Structural Re-Analysis of ECOM Platform for Service Life Extension

Project:
Service Life Extension

Document Number
„ECOM‟ Platform
ECHO-C-CAL-0001
STC # 0759
WO # 119
Validation
Author‟s Org. 2 Years
PT DWE-ENGINEERING Expired Date
January 2016
STRUCTURAL RE-ANALYSIS ‘ECOM’ PLATFORM

SERVICE LIFE EXTENSION
Approval Sheet
Name Title Date Signature
Ade Kismantoro Facility Integrity Manager
Karyadi Junaedi Senior Structural Integrity Engineer
Eko Andi Rahman Structural Engineer
Revision Status
Rev. Date By Chk App Issued Purpose Owner Signature
A 2 August 2013 SGT MA SUT Issued For Review
0 30 January 2014 SGT/FPD CRM ARK Issued For Approval
PT PHE ONWJ Structural Re-Analysis „ECOM‟ Platform Service Life Extension
REVIEW AND ENDORSEMENT RECORDS

This document has been reviewed and endorsed by :
Name Title Date Signature
ECHO-C-CAL-0001 Rev. 0 Page 1 of 73

REVISION LOG REGISTER

Revisions had been performed on following pages:
Page Date Revision PT PHE ONWJ Reviewer
Add Figure 2.4.1 Maximum Member Stress Unity Check

13 30 January 2014
Position for Inplace Analysis at Cellar Deck T.O.S El. (+) 24‟-0”
14 30 January 2014 Add Figure 2.4.3 Maximum Joint Punching Shear Position
Add Figure 2.4.4 Minimum Fatigue Life Location Joint 303 for
15 30 January 2014
Fatigue Life Less than 59 year
16 30 January 2014
17 30 January 2014
18 30 January 2014
23 30 January 2014 Add Figure 3.5.1 Ultimate Pile Capacity Curves
Add Strength Level PGA on Section 3.6.2 Peak Ground

24 30 January 2014
Acceleration
Revise Table 3.7.1 Combine Number of Wave Occurrences
25 30 January 2014
(Occurrence in 10 Years)
26 30 January 2014 Revise Section 3.7.3 Service Life
Revise Figure 6.3.1 Flowchart for inplace of ECOM Service

37 30 January 2014
Life Extension
38 30 January 2014 Revise Table 6.4.1 Basic Load Case
Revise Table 6.6.1 Load Combination 1 Year Operating

39 30 January 2014
Condition
45 30 January 2014
Position for Inplace analysis at Cellar Deck T.O.S El. (+) 24‟-0”
Add Figure 6.7.2 Maximum Joint Punching Shear Position for
46 30 January 2014
Inplace Analysis
Revise Table 6.7.9 Lateral Deflection Check 1-Year Operation
48 30 January 2014
Condition
Add Figure 6.7.3 Lateral Position and Table 6.7.10 Lateral
49 30 January 2014
Deflection Check 100-Years Storm Condition
Add Table 7.4.1 Summary Dynamic Property Result Under
55 30 January 2014
SLE Seismic Condition
Add Table 7.4.3 Convergence Check of Base Shear (Strength
56 30 January 2014
Level Earthquake)
Add Table 7.4.5 Maximum Member Stress UC under Seismic
57 30 January 2014
SLE Condition
58 30 January 2014
Position for Seismic analysis at Cellar Deck T.O.S El.(+) 24‟-0”
Add Table 7.4.9 Joint Punching Shear Stress Unity Check SLE
59 30 January 2014
Condition
Add Table 7.4.11 Pilehead displacement and rotation for SLE
60 30 January 2014 and Add Figure 7.4.2 Maximum Joint Punching Shear Position
for Seismic Analysis
Add SLE Condition on Table 7.4.13 Pile Ultimate Capacity and
61 30 January 2014
FoS
62 30 January 2014 Revise Table 8.2.1 Fatigue Life Safety Factor Summary

TABLE OF CONTENTS
REVIEW AND ENDORSEMENT RECORDS ........................................................................................................... 1
REVISION LOG REGISTER .................................................................................................................................... 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................................... 3
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 5
1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................................ 5

1.2 Scope of Works .................................................................................................................................. 5
1.3 Abbreviation ........................................................................................................................................ 5
1.4 Platform Description ........................................................................................................................... 5
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 10
2.1 The weight of Platform ...................................................................................................................... 10

2.2 In-place Analysis............................................................................................................................... 11
2.3 Seismic Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 11
2.4 Fatigue Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 12
3. DESIGN CRITERIA ..................................................................................................................................... 19
3.1 General ............................................................................................................................................. 19

3.2 Design Codes and Standards ........................................................................................................... 19
3.3 Specifications ................................................................................................................................... 19
3.4 Environmental Data .......................................................................................................................... 19
3.5 Soil Data ........................................................................................................................................... 22
3.6 Seismic Data .................................................................................................................................... 24
3.7 Fatigue Data ..................................................................................................................................... 25
3.8 Underwater Platform Inspection and Maintenance Report ............................................................... 26
3.9 Materials ........................................................................................................................................... 27
4. STRUCTURAL MODELING ........................................................................................................................ 28
4.1 General ............................................................................................................................................. 28

4.2 Description of The Model .................................................................................................................. 28
4.3 Appurtenances ................................................................................................................................. 28
5. LOADING CALCULATION .......................................................................................................................... 30
5.1 Structural Dead Loads ...................................................................................................................... 30

5.2 Appurtenance Loads......................................................................................................................... 30
5.3 Non-Generated Dead Loads (NGDL) ............................................................................................... 30
5.4 Live Loads ........................................................................................................................................ 33
5.5 Environmental Loads ........................................................................................................................ 33
6. IN-PLACE ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................. 35
6.1 General ............................................................................................................................................. 35

6.2 Soil Pile Non-Linear Analysis ............................................................................................................ 35
6.3 Methods of Analysis.......................................................................................................................... 36
6.4 Basic Load Cases ............................................................................................................................. 38
6.5 Load Factor Contingency.................................................................................................................. 39
6.6 Load Combinations ........................................................................................................................... 39
6.7 Results .............................................................................................................................................. 41

7. SEISMIC ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................... 50
7.1 General ............................................................................................................................................. 50

7.3 Load Cases ...................................................................................................................................... 53
7.4 Results of Seismic Analysis .............................................................................................................. 55
8. FATIGUE ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................. 62
8.1 General ............................................................................................................................................. 62

8.2 Fatigue Life ....................................................................................................................................... 62
8.3 Wave Heights and Wave Periods ..................................................................................................... 62
8.4 Wave Direction ................................................................................................................................. 64
8.6 Stress Concentration Factors (SCF‟s) .............................................................................................. 66
8.7 S-N Curves ....................................................................................................................................... 66
8.8 Results .............................................................................................................................................. 66
9. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ 71
10. ATTACHMENTS ......................................................................................................................................... 72
10.1 Structural Geometry.......................................................................................................................... 72

10.2 Basic Load ........................................................................................................................................ 72
10.3 SACS Input of Finite Element Model ................................................................................................ 72
10.4 Selected SACS Output of Inplace Analysis ...................................................................................... 72
10.5 Selected SACS Output of Seismic Analysis ..................................................................................... 72
10.6 Selected SACS Output of Fatigue Analysis ...................................................................................... 72
10.7 Miscellaneous Calculation ................................................................................................................ 73
10.8 Selected Inspection Report ............................................................................................................... 73
10.9 Selected Drawing Reference ............................................................................................................ 73
10.10 Client Comments .............................................................................................................................. 73

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
PHE ONWJ has requested PT Depriwangga Engineering, to perform necessary analyses to investigate
the structural integrity of the „ECOM‟. The analyses were performed for Service Life Extension of the
platform as required to continue further operation and maintain MIGAS SKKP for additional years of
service life.
This report provides descriptions of the structural analyses performed and draw conclusions about the
serviceability and safety of the platform. In-place, seismic, and fatigue analyses.
1.2 Scope of Works

Based on available data and documents provided by PHE ONWJ, there are structural design report, by
Atlantic Richfield Indonesia, Inc. on August 1998 [Ref. 3], the latest „ECOM‟ Platform Structural Design
Report, and “E Compressor Underwater Platform Inspection Report” by Subsea IMR Campaign 2010 [Ref.
6].
The analyses shall include in-place analysis, seismic analysis, foundation analysis, and fatigue for the
continued operation of the structure in accordance with requirements of the current API RP 2A – WSD 21st
Edition, Errata and Supplement 3, 2007 [Ref. 1].
1.3 Abbreviation
- AISC American Institute of Steel Construction
- API American Petroleum Institute
- ASD Allowable Stress Design
- ASTM American Standard Testing and Material
- AWS American Welding Society
- OD Outer Diameter
- PHE ONWJ Pertamina Hulu Energi Offshore North West Java
- THK Thickness
- T.O.S Top of Steel
- WSD Working Stress Design
1.4 Platform Description

The „ECOM‟ Platform was installed on1975 and located in the Ardjuna Field, Offshore North West Java,
Java Sea Indonesia. The following coordinates:
- Latitude : 05o 54‟ 44.00” South
- Longitude : 107o 55‟ 31.00” East
The platform consist of two main directional grid lines as follows. Rows are designated as “A” and “B” in
the longitudinal direction and as “1” and “2” in the transverse direction. Platform North is parallel to rows
“A” and “B” that is 45 degrees East of True North.
The deck structure is an open rigid frame, formed by 36 inches OD legs. The jacket structure is a 4 (four)
legged steel template type structure, with 40 (fourty) inch OD legs. The jacket has one vertical face

adjacent to the wellhead end, while the other three faces are baterred at 1 : 8, with the working point at
elevation (+) 15‟-0”.
The jacket is supported by 36-inch OD ungrouted piles driven through the jacket legs to the required
design penetration. The piles penetration below mudline are approximately 140 ft.
All structural steel used conforms to ASTM Grade A-36 ( plate ) with minimum yield stress Fy of 36 Ksi
and ASTM-53 or API 5L Grade B ( tubular ) with minimum yield stress Fy of 35 Ksi, except all pipes shall
be from ASTM A-36 minimum yield stress Fy of 36 Ksi.
The main elevations are :
 Mudline : El (-) 145‟- 0"
 Boat Landing : El (+) 7' - 0"
 Jacket Walkway : El (+) 10' - 0"
 Main Deck : T.O.S. El (+) 40' - 3.0"
 Cellar Deck : T.O.S. El (+) 29' - 0.0"

45.00 PN
TN
Main Deck T.O.S. Elv. (+) 40.25
ft
Cellar Deck T.O.S. Elv. (+) 24.00

ft
Jacket Walkway Elv. (+) 10.00 ft

Horizontal Framing Elv. (+) 10.00 ft
Boat Landing Elv. (+) 7.00 ft
Horizontal Framing Elv. (-) 36.00 ft
Horizontal Framing Elv. (-) 87.00 ft
Mudline Framing Elv (-) 145.00 ft
Figure 1.4.1 ECOM Platform

A1 B1 B2 A2
Left Side View Right Side View
Figure 1.4.2 Sketches of Front view & Back view, ECOM Platform
B2 A2 A1
B1
Front Side View Back Side View
Figure 1.4.3 Sketches of side view, ECOM Platform

45.00 PN
6‟-3/5” Riser
12‟-3/4” Riser TN
6‟-3/5” Riser
6‟-3/5” Riser
1 16‟- 0” Riser 2
6‟-3/5” Riser 6‟-3/5” Riser
12‟-3/4” Riser
16‟-0” Riser
6‟-3/5” Riser
16‟-0” Riser
16‟-0” Riser
24‟-0” Riser
6‟-3/5” Riser
30‟-0” Riser
Figure 1.4.4 Appurtenances configuration 20‟-0” Riser
24‟-0” Riser 24‟-0” Riser Boatlanding

24‟-0” Riser 24‟-0” Riser
Figure 1.4.4 The Appurtenances of ECOM Platform

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This section summarizes and concludes the results of structural analysis performed for the „ECOM‟
Service Life Extension.
2.1 The weight of Platform

The weight of ECOM platform, as modelled in SACS is shown in Table 2.1.1.
Table 2.1.1 – Basic Load Case for Structural Analysis
Load Basic Load (kips)

Cond. Description Current Analysis
(Loadcn) 1-Year Operating 100-Years Storm
1 Dead Load (include buoyancy) 998.943 998.469
2 Appurtenance Load 44.090 44.090
3 Bulk Load On Main Deck 46.098 46.098
4 Bulk Load On Cellar Deck 137.265 137.265
5 Equipment Load On Main Deck 1905.182 1905.182
6 Equipment Load On Cellar Deck 173.666 173.666
7 Piping Load On Main Deck 98.896 98.896
8 Piping Load On Cellar Deck 163.013 163.013
9 Live Load On Main Deck 90.108 90.108
10 Live Load On Cellar Deck 196.445 196.445
11 Bridge Vertical Load 41.800 41.800
22 Deaerator Load 80.000 80.000
Total Weight 3975.506 3975.032

2.2 In-place Analysis

Member Stresses
The analysis input has been updated as per modification until latest requalification on 1998. Based on
Doc. No. ECOM-C-CAL-001 E Compression Platform Structural Design Report [Ref. 3], there is some
modification on member. The modification member has been included on this analysis.
The members are checked against the combined axial and bending forces for AISC / API Interaction
ratios. Based on analysis result of design criteria, it is found that the structure stresses are well within
allowable limit.
The detail output is presented on section 6.7.3. The maximum member stress ratio is 0.926 on Cellar
Deck Framing for Operating Condition and 0.750 on Cellar Deck Framing for Storm Condition.
Joint Punching shear check
All Joint Punching Shear Stresses for all the conditions analyzed satisfy the requirements of API RP 2A
WSD [Ref. 1]. The maximum Joint Punching Shear ratio is 0.368 for Operating Condition and 0.456 for
Storm Condition both at elevation (-) 36.00 ft.
Piles
The pile analysis was shown that minimum factor of safety for 1 year operating is 1.68 and factor of safety
for 100 years storm is 1.37. The factor of safety is less than required on API RP 2A WSD [Ref. 1]. The
factor of safety is considered acceptable and this is adopted from E-Compession Structural Design report
1998. The Conclusion is subsidence of platform need to monitoring periodically in accordance with
inspection program.
2.3 Seismic Analysis

Member Stresses
The members are checked against the combined axial and bending forces for AISC and API Interaction
ratios respectively. Based on analysis results, it is found that the structure stresses are well within
allowable limit. The maximum member stress ratio is 0.568 on Cellar Deck Framing for Strength Level
Earthquake (SLE) and 0.881 on Cellar Deck Framing for Ductile Level Earhquake (DLE). The detail output
is presented on section 7.4.3.
Joint Punching shear check
All Joint Punching Shear Stresses for all the conditions analyzed satisfy the requirements of API RP 2A
WSD [Ref. 1]. The maximum Joint Punching Shear ratio is 0.344 on Cellar Deck Framing for Strength
Level Earthquake (SLE) and 0.582 on Cellar Deck Framing for Ductile Level Earthquake both at elevation
(-) 36.00 ft. The detail output is presented on section 7.4.4.
Single Pile Analysis
All Pile Stresses satisfy the criteria of API RP 2A WSD [Ref. 1]. The Pile Axial Capacity, Axial Load, and
minimum factor of safety is 1.0. The minimum factor of safety in Pile Soil Interaction Analysis is 1.55 for
SLE condition and 1.15 for DLE condition. The detail result is presented on Section 7.4.5.

