified in the acceptance criteria determine the fitness-forpurpose of the platform. A structural reliability methodology is proposed for the
development of the regionally specific acceptance criteria. The annual probability of
platform failure is calculated using the first order reliability method (FORM). The
assessment results are used to develop a long term risk-based underwater inspection
strategy. A case study for the platforms located offshore Eastern Caribbean is used to
illustrate the application of the developed structural assessment approach.
Keywords: Structural assessment; Acceptance criteria; Fitness-for-purpose
1
INTRODUCTION
2770
facts underline the importance of the structural assessment and the development of
assessment acceptance criteria based on structural reliability.
Since the early 1980s there has been an increasing interest in the assessment
approaches as offshore operators worldwide became aware of the need to manage an
aging offshore platform. Industry recognized that an alternative to the traditional
component-based design checks was required in order to warrant the continued safe
operation of the offshore platforms. Significant work has been done on the
development of structural assessment methodologies. This led to the development of
assessment guidelines within API and ISO, allowing engineers to better exploit the
full capacity of structures not accounted for in the traditional design methods.
A number of investigators have discussed the structural reliability of platforms
subjected to storm wave loading. Botelho et al. (1994) calculated the failure
probability of ST130 A platform in the Gulf of Mexico during Hurricane Andrew.
Gebara et al. (2000) and Jha et al. (2000) studied the effect of sea floor subsidence on
the platform failure probability on three jacket platforms in the North Sea. HerediaZavoni et al. (2004) carried out a structural reliability assessment of deck elevations
subjected to storm wave loading for fixed platforms in the Bay of Campeche. Dier et
al. (2001) developed a reliability analysis methodology for jacket platforms in the
North Sea. Ronalds et al. (2003) investigated the structural reliability of a generic
caisson under storm overload in the Australian North West Shelf. A good collection
of recent developments in the structural reliability assessment of fixed offshore
platforms can be found in Moan (2000) and Onoufriou et al. (2001). However, to
date very limited work has been reported on the development of regionally specific
acceptance criteria which are needed to help judge whether or not a platform is fitfor-purpose.
This paper presents a comprehensive structural performance assessment
approach for offshore fixed platforms. Non-linear pushover analysis is used to
perform structural assessment, in which the platform capacity is characterized in
terms of the platforms reserve strength ratio (RSR). Comparison of the platform RSR
and the target RSR defined in the acceptance criteria determines the platforms
fitness-for-purpose. A structural reliability methodology is proposed to develop the
regionally specific assessment acceptance criteria under extreme storm events. The
annual probability of platform failure is calculated using the first order reliability
method. The acceptance criteria are developed based on platform target reliability and
the relationship between RSR and platform failure probability. The assessment results
are used to develop a long term risk-based underwater inspection strategy. Finally a
case study for the platforms located offshore Eastern Caribbean is presented to
illustrate the application of the developed structural assessment approach.
2
STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT
2771
and produce structures with reserves of strength. Assessment analysis seeks to utilize
the available reserve strength and redundancy not accounted for in design.
Assessment analysis can be performed by linear global analysis or non-linear
ultimate strength analysis. A linear global analysis focuses on the failure of structural
components, whereas ultimate strength analysis is a global inelastic analysis,
incorporating member yielding/buckling and joint plasticity and accounting for the
redistribution of forces to alternative load paths. An ultimate strength analysis
provides a measure of the overall strength of a platform from a system rather than
component perspective.
2.1 Structural Modeling
The structural model of a platform consists of the jacket, topsides, piles,
foundation and miscellaneous platform appurtenances, reflecting the platforms as-is
condition by accounting for known damage, deterioration and modification based on
platform inspection records.
The jacket structure is modeled as a space frame, in which tubular beam
elements are used to model the jacket structural members. For ungrouted leg-pile
annulus, the leg-pile interaction is modeled using wishbone element, which allows
only the transfer of lateral forces. For grouted piles, the leg and pile is modeled as a
composite section. Non-linear joint characteristics are included in the model to check
the capacity of each brace-chord intersection at the tubular joints. Jacket
appurtenances that are exposed to wave and current loading are included in the
model, either explicitly or implicitly by enhancing the hydrodynamic coefficients of
the primary jacket members the appurtenances are attached to. All primary members
on the topsides structures are included in the structural model to represent the correct
stiffness of the topsides. The deck girders and other primary structural components
are modeled as beam elements.
The foundation model consists of non-linear beam-column elements to
represent the piles with the soil being modeled with non-linear springs which
represent the non-linear pile-soil interaction.
2.2 Pushover Analysis
The platform ultimate strength is generally determined from a static pushover
analysis, in which environmental loads are applied progressively until the platform
collapses. Platform failure is generally defined as formation of a limiting mechanism
in the platform structure or foundation. As the load is progressively increased during
the pushover analysis, non-linear events such as member buckling and yielding, joint
plasticity, and pile pullout or plunging are monitored, which is used to detect the
formation of a limiting mechanism in the structure or foundation.
During a pushover analysis, the loadings are generally applied in two steps.
The first step consists of the platforms dead weight and topsides loads. In the second
step, the lateral environmental load is ramped up progressively until platform failure
is reached. The ramping of the environmental load should be consistent with the rate
2772
of increase in wave load with increasing return period and account for the point at
which wave inundation of the topsides occurs.
The platform capacity can be characterized in term of the reserve strength
ratio (RSR), which is defined as the ratio of the platforms ultimate lateral load
carrying capacity to nominal design load, normally 100-year storm lateral loading. A
target RSR is specified as the multiplier on the 100-year storm load that the platform
should be able to withstand. The platform RSR is a measure of the actual platform
capacity. Comparison of the target RSR and platform RSR values determines the
fitness- for-purpose of the structure.
