Check List for Doing Seismic Analysis:

1. Check the Value of seismic Base Shear… Whether this value is Okay or not… If Base shear value is not Okay means, then this is not a
seismic analysis..!!!!!!!!
2. Make sure that for Skirt piles, Soil curves with Group effect and Static Soil curves are used.
3. Make sure that Corrosion allowances are same as that of Inplace Model.
4. Make sure that water depth…. (LAT + 0.5 * Tidal variation) is taken care.
5. Make sure that Masses are traceable.
6. Make sure that Foundation FoS has been checked as per GS and Design Basis.
7. How can this report be accepted without a description of the masses considered? IT NEEDS TO BE SHOWN THAT MODELLED MASSES
ARE ACCURATE.
8. For doing strength Level earthquake using RIE acceleration is valid only if (SLE<= 0.05g AND RIE/SLE <2.0)... Make sure... U r right. Or
otherwise you have to Ductility level earthquake and also u have to find the RESERVE STRENGTH RATIO by doing “Seismic Pushover
analysis and finding the plasticity of the Jacket members using Collapse Module.”
9. Combinations for pile checking are to be based in GS-EP-STR-101, and presented for instance in GS-EP-STR-102 table 4.10
10. Please Explain only RIE is considered or what is there.
11. Make sure that “Dynamic Degrees of Freedom (222000) is modelled b specifying the three retained degrees of freedom at jacket/deck leg
nodes at main framing levels.
12. Remove all the load case selections and AMOD’s and give proper AMOD for Seismic Analysis.
13. Make sure that the flooding option for the pile elements are changed to non-flooded so that entrapped fluid mass will not be computed as the
flooded legs have accounted for the effect.
14. Make sure that the effective outer diameter for the pile and wishbone elements are overridden by a very small value so that added mass for the
same will not be computed by program.
15. Introduce two load conditions “EQK1 for +X directional Inertial Mass Condition and EQK2 for +Y directional Inertial Mass Load condition.
Make Load combination for “OPDL” Maximum operational Dead Load Condition.
16. While doing the “Frequency Run”... in LDOPT provide….. DYN and in OPTIONS card put “I” for Include Super element option and in
LCSEL card select only DY and “Max operational Gravity load combination” and don’t forget to multiply the “GRUP” card densities by
“OPDL Load factor provided in Load combination Line”. “It’s nothing but contingency only. And “PLGRUP” also. And don’t forget to give
“222000”... (Master DOF) and don’t forget to delete the “Dummy” definitions… It’s very important. And in “OPDL” load combination don’t
forget to delete the “Load condition 1.0 i.e. nothing but “DEAD” weight only.” And Delete the Load Combinations for “EQK1 and EQK2”.
And remove UC partition also. And also Unity check range report also… and also Code check option also.
17. In Dyninp file… Don’t forget to give Group Overrides for Piles… “Effective OD for added mass calculation to 0.001 and also “Non-
Flooded” ” Because this is inside Leg…. I mean to say that piles are inside jacket legs. And in the same way for wish bone Group also give
0.001 and for Conductor Guides also… As inside there is one tubular.
18. Make sure that in Dynamic response Input file also the water depth is correctly entered as that of model file. “It’s general Advice While
entering each and every value in “DATA FIELDS”... make sure that they are right and having compatibility with the physics.
19. Pile Factor of Safety Calculation. There are combinations for compression and tension. Complete the analysis.
20. What is the WD w.r.t LAT…? That for seismic MSL is considered...
21. GS EP STR 101 + Design Basis: At least 90% of global mass participation factor (so the minimum might not just be 2 modes)
22. This is seismic, there is no operating
23. If the Spectral coordinates provided in design basis and referenced in this report are for 5% damping, then this Scaling is not applicable. Make
Sure.
24. For the jacket it does not change much. For the topsides, is not it too conservative to consider the maximum lifting loads in the worst possible
location combined with RIE? Crane Loads.
25. Which mass considered for mass generation? (This for rig and for crane).
26. Have all these positions of the Workover been considered for seismic? Only masses to be considered. Check
27. Wind should not be considered. Make sure.
28. Increase of buoyancy of 26%! How is this explained?
29. It needs to be explained which load combination is used for generating masses.
30. Of all the load combinations listed before, one should be highlighted: the one used for mass generation. Which one is it?