2.4 Fatigue Analysis

ECOM Underwater Platform Inspection Report [Ref. 6] has significant reducing of thickness member. The
analysis was also provided corrosion allowance base on PHE spec [Ref. 7]
The fatigue analysis result is indicating that the jacket substructure is not adequate during operating
conditions for a service life of the next 20 years until 2034. Initially fatigue lives are evaluated using API
Welded Joint Standard (WJT) curve will be applied as S-N curve to meet the minimum service life of 59
years for SF = 2.
Joint 303
Joint 303 has been indicating on previous report [Ref. 3] that the fatigue life is less than service life
required. Regarding this investigation, the underwater inspection is providing mitigating and the result of
underwater inspection is presented on 3.8.2. The report is presented that the condition of joint 303 is good
and no crack.
The regular under water inspection is still required for this joint.
Joint 307, 301 & 305
The Fatigue life on this joint is presented on Table 8.9.1. The fatigue life is less than service life. The
regular inspection shall require getting actual condition of this joint.
For the detail information structural plot of Maximum Member Stress, Joint Punching Shear check
maximum, and Minimum Fatigue Life location are shown on Figure 2.4.1 up to Figure 2.4.7.

Platform North
True North
O
45
Member : 2545-2325
Group : CD2
Operating UC: 1.107
Revised Operating UC: 0.926
Storm UC: 0.750
Figure 2.4.1 Maximum Member Stress Unity Check Position for Inplace analysis at Cellar Deck T.O.S
El. (+) 24‟-0”
Platform North
True North
O
45
Member : 2549- 791

Group : CD6
UC SLE Condition : 0.568
UC DLE Condition : 0.881
Figure 2.4.2 Maximum Member Stress Unity Check Position for Seismic analysis at Cellar Deck
T.O.S El. (+) 24‟-0”

True North
45
O Joint 403
Platform North Operating UC : 0.230
Storm UC: 0.184
SLE UC : 0.113
Storm UC: 0.184
Joint 303
Operating UC : 100.173
Storm UC: 100.428

Revised Storm UC: 0.456
SLE UC : 1.279
Joint 207
Revised SLE UC: 0.075
DLE UC : 0.582
DLE UC: 2.140
Revised DLE UC: 0.075
Joint 203
Joint 201
Storm UC: 0.310
SLE UC : 0.344
Joint 103
Storm UC: 0.380
SLE UC : 0.282
DLE UC: 0.472
0
1
2
B
Figure 2.4.3 Maximum Joint Punching Shear Position

Figure 8.9.1 to Figure 8.9.5 below showed location of the Joint with Min Service Life from fatigue analysis :
TN
El (+) 10.00 ft
o
45 PN
Brace Member 303-1102

Chord Member 303-381
Service Life Brace = 292.54
Service Life Chord = 22.10
Inspection Schedule 2014
Chord Member 303-381 Brace Member 303-384
Service Life Brace = 11.74 Chord Member 303-381
Service Life Chord = 2.04 Service Life Brace = 0.32
Inspection Schedule 2014 Service Life Chord = 0.09
El (-) 36.00 ft
Brace Member 314-303 381
Inspection Schedule 2014 Join 303

Brace Member 201-303 Service Life Chord = 1.46
Chord Member 281-303 Inspection Schedule 2014
Inspection Schedule 2014 El (-) 87.00 ft
0
A
281
B
2
Figure 2.4.4 Minimum Fatigue Life Location Joint 303 for Fatigue Life Less Than 59 year

TN
El (+) 10.00 ft
PN

Chord Member 307-1107 1107
Join 307 El (-) 36.00 ft

El (-) 87.00 ft
0
A
B
2

TN El (+) 10.00 ft
PN

El (-) 36.00 ft
Join 301 Service Life Chord = 0.36

El (-) 87.00 ft
0 A
B
2

TN
El (+) 10.00 ft
PN

Chord Member 305-383 383 Inspection Schedule 2014
Join 305
El (-) 36.00 ft

0 Chord Member 205-305
Service Life Brace = 8.15 Inspection Schedule 2014
205
B
2

3. DESIGN CRITERIA
3.1 General
The Design Criteria is adapted from ECOM Platform Structural Design Drawing by PT FLUOR OCEAN
SERVICES, July 1975 [Ref. 4] combine with ECOM Platform Structural Design Report by PT Atlantic
Richfield Indonesia, August 1998 [Ref. 3].
Based on API RP 2A WSD Section 17.1 [Ref. 1], “This section is applicable only for the assessment of
platforms which were designed in accordance with the provisions in the 20th and earlier editions and for
platforms designed prior to the first edition of this publication.”
3.2 Design Codes and Standards

The following codes and standards shall be used to design:
- API RP2A American Petroleum Institute, “Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing
and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms – Working Stress Design”, API RP 2A
– WSD, 21st Edition, Errata and Supplement 3 October 2007.
- AISC, ASD American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), “Manual of Steel Construction,
Allowable Stress Design”, 14th Edition 2010.
- AWS D1.1.90 American Welding Society (AWS-D1.1.98), “Structural Welding Codes – Steel”.
3.3 Specifications
The following Specifications shall be followed to design:
- PHEONWJ-S-SPE-0101 Specification for Structural Steel and Miscellaneous Metal.
- PHEONWJ-S-SPE-0102 Specification for Structural Welding.
- PHEONWJ-S-SPE-0109 Specification for Design and As-Built Drawings.
3.4 Environmental Data

3.4.1 General
The Environmental Data for in-place adapted from design criteria on ECOM Platform Structural Design
Report by PT Atlantic Richfield Indonesia, August 1998 [Ref. 3].
3.4.2 Water Depth and Tide
The Mean Sea Level (MSL) water depth as stated on the previous design report is 145.0 ft. The water
depths used in for the in-place and fatigue analysis are taken as follows:
Table 3.4.1 – The Water Depth Used in the In-Place Analysis
RETURN PERIODS
DESCRIPTION
1-YEAR 100-YEARS
Highest Astronomical Tide (HAT) 3.8 ft 3.8 ft
Storm Tide 0.30 ft 0.50 ft
Max. Water Depth taken (MSL + ½ HAT + Storm Tide) 147.2 ft 147.4 ft
The Water Depth of 147.4 ft (MSL) has been used in the Seismic Analyses. Sea water density used in
analysis is 64.2 lb/ft3.

3.4.3 Wind
Winds for the in-place analysis are taken as follows:
Table 3.4.2 – The Wind Velocities Used in the In-Place Analysis
Description 1-year Return Periods 100-year Return Periods

1 Hour Wind 38.0 Mph 63.0 Mph
3.4.4 Wave Criteria for In-place Analysis
The 1 Year and 100 Year Wave Characteristics used in the Inplace Analysis are as follows:
Table 3.4.3 – Wave Criteria
Description 1-year Return Periods 100-year Return Periods

Height of Maximum Wave 16.40 ft. 27.3 ft.
Period of Maximum Wave 7.0 sec. 9.3 sec.
3.4.5 Wave Kinematics Factor
The API RP 2A WSD [Ref. 1] section 2.3.1.b (3) allows the use of a Wave Kinematics Factor in the range
of 0.85 – 0.95 for tropical storms, applied to the horizontal velocities and accelerations from two –
dimensional regular wave.
A factor of 0.95 is used for the in-place analysis 1 year operational condition and 0.90 for 100-year storm
condition. For Fatigue Analysis, this factor is taken as 1.0.
3.4.6 Current Profile
The following table gives the basic current profile for the In-place Analysis:
Table 3.4.4 – Current Profile
Percent of Current Speed (ft/sec.)

Depth From Mudline
(%) 1 – year operating 100 – years storm
0 0.80 0.90
10 1.20 1.50
20 1.40 1.80
30 1.50 2.00
40 1.70 2.20
50 1.80 2.40
60 2.00 2.60
70 2.10 2.80
80 2.30 3.10
90 2.40 3.30
100 2.60 3.60
3.4.7 Current Blockage Factor
A current blockage factor is applied in accordance with API RP 2A WSD [Ref. 1], section 2.3.1.b (4).
Current blockage factors for a four leg platform are as follows:

Table 3.4.5 – Current Blockage Factor
Heading Factors
End On 0.80
Diagonal 0.85
Broadside 0.80
3.4.8 Marine Growth Profile

Thickness of marine growth, from mudline to MSL was taken from latest Underwater Platform Inspection
Report 2010 [Ref. 6]. Dry density of marine growth assumed 77 lb/ft3. Next table is shown thickness of
marine growth which adopted for structure model,
Table 3.4.6 – Marine Growth Profile
Distance from Mudline (ft) Thickness (inch)
0 - 4.92 0.51
4.92 - 9.84 2.36
9.84 – 14.76 1.5
14.76 – 19.68 1.77
19.68 – 24.6 3.15
24.6 – 39.97 3.15
39.37 - 52.5 3.46
52.5 – 68.9 3.66
68.9 – 82.02 1.38
82.02 - 98.42 1.29
98.42 – 111.55 0.9
111.55 - 127.95 0.39
127.95 - 142.72 0.51
3.4.9 Hydrodynamic Coefficients
The following Drag Coefficients (Cd) and Inertia Coefficients (Cm) values are applied in accordance with
API RP 2A WSD [Ref. 1]:
Table 3.4.7 – Hydrodynamic Coefficient used in the Analysis
Member Description Cd Cm
Smooth Cylinder 0.65 1.6
Rough Cylinder 1.05 1.2
For fatigue Analysis Cd & Cm are taken as table below:

Table 3.4.8 – Hydrodynamic Coefficient used in the Analysis
Member Description Cd Cm
Smooth Cylinder 0.7 2
Rough Cylinder 0.7 2

3.4.10 Corrosion Allowance
No corrosion allowance is considered in previous analysis report [Ref. 3] as per previous wall thickness
measurement .
Now in 2014, refer to “ECOM Underwater Platform Inspection and Maintenance and Report 2010” in 2010
[Ref. 6], results demonstrate (Table 3.8.1, section 3.8) there was no corrosion has been below MSL. The
worst condition, has applied on current model analysis. The UWPI 2010 [Ref. 6] give information about the
actual corrosion is greater than PHE ONWJ Specification for Corrosion allowance of ¼”.
3.5 Soil Data

As is the case with the structural computer model a foundation model has been prepared utilising the
same soil data as used for previous analysis report [Ref. 3].
The soil data are refer from the “Soil and Foundation Investigation Report in ECOM location Ardjuna Field
Offshore Northwest Java, Java Sea Indonesia” by PT KOMARITIM.
Ultimate Pile Capacity Curves 36 inch pile diameters for ECOM platform reproduce in Figures 3.5.1

Figure 3.5.1 Ultimate Pile Capacity Curves

3.6 Seismic Data

3.6.1 General
The Seismic Data is taken from the report titled “ECOM Platform Structural Design Report” by PT Atlantic
Richfield Indonesia, August 1998 [Ref. 3].
3.6.2 Peak Ground Acceleration

0
The Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) value and the Pseudo Velocity (PSV) Spectra are taken from the
report titled “Seismic Risk and Site Response Study, Ardjuna Field, Indonesia” prepared by Dames &
Moore .
This seismic analysis has been performed for Strength Level Earthquake and Ductility Level Earthquake.
Strength Level PGA - 0.160 g
Ductility Level PGA - 0.233 g
The directional factors are applied according to API RP 2A WSD [Ref. 1], as follows:
X - 1.00
Y - 1.00
Z - 0.50
3.6.3 Response Spectra

The Spectra for Strength Level and Ductility Level Seismic is used spectra Region A of Dames & Moore
report. The response spectra for Strength Level Earthquake and Ductility Level Earthquake are given in
Table 3.6.1.