Consequence of Failure
High
Medium
Risk
High
Risk
High
Risk
Medium
Low
Risk
Medium
Risk
High
Risk
Low
Low
Risk
Low
Risk
Medium
Risk
Low
Medium
High
Likelihood of Failure
2773
Risk Category
High
3-years to 5-years
Medium
6-years to 10-years
Low
11-years or greater
ACCEPTANCE CRITIERA
The acceptance criteria determine the minimum target RSR of the platform
required to deliver the target reliability. The target RSR can be developed based on
the platform target reliability and the relationship between the RSR and the platform
failure probability. In the following, a reliability model is introduced to deduce the
platform failure probability. This is followed by application of several approaches to
develop the target RSR.
3.1
g( X ) = R S = R L W
(1)
2774
The wave and current load characteristics change when the wave crest reaches
the bottom of steel of the lowest deck of the topsides. For the regression of wave and
current load as a function of wave height, two different functional forms are selected
for wave and current load before and after deck inundation. The wave and current
load L has the functional form
L = C1 H mC2
C2
L = [C1 + C 3 (H m H d )] H m
Hm < Hd
Hm Hd
(2)
where, Hd is the maximum wave height which results in a wave crest just hitting the
underside of lowest deck of topsides, Hm is a random variable describing the annual
maximum wave height, C1 is a random variable that characterizes the load uncertainty
on the jacket system, C2 is the exponent in the load-wave height relationship, and C3
is a random variable that characterizes the uncertainty in the wave-in-deck loads.
With the establishment of a limit state function, the annual probability of
failure is defined by the expression:
Pf = (1 FS ( x) ) f R ( x) dx
0
(3)
Acceptance Criteria
2775
CASE STUDY
A case study for the platforms located offshore Eastern Caribbean is presented
to illustrate the application of the structural assessment approach.
4.1
Platform Assessment
Two representative platforms, i.e., Platform A and Platform B were studied.
Platform A is an 8-leg 8-pile fixed steel jacket platform operating in 67 meter of
water, which represents a more-robust structure. Platform B is a 4-leg 4-pile fixed
steel jacket platform operating in 72 meter of water, which represents a less-robust
structure. Three-dimensional structural models have been created in USFOS program
for these two platforms based on as-built drawings. The as-is platform conditions
were represented by accounting for damage, deterioration and modification based on
platform inspection records. Figure 2 presents the three-dimensional structural models
for Platforms A and B.
In this case study the non-linear pushover analyses were performed using the
USFOS program. The pushover analyses resulted in minimum RSR of 6.01 and 3.83
for Platforms A and B, respectively, when subjected to a wave from platforms
diagonal direction. It implies that Platforms A and B can resist 6.01 times and 3.83
times of the load imposed by the 100-year return period storm, respectively. Pushover
analyses also showed the collapse of both platforms was caused by a failure
mechanism formed within the jacket by brace buckling and yielding. No significant
non-linearities were observed in the piles or deck legs.
2776
(a)
(b)
Figure 2. Platform models: (a) Platform A; (b) Platform B
4.2
Reliability Analysis
+ 1
H = +
2
(4)
H = + 1 2 + 1
(5)
(6)
where is a storm rate defined as = N storms / Thindcast , Nstorms is the number of storms in
the hindcase record, and Thindcast is the duration of the hindcast (years).
2777
60
50
Platform A
40
30
20
10
Platform B
0
5
10
15
20
25
Distribution
CoV
Lognormal
Weibull
Coefficient C1
Lognormal
0.10
Coefficient C3
Lognormal
0.35
Platform Capacity, R
Annual Significant Wave height, Hs
2778
For the location of these platforms in the Eastern Caribbean, the extreme
storm waves approach from an arc bounded by approximately 40 degrees and 90
degrees, measured clockwise from True North. For both Platforms A and B, the
extreme storm waves will dominantly approach from the platforms diagonal
direction. In this study only the annual failure probability for the diagonal wave
direction was considered, however for other regions, the annual failure probability
may be calculated for up to 8 wave directions. The annual probability of platform
failure has been calculated using FORM method. Platforms A and B have annual
probability of failure of 3.53210-5 and 1.43810-4, respectively.
4.3
Acceptance Criteria
1.0E-01
Platform A as a basis
Platform B as a basis
1.0E-02
1.0E-03
1.0E-04
1.0E-05
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
10
2779
Risk-Based Inspection
The annual probability of platform failure and the consequence of failure are
combined to determine the overall platform risk associated with hurricane hazard
based on a risk matrix in Figure 1. Both Platforms A and B are high consequence.
The likelihood of failure for Platform A is low while Platform B has medium
likelihood of failure. The risk evaluation indicates that Platform A is medium risk for
hurricane hazard and Platform B is high risk for the hurricane hazard. From Table 1,
the appropriate risk-based intervals for routine periodic inspections are 10 years and 5
years for Platforms A and B, respectively.
5
CONCLUSION
A comprehensive structural assessment approach has been presented for offshore
fixed platforms to ensure their continuous fitness-for-purpose. Non-linear pushover
analysis is used to calculate the platform capacity characterized in terms of the
platforms reserve strength ratio (RSR). Comparison of the platform RSR and the
target RSR specified in the acceptance criteria determine the fitness-for-purpose of
the platforms. The regionally specific acceptance criteria can be developed based on
structural reliability methodology. The assessment results can also be used to develop
a effective long term risk-based underwater inspection strategy. A case study for the
platforms located offshore Eastern Caribbean has illustrated the effectiveness of the
developed structural assessment approach.
REFERENCES
11
2780
12