Final Project ALAPAN - Nabigh Nabiyl (25515305)

ENGINEERING PROJECT
KL PLATFORM
STRUCTURAL DESIGN REPORT
PREPARED FOR
for KL5221 – Advance Fixed Offshore Platform as a requirement to pass the course in Ocean
Engineering Master Program, Bandung Institute of Technology, Indonesia.
BY
NABIGH NABIYL
25515305
CLIENT
TEKNIK KELAUTAN
ENG.
CONSULTANT
P.T. NABIGH NABIYL
Doc. No. :
Job No. : Contract No. :
Institu Teknologi bandung
Approval:
Date:
Rev. Date Description By Chk App

Final Project Anjungan Lepas Pantai Lanjut
Nabigh Nabiyl - 25515305
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 5
1.1 Background .......................................................................................................................... 5
1.2 Purpose and Scope of Work .................................................................................................. 5
1.3 Platform Description ............................................................................................................ 6
2. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................... 8
2.1 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 8
2.1.1 Member Stress Check............................................................................................... 8
2.1.2 Pile Stress Check ....................................................................................................11
2.1.3 Pile Axial Factors of Safety (F.o.S) ..........................................................................12
2.1.4 Critical Joint Fatigue Life ........................................................................................13
2.2 Conclusion ..........................................................................................................................15
3. DESIGN CRITERIA ............................................................................................................................16
3.1 General ...............................................................................................................................16
3.2 Environmental Data ............................................................................................................16
3.2.1 Water Depth ..........................................................................................................16
3.2.2 Wave Criteria.........................................................................................................17
3.2.3 Wave Kinematics Factor ........................................................................................19
3.2.4 Current Profile .......................................................................................................19
3.2.5 Current Blockage Factor ........................................................................................19
3.2.6 Marine Growth Profile ...........................................................................................20
3.2.7 Hydrodynamics Coefficients ..................................................................................20
3.3 Soil Data .............................................................................................................................20
3.4 Steel Materials ....................................................................................................................21
3.5 Allowable Stresses ..............................................................................................................21
3.6 Earthquake Criteria ............................................................................................................21
4. STRUCTURAL MODELING .................................................................................................................22
4.1 General ...............................................................................................................................22
4.2 Description of the Model .....................................................................................................22
5. LOADING CALCULATION ..................................................................................................................23
5.1 General ...............................................................................................................................23
5.2 Structural Dead Loads.........................................................................................................23
5.3 Environmental Load ...........................................................................................................23
353079618/NBU-INTAN-B/RPT/S/001 Rev. 1
Page 2 of 50
5.7.1 Wave and Current Load .........................................................................................25

6. IN-PLACE ANALYSIS .........................................................................................................................26
6.1 General ...............................................................................................................................26
6.2 Soil Pile Non-Linear Analysis ..............................................................................................26
6.3 Methods of Analysis ............................................................................................................27
6.4 Basic Load Cases .................................................................................................................27
6.5 Load Combinations .............................................................................................................28
6.6 Results................................................................................................................................31
6.6.1 Platform Loads ......................................................................................................31
6.6.2 Member Stress Check.............................................................................................31
6.6.3 Joint Punching Shear ..............................................................................................32
6.6.4 Pile Axial Factors of Safety (F.o.S) ..........................................................................32
7. SEISMIC ANALYSIS ...........................................................................................................................33
7.1 General ...............................................................................................................................33
7.2 Load Cases ..........................................................................................................................33
7.2.1 Acceleration ..........................................................................................................33
7.2.2 Mass……………………………………………………………………………………34
7.2.3 Static Load .............................................................................................................34
7.3 Method Analysis .................................................................................................................35
7.3.1 Foundations/Soil Pile Simulation ...........................................................................35
7.3.2 Global Coordinate ..................................................................................................35
7.3.3 Natural Frequency of the Structure ........................................................................35
7.3.4 Dynamic Response.................................................................................................35
7.4 Result of Seismic Analysis ...................................................................................................35
7.4.1 Natural Period .......................................................................................................35
7.4.2 Mass Participation Factor ......................................................................................36
7.4.3 Base Shear .............................................................................................................37
7.4.4 Member Stresses ...................................................................................................37
7.4.5 Joint Punching Shear ..............................................................................................38
7.4.7 Pile Capacity Check ................................................................................................39
8. FATIGUE ANALYSIS ..........................................................................................................................40
8.1 General ...............................................................................................................................40
8.2 Wave Load ..........................................................................................................................40
8.3 Wave Heights and Wave Periods .........................................................................................40
8.4 Wave Attack Angle ............................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Page 3 of 50
8.5 Methods of Analysis ............................................................................................................40