Table 3.6.1 – Response Spectra Region A for „ECOM‟ Platform
PSV (in/sec/g)
T (secs)
100-Years 800-Years
0.030 1.845 1.845
0.050 3.075 3.075
0.125 13.679 15.238
0.500 54.714 60.952
5.000 54.714 60.952
10.000 23.357 30.476
3.7 Fatigue Data

3.7.1 Number of Waves
The fatigue wave height categories and wave height periods together with the wave numbers for each
wave height category is contained in the Environmental Report from Wave Data for Deterministic Fatigue
Analysis based on Platform Structural Design Report by PT Atlantic Richfield Indonesia, August 1998
[Ref. 3]. In this analysis, the eight directional distributions have been considered in the deterministic
fatigue analysis. The wave height distribution data is presented in Table 3.7.1
0
Table 3.7.1 – Combined Number of Wave Occurrences (Occurrence in 10 Years)
Wave
Periode
Height N NE E SE S SW W NW
(s)
(ft)
2 4.6 6,714,000 8,996,200 19,296,200 8,083,600 1,825,300 1.564.600 9,713,300 8,996,200

6 6.4 229,880 308,050 660,750 276,740 63,640 54.490 332,600 308,050
10 6.8 7,752 10,390 22,270 9,336 1,060 910 11,212 10,390
14 7.2 260 348 754 314 375 348
18 7.5 8 11 25 10 13 11
22 7.8 1 1 1
TOTAL 6,952,500 9,315,000 19,980,000 8,370,000 1,890,000 1,620,000 10,057,500 9,315,000
3.7.2 Safety Factor
Based on API RP 2A WSD [Ref. 1] Section 15.2.1, Equation 15.2.1-1 the design fatigue life, L, for Reused
Platform is shown below;
L = SF1 L1 + SF2 L2
Where,
L1 = Initial in service periods, years.
L2 = Planned service life at new location, years

SF1 = 2.0 for minimum requirements of API RP 2A WSD [Ref. 1] Section 15.2.3 If the weld
in a tubular connection is 100% NDE inspection in accordance with requirements of
API RP 2A [Ref. 1] 15.2.3 and is upgraded if defects are found, SF1 may be between
zero and 2.0 selected on a rational basis
SF2 = 2.0

3.7.3 Service Life
0 The "ECOM PLATFORM” was originally designed for 20 years ( install on 1975 ) and it is intended to
extend the Service Life for an additional 20 years ( on 1994), and now prepare for second requalification
to extend the Service Life (2033).
3.8 Underwater Platform Inspection and Maintenance Report

There is Underwater Platform Inspection and Maintenance Report 2010 [Ref. 6]. The information of
platform condition has been incorporated on this analysis. The Result of UWPI shown on the table below:
3.8.1 Thickness Platform
Table 3.8.1 – Thickness Result From UWPI
Location (ft) Thick Soft (inch)
Leg A2 @ LAT 1.03
VDM 13-001 @ LAT 0.51
Leg A2 @ (-) 18.05 0.51
Leg A2 @ (-) 36.09 0.52
Leg A2 @ (-) 61.68 0.50
Leg A2 @ (-) 86.94 1.02
Leg A2@ (-) 114.83 0.50
Leg A2 @ (-) 145.01 0.51
3.8.2 Investigation Of Joint 303
Figure 3.8.1 Joint Inspection

3.9 Materials
3.9.1 Steel Specification
Steel grades and yield strengths (unless noted otherwise on drawings) are taken as follows for the
analyses:
- All steel plates, shapes , bars & conductor pipes ASTM A -36 Fy = 36 ksi
- All tubular API 5L Grade B Fy = 35 ksi
3.9.2 Allowable Stresses
Allowable stresses are those specified in API RP 2A WSD [Ref. 1] and are yield strength dependent. The
following increases in allowable stresses are permitted for the load conditions noted:
Table 3.9.1 – Allowable Stresses
Load Conditions Allowable Stresses Increased
In-place 1-year operating load combinations 1.000
In-place 100-year storm load combinations 1.333
Seismic load combinations 1.700

4. STRUCTURAL MODELING
4.1 General
The computer model includes all primary and secondary members of the leg and deck, including boat
landing, and risers. Plots of the computer model are presented in Attachment 10.1, which indicate both the
joint numbering system and the member group codes. A summary of the member group properties is also
included.
The risers are modeled with connecting members, which allow only lateral transfer load.
For the in-place analysis, the foundations below mudline are modeled to their actual penetrations in the
SACS/PSI Analysis. Since the dynamic analysis in SACS Program use linear theory, non-linear
foundations must be represented with linearly equivalent system. The equivalent linear foundation must
be incorporated into the SACS model for the purpose of dynamic analysis.
A three dimensional space frame analysis has been performed for seismic and fatigue analyses. The
computer model is identical to the in-place model.
4.2 Description of The Model

The stiffness model comprises the main structural members of the superstructure and boatlanding. The
superstructure model is integrated with the riser model to provide the requisite risers top stiffness as well
as to transfer the topside loads accurately to the pile.
The platform foundation comprises of three main risers. Soil non-linearity has been considered by using
the load deflection data (P-Y, T-Z, and Q-Z) in line with soil investigation report. As this is a non-linear
analysis, PSI operates on combined load cases rather than basic load cases.
4.3 Appurtenances
All deck and leg appurtenances have been included in the structural computer model. The following
appurtenances are included in the analysis at location indicated in Attachment 10.1. Figure isometric view:
 1 – Boat landing
 7 – 6 3/5” dia. Risers
 2 – 12 3/4” dia. Risers
 4 – 16” dia. Risers
 1 – 20” dia. Riser
 2 – Barge bumpers
 4 – 24” dia. Caissons
 1 – 30” dia. Caisson
Model sketches of the appurtenances are included in Attachment 10.1, Figure isometric view.
The dead weight of these appurtenances are computer generated with loads being distributed as follows:
- Risers on jacket walkway and mudline
- Barge Bumper on jacket and jacket walkway
- Caisson on jacket jacket and jacket walkway
Other appurtenances dead weight which are not included in the model are hand calculated and applied as
point loads or member loads at the appropriate locations.

To account for non-modeled elements which contribute to wave force, Cd and Cm value of the supporting
members are modified accordingly.
45.00 PN
6”-3/5” Riser
12”-3/4” Riser TN
6”-3/5” Riser
6”-3/5” Riser
1 16”- 0” Riser 2
6”-3/5” Riser 6”-3/5” Riser
12”-3/4” Riser
16”-0” Riser
6”-3/5” Riser
24”-0” Caison 16”-0” Riser

16”-0” Riser
6”-3/5” Riser
30”-0” Caison
Figure 4.3.1 Appurtenances configuration 20”-0” Riser
Boatlanding
24”-0” Caison 24”-0” Caison
24”-0” Caison 24”-0” Caison
Figure 4.3.1 Jacket Appurtenances

5. LOADING CALCULATION
The structural design loading used in this analysis is adapted from the previous report “ECOM
PLATFORM.” The detail calculations of each loading with the applied loads are presented in the following
sections. The loading is considered in the analyses are broken down as follows:
- Structural Dead Loads
- Appurtenances Loads
- Topside Loads
- Environmental Loads
5.1 Structural Dead Loads

Dead Loads are defined as those permanent loads of primary and secondary Structural Steel including
Jacket, Piles, Deck Framings and Equipment Supports. The Dead Loads (including Buoyancy) are self-
generated by SACS Program automatically in the Computer Model.
Table 5.1.1 – Structural Dead Load
Load (kips)
Description
1-year Operating 100-years Storm
Dead Load 1737.773 1737.773
Buoyancy 738.830 739.304
Dead Load (include buoyancy) 998.943 998.469
5.2 Appurtenance Loads

Appurtenance loads are represents all non generated load without plate and secondary beam load.
Appurtenance Loads are divided as shown on table below,
Table 5.2.1 – Appurtenance Load
Load LoadCN Weight (kips)
Anode Load ANODE 6.118

Boatlanding Walkway load BOATWALK 2.400
Pile Centralizer load CENTRLZ 16.000
Jacket to Pile Coneection JACPILE 4.000
Jacket Walkway JACWALK 9.572
Mudmat load MUDMAT 6.000
Total Load 44.090
5.3 Non-Generated Dead Loads (NGDL)

5.3.1 Bulk Load On Main Deck
Bulk loads are adapted from the previous ECOM PLATFORM Report. The following loads have been
adopted for the Main Deck loading in this analysis.

Table 5.3.1 – Bulk Load on Main Deck

Bulk Load BULK-MD 43.597
Stairway load STAIRWAY 2.500
Total Load 46.097
5.3.2 Bulk Load On Cellar Deck
Bulk loads are adapted from the previous ECOM PLATFORM Report. The following loads have been
adopted for the Cellar Deck loading in this analysis.
Table 5.3.2 – Bulk Load on Cellarn Deck

Bulk Load BULK-CD 125.264
Stairway load STAIRWAY 12.000
Total Load 46.097
5.3.3 Equipment Load on Main Deck
The equipment load defined as individual item load for Main Deck in this analysis, adapted from the
previous ECOM PLATFORM Report.
Table 5.3.3 – Equipment Loads On Main Deck
Control load CONTROL 6.000

Pedestal and Access Load CRANEVL 22.000
Compressor Module A MODULEA 244.000
Compressor Module AB MODULEAB 568.000
Compressor Module BC MODULEBC 626.200
Compressor Module C MODULEC 302.200
Slug Catcher Load 1 SLUG-1 86.782
Slug Catcher Load 2 SLUG-2 50.000
Total Load 1905.182
5.3.4 Equipment Load on Main Deck
The equipment load defined as individual item load for Cellar Deck in this analysis, adapted from the
previous ECOM PLATFORM Report
Table 5.3.4 – Equipment Load On Cellar Deck
Air Compressor Load AIR-COMP 8.600

Chemical Injection Load CHEM-INJ 42.336
Cooling Water Pump Load CW-PUMP 9.000
Feed Pump Load FEEDPUMP 8.820
Fire Water Pump Skid Load FW-PUMP 5.500
Hydrocyclone Load HCYCLONE 17.649
Injection Pump Load INJ-PUMP 17.630

Launcher Load LAUNCHER 6.615

Oil Sump Pump Load SUMPPUMP 12.996
Switch Gear building Load SWITCH 30.025
Transformer Load TRANSFM 6.498
Utility Building Load UTILITY 7.995
Total Load 173.665
5.3.5 Piping Load on Main Deck
Piping Loads are applied as uniform distributed of member load on Main deck, adopted from previous
report of ECOM PLATFORM.
Table 5.3.5 – Piping Load On Main Deck
PIPE A PIPA-MD 37.460

PIPE B PIPB-MD 42.795
PIPE C PIPC-MD 14.640
PIPE E PIPE-MD 4.000
Live Load 98.896
5.3.6 Piping Load on Cellar Deck
Piping Loads are applied as uniform distributed of member load on Cellar deck, adopted from previous
report of ECOM PLATFORM.
Table 5.3.6 – Piping Load On Cellar Deck
PIPE A PIPA-MD 49.967

PIPE B PIPB-MD 54.476
PIPE C PIPC-MD 43.969
PIPE D PIPD-MD 14.600
Live Load 163.013
5.3.7 Bridge Load
Bridge Loads are applied as uniform distributed of member load on deck, adopting from previous report of
ECOM platform with X-direction load is 0.422 kips and Y-direction load is 1.318 kips. The vertical Bridge
Loads for the Analysis arrived at the following table below:
Table 5.3.7 – Bridge Load
Bridge Load Bridge-Z 41.8

5.3.8 Daerator Load
Daerator Loads are applied as uniform distributed of member load on Cellar deck, adopting from previous
report of ECOM. The Daerator Loads for the Analysis arrived at the following table below:
Table 5.3.8 – Daerator Load
Daerator Load DAERATO 80
5.4 Live Loads

5.4.1 Live Load on Main Deck
Live Loads are applied as uniform distributed of member load on main deck, adopting from previous report
of ECOM platform with maximum live load is 150 and minimum live load is 50 psf. The Total Live Loads
for the Analysis arrived at the following:
Table 5.4.1 – Live Load On Main Deck
Live Load LIVE-MD 90.108
5.4.2 Live Load on Cellar Deck
Live Loads are applied as uniform distributed of member load on cellar deck, adopting from previous
report of ECOM platform with maximum live load is 150 psf and minimum live load is 50 psf. The Total
Live Loads for the Analysis arrived at the following:
Table 5.4.2 – Live Load On Main Deck
Cellar Load LIVE-CD 196.445
5.5 Environmental Loads

Wave and current is computer generated; wind is calculated per projected area and applied as point loads
on deck.
The wave and current loading employed in the structural analysis were based on Morison‟s equation in
accordance with API RP 2A WSD [Ref. 1] Section 2.3 Considering the wave parameters and water depth
at the site, Stokes 5 Wave Theory was selected to compute the wave particle velocities and acceleration.
Eight (8) directions of environmental attack are considered for the In Place Analysis in order to obtain the
most critical for the Structure and its foundations. The directions of environmental attack considered for
the In Place Analysis are shown in Figure 5.5.1
The wind load is automatic calculated in SACS software by specifying wind areas representing the
projected area of the different level and axis. The wind load is computed in 8 directions corresponding to
the wave direction. The wind loads will be applied as point load by joint distribution automatically by
software.

NE E
45.00 PN
TN
315.00 270.00 SE
225.00
N S
0.00 180.00
NW
SW
45.00
135.00
W
90.00
Figure 5.5.1 Wave attacks directions for Inplace analysis.