31. It should be explained how the modal and directional responses are combined.
32. Cumulative mass participation factors higher than 1.00? Explain/check
33. Negative mass participation factors? Explain/check.
34. Load conditions '1' and '2' should be explained before (8.4?)
35. Static soil curves WITH group effects shall be considered
36. 1.70 increases are for member allowable stresses. See API RP 2A 2.3.6.e1 and 4.3. Assessment presented in this report is not correct if based
on an allowable stress modifier of 1.70 for Joints. SACS may have an option for seismic check of joints.
37. Why different from the masses presented in the modal analysis?
38. Is this scaling down the results and if so why? (response factor) It seems like total base shear has been scaled down by 1/0.23?
CHECK/Review (total base shear after CQC seems too low)
39. Total Base shear is 350t for a total mass of 23000t? (1.5%g) Seems low given the RS.
40. More details shall be presented for the joint checks. It is impossible to know the type of joint, chord loads, brace loads, etc. More detail shall
be presented in the appendices for tubular joint checks.
41. In Liquefied Condition whether the soil reactions are zero the Liquefied depth.
42. Previous comments to the approach for checking pile capacity apply (Pile weight is in the load-side of the verification)
43. Foundation FOS to be checked for compression and tension. Combinations shall follow GS-EP-STR (LRFD)
44. There are 600t of difference between topsides in-place and seismic. Explain where they originate.
45. This ratio is higher than 1.0 so not acceptable.
46. Note1: acceptable to use API 20th (existing structure) but if API 21st is used then the latest ed. shall be used, i.e. API without the supplements
not acceptable...
47. If understood correctly, load cases are factored and then the FoS for the foundations checked against a FoS of 1.0. If correct, state so in the
report.
48. For consistency, pile self weight shall be combined with a factor of 1.1?
49. Is this tension in the piles? If not, there is no tension and then no need to check again the FoS.
50. Since SLE ground acceleration is 0.09g, strength requirements are checked using RIE spectrum.
51. Explain the different increases on allowable stresses (related to FoS in tubular joints formulae)
52. Added mass of water?
53. See comments on in-place (topsides) regarding removal of skid beams and take into account.
54. Traceable mass comparison for the jacket required.
55. CONTENT LOADS ARE NOT storage loads. Conservatively the 75% requirement could be ignored.
56. OK but for foundation capacity checks different load combinations have been created? This needs to be explained here.
57. Please, how much marine growth mass?
58. From phase 1 seismic report total mass in X/Y is around 27500t. According to this report, total mass in X is around 23700t, difference is thus
3800t. Keeping in mind that marine growth density is higher in phase 2 and that overall weight of jacket and topsides is roughly the same as
in phase 1, explain differences in total modal mass.
59. Are there 2500t (15800t-13300t) of marine growth?
60. See previous comments. Does this check consider the correct SF for seismic? For joints check!!!!
61. Maximum displacements at bridge landing (for bridge sliding allowance check).
62. Foundation capacity check.
63. Topsides are also checked in this report. Therefore, the main nodes of the topsides should also be retained to reflect its dynamic behaviour.
Review.
64. TYPICAL (all reports all platforms): should not the values at 3.90 (1.5D) be also 0.000? (as done for liquefied?) Check.
65. Typical: scour?
66. Base Shear values look low (given the periods for the natural period in each direction 0.025-0.030g was expected?)
67. Check and confirm.
68. Foundation checks details are missing.
69. Scour has not been considered. Liquefied condition has not been checked.
70. Some details on pile/soil interaction file can have an impact on other in-service analyses (BH1 and BD1).
71. Not sure this is clear: to be analysed for Gross Weight of the PLATFORM.
72. Ks = 0.25 for Live Loads.
73. (Floor Live Loads, Company Reserve, Bridge reaction and Helicopter weight) These are loads that will contribute to the masses. Add a
subtotal (for comparison with WCR) and then these additional loads should be cumulated for the TOTAL Mass (not including marine growth,
added mass of water, entrapped water, etc.)