8.5.1 Centre of Damage Wave Calculation .......................................................................41
8.5.2 Superelement Creation ..........................................................................................41
8.5.3 Dynamic Analysis ..................................................................................................42
8.5.4 Fatigue Life Estimation ..........................................................................................42
8.6 Stress Concentration Factors (SCF’s) ..................................................................................42
8.7 S-N Curves ..........................................................................................................................42
8.8 Dynamic Amplification Factor .............................................................................................42
8.9 Intended Service Live Calculation .......................................................................................43
8.10 Results................................................................................................................................43
9. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ...........................................................................................49
9.1 Conclusion ..........................................................................................................................49
9.2 Recommendation................................................................................................................49
10. REFERENCE .....................................................................................................................................50
10.1 Standards, Codes, & Company Specification ........................................................................50
Page 4 of 50
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Osprey is one of the marginal field developments which will provide gas to BLNG, as per BSP
BP10 latest gas integrated forecast, by Q3 2013. The Osprey gas field in Brunei was discovered
in 1975 and is approximately 18km North-northeast of the EGDP-01 platform in 70.0 to 83m of
water depth, residing in the West asset unit. The Osprey gas reserves are contained in multiple
bodies within three main fault blocks A, B and C. The gas bearing sands range from depths of
500 mss to approximately 1500 mss. The field is relatively aerially extensive with block A and
C approximately 6.5 km apart and Block C itself is around 10 km long. The current expectation
of total field GIIP is approximately 13 BCM. Fig 1.1 below shows the Osprey field location.
Figure 1.1 Location of Osprey Field
The Osprey Field lies in 71.7m to 82.4m water depth about 20 km NNE of the Egret Field /
50km offshore Seria – now BSP West AU. The Osprey development project is to deliver first gas
in Q4 2013 and will ramp-up to supply a peak production capacity of 3 MM Sm3/d (to BLNG).
Base case development plan for Osprey is to drain 10 reservoirs distributed in 3 fault blocks
from 6 wells out of which there will be 4 dual deviated wells and 2 single deviated well (This
corresponds with 10 well flow lines). Gravel pack will be installed in all sands for down hole
sand control. All wells will be equipped with down hole pressure gauge for pressure and
temperature data acquisition
1.2 Purpose and Scope of Work

This report contains In-place, Seismic, and Fatigue analyses.
The scope of work will be described as follow:
1) Develop a full structural model that mostly represents the latest condition.
2) Modeling loads for the main structure that represents the latest condition.
3) Perform computer analysis for
a. In-place for operating and storm condition
b. Seismic for SLE and DLE condition
c. Fatigue wave loads for jacket
4) Perform member stress check to ensure compliance to applicable codes and standards.
5) Check pile axial loads safety factor against the ultimate axial capacity to meet the code
requirement.
6) Check the fatigue life of the platform to meet design life / life extension requirement.
Page 5 of 50
7) Provide any necessary recommendations to ensure the structural integrity during

extended service lifetime.
1.3 Platform Description

The Intan-B Platform was installed in 1990. The platform is located at West of Java Sea with
coordinates of 04° 34’ 48.060” S and 106° 39’ 37.626” E. The general data of Intan-B Platform is
shown on Table 1.1 below.
Table 1.1 Intan-B Description

Description Remarks
Water Depth 70.6 m (from MSL)
No. of Leg 4 nos
No. of Piles 4 nos
Row 1 1:10 (Single batter)
Jacket Leg Batter
Row 2 1:10 (Double batter)
Work Point EL.(+) 6.20 m
Jacket Horizontal Framing EL.(+) 4.0 m
Jacket Horizontal Framing EL.(-) 10.6 m
Jacket Elevation
No of conductor 6 (six)
Design Life 25 years
The structural key plan of KL Jacket Structure is shown in figure 1.1. Platform north is 30° east from
true north.
Page 6 of 50
Figure 1.1. KL Platform Key View
Page 7 of 50
2. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