6. IN-PLACE ANALYSIS
6.1 General
All primary jacket frame and deck frame were modeled and analyzed using the SACS suite of programs.
Environmental loads such as wave and current, the hydrodynamic effect and the structural stiffness are
generated automatically and topside loads generated or summed by the SEASTATE module. Wave and
current loads were generated in accordance with Morison‟s equation as given in API RP 2A WSD [Ref. 1]
equation 2.3.1.b -10.
The non-linear static structural analysis was done by utilizing PSI module in this computer program. The
piles are modeled to their full penetration below mudline, with section properties as shown in the drawing.
The in-place structural integrity of the structure has been checked using a composite model of platform
and pile-soil system using the SACS computer software. The analysis was performed with the structure
and piles being considered linear, while the soil behavior is non-linear.
Piles above the mudline are modeled as separate tubular members concentric with the leg members.
Below the link node elevation, the pile-soil foundation system is modeled. Soil non-linearity has been
considered below the conductor head joint by using the load deflection data (P-Y, T-Z, and Q-Z) in line
with soil investigation report.
The soil and pile structure interaction analysis is carried out using PSI module of SACS. As this is a non-
linear analysis, PSI operates on combined load cases rather than basic load cases.
Since load dependent soil non-linearity is being considered in the analysis, all relevant load cases have to
be combined appropriately and separate unique displacements have to be computed for each specified
load combination. These nodal displacement in-turns produce nominal member forces for appropriate
code checks, based on relevant sectional properties and other data. The most severe of the utilization
ratios along with the corresponding load combination provides the design case.
6.2 Soil Pile Non-Linear Analysis

Jacket and piles shall be analyzed as an integrated structural system using a Soil-Pile-Structure
interactive analysis procedure. Soil non-linearity was considered by using the generated load deflection
data (P-Y, T-Z and Q-Z). Since the structure is a linear system while the pile foundation is a non-linear
model, the assembly of them gives a non-linear combination that does not have a direct solution. The
iteration method is carried out through PSI module to solve this problem. A stiffness reduction matrix and
a force reduction matrix of the structure are generated for each element at the pilehead. These matrices
are then combined with the non-linear foundation system. By iteration, the equilibrium and compatibility
requirements can be obtained below the tolerance limit.
PSI Program was used to perform the interactive non-linear analysis of soil pile structure. Non-linear
beam column is represented the pile model. An iterative procedure is used to find the pile influence on the
deflection of the structure. The iterations are continued until the pile head displacements converge within
a pre-set tolerance under the applied loading.

6.3 Methods of Analysis

The structure was modeled for analysis with the SACS Suite of Programs. Environmental Loads were
generated automatically and Topside Loads generated or summed by the SEASTATE Module. Wave and
Current Loads were generated in accordance with the Morison‟s Equation as given in API RP 2A WSD
[Ref. 1] Equation 2.3.1.b -10
All primary jacket and deck frames were modeled and analyzed using the SACS Program. The Non-linear
Static Structural Analysis was done by utilizing the PSI Module in this Computer Program.
The Post Processing from SACS enables Member and Joint Punching Shear Unity Checks to be
performed in accordance with API RP 2A WSD 21st Edition [Ref. 1].
Inplace analysis procedure can be described by flowchart on overleaf.

START
Structural Modeling & Loading Pile Soil Interaction Data

Structural Modeling: Pile Modeling:
- Joints (name, fixity, coordinate, etc.) - Pile Group (group ID, properties, etc.)
- Member (group ID, properties, offsets, - Pile Member (batter, penetration depth,
Environmental Data
Ky& Kz, release, Cd-Cm, etc.) section, etc.)
- Seastate Option
- Group Override (pile, wishbone, etc.) Soil Modeling:
- Amod 1.33 for Storm condition
Structural Loading: - P-Y data
- Wave data (height, period, direction.)
- Dead load - T-Z data
- Current data (speed, direction, depth
- Deck & Jacket Appurtenance load - Q-Z data
variation.)
- Equipment load - Wind data (speed, direction, wind area)
- Piping load - Tide (MSL, LLWL, LHWL)
- Live load - Marine Growth
- Crane load - Hydrodynamic Coefficient
- Etc. - Current Blockage Factor PSIINP.DATA
- Etc. Input for Pile Soil
Interaction
0 Analysis
Joint Can Data
- Joint can option (code)
SACINP.MODEL - Weld allowable stress
Structural input model - Joint selection for print output
SEAINP.MODEL
Seastate input with JCNINP.MODEL
environmental load as Joint can input for
per attack direction joint check analysis
LINIEAR STATIC WITH PILE SOIL INTERACTION AND JOINT CAN ANALYSIS
SACS IV
SACS Output
- PSILST.MODEL Output file
- PSICSF.MODEL Solution file
- PSIOCI.MODEL Structural Loading Combine
- PSINPF.MODEL Soil graphic solution
- PSVDB postvue database 3D output solution
Re-check Structural
Model & Loading Pile UC & SF OK? NO Re-check soil input
and data
YES
NO Member Stress UC OK? Joint UC OK?

Deflection Check OK?
YES
FINISH
Figure 6.3.1 Flowchart for Inplace Analysis of ECOM Service Life Extension

6.4 Basic Load Cases

The Basic Un-factored Load Conditions used in these analyses consist of Load Cases derived from the
given and calculated loads described in the Design Criteria and are used in the Still Water Case, 1-year
and 100-years return storm events.
The Wave and Current Loadings are generated to maximize the platform‟s Base Shear. The Wave Crest
Position and Water Depth producing the maximum Base Shear is pre-determined and used.
The Wave Crest Positions of the Wave Attack Directions that produce the maximum Compressive and
Tensile Pile Loading are selected to maximize the Overturning Moment about the mudline. The Basic
Load Cases used in these analyses is presented here under;
0 Table 6.4.1 – Basic Load Case
Load Label Description
1 DEAD LOAD
2 APPURTENANCES LOAD
3 BULK LOAD ON MAIN DECK
4 BULK LOAD ON CELLAR DECK
5 EQUIPMENT LOADS ON MAIN DECK
6 EQUIPMENT LOADS ON CELLAR DECK
7 PIPING LOADS ON MAIN DECK
8 PIPING LOADS ON CELLAR DECK
9 LIVE LOAD ON MAIN DECK
10 LIVE LOAD ON CELLAR DECK
11 BRIDGE VERTICAL LOAD
12 BRIDGE HORIZONTAL LOAD, X-DIRECTION
13 BRIDGE HORIZONTAL LOAD, Y-DIRECTION
14 1-YEAR WIND LOAD ON MODULE, X-DIRECTION
15 1-YEAR WIND LOAD ON MODULE, Y-DIRECTION
16 100-YEARS WIND LOAD ON MODULE, X-DIRECTION
17 100-YEARS WIND LOAD ON MODULE, Y-DIRECTION
18 1-YEAR WIND LOAD ON DECK, X-DIRECTION
19 1-YEAR WIND LOAD ON DECK, Y-DIRECTION
20 100-YEARS WIND LOAD ON DECK, X-DIRECTION
21 100-YEARS WIND LOAD ON DECK, Y-DIRECTION
22 DAERATOR LOAD (80 kips)
101 OPERATING ENVIRONMENT (WAVE AND CURRENT LOADS) AT 0 DEG
201 STORM ENVIRONMENT (WAVE AND CURRENT LOADS) AT 0 DEG

Load Label Description
6.5 Load Factor Contingency

Load factor will be applied on basic load in order to develop most critical condition for structure and
foundation. The scale of load factor is adopted from “ECHO COMPRESSION STRUCTURAL DESIGN
REPORT”, by PT Atlantic Richfield Indonesia August 1998 [Ref. 3], where the Dead load is added load
contingency 5% from its own weight.
0
6.6 Load Combinations
Basic load cases were factored and combined as appropriate in order to develop the most enormous
condition for the structure and its foundation. The basic load combination and applied factors that make up
the 1-year operational and 100-years storm load condition are shown below;
Table 6.6.1 – Load Combination 1 Year Operating Condition
LOAD COMBINATION 1 YEAR OPERATING CASE

No. DESCRIPTION
1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008
1 DEAD LOAD 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
2 APPURTENANCES LOAD 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
3 BULK LOAD ON MAIN DECK 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
4 BULK LOAD ON CELLAR DECK 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
5 EQUIPMENT LOADS ON MAIN DECK 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
6 EQUIPMENT LOADS ON CELLAR DECK 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
7 PIPING LOADS ON MAIN DECK 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
8 PIPING LOADS ON CELLAR DECK 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
9 LIVE LOAD ON MAIN DECK 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
10 LIVE LOAD ON CELLAR DECK 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
11 BRIDGE VERTICAL LOAD 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
12 BRIDGE HORIZONTAL LOAD, X-DIRECTION 100 483 - -483 100 -483 - 483
13 BRIDGE HORIZONTAL LOAD, Y-DIRECTION - 56 100 56 - -56 -100 -56
14 1-YEAR WIND LOAD ON MODULE, X-DIRECTION 100 83 - -83 100 -83 - 83
15 1-YEAR WIND LOAD ON MODULE, Y-DIRECTION - 68 100 68 - -68 -100 -68
18 1-YEAR WIND LOAD ON DECK, X-DIRECTION 100 100 - -100 -100 -100 - 100
19 1-YEAR WIND LOAD ON DECK, Y-DIRECTION - 100 100 100 - -100 -100 -100
OPERATING ENVIRONMENT (WAVE AND CURRENT

101 100 - - - - - - -
LOADS) AT 0 DEG
102 - 100 - - - - - -
LOADS) AT 45 DEG


No. DESCRIPTION
1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008

103 - - 100 - - - - -
LOADS) AT 90 DEG
104 - - - 100 - - - -
LOADS) AT 135 DEG
105 - - - - 100 - - -
LOADS) AT 180 DEG
106 - - - - - 100 - -
LOADS) AT 225 DEG
107 - - - - - - 100 -
LOADS) AT 270 DEG
108 - - - - - - - 100
LOADS) AT 315 DEG
22 DAERATOR LOAD (80 kips) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Table 6.6.2 – Load Combination 100 Years Storm Condition

No. DESCRIPTION
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
1 DEAD LOAD 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
2 APPURTENANCES LOAD 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
3 BULK LOAD ON MAIN DECK 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
4 BULK LOAD ON CELLAR DECK 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
5 EQUIPMENT LOADS ON MAIN DECK 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
6 EQUIPMENT LOADS ON CELLAR DECK 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
7 PIPING LOADS ON MAIN DECK 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
8 PIPING LOADS ON CELLAR DECK 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
9 LIVE LOAD ON MAIN DECK 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
10 LIVE LOAD ON CELLAR DECK 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
11 BRIDGE VERTICAL LOAD 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
12 BRIDGE HORIZONTAL LOAD, X-DIRECTION 100 483 - -483 100 -483 - 483
13 BRIDGE HORIZONTAL LOAD, Y-DIRECTION - 56 100 56 - -56 -100 -56
16 100-YEARS WIND LOAD ON MODULE, X-DIRECTION 100 83 - -83 100 -83 - 83
17 100-YEARS WIND LOAD ON MODULE, Y-DIRECTION - 68 100 68 - -68 -100 -68
20 100-YEARS WIND LOAD ON DECK, X-DIRECTION 100 100 - -100 -100 -100 - 100
21 100-YEARS WIND LOAD ON DECK, Y-DIRECTION - 100 100 100 - -100 -100 -100
STORM ENVIRONMENT (WAVE AND CURRENT

201 100 - - - - - - -
LOADS) AT 0 DEG
202 - 100 - - - - - -
LOADS) AT 45 DEG
203 - - 100 - - - - -
LOADS) AT 90 DEG
204 - - - 100 - - - -
LOADS) AT 135 DEG
205 - - - - 100 - - -
LOADS) AT 180 DEG
206 - - - - - 100 - -
LOADS) AT 225 DEG


No. DESCRIPTION
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

207 - - - - - - 100 -
LOADS) AT 270 DEG
208 - - - - - - - 100
LOADS) AT 315 DEG
22 DAERATOR LOAD (80 kips) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
6.7 Results
6.7.1 Platform Loads
For the result of basic load summary for inplace analysis is shown below;
Table 6.7.1 – Inplace Basic Load Summary Result
Dead
Load FX FY FZ MX MY MZ Buoyancy
Load
Condition (kips) (kips) (kips) (ft-kips) (ft-kips) (ft-kips) (kips) (kips)
1 (Operating) 0.00 0.00 -998.94 2311.65 3757.28 0.00 1737.77 738.83
1 (Storm 0.00 0.00 -998.47 2308.33 3757.17 0.00 1737.77 739.30
101 177.59 0.33 -5.91 -143.75 20706.40 1028.31 0.00 0.00
102 130.73 130.80 -7.72 -15174.01 15205.38 847.99 0.00 0.00
103 0.49 180.71 -6.80 -20956.25 155.39 48.22 0.00 0.00
104 -133.94 133.73 -9.79 -15508.04 -15569.45 -660.28 0.00 0.00

105 -179.33 0.28 -9.57 19.99 -20962.80 -834.78 0.00 0.00
106 -122.93 -122.12 -4.34 13893.37 -14131.65 -591.96 0.00 0.00
107 -0.01 -162.90 -1.12 18389.89 -75.66 -308.53 0.00 0.00
108 124.42 -124.07 0.21 14094.66 14299.47 374.46 0.00 0.00
201 437.71 0.13 -10.83 -30.97 49776.78 1479.63 0.00 0.00
202 308.21 308.24 -19.18 -34690.57 34775.32 1429.99 0.00 0.00
203 -0.43 430.55 -25.24 -48796.17 -43.75 653.60 0.00 0.00
204 -311.78 310.64 -24.88 -35155.64 -35423.67 -508.34 0.00 0.00
205 -440.80 0.09 -20.96 29.40 -50262.36 -1397.51 0.00 0.00
206 -311.36 -309.99 -12.37 34865.92 -35161.25 -1416.09 0.00 0.00
207 -0.06 -432.99 -5.30 48914.63 -26.10 -720.76 0.00 0.00
208 311.65 -310.44 -2.98 34981.99 35289.89 499.72 0.00 0.00
Combined load summary result for 1 year operating and 100 years storm condition is shown on overleaf;