74. basic allowable stresses increased by a factor of 1.70 for members and 1.60 for joints (Latest API)
75. Appurtenance tubular joints - minimum capacity check not applicable
76. If we suppress 30m of soil the period increases by less than 2%? Please check/confirm.
77. This is main structure checking so no need to talk about walkways, stairs, etc. Remove.
78. How about the entrapped mass of water? (pile inside the leg, so only one should be counted)
79. live loads with ks = 0.25..???
80. Clarify (masses need to be fully traceable)
81. using as a basis the static soil curves (as per section 4.2.7)
82. There is no scaling of the spectrum to be done. If spectral ordinates are given..!!! It’s not like API normalised spectra
83. It could be enough to give the final combinations and refer to jacket in-place for details (to avoid replacing these tables at every revision and
increasing the risk of clerical mistakes). Of course, the final load combination shall be back-traceable to the jacket in-place analysis.
84. This load case/combination not previously described.
85. Why is there an additional 10%? This was not previously explained nor agreed.
86. This does not sound right. Soil curves are cancelled in the first 30m and this leads to an increase of less than 2% in the first period? CHECK.
87. If Scour is considered, there cannot be any soil reaction until 1.5D = 3.225m!!!
88. Pilehead forces are roughly the same as for the case intact. However pilehead moments are slightly bigger (strange, if there is no soil until
30m below, the pile should be more flexible and therefore less pilehead moment!!) - In any case, one would expect the maximum UC stress to
happen less than 30m under the mudline. It is not the case. Check (Pile strength check Section)
89. Foundation Factor of Safety Check details?
90. Show also the base shear values for each iteration (an excel table suffice) to show that convergence has been attained.
91. WATCH OUT/TYPICAL for ALL ANALYSES: check whether you have to add a line with zeroes for depth 1.5xD (which by the way is not
2.20m)
92. WATCH OUT: check whether you do not have to add a line with zeroes for depth 30.000??!!!
93. UC ratios for jacket members were expected to be lower for liquefied soil condition (less seismic force) but higher for piles (more
unsupported length) check and confirm.
94. Strange that for piles below the mudline the ratio goes down for liquefied soil conditions (pile bending over 30m!?) Check.
95. Separate marine growth weight to be able to compare masses. Report also buoyancy (to be able to compare 'STAT' and '999)
96. Note that entrapped mass of water has grown almost 25% between two revisions of this report. Legs have not changed and roughly the
entrapped mass of water should be around 1400t-1500t??? Check.
97. Jacket gross weight 2575t (from WCR rev. 3) Piles gross weight 1200t (from WCR rev. 3 - 100/220x2644) Topsides gross operating weight
3700t (from WCR rev. 8 with live loads and CPY reserve) Bridge reaction 800t (roughly) Marine growth, say 450t (from report rev. 1)
TOTAL: 8700t FROM THIS TABLE (338kN+44268kN+35566kN) 8200t Clarify/Check (masses need to be fully traceable)
98. linear foundation matrix
99. Confirm, in the report, that this means ks = 0.25
100. Total Mass used for the analysis to be back traceable to In-place Analysis. Please provide the resultant for the final gravity load combinations
(STAT and 999)
101. How about combinations for foundation checks? (Typical for BD1 as well).
102. This does not sound right. Soil curves are cancelled in the first 30m and this leads to an increase of less than 2% in the first period? CHECK
103. Pile UCs should be higher for liquefied soil condition when compared to intact soil? Check.
104. As done for BD1 seismic at least a plot (bigger than in fig 6.1) showing the retained degrees of freedom is required. Note that the topsides is
analysed in this report as well so retained degrees should reflect its dynamic behaviour also.
105. Should not there be a line at 30.000 with '0" values? Check. - TYPICAL all soil curves liquefied.
106. Base Shear values Should not these values match the base shear obtained in the last iteration (appendix C)??? – TYPICAL Check and
confirm.
107. If scour then no reactions in the soil until 1.5xD.
108. SPOT CHECK: it does not match the values in the report. CHECK. (Natural periods present in Appendix and in main report table).
109. If there is no soil then no reactions until -30m???