2.1 Summary
The KL Platform has been performed using SACS 5.7 v8i software.
Members and joints has been code checked to API RP 2A - WSD 21th Edition and AISC 13th
Edition. For In-place Analysis is still satisfactory and within allowable limit. During SLE and
DLE condition, some secondary members have a UC more than 1.0. This is also considered
acceptable, since revised UC due to face check calculation.
Most of primary joint punching shear, in In-place and Seismic Analysis were overstressed,
recalculation using doubler plate strengthening as per As-built drawing has reduced the joint
stress to below acceptable limit.
2.1.1 Member Stress Check

Maximum member combined stress unity check for Intan - B Platform In-place analyses are
summarized in Table 2.1 and Table 2.2.
Table 2.1 Member Stress Summary for In-place Analysis
UC
Member Properties Grade Group Description
Op. Storm Storm
Op. Min
Max Min Max
0020-501L Ø 64.80 x 0.67 API RP 2A B81 0.38 0.40 0.71 0.69 Jacket Bracing
0023-503L Ø 64.80 x 0.67 API RP 2A B82 0.19 0.24 0.48 0.46 Jacket Bracing
101L-101X Ø 76.20 x 1.27 API RP 2A BR1 0.18 0.17 0.27 0.24 Jacket Bracing
203L-102X Ø 76.20 x 1.27 API RP 2A BR2 0.24 0.24 0.42 0.38 Jacket Bracing
1102-1104 Ø 50.80 x 1.27 API RP 2A D11 0.14 0.15 0.28 0.24 Jacket Diagonal Bracing
1201-1106 Ø 50.80 x 1.27 API RP 2A D12 0.11 0.14 0.23 0.22 Jacket Diagonal Bracing
103L-1101 Ø 66.00 x 1.27 API RP 2A H11 0.10 0.17 0.33 0.29 Jacket Horizontal Bracing
1217-102L Ø 66.00 x 2.54 API RP 2A H12 0.33 0.39 0.65 0.59 Jacket Horizontal Bracing
1102-102X Ø 61.00 x 1.27 API RP 2A KB1 0.08 0.08 0.140 0.12 Jacket Horizontal Bracing
1220-1040 Ø 50.80 x 1.27 API RP 2A KB2 0.83 0.83 1.35 1.12 Jacket Diagonal Bracing
102L-202L Ø 120 x 1.27 API RP 2A LG1 0.16 0.18 0.27 0.25 Jacket Leg
104P-204P Ø 106.7 x 3.8 API RP 2A PL1 0.32 0.37 0.63 0.56 Pile Above Mudline
204P-304P Ø 106.7 x 3.8 API RP 2A PL2 0.26 0.29 0.46 0.42 Pile Above Mudline
Table 2.2. Member Stress Summary for Seismic Analysis
Load
Member Properties Grade Group UC Description
Case
SLE
0020-501L Ø 64.80 x 0.67 ASTM A36 B81 PILE 0.02 Jacket Bracing
101L-101X Ø 76.20 x 1.27 ASTM A36 BR1 PILE 0.08 Jacket Bracing
1100-1103 Ø 50.80 x 1.27 ASTM A36 D11 PILE 0.36 Jacket Diagonal Bracing
101L-1100 Ø 66.00 x 1.27 ASTM A36 H11 PILE 0.3 Jacket Horizontal Bracing
1217-102L Ø 66.00 x 2.54 ASTM A36 H12 PILE 0.36 Jacket Horizontal Bracing
Page 8 of 50
Load
Case
1030-101X Ø 61.00 x 1.27 ASTM A36 KB1 PILE 0.04 Jacket Horizontal Bracing
101L-103X Ø 50.80 x 1.27 ASTM A36 KB2 PILE 0.06 Jacket Diagonal Bracing
101L-1030 Ø 120 x 1.27 ASTM A36 LG1 PILE 0.06 Jacket Leg
101P-202P Ø 106.7 x 3.8 ASTM A36 PL1 PILE 1.96 Pile Above Mudline
DLE
Page 9 of 50
Detailed figures of maximum member stress location during In-place and Seismic analysis are Joint
2.1.2 Punching Shear