Table 6.7.2 – Inplace 1-Year Operation and 100-Years Combined Summary Result
Load FX FY FZ MX MY MZ
Comb (kips) (kips) (kips) (ft-kips) (ft-kips) (ft-kips)
1 Year Operating Condition
1001 196.47 0.33 -4031.37 2306.20 34411.21 978.19

1002 149.36 148.10 -4033.17 -16030.89 28832.41 833.65
1003 0.49 203.45 -4032.25 -22915.28 10250.98 2.54
1004 -152.57 151.04 -4035.24 -16364.92 -9005.30 -697.09
1005 -198.20 0.28 -4035.02 2469.94 -14476.42 -784.66
1006 -141.56 -139.43 -4029.79 19650.16 -7567.50 -577.62
1007 -0.01 -185.63 -4026.57 25248.82 10019.94 -262.85
1008 143.04 -141.37 -4025.25 19851.45 27926.50 411.28
100 Years Storm Condition
2001 488.85 0.13 -3964.15 1433.31 69065.26 1321.85

2002 355.85 354.52 -3972.50 -42074.86 53320.99 1338.99
2003 -0.43 490.75 -3978.56 -59020.10 9461.09 607.92
2004 -359.41 356.92 -3978.20 -42539.92 -34959.68 -468.51
2005 -491.94 0.09 -3974.28 1493.67 -50541.17 -1239.73
2006 -359.00 -356.27 -3965.69 45178.75 -34697.25 -1325.09
2007 -0.06 -493.19 -3958.61 62067.10 9478.74 -675.08
2008 359.28 -356.72 -3956.29 45294.82 53835.57 459.88
Computer analysis output summaries are given in Attachment 10.4. The output includes member unity
check, joint punching shear check, basic load seastate summaries, pile unity check and pile summaries
below mudline.
6.7.2 Maximum Platform Base Shear and Overturning Moment
The maximum Platform base shear and overturning moment under 1-year operating and 100-years storm
conditions are summarized in Table 6.7.3.
Table 6.7.3 – Maximum Platform Base Shear and Overturning Moment
Environmental Base Shear (kips) Overturning Moment (kips.ft)

Condition Attack
Direction
FX FY MX MY
o
0 177.59 0.33 -143.75 20706.40
o
45 130.73 130.80 -15174.01 15205.38
o
90 0.49 180.71 -20956.25 155.39
o
1-year 135 -133.94 133.73 -15508.04 -15569.45
Operating 180
o
-179.33 0.28 19.99 -20962.80
o
225 -122.93 -122.12 13893.37 -14131.65
o
270 -0.01 -162.90 18389.89 -75.66
o
315 124.42 -124.07 14094.66 14299.47

Environmental Base Shear (kips) Overturning Moment (kips.ft)

Condition Attack
Direction
FX FY MX MY
o
0 437.71 0.13 -30.97 49776.78
o
45 308.21 308.24 -34690.57 34775.32
o
90 -0.43 430.55 -48796.17 -43.75
o
100-years 135 -311.78 310.64 -35155.64 -35423.67
Storm 180
o
-440.80 0.09 29.40 -50262.36
o
225 -311.36 -309.99 34865.92 -35161.25
o
270 -0.06 -432.99 48914.63 -26.10
o
315 311.65 -310.44 34981.99 35289.89
6.7.3 Member Stress Check
The members are checked against the combined axial and bending forces for AISC / API Interaction
ratios. Based on analysis result of design criteria, it is found that the structure stresses are well within
allowable limit. The computer output is given in Attachment 10.4. Member unity check summary are
presented in Table 6.7.4.
Table 6.7.4 – Member Group at Operating Condition Summary
Max.
Description Group Load Revised
Member Combined Location
OD x WT ID Cond. UC
UC
Maximum Jacket and Pile Stress Unity Check
1203- 393 40" OD x 0.5" Thk LGB 30 0.364 - Leg

104- 204 36" OD x 1.5" Thk PL2 34 0.485 - Pile Above Mudline
104 36" OD x 1.5" Thk PIL 34 0.426 - Pile Below Mudline
Brace Row Plan
505-605 36" OD x 1.0" Thk LG6 34 0.508 - Row 1

1203- 393 40" OD x 0.5" Thk LGB 30 0.339 - Row 2
507-607 36" OD x 1.0" Thk LG6 28 0.597 - Row A
1203- 393 40" OD x 0.5" Thk LGB 30 0.339 - Row B
Brace Horizontal Plan
401-452 18" OD x 0.5" Thk P4A 32 0.691 - Elevation (+) 10 ft

303-384 16" OD x 0.5" Thk P3A 31 0.338 - Elevation (-) 36 ft
105-103 24" OD x 0.5" Thk P1B 30 0.199 - Elevation (-) 145 ft
Maximum Topside Stress Unity Check
Main Deck Main

816-824 W24 x 120 MD6 33 0.915 -
Beam
Main Deck Secondary
3003-3103 W21 x 55 MD4 29 1.0161) -
Beam

Max.
OD x WT ID Cond. UC
UC
Cellar Deck Main

777-707 W24 x 120 CD3 30 0.792 -
Beam
2) Cellar Deck
2545-2325 W21 x 55 CD2 28 1.107 0.926
Secondary Beam
603-703 36" OD x 1.0" Thk DL1 31 0.664 - Deck Leg
Note:
1) Considered acceptable since overstressed members unity check is less than 10% stress check tolerance.
2) Unity checks after revised by moment cut off. See attachment 10.7.1
Table 6.7.5 – Member Group at Storm Condition Summary
Max.
OD x WT ID Cond. UC
UC
1203- 393 40" OD x 0.5" Thk LGB 30 0.490 - Leg

104- 204 36" OD x 1.5" Thk PL2 34 0.464 - Pile Above Mudline
104 36" OD x 1.5" Thk PIL 33 0.424 - Pile Below Mudline
Brace Row Plan
395-405 40" OD x 0.5" Thk LGA 34 0.393 - Row 1

1203- 393 40" OD x 0.5" Thk LGB 30 0.490 - Row 2
395-405 40" OD x 0.5" Thk LGA 34 0.393 - Row A
1203- 393 40" OD x 0.5" Thk LGB 30 0.490 - Row B
401-452 18" OD x 0.5" Thk P4A 32 0.605 - Elevation (+) 10 ft


Main Deck Main
816-824 W24 x 120 MD6 33 0.683 -
Beam
Main Deck Secondary
3003-3103 W21 x 55 MD4 29 0.768 -
Beam
Cellar Deck Main
777-707 W24 x 120 CD3 30 0.679 -
Beam
Cellar Deck
2545-2325 W21 x 55 CD2 28 0.750 -
Secondary Beam
603-703 36" OD x 1.0" Thk DL1 31 0.489 - Deck Leg
A summary of the member unity checks (UC) is produced from the computer output and presented in
Attachment 10.4. For more detail the Position of the maximum member stress unity check is shown on
Figure 6.7.1.

Platform North
True North
O
45
Member : 2545-2325
Group : CD2
Operating UC: 1.107
Storm UC: 0.750
Figure 6.7.1 Maximum Member Stress Unity Check Position for Inplace analysis at Cellar Deck T.O.S
El. (+) 24‟-0”
6.7.4 Joint Punching Shear
Joint Punching Shear Stress Checks in accordance with API RP 2A WSD [Ref. 1] have been performed
for all tubular joints. The Allowable Stresses are factored by 1.33 for the 100-Years Storm Condition.
Maximum Joint Punching Shear Stress Unity Check for the In-Place Service Life Extension is summarized
in the table below:
Table 6.7.6 – Joint Punching Shear UC Summary (1-Year Operating Condition)
Location Joint Number Chord Brace UC Revised

Jacket Elevation (+) 10 ft 403 1501 392 0.230 -
1)
Jacket Elevation (-) 36 ft 303 381 384 100.173 0.368
Jacket Elevation (-) 87 ft 203 281 284 0.214 -
Note:
1) Unity checks after revised by tubular joint check. See attachment 10.7.3
Table 6.7.7 – Joint Punching Shear UC Summary (100-Years Storm Condition)
Location Joint Number Chord Brace UC Revised

Jacket Elevation (+) 10 ft 403 1501 392 0.184 -
1)
Jacket Elevation (-) 36 ft 303 381 384 100.428 0.456
Note:
For the detail information structural position of joint check maximum location is shown in Figure 6.7.2.

True North
O
45
Platform North Joint 403
Storm UC: 0.184
0 Joint 303
Storm UC: 100.428

Revised Storm UC: 0.456
Joint 103
Storm UC: 0.380 Joint 203
Storm UC: 0.310
2
B
Figure 6.7.2 Maximum Joint Punching Shear Position for Inplace Analysis
6.7.5 Piles
Piles below mudline have been checked against allowable stresses for 1-year Operating conditions, 100-
years storm conditions in accordance with API RP 2A WSD [Ref. 1].
One-third increase in the allowable stresses has been considered for 100-years storm loading as per API
RP 2A WSD [Ref. 1], section 3.1.2.
PSI Program was used to perform the interactive non-linear analysis of Soil Pile Structure. All piles satisfy
the API RP 2A WSD [Ref. 1] requirements for Factors of Safety (FoS) against axial failure. The pile axial
loads, axial capacities and minimum Factors of Safety, which occurring during 1-year Operating conditions
and 100-years storm conditions are summarized in the following Table 6.7.8.

Table 6.7.8 – Pile Ultimate Capacity and FoS

Pile
Ultimate
Pile Pile Critical
Joint Capacity1) Allow
Condition Row Penetration Load FS Remarks
ID (incl. pile FS
(ft) (kips)
weight)
(kips)
102 B1 140.0 2235 1185.10 1.89 2.0 NOT SAFE
1-Year 104 B2 140.0 2235 1327.00 1.68 2.0 NOT SAFE

Operating 106 A1 140.0 2235 1198.90 1.86 2.0 NOT SAFE
108 A2 140.0 2235 1292.30 1.73 2.0 NOT SAFE
102 B1 140.0 2235 1502.80 1.49 1.5 NOT SAFE
100-Years 104 B2 140.0 2235 1629.30 1.37 1.5 NOT SAFE

Storm 106 A1 140.0 2235 1513.20 1.48 1.5 NOT SAFE
108 A2 140.0 2235 1592.60 1.40 1.5 NOT SAFE
Note:
1) The Ultimate Pile Capacity is taken by previous analysis report [Ref. 3]
The above pile ultimate axial capacity Factor of Safety (FoS) must satisfy the requirements by API RP 2A
WSD [Ref. 1] are as follows:
- 1-year Operation Conditions FoS > 2.00
- 100-year Storm Conditions FoS > 1.50
From Table 6.7.8, the pile safety factor is still considered acceptable, this is adopted from previous
analysis report [Ref. 3], provided that restriction is made for live load allowance and the platform is
monitored periodically for subsidance in accordance with the inspection program. Unless the platform is to
be modified in the future or damage is found, no further engineering is necessary and the service life may
be extended until the year 2015 provided that the inspection schedule below is implemented. The
mitigation action should be conducted such as reducing load and soil reinvestigation to recalculate pile
capacity for a further structural assessment.
6.7.6 Global Lateral Deflection
Maximum lateral deflections review working point as acting joint to describe the maximum structure
response on lateral deflection. Lateral deflection check result is summarized in the following table:
0
Table 6.7.9 – Lateral Deflection Check 1-Year Operation Condition
Abs. Defl. Adjacent Joint Defl.

Relative Defl. (in) Check
(in) (in)
Joint Span
LC ΔX ΔY RMS Remark
ID (in) Joint Allow.
x1 y1 x2 y2 Ratio
ID L/200
X1 - X2 Y1 - Y2 (X2+Y2)0.5
801 1800 1002 1.10 0.69 102 0.13 0.13 0.97 0.56 1.12 9.00 0.12 SAFE
803 1800 1002 1.12 0.81 104 0.06 0.22 1.06 0.59 1.21 9.00 0.13 SAFE
805 1800 1008 0.97 -0.85 106 0.14 -0.17 0.83 -0.68 1.07 9.00 0.12 SAFE
807 1800 1002 0.95 0.80 108 0.02 0.05 0.93 0.75 1.19 9.00 0.13 SAFE

0
Table 6.7.10 – Lateral Deflection Check 100-Years Storm Condition
Abs. Defl. Adjacent Joint Defl.

Relative Defl. (in) Check
(in) (in)
Joint Span
LC Remark
ID (in) Joint ΔX ΔY RMS Allow.
x1 y1 x2 y2 Ratio
ID X1 - X2 Y1 - Y2 (X2+Y2)0.5 L/200
801 1800 2008 2.34 -2.08 102 0.37 -0.29 1.97 -1.79 2.66 9.00 0.30 SAFE
803 1800 2008 2.35 -1.97 104 0.23 -0.24 2.12 -1.73 2.74 9.00 0.30 SAFE
805 1800 2008 2.19 -2.09 106 0.35 -0.39 1.84 -1.7 2.51 9.00 0.28 SAFE
807 1800 2008 2.19 -1.99 108 0.26 -0.37 1.93 -1.62 2.52 9.00 0.28 SAFE
A summary of maximum deflection is produced from the computer output and presented in Attachment
10.4.
Max relative deflection ratio Max relative deflection ratio

Between Joint 801 – 102: Between Joint 805 – 106:
Operation: 0.12 (Safe) Operation: 0.12 (Safe)
Storm: 0.30 (Safe) Storm: 0.28 (Safe)
Span: 1800 in Span: 1800 in
Max relative deflection ratio

0
Between Joint 805 – 106:
Operation: 0.12 (Safe)
Storm: 0.28 (Safe)
Span: 1800 in
Max relative deflection ratio
Between Joint 803 – 104:
Operation: 0.13 (Safe)
Storm: 0.30 (Safe)
Span: 1800 in
1 A
2 B
Figure 6.7.3 Lateral Deflection Position

6.7.7 Pile Head Deflection
Summary of maximum pilehead displacement for inplace analysis 1 year operating and 100 years storm
condition presented in the following table:
Table 6.7.11 – Pile Head Deflection Summary
Joint Displacement and

Rotation Allow
Pile Load
Condition Row Lateral Resultant OD/10 Ratio Remark
Joint Comb. Axial (in)
(inch) (inch) (inch)
Lateral deflection < D/10

102 B1 1002 0.128 0.133 0.185 3.6 0.051
not need PΔ check

104 B2 1004 -0.221 0.177 0.283 3.6 0.079
not need PΔ check
1-Year
Operation
106 A1 1008 0.141 -0.173 0.223 3.6 0.062
not need PΔ check

108 A2 1006 -0.152 -0.139 0.206 3.6 0.057
not need PΔ check

102 B1 2004 -0.342 0.416 0.539 3.6 0.150
not need PΔ check

104 B2 2006 -0.527 -0.358 0.637 3.6 0.177
not need PΔ check
100-Years
Storm
106 A1 2006 -0.348 -0.432 0.555 3.6 0.154
not need PΔ check

108 B4 2004 -0.426 0.302 0.522 3.6 0.145
not need PΔ check

7. SEISMIC ANALYSIS
7.1 General
Effects of the loads induced by a probable seismic event have been considered to assure that the
structure can successfully survive these loads.
The major parameters that govern in a Seismic Analysis are the related “ground motions” imparted to the
structure and the “factors” to be used in scaling the ground motion to the expected level of ground shaking
at the site. The Dames and Moore Report [Ref. 8] is used to determine the ground motion. The region A,
100-year return period or Strength Level Earthquake Analysis, is considered in this analysis with a PGA
value of 0.160, and 800-year return period or Ductility Level Earthquake Analysis, is considered in this
analysis with a PGA value of 0.233. The Seismic Re-analysis is performed using the SACS Computer
Software, which is the same program that was used in the previous design.

