Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Fraser, R., Current Developents in Assessment of Fixed Offshore Structures.
Fraser, R., Current Developents in Assessment of Fixed Offshore Structures.
Current developments in
assessment of fixed offshore structures
Dr Ramsay Fraser
Aberdeen,
September 2013
19901-9 SIM
Andrea Mangiavacchi
Dec 2012
3
Andrea Mangiavacchi
Dec 2012
4
Andrea Mangiavacchi
Dec 2012
5
alignment strategy
19901-9 SIM
Andrea Mangiavacchi
Dec 2012
6
technical challenges
Andrea Mangiavacchi
Dec 2012
7
Andrea Mangiavacchi
Dec 2012
8
19902 states...
Prevention and mitigation
measures should be considered
at all stages of the assessment
Process
9
assessment triggers
a)
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
b) Damage or deterioration of a primary structural component: minor structural damage can be assessed by
- appropriate local analysis without performing a full assessment; however, cumulative effects of multiple
damage shall be documented and included in a full assessment, where appropriate.
c) Exceedance of design service life, if either
the fatigue life (including safety factors) is less than the required extended service life, or
degradation of the structure due to corrosion is present, or is likely to occur, within the required
extended service life.
(More guidance on rigid and flexible joints is reqd. plus interpretation of fatigue is required)
10
13
method is
increasingly
2. RSR (Reserve Strength Ratio)
specific
to theof actual structure
accounts for system failure
mechanism
actual jacket
being
3. SRA (Structural Reliability Analysis)
accounts for uncertainty in assessed
system capacity in actual structure
14
15
reliability of a structure
16
0.01
NW Shelf
North Sea
limit
NW Shelf
0.008
North Sea
limit
0.006
0.004
0.002
0
1
1.5
E/E100
2.5
1.5
E/E100
2.5
17
PR (x)
0.045
1.0
0.04
0.035
0.8
pL (x)
0.03
1
Pf
pL ( x) PR ( x)dx
RP
0.025
0.02
0.6
0.4
0.015
0.01
0.05
0.2
0.005
0
0.0
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
E/E100
2.2
2.4
18
1.2
PR2 ( x)
1.0
0.045
0.04
PR3 ( x)
0.035
0.8
pL (x)
0.03
0.025
0.6
0.02
Pf i
0.015
1
pL ( x) PRi ( x)dx
RP
0.4
0.01
0.05
0.2
0.005
0
0.0
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
E/E100
2.2
2.4
19
0.0025
1
pL ( x) PRi ( x)dx
RP
0.002
pL(E/E100) x PR(E/E100)
Pf i
pL ( E / E100) PR 2 ( E / E100)
0.0015
0.001
0.0005
0
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
E/E100
2.2
2.4
20
hazard curves
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1
Pf 3
1.2
1
Pf 2
1
Pf 1
1.0
100
1000
10000
100000
Nsea (4 braces)
21
22
2.4
2.0
1.92
1.2
1.0
100
1000
10000
RP=30000yrs Pf=3E-5
1.4
RP=19000yrs Pf=5E-5
1.6
RP=10000yrs Pf=1E-4
1.85
1.8
RP=6500yrs Pf=1.5E-4
2.2
1.75
1.72
1.69
1.66
1.63
1.60
1.57
1.54
1.51
1.48
1.45
1.42
1.39
1.36
1.33
1.30
1.27
1.24
1.21
1.18
1.15
1.12
1.09
1.06
1.03
1.00
0.97
0.94
0.91
0.88
0.85
0.82
0.79
0.76
0.73
100000
Gamma E
Nsea (4 braces)
GoM (1 leg)
GoM (4 braces)
23
Exposure L1 :
Manned High Consequence
L2 Category:
Not Normally Manned
RSR
RSR
Northern NSea
1.40
1.92
1.09
1.50
NWAustralia
1.70
2.35
1.26
1.72
Gulf of Mexico
1.59
2.18
1.17
1.60
Location
Gulf of Mexico
Exposure L1 (GoM) :
Manned Evacuated
RSR
1.30
1.78
North Sea
5.0
4.2
4.0
100 year load
3.3
3.0
2.0
Gulf of Mexico
1.0
0.0
'70
'74
'78
'82
'86
Time in years
'90
'94
'98
25
n year return
period crest
height
associated wave
period for n year return
period wave (Tn)
n year return
period base
shear (Xn)
Determine
current to give
Xn when used
with WT, Hn
and Tn
E / E100
Richard Gibson
Dec 2012
Wave in deck
Richard Gibson BP
SIM conference
Nov 2012
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
Jacket
Deck
COV_R=10%,COV_J
Jacket + Deck
=8%,COV_D=35%
0.5
Target Capacity
0.0
100
1000
10000
Return Period (Years)
100000
32
capacity calculation
Frame Modeling
Primary Framework
Secondary Framework
Deck Structure
Pile Connectivity
Grouted Piles
Conductors
Conductor Connectivity
Conductor Guide Framing
Support Frame/Deck Modelling
Leg Stubs
Joint Modeling
Joint Eccentricity
Joint Flexibility
Grouted Joints
Doubler Plated Joints
Cracked Joints
Ground Joints
Member Modeling
Corrosion Allowance
Grouted Members
Damaged Members
Buried members
Design Flooded
Foundation Modeling
Structural/Soil Interaction
Pile/Structure Interaction
P/Y Modifiers for Conductors
Pile Failure Simulation
34
35
36
2.
3.
4.
ICP method or NGI method used to determine soil capacity with greater basis
on physics rather than the empirical relationships previously available. COVs
(uncertainties) are reduced and reliability analyses becomes feasible (eg
Overy 2007).
The above methods use data from ring shear tests and this may require
further site investigation for older platforms. Also surface roughness of ring
shear apparatus requires careful maintenance and calibration.
In addition, the soil capacity should include the effects of soil strengthening
with ageing, cyclic degradation due to large storms, pile interaction at ultimate
capacity, soil ductility or brittleness (ie pile tip punch through), shallow gas (if
present) and liquefaction (for seismic response).
Conductor modelling shall be modelled as structural (with appropriate y
modifier). Potential further assessment with stiffness from internals if required.
37
140
Group B5
Group B1
120
Environmental
Loading from True
Group A1
100
A4
A2
80
B4
Group A5/B5
Group A1
Group B1
Pin Pile A4,B1 and B2
Pin Pile A2
60
40
Pin B4
20
B2
Pin B2
Pin A2
Pin A4
0
-100
100
200
300
400
500
600
Group A5
-20
41
ALE seismic
ELE seismic
For L1 & L3 only (L2 does not apply for seismic API)
This assessment is required for other disciplines to check their equipment is still fully
operational during & post event.
42
ISO 19901-9
Current developments in
assessment of fixed offshore structures
QUESTIONS
43