The joint punching shear UC summary as depicted in Table 2.3 presents the maximum unity check for
In-place analysis and Table 2.4 for Seismic Analysis.
Table 2.2 Joint Punching Shear UC Summary for In-place
Diameter Yield Strength UC
Joint Location
(OD cm x WT cm) (N/mm2) Op. Min Op. Max Storm Min Storm Max
102L Ø 120 x 1.27 248.300 1.808 1.777 3.341 2.993 El.(-) 70.6
104L Ø 120 x 1.27 248.300 1.451 1.665 2.796 2.618 El.(-) 70.6
204L Ø 120 x 1.27 248.300 1.167 1.197 2.462 2.174 El.(-) 47.1
202L Ø 120 x 1.27 248.300 0.824 1.125 2.054 1.854 El.(-) 47.1
103L Ø 120 x 1.27 248.300 0.775 0.787 1.534 1.365 El.(-) 70.6
1220 Ø 66 x 2.54 248.300 0.762 0.775 1.503 1.333 El.(-) 70.6
Table 2.3 Joint Punching Shear UC Summary for Seismic

Chord Brace Yield
Joint UC Location
(ODxWT) (ODxWT) Strength (ksi)
SLE
101L Ø 120 x 1.27 Ø 66.00 x 1.27 36.000 1.736 El.(-) 70.6
102L Ø 120 x 1.27 Ø 66.00 x 1.27 36.000 1.246 El.(-) 70.6
104L Ø 120 x 1.27 Ø 76.00 x 1.27 36.000 2.01 El.(-) 70.6
DLE
101L Ø 120 x 1.27 Ø 66.00 x 1.27 36.000 2.363 El.(-) 70.6
102L Ø 120 x 1.27 Ø 66.00 x 1.27 36.000 2.759 El.(-) 70.6
104L Ø 120 x 1.27 Ø 76.00 x 1.27 36.000 4.601 El.(-) 70.6
Page 10 of
50
2.1.2 Pile Stress Check

Pile members below mudline have been checked for combined axial and bending stresses
according to API RP 2A (ref.[2]) recommendations which refers to AISC (ref.[1]) specification.
The pile stress check for In-place and Seismic analysis are summarized below.
Table 2.6 Pile Below Mudline Unity Check Summary For Inplace Analysis
Joint Properties Grade Group LC UC Description
OPERATING MINIMUM
101P Ø 106.7” x 4.5 AISC 9th PL1 17 0.23 Row A1
103P Ø 106.7” x 4.5 AISC 9th PL1 13 0.24 Row B1
OPERATING MAXIMUM
STORM MINIMUM
STORM MAXIMUM
Table 2.4 Pile Below Mudline Unity Check Summary For Seismic Analysis
Properties Load
Joint Grade Group UC Description
(ODxWT) Case
SLE
101P Ø 106.70 x 4.50 ASTM A36 PL1 PILE 2.504 Row A1
103P Ø 106.70 x 4.50 ASTM A36 PL1 PILE 0.311 Row B1
DLE
Page 11 of
50
2.1.3 Pile Axial Factors of Safety (F.o.S)

All piles satisfy the API RP 2A – WSD requirements for Pile Axial Safety Factor against axial
failure. The pile axial capacity of Ø 42” pile is calculated based on Soil Report. Pile axial loads,
capacities and safety factor for In-place and Seismic analysis are summarized in the table
below.
Table 2.8 Pile Axial Capacity Check For In-place Analysis
Length Pile Axial Pile Capacity
Pile Group LC Remark
(ft) Load(kips) (kips)
OPERATING MINIMUM
101P PL1 102.4 321.1 17 2791.0 Ok
102P PL1 102.4 841.6 18 2798.7 Ok
103P PL1 102.4 331.9 13 2791.0 Ok
104P PL1 102.4 842.2 12 2798.7 Ok
OPERATING MAXIMUM
101P PL1 102.4 700.7 26 2791.0 Ok
102P PL1 102.4 908.1 28 2798.7 Ok
103P PL1 102.4 703.0 22 2791.0 Ok
104P PL1 102.4 919.8 24 2798.7 Ok
STORM MINIMUM
101P PL1 102.4 1264.2 36 2791.0 Ok
102P PL1 102.4 1388.6 38 2798.7 Ok
103P PL1 102.4 1265.9 34 2791.0 Ok
104P PL1 102.4 1419.2 32 2798.7 Ok
STORM MAXIMUM
101P PL1 102.4 1135.1 46 2791.0 Ok
102P PL1 102.4 1276.1 48 2798.7 Ok
103P PL1 102.4 1134.9 44 2791.0 Ok
104P PL1 102.4 1303.0 42 2798.7 Ok
Table 2.8 Pile Axial Capacity Check For Seismic Analysis
Pilehead Row Length Pile Axial Pile Capacity1
LC Remark
and No (M) Load(kN) (kn)
SLE
101P A1 24.08 -3889.26 PILE 1532449.5 Ok
102P A2 24.08 143.85 PILE 1546720.0 Ok
103P B1 24.08 -312.23 PILE 1532449.5 Ok
104P B2 24.08 -368.03 PILE 1546720.0 Ok
DLE
101P A1 24.08 -5466.43 PILE 1532449.5 Ok
102P A2 24.08 374.89 PILE 1546720.0 Ok
103P B1 24.08 -624 PILE 1532449.5 Ok
104P B2 24.08 754.72 PILE 1546720.0 Ok
Page 12 of
50
2.1.4Critical Joint Fatigue Life