7.2.1 Superelement Creation
SACS Model from Inplace Model (Storm Condition) is used with some modification; Superelement
Creation added on the Option of SACS input, applied dead load, 3/4 live load, no environmental load and
applied Lateral Force at Selfweight in X (SUX) and Y-directions (SUY). Soil Data (PSIINP) from Inplace
Analysis is used with additional Superelement Load Case (SUX and SUY). Output from this program is
DYNSEF linearization pile below mudline file solution.
7.2.2 Static Analysis
SACS Model from Superelement model is used with some modification; Option on Superelement is
changed to Superelement Input (using DYNSEF from Superelement Creation) and no Lateral Force of
Selfweight. Output from this program is SACCSF.
7.2.3 Extract Mode Shape
The Extract Mode Shape of the structure is calculated using the SACS DYNPAC Program. The input for
this program is a modified common Input File used for Static Analysis with retained joint added, which
contains Dead loading and Live load for converting to mass. Live load storm condition has been applied in
this analysis, based on „ECOM‟ Platform structural drawings [Ref. 4]. This program produces 2 (two) files;
a Mass File which contains the Mass Properties of the structure (added mass), and a Mode File which
contains the Dynamic Characteristics of the structure. Both of files are used in calculating the structure‟s
Natural Frequency. Output from this program is DYNLST, DYNMAS and DYNMOD. Check the mass
participation factor must reach 90% above at all axis and converted mass value match with total design
load selected, if the check is not satisfy review and modify model.

7.2.4 Dynamic Response
The Earthquake Analysis of the structure is calculated using Dynamic Response Input (DYRINP) with
some modification; damping Ratio 5 %, Response Spectrum Input, VGA Input and Loading Factor : X-Dir
= 1.0, Y-Dir = 1.0 and Z-Dir = 0.5 and combine with DYNMOD and DYNMAS from Extract Mode Shape.
Output from this program is DYRLST and Dynamic Response Common Solution (DYRCSF). Check Total
Base Shear (for each direction) and compare to Superelement Output (PSILST) for Lateral Force (SUX &
SUY), the difference value should not exceed 10%.
7.2.5 Element Stress and Code Check
The Element Stress and Code Check are calculated using Post Input (PSTINP) and Dynamic Response
Common Solution (DYRCSF). Output from this program is Post Output List (PSTLST) and Post Common
Solution File (PSTCSF). And also create PSVDB to review output result and show the pilehead deflection
for single pile analysis.
Seismic analysis procedure can be described by flowchart on overleaf.

START
Superelement Creation
Input:
- SACINP model no environmental load
- SEAINP load combine superelement
- PSIINP pile super element creation option
Analysis Wizard:
- Linear Analysis With Pile Soil Interaction
Output:
- PSICSF static solution file
- PSILST lateral force for base shear check
Not OK!!! - DYNSEF pile superelement linearization
file
CHECK 1
Mass Participation not
exceeds 90% and Dynamic Characteristic
converted load to mass Input:
must match with design or - SACINP model retained joint
check and review model - SEAINP load combine dynamic Not OK!!!
and script file. - DYNSEF from superelement output
- DYNINP extract mode shape option
CHECK 2
Analysis Wizard:
Base Shear dynamic result
- Extract Mode Shape
must converge with lateral
Output:
force superelement or adjust
- DYNMASS dynamic mass file
lateral LC factor
- DYNMOD dynamic mode file
- DYNLST mass participation and mass
converted check
Dynamic Response
Input:
- PSICSF static solution file
- DYNMASS dynamic mass file
- DYNMOD dynamic mode file
- DYRINP earthquake response option
Analysis Wizard:
- Earthquake
Output:
- DYRCSF dynamic response solution file
- DYRLST base shear check with
superelement lateral force
Post Analysis Single Pile Analysis

Input: Input:
- DYRCSF dynamic response solution file - PILINP each pilehead include soil &
- PSTINP element check option pile properties taken from PSIINP
- JCNINP joint check option and load from pilehead deflection
- SACINP model for create PSVDB solution output data PSVDB
Analysis Wizard: Analysis Wizard:
- Earthquake - Single Pile Analysis
Output: Output:
- PSTLST output element check earthquake - PILLST output each single pile
- JCNLST output joint check earthquake
- PSVDB check pilehead deflection for
single pile load analysis
SEISMIC ANALYSIS
FINISH
Figure 7.2.1 Flowchart for Seismic Analysis of ECOM Service Life Extension

7.3 Load Cases

7.3.1 Acceleration
The Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) value and the Pseudo Velocity (PSV) Spectra are taken from the
Final Report Seismic Hazard Evaluation Offshore Northwest Java, Indonesia, Dames & Moore, 1980
which take based on Report “E COMPRESSION STRUCTURAL DESIGN REPORT” by PT Atlantic
Richfield Indonesia [Ref. 3], shown as follows:
Platform Location : Region A
Strength Level Seismic : 0.160 G
Ductility Level Seismic : 0.233 G
The Design Spectra normalized to 1.0 g used in the analysis are reproduced in Section 4.3.4. The
directional factors are applied according to API RP 2A WSD [Ref. 1], as follows:
X - 1.00
Y - 1.00
Z - 0.50
7.3.2 Static Weight Load
From Static Analysis output, combined dead load, all gravity loads and live loads is define as load
combination 1000 static weight. The summary of 1000 loads summation given in table below:
Table 7.3.1 – Static Weight Load LC 1000
Factored Load
Load Case Load Description Load Factor
(Kips)
1 DEAD LOAD 1.05 1824.660
2 APPURTENANCES LOAD 1 44.090
3 BULK LOAD ON MAIN DECK 1 46.098
4 BULK LOAD ON CELLAR DECK 1 137.265
5 EQUIPMENT LOADS ON MAIN DECK 1 1905.182
6 EQUIPMENT LOADS ON CELLAR DECK 1 173.666
7 PIPING LOADS ON MAIN DECK 1 98.896
8 PIPING LOADS ON CELLAR DECK 1 163.013
9 LIVE LOAD ON MAIN DECK 0.75 67.581
10 LIVE LOAD ON CELLAR DECK 0.75 147.334
11 BRIDGE LOAD 1 41.800
22 DAERATOR LOAD 1 80.000
TOTAL 4729.585
From load case 1 total buoyancy of structural dead load is 739.304 kips, Total structural dead load
exclude buoyancy is 1737.774 kips.
7.3.3 Mass
From the dynamic analysis output, the summary of various weights considered for the dynamic analysis is
given in Table 7.3.2.

Table 7.3.2 – Dynamic Mass Summary
Directional Mass (kips)

No. Description
X Y Z
1 Plate Elements 0.000 0.000 0.000
2 Member Elements 1824.654 1824.654 1824.654
3 Member Element Normal Added Mass 1004.156 995.478 382.183
4 Member Element Axial Added Mass 0.187 0.195 0.809
5 Flooded Member Element Entrapped Fluid 722.683 722.683 722.683
6 Load Cases Converted to Weight 2904.924 2904.924 2904.924
TOTAL 6456.604 6447.935 5835.253
The structural masses of modeled elements including fluid added mass and marine growth are generated
by SACS DYNPAC program. Additional mass from the appurtenances and topside loads is applied as
distributed mass at the appropriate locations. This is based on the loading of 100-year storm conditions
and calculated as Load Cases Converted to Weight.
Table 7.3.3 – Load Cases Converted to Weight Summary
Load Load Converted

No. Load Description
Case Factor Load (kips)
2 1 1048.39
3 1 44.090
4 1 46.098
5 1 137.265
1 Structure Non Generated Load 6 1 1905.182
7 1 173.666
8 1 98.896
11 1 41.800
22 1 80.000
9 0.75 67.581
2 Blanket Live Load
10 0.75 147.334
TOTAL 2904.925
Dynamic Mass Summary plate element and member element calculate from structural model, total mass
of both equal with dead load exclude buoyancy multiply with 1.05 contingency factor from static load
output.
Table 7.3.4 – Dynamic Mass and Static Dead Load Structural Model Summary
Dynamics Static
No. Description
Mass (kips) Dead Load*1.05 (kips)
1 Plate Elements 0
1737.774 * 1.05
2 Member Elements 1824.654
TOTAL 1824.654 1824.663

7.4 Results of Seismic Analysis

A summary of the result from seismic analysis is presented in Attachment 10.5, which consists of natural
period, base shear, member unity checks and joints punching shear unity check.
7.4.1 Natural Period
The fundamental period corresponding to the first mode of vibration, from Dynamic Characteristic Analysis
the first five mode result of the jacket is as follows:
0 Table 7.4.1 – Summary Dynamic Property Result under SLE Seismic Condition
Mode Freq. (CPS) Gen. Mass Eigenvalue Period (sec) Movement
1 0.557346 1.85E+04 8.15E-02 1.794218 Deflected in Y axis global direction

2 0.576277 1.93E+04 7.63E-02 1.735276 Deflected in X axis global direction
3 0.959067 1.72E+04 2.75E-02 1.04268 Torsion mode in Z axis global direction
Table 7.4.2 – Summary Dynamic Property Result under DLE Seismic Condition
Mode Freq. (CPS) Gen. Mass Eigenvalue Period (sec) Movement
1 0.549054 1.88E+04 8.40E-02 1.821314 Deflected in Y axis global direction

2 0.566968 1.95E+04 7.88E-02 1.763768 Deflected in X axis global direction
3 0.928038 1.79E+04 2.94E-02 1.077542 Torsion mode in Z axis global direction
The number of modes and the number of retained degrees of freedom that considered in the dynamic
analysis is adequate in ensuring the participation of most of the masses. The cumulative mass
participation factor should not less than 90% for all direction.
The mass participation factors and the cumulative participation factors in X, Y and Z directions for each
mode are listed in the following table for first ten modes;
0 Table 7.4.3 – Summary of Mass Participation under SLE Seismic Condition
Mass Participation Factor (%) Cumulative Factor (%)

Mode
X Y Z X Y Z
1 0.3770597 0.4981221 0.0000107 0.3770600 0.4981220 0.0000110

2 0.5029306 0.3784367 0.0000092 0.8799900 0.8765590 0.0000200
3 0.0000765 0.0009618 0.0000121 0.8800670 0.8775210 0.0000320
4 0.0292299 0.0637766 0.0010271 0.9092970 0.9412970 0.0010590
5 0.0581095 0.0259858 0.0022110 0.9674060 0.9672830 0.0032700
6 0.0002623 0.0006155 0.0015531 0.9676680 0.9678980 0.0048230
7 0.0006022 0.0000000 0.9631006 0.9682710 0.9678980 0.9679240
8 0.0118017 0.0120501 0.0043626 0.9800720 0.9799490 0.9722860
9 0.0060293 0.0057288 0.0037882 0.9861020 0.9856770 0.9760750
10 0.0000447 0.0000892 0.0011295 0.9861460 0.9857670 0.9772040

Table 7.4.4 – Summary of Mass Participation DLE Seismic Condition
Mass Participation Factor (%) Cumulative Factor (%)

Mode
X Y Z X Y Z
1 0.3824938 0.5048643 8.9E-06 0.382494 0.504864 0.000009

2 0.509947 0.3840856 7.5E-06 0.892441 0.88895 0.000016
3 0.0000441 0.0010391 9.9E-06 0.892485 0.889989 0.000026
4 0.0310895 0.0565873 0.000998 0.923574 0.946576 0.001024
5 0.0518452 0.0287392 0.00173 0.97542 0.975315 0.002754
6 0.0002696 0.0006027 0.001195 0.975689 0.975918 0.003949
7 0.0005673 0.0000018 0.960944 0.976257 0.97592 0.964893
8 0.0088354 0.0091179 0.00729 0.985092 0.985038 0.972183
9 0.0047673 0.0044909 0.00446 0.989859 0.989529 0.976643
10 0.0000266 0.0000715 0.000958 0.989886 0.9896 0.977601
Attachment 10.5 presents the natural periods and frequencies of the first 60 modes. These modes can be
found in Seismic Analysis Output.
7.4.2 Base Shear
The Base Shear for Load Case 1 of the Structure under the Strength Level Earthquake (SLE) and
Ductility Level Earthquake (DLE) was generated in 2 (two) Orthogonal Axis Directions as follows:
0 Table 7.4.5 – Convergence Check of Base Shear (Strength Level Earthquake)
Base Shear from

Base Shear from Ductility Convergence Check1)
Direction Superelement Analysis
Level Earthquake (kips) (%)
(kips)
X 722.000 721.893 0.0002
Y 716.000 715.903 0.0001
Note:
1) Convergence check results is less than 10%, hence seismic results is acceptable.
Table 7.4.6 – Convergence Check of Base Shear (Ductility Level Earthquake)
Base Shear from

Base Shear from Ductility Convergence Check1)
Direction Superelement Analysis
Level Earthquake (kips) (%)
(kips)
X 1280.000 1290.023 0.008
Y 1270.000 1280.038 0.008
Note:
1) Convergence check results is less than 10%, hence seismic results is acceptable.
7.4.3 Member Stresses
Member Stress Checks in accordance with API RP 2A WSD [Ref. 1]. The Allowable Stresses are factored
by 1.7 for Ductile Level Earthquake Condition. From SLE and DLE analysis output, there are no members
have indicated overstress.
Member group summary unity check report form analysis output, which was occur during seismic analysis
summarized in the table bellow for ready reference:

Table 7.4.7 – Maximum Member Stress UC under SLE Condition
0
Max.
Description Group Load
OD x WT ID Cond.
UC
1203- 393 40" OD 0.5" Thk LGB 2 0.343 Leg

308- 408 36" OD 1.5" Thk PL4 2 0.367 Pile Above Mudline
Brace Row Plan
1105- 395 41" OD x 1.0" Thk LGA 2 0.327 Row 1

1203- 393 40" OD x 0.5" Thk LGB 2 0.343 Row 2
1105- 395 41" OD x 1.0" Thk LGA 2 0.327 Row A
1203- 393 40" OD x 0.5" Thk LGB 2 0.343 Row B
401- 452 18" OD x 0.5" Thk P4A 2 0.393 Elevation (+) 10 ft

301- 352 16" OD x 0.5" Thk P3A 2 0.191 Elevation (-) 36 ft
3309- 803 W24 x 120 MD1 2 0.499 Main Deck Main Beam
3001-3101 W21 x 55 MD4 2 0.561 Main Deck Secondary Beam
777- 707 W24 x 120 CD3 2 0.383 Cellar Deck Main Beam
2549- 791 W12 x 26 CD6 1 0.568 Cellar Deck Secondary Beam
607- 707 36" OD x 1.0" Thk DL1 2 0.557 Deck Leg
Table 7.4.8 – Maximum Member Stress UC under DLE Condition
Max.
OD x WT ID Cond.
UC
1203- 393 40" OD 0.5" Thk LGB 2 0.540 Leg

308- 408 36" OD 1.5" Thk PL4 2 0.538 Pile Above Mudline
Brace Row Plan
1105- 395 41" OD x 1.0" Thk LGA 2 0.505 Row 1

1203- 393 40" OD x 0.5" Thk LGB 2 0.540 Row 2
1105- 395 41" OD x 1.0" Thk LGA 2 0.505 Row A
1203- 393 40" OD x 0.5" Thk LGB 2 0.540 Row B
401- 452 18" OD x 0.5" Thk P4A 2 0.778 Elevation (+) 10 ft


Max.
OD x WT ID Cond.
UC

3309- 803 W24 x 120 MD1 2 0.571 Main Deck Main Beam
3001-3101 W21 x 55 MD4 2 0.597 Main Deck Secondary Beam
777- 707 W24 x 120 CD3 2 0.747 Cellar Deck Main Beam
2549- 791 W12 x 26 CD6 1 0.881 Cellar Deck Secondary Beam
607- 707 36" OD x 1.0" Thk DL1 2 0.819 Deck Leg
A summary of the member unity checks (UC) in Strength Level Earthquake and Ductility Level Earthquake
is produced from the computer output and presented in Attachment 10.5. For more detail the Position of
the maximum member stress unity check is shown on Figure 7.4.1.
Platform North
True North
O
45
0
Member : 2549- 791
Group : CD6
UC SLE Condition : 0.568
UC DLE Condition : 0.881
Figure 7.4.1 Maximum Member Stress Unity Check Position for Seismic analysis at Cellar Deck
T.O.S El. (+) 24‟-0”

7.4.4 Joint Punching Shear

Joint Punching Shear Stress Checks in accordance with API RP 2A WSD [Ref. 1] have been performed
for all tubular joints. The Allowable Stresses are factored by 1.7 for Strength Level Earthquake and Ductile
Level Earthquake Condition.
All joint check satisfies the requirements of API RP 2A WSD [Ref. 1] for SLE and DLE condition. The
maximum joint stress unity checks are summarized in the table below:
Table 7.4.9 – Joint Punching Shear Stress Unity Check SLE Condition
0
Location Joint Number UC Revised
Jacket Elevation (+) 10 ft 407 0.113 -
Jacket Elevation (-) 36 ft 303 1.279 0.0751)
Jacket Elevation (-) 87 ft 201 0.344 -
Note:
Table 7.4.10 – Joint Punching Shear Stress Unity Check DLE Condition
Location Joint Number UC Revised

Jacket Elevation (+) 10 ft 407 0.184 -
Jacket Elevation (-) 36 ft 303 2.140 0.0751)
Note:
For the detail information structural plot of joint check maximum location is shown on overleaf;

True North
O
45 Joint 407
Platform North SLE UC : 0.113
Storm UC: 0.184
Joint 303
SLE UC : 1.279
Revised SLE UC: 0.075
DLE UC: 2.140

Revised DLE UC: 0.075
Joint 201
SLE UC : 0.344 Joint 207
DLE UC : 0.582
Joint 103
SLE UC : 0.282
DLE UC: 0.472
2
B
Figure 7.4.2 Maximum Joint Punching Shear Position for Seismic Analysis
7.4.5 Single Pile Analysis
Dynamic response methode in earthquake analysis assume the joint act as single degree of freedom and
independently in that case stress are to be checked only at the member ends. Therefore, capacity and
factor of safety pile conservatively solve by single pile analysis. Load on single pile analysis taken from
joint displacement on each pilehead joint.
The displacement for each pilehead joint is shown below;
Table 7.4.11 – Pilehead displacement and rotation for SLE

0
Pilehead Translation (inch) Rotation (radians)

Row
Joint X Y Z X Y Z
2 B1 0.357 0.333 0.692 0.001 0.001 0.000
4 B2 0.430 0.454 0.721 0.001 0.001 0.000
6 A1 0.435 0.401 0.720 0.001 0.001 0.000
8 A2 0.359 0.375 0.690 0.001 0.001 0.000

Table 7.4.12 – Pilehead displacement and rotation for DLE
Pilehead Translation (inch) Rotation (radians)

Row
Joint X Y Z X Y Z
2 B1 0.749 0.695 1.102 0.002 0.002 0.000
4 B2 0.871 0.915 1.149 0.002 0.002 0.000
6 A1 0.873 0.808 1.149 0.002 0.002 0.000
8 A2 0.748 0.784 1.097 0.002 0.002 0.000
All Pile Stresses satisfy the criteria of API RP 2A WSD [Ref. 1]. The Pile Axial Capacity, Axial Load, and
minimum Factors of Safety, which occur under Seismic Condition, are summarized in the following Table
7.4.13.
Table 7.4.13 – Pile Ultimate Capacity and FoS

0
Pile Ultimate Pile

Pile Factor Allowable
Joint Capacity1) Critical
Condition Row Penetration of Factor of Remarks
ID (incl. pile Load
(ft) Safety Safety
weight) (kips) (kips)
2 B1 140 2235 1365.5 1.64 1.00 SAFE

Strength 4 B2 140 2235 1438.9 1.55 1.00 SAFE
Level
Earthquake 6 A1 140 2235 1369.2 1.63 1.00 SAFE
8 A2 140 2235 1444.7 1.55 1.00 SAFE
2 B1 140 2235 1935.9 1.15 1.00 SAFE

Ductile 4 B2 140 2235 1935.9 1.15 1.00 SAFE
Level
Earthquake 6 A1 140 2235 1935.9 1.15 1.00 SAFE
8 A2 140 2235 1935.9 1.15 1.00 SAFE
Note:
1) The Ultimate Pile Capacity is taken by previous analysis report [Ref. 3]
Above Pile Factor of Safety satisfies the API RP 2A WSD [Ref. 1] requirement for Seismic Analysis, i.e.
minimum of 1.0 under Ductility Level Earthquake.

8. FATIGUE ANALYSIS
8.1 General
The Fatigue Re-analysis is performed using the „FATIGUE‟ Module of the SACS Suite of Programs. A
Deterministic Fatigue Analysis is performed to indicate the resistance of the platform to Cyclic Fatigue
Loading induced by waves.
8.2 Fatigue Life

The „ECOM‟ Platform was installed in 1975 and it is intended to extend the Service Life for an additional
20 years. Therefore, Based on API RP 2A WSD [Ref. 1]Section 15.2.1, Equation 15.2.1-1 the design
fatigue life, L, for Reused Platform is shown below;
L = SF1 L1 + SF2 L2
Where,
L1 = Initial in service periods, years.
L2 = Planned service life at new location, years.

SF1 = 2.0 for minimum requirements of API RP 2A WSD [Ref. 1] Section 15.2.3 If the weld
in a tubular connection is 100% NDE inspection in accordance with requirements of
API RP 2A WSD [Ref. 1] 15.2.3 and is upgraded if defects are found, SF1 may be
between zero and 2.0 selected on a rational basis
SF2 = 2.0.
Criteria service life result to satisfy with API RP 2A WSD [Ref. 1] summarized on table below:
0 Table 8.2.1 – Fatigue Life Safety Factor Summary
L1 SF1 L2 SF2 Fatigue Life Design

39 2 20 2 118
8.3 Wave Heights and Wave Periods

The variation of wave heights and corresponding periods were obtained from Table 3.7.1 six wave heights
as shown in the table below and their respective periods were selected, with the mean value of each wave
height range was assumed as the representative wave height. The following table summarizes the design
wave data:

Table 8.3.1 – Combined Number of Wave Occurrences

(Occurrence in 10 Years)
Wave
Height (ft) Period (sec) Number Of Wave
Direction
2 4.7 6,714,600
6 6.5 229,880
North 10 6.9 7,752

14 7.2 260
18 7.5 8
2 4.7 8,996,200
6 6.5 308,050
10 7.1 10,390
Northeast
14 7.4 348
18 7.7 11
22 7.9 1
2 4.7 19,296,200
6 6.5 660,750
10 7.0 22,270
East
14 7.3 754
18 7.6 25
22 7.8 1
2 4.6 8,083,600
6 6.3 276,740
Southeast 10 6.8 9,336

14 7.2 314
18 7.5 10
2 4.2 1,825,300
South 6 5.1 63,640

10 5.5 1,060
2 4.2 1,564,600
Southwest 6 5.1 54,490

10 5.5 910
2 4.6 9,713,300
6 6.4 332,600
West 10 6.8 11,212

14 7.0 375
18 7.2 13
2 4.7 8,996,200
6 6.5 308,050
10 7.1 10,390
Northwest
14 7.4 348
18 7.7 11
22 7.9 1

8.4 Wave Direction

Wave attack angle must be adapted due to wave data base on true north direction. The attack angles to
the structure considered in the fatigue analysis are shown in the following diagram on Figure 8.4.1.
45.00 PN N NE
TN E
315.00 270.00
225.00
NW SE
0.00 180.00
W
S
45.00
135.00
SW
90.00
Figure 8.4.1 Wave attacks directions for fatigue analysis.

The fatigue analysis is performed using the „FATIGUE‟ module of the SACS suite of programs. The
foundations are analyzed as part of in-place coupled interaction analysis utilizing the SACS program PSI
that treats a conductor as beam column on a non-linear elastic foundation.
A deterministic fatigue analysis will be performed using the basic wave criteria provided in Section 3.7.1.
Wave loads due to fatigue waves shall be computed using Stoke‟s fifth order wave theory in conjunction
with Morrison‟s equation. Effects of current are neglected and hence apparent wave period and current
blockage is not considered. Wave kinematics factor equal to 1.0 is applied for fatigue waves.
Analysis has been carried out considering annual wave occurrence diagram for eight directions as per the
environmental data. For each direction considered, six wave heights have been used to compute stress
range against wave height relationship. Each wave from each direction is subjected to the structure. The
maximum and minimum base shears are generated and all member end stresses are calculated
accordingly through a static analysis. The „FATIGUE‟ module then processes each group of the load
cases and determines the maximum and minimum end stresses for addition as the maximum stress
range. Hot spot stresses are determined at eight positions around the brace-chord intersection and Stress

Concentration Factors (SCF‟s) are applied. The fatigue damage is calculated in accordance with Miner‟s
Hypothesis as follows:
ni

m
i 1
 1.0
Ni
where:
ni = number of cycles occurring in one year in stress range i
Ni = number of cycles in stress range i needed to cause failure
m = number of stress ranges considered
Fatigue analysis procedure can be described by flowchart below.
START
Crest Analysis
Input:
- SACINP model
- SEAINP from wave crest data and fatigue data
Analysis Wizard:
- Seastate Environmental Load
Output:
- SEALST get crest position for maximum and minimum base shear each
wave direction, height and period.
Wave Cyclic Loading Generation

Input:
- SACINP model
- SEAINP create pair of wave loading each wave direction, height and period
for maximum and minimum base shear based on crest analysis result.
Analysis Wizard:
- Linear Static Analysis
Output:
- SACCSF solution file of wave cyclic loading generation
Fatigue Damage Analysis

Input:
- SACCSF file solution of wave cyclic loading
- FTGINP fatigue input (design life, safety factor, S-N curve, SCF method,
combine load of cyclic loading for stress range calculation, etc.)
Analysis Wizard:
- Fatigue Damage
Output:
- FTGLST Output fatigue analysis
- FTGEXT extract data for joint connection with service life less than design
criteria
- PSVDB postvue database for 3D output of fatigue analysis
FATIGUE ANALYSIS
FINISH
Figure 8.5.1 Flowchart for Fatigue Analysis of ECOM Service Life Extention

8.6 Stress Concentration Factors (SCF’s)

SCFs are calculated in accordance with the Efthymiou formula.
8.7 S-N Curves

The number of permissible cycles at a stress range value (S-N curves) is given using API RP 2A WSD
[Ref. 1], API Welded Joint Standard (WJT) curve will be applied as S-N curve.
8.8 Results
Results from the Fatigue Analysis indicated that there are joints that have a Fatigue Life less than 59
years. The conclusion and advisor for this condition is presented on section 2.4. Joint with minimal service
life is summarized in the following table below:
Table 8.8.1 – Minimum Joint Fatigue Life Summary
OD Thickness Member Svc. Life Svc. Life

No. Joint Member SF Remark
(in) (in) Type not less Result
Elevation (-) 36.00 ft
201- 303 24 0.5 BRC 2 59 5.57 Inspection
1 303
281- 303 40 0.5 CHD 2 59 0.99 Schedule
207- 303 24 0.5 BRC 2 59 9.75 Inspection
2 303
281- 303 40 0.5 CHD 2 59 1.46 Schedule
303-1102 24 0.5 BRC 2 59 292.54 Inspection
3 303
303- 381 40 0.5 CHD 2 59 22.10 Schedule
303- 384 16 0.5 BRC 2 59 0.32 Inspection
4 303
303- 381 40 0.5 CHD 2 59 0.09 Schedule
314- 303 16 0.5 BRC 2 59 0.79 Inspection
5 303
303- 381 40 0.5 CHD 2 59 0.22 Schedule
309- 303 20 0.5 BRC 2 59 11.74 Inspection
6 303
303- 381 40 0.5 CHD 2 59 2.04 Schedule
377- 307 16 0.5 BRC 2 59 0.39 Inspection
7 307
307-1107 40 0.5 CHD 2 59 0.11 Schedule
388- 307 16 0.5 BRC 2 59 0.78 Inspection
8 307
307-1107 40 0.5 CHD 2 59 0.22 Schedule
301- 352 16 0.5 BRC 2 59 4.87 Inspection
9 301
301-1101 40 0.5 CHD 2 59 1.22 Schedule
301- 372 16 0.5 BRC 2 59 1.67 Inspection
10 301
301-1101 40 0.5 CHD 2 59 0.39 Schedule
301- 358 18 0.5 BRC 2 59 1.71 Inspection
11 301
301-1101 40 0.5 CHD 2 59 0.36 Schedule
201- 305 24 0.5 BRC 2 59 8.15 Inspection
12 305
205- 305 40 0.5 CHD 2 59 1.40 Schedule
207- 305 24 0.5 BRC 2 59 8.47 Inspection
13 305
205- 305 40 0.5 CHD 2 59 1.38 Schedule
305-1106 24 0.5 BRC 2 59 367.98 Inspection
14 305
305- 383 40 0.5 CHD 2 59 28.80 Schedule
305- 374 16 0.5 BRC 2 59 2.73 Inspection
15 305
305- 383 40 0.5 CHD 2 59 0.76 Schedule
372- 305 16 0.5 BRC 2 59 4.66 Inspection
16 305
305- 383 40 0.5 CHD 2 59 1.46 Schedule
305- 309 20 0.5 BRC 2 59 63.42 Inspection
17 305
305- 383 40 0.5 CHD 2 59 6.98 Schedule
The summary of fatigue analysis from SACS Program is presented in Attachment 10.6.

Figure 8.9.1 to Figure 8.9.5 below showed location of the Joint with Min Service Life from fatigue analysis :
TN
El (+) 10.00 ft
PN
o
45
Inspection Schedule 2014 Service Life Chord = 0.09
El (-) 36.00 ft
Inspection Schedule 2014 Join 303

Chord Member 281-303 Inspection Schedule 2014
A
281
B
2

TN
El (+) 10.00 ft
PN

Chord Member 307-1107 1107
Join 307 El (-) 36.00 ft

El (-) 87.00 ft
B
2

TN
El (+) 10.00 ft
PN

El (-) 36.00 ft
Join 301 Service Life Chord = 0.36

El (-) 87.00 ft
B
2

TN
El (+) 10.00 ft
PN

Chord Member 305-383 383 Inspection Schedule 2014
Join 305
El (-) 36.00 ft

Service Life Brace = 8.15 Inspection Schedule 2014
205
B
2

9. REFERENCES
[1]. Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms –
Working Stress Design, API Recommended Practice 2A-WSD (API RP 2A-WSD) 21st Edition, Errata
and Supplement 3, October 2007.
[2]. American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC ASD), “Manual of Steel Construction, Allowable Stress
th
Design”, 14 Edition 2010.
[3]. “ECOM STRUCTURAL DESIGN REPORT”. by PT Atlantic Richfield Indonesia, August 1998
[4]. The latest „ECOM‟ Platform structural drawings (As Built) by PT FLOUR OCEAN SERVICES in
association with ATLANTIC RICHFIELD INDONESIA on 1974.
[5]. “Above Water Platform Inspection ECOM Well P/F” Doc No. 015/ROI-IX/AWPI/SCI/PHE-
ONWJ/2012
[6]. “ECOM Underwater Platform Inspection and Maintenance and Report 2011” by subsea IMR team.
2010
[7]. Doc. No. PHEONWJ-S-PRC-0010, Rev.0, “Guidance On Fixed Offshore Jacket Platform Design”, by
PERTAMINA Hulu Energi ONWJ.
[8]. Dames & Moore report (2000)

10. ATTACHMENTS
10.1 Structural Geometry

10.1.1 Isometric
10.1.2 Joint’s Name
10.1.3 Member’s Group
10.1.4 Member’s Section
10.1.5 KY – LY
10.1.6 KZ – LZ
10.1.7 Member’s Length
10.1.8 Member’s Yield Stress
10.1.9 Member’s Local CS
10.1.10 Joint Fixity
10.1.11 Member’s Release
10.2 Basic Load
10.3 SACS Input of Finite Element Model

10.3.1 SACS Input Inplace Analysis
10.3.2 SACS Input Seismic Analysis
10.3.3 SACS Input Fatigue Analysis
10.3.4 PSI Input
10.4 Selected SACS Output of Inplace Analysis

10.4.1 SACS Output 1 Year Operating Condition
10.4.2 SACS Output 100 Year Storm Condition
10.5 Selected SACS Output of Seismic Analysis

10.5.1 SACS Output of SLE Seismic Analysis
10.5.2 SACS Output of DLE Seismic Analysis
10.6 Selected SACS Output of Fatigue Analysis

10.7 Miscellaneous Calculation

10.7.1 Moment Cut Off
10.7.2 Corroded Member Override
10.7.3 Joint Check Calculation
10.7.4 Iteration of Superlement
10.7.5 Seismic Data from Dames & Moore 2000
10.8 Selected Inspection Report
10.9 Selected Drawing Reference
10.10 Client Comments

ATTACHMENT 10.1
STRUCTURAL GEOMETRY
ECHO-C-CAL-0001 Rev.0
ATTACHMENT 10.1.1
ISOMETRIC
ATTACHMENT 10.1.2
JOINT’S NAME
ATTACHMENT 10.1.3
MEMBER’S GROUP
ATTACHMENT 10.1.4
MEMBERS’S SECTION
ATTACHMENT 10.1.5
KY – LY
ATTACHMENT 10.1.6
KZ – LZ
ATTACHMENT 10.1.7
MEMBER’S LENGTH
ATTACHMENT 10.1.8
MEMBER’S YIELD STRESS
ATTACHMENT 10.1.9
MEMBER’S LOCAL CS
ATTACHMENT 10.1.10
JOINT FIXITY
ATTACHMENT 10.1.11
MEMBER’S RELEASE
ATTACHMENT 10.2
BASIC LOAD
ATTACHMENT 10.3
SACS INPUT OF FINITE ELEMENT MODEL
ATTACHMENT 10.3.1
SACS INPUT INPLACE ANALYSIS
ATTACHMENT 10.3.2
SACS INPUT SEISMIC ANALYSIS
ATTACHMENT 10.3.3
SACS INPUT FATIGUE ANALYSIS
PT PHE ONWJ Structural Re-Analysis „ECOM‟ Platform Service Life
Extension
ATTACHMENT 10.3.4
PSI INPUT
ATTACHMENT 10.4
SELECTED SACS OUTPUT OF INPLACE ANALYSIS
ATTACHMENT 10.4.1
SACS OUTPUT 1 YEAR OPERATING CONDITION
ATTACHMENT 10.4.2
SACS OUTPUT 100 YEAR STORM CONDITION
ATTACHMENT 10.5
SELECTED SACS OUTPUT OF SEISMIC ANALYSIS
ATTACHMENT 10.5.1
SELECTED SACS OUTPUT OF SLE SEISMIC
ANALYSIS
ATTACHMENT 10.5.2
SELECTED SACS OUTPUT OF DLE SEISMIC
ANALYSIS
ATTACHMENT 10.6
SELECTED SACS OUTPUT OF FATIGUE ANALYSIS
ATTACHMENT 10.7
MISCELLANEOUS CALCULATION
ATTACHMENT 10.7.1
MOMENT CUT OFF
ATTACHMENT 10.7.2
MEMBER CORRODED OVERRIDE
ATTACHMENT 10.7.3
JOINT CHECK RECALCULATION
ATTACHMENT 10.7.4
ITERATION OF SUPERLEMENT
ATTACHMENT 10.7.5
SEISMIC DATA FROM DAMES & MOORE 2000
ATTACHMENT 10.8
SELECTED INSPECTION REPORT
ATTACHMENT 10.9
SELECTED DRAWING REFERENCE
ATTACHMENT 10.10
CLIENT COMMENTS

Structural Re-Analysis of ECOM Platform for Service Life Extension

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

Structural Re-Analysis of ECOM Platform for Service Life Extension

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Project:

Service Life Extension

STRUCTURAL RE-ANALYSIS ‘ECOM’ PLATFORM

REVIEW AND ENDORSEMENT RECORDS

Name Title Date Signature

ECHO-C-CAL-0001 Rev. 0 Page 1 of 73

REVISION LOG REGISTER

Page Date Revision PT PHE ONWJ Reviewer

Add Figure 2.4.1 Maximum Member Stress Unity Check

23 30 January 2014 Add Figure 3.5.1 Ultimate Pile Capacity Curves

Add Strength Level PGA on Section 3.6.2 Peak Ground

26 30 January 2014 Revise Section 3.7.3 Service Life

Revise Figure 6.3.1 Flowchart for inplace of ECOM Service

38 30 January 2014 Revise Table 6.4.1 Basic Load Case

Revise Table 6.6.1 Load Combination 1 Year Operating

ECHO-C-CAL-0001 Rev. 0 Page 2 of 73

REVIEW AND ENDORSEMENT RECORDS ........................................................................................................... 1

REVISION LOG REGISTER .................................................................................................................................... 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................................ 5

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 10

2.1 The weight of Platform ...................................................................................................................... 10

3. DESIGN CRITERIA ..................................................................................................................................... 19

3.1 General ............................................................................................................................................. 19

4. STRUCTURAL MODELING ........................................................................................................................ 28

4.1 General ............................................................................................................................................. 28

5. LOADING CALCULATION .......................................................................................................................... 30

5.1 Structural Dead Loads ...................................................................................................................... 30

6. IN-PLACE ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................. 35

6.1 General ............................................................................................................................................. 35

ECHO-C-CAL-0001 Rev. 0 Page 3 of 73

7. SEISMIC ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................... 50

7.1 General ............................................................................................................................................. 50

8. FATIGUE ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................. 62

8.1 General ............................................................................................................................................. 62

10. ATTACHMENTS ......................................................................................................................................... 72

10.1 Structural Geometry.......................................................................................................................... 72

ECHO-C-CAL-0001 Rev. 0 Page 4 of 73

1.2 Scope of Works

1.4 Platform Description

- Latitude : 05o 54‟ 44.00” South

- Longitude : 107o 55‟ 31.00” East

ECHO-C-CAL-0001 Rev. 0 Page 5 of 73

The main elevations are :

 Mudline : El (-) 145‟- 0"

 Boat Landing : El (+) 7' - 0"

 Jacket Walkway : El (+) 10' - 0"

 Main Deck : T.O.S. El (+) 40' - 3.0"

 Cellar Deck : T.O.S. El (+) 29' - 0.0"

ECHO-C-CAL-0001 Rev. 0 Page 6 of 73

Cellar Deck T.O.S. Elv. (+) 24.00

Jacket Walkway Elv. (+) 10.00 ft

Horizontal Framing Elv. (-) 36.00 ft

Horizontal Framing Elv. (-) 87.00 ft

Mudline Framing Elv (-) 145.00 ft

Figure 1.4.1 ECOM Platform

ECHO-C-CAL-0001 Rev. 0 Page 7 of 73

Left Side View Right Side View

Front Side View Back Side View

Figure 1.4.3 Sketches of side view, ECOM Platform

ECHO-C-CAL-0001 Rev. 0 Page 8 of 73

Figure 1.4.4 Appurtenances configuration 20‟-0” Riser

24‟-0” Riser 24‟-0” Riser Boatlanding