The critical joint of the fatigue analysis was presented in the table 2.7 below.
Table 2.10 Critical Joint for Fatigue Life
Minimum Fatigue
Brace Size Member Fatigue Fatigue
Joint Brace to Chord Life Remark
(OD x WT) (cm) Type Damage Life1)
Requirement2)
0024 0024-504L 64.8 x 0.67 BRC 0.728 91 67 OK
403L-0024 66 x 1.27 BRC 0.028 2362 OK
101L 101L-101X 76.2 x 1.27 BRC 0.499 134 67 OK
101L-1030 120 x 1.27 CHD 29.268 2 Not OK
101L-1100 66 x 1.27 BRC 1.910 35 Not OK
101L-1030 120 x 1.27 CHD 20.873 3 Not OK
101L-1101 66 x 1.27 BRC 5.688 11 Not OK
101L-1030 120 x 1.27 CHD 87.080 0.7 Not OK
101L-103X 50.8 x 1.27 BRC 0.39x10-3 168611 OK
101L-1030 120 x 1.27 CHD 0.34x10-2 19860 OK
101P 101P-201P 106.7 x 3.81 BRC 7.566 8 67 Not OK
101X 102L-101X 76.2 x 1.27 BRC 0.268 249 67 OK
202L-101X 76.2 x 1.27 CHD 6.632 10 Not OK
201L-101X 76.2 x 1.27 BRC 0.236 283 OK
101L-101X 76.2 x 1.27 CHD 5.822 11 Not OK
1030-101X 61 x 1.27 BRC 0.87x104 772329 OK
1.1L-101X 76.2 x 1.27 CHD 0.18x10-2 36229 OK
1100-101X 50.8 x 1.27 BRC 0.12x10-2 57019 OK
101L-101X 76.2 x 1.27 CHD 0.012 5498 OK
102L 102L-101X 76.2 x 1.27 BRC 48.637 1 67 Not OK
102L-202L 120 x 1.27 CHD 1201.891 0.0 Not OK
102L-1040 76.2 x 1.27 BRC 6.315 10 Not OK
102L-202L 120 x 1.27 CHD 267.297 0.25 Not OK
102L-1100 66 x 1.27 BRC 11.199 5 Not OK
102L-202L 120 x 1.27 CHD 134.810 0.4 Not OK
1217-102L 66 x 2.54 BRC 59.978 1 Not OK
102L-202L 120 x 1.27 CHD 1019.217 0.06 Not OK
102P 102P-202P 106.7 x 3.81 BRC 2.944 22 67 Not OK
102X 104L-102X 76.2 x 1.27 BRC 0.637 105 67 OK
204L-102X 76.2 x 1.27 CHD 15.815 4 Not OK
203L-102X 76.2 x 1.27 BRC 0.624 107 OK
103L-102X 76.2 x 1.27 CHD 15.465 4 Not OK
1031-102X 61 x 1.27 BRC 0.13x10-3 521153 OK
103L-102X 76.2 x 1.27 CHD 0.31x10-2 21947 OK
1102-102X 61 x 1.27 BRC 0.87x10-3 76647 OK
103L-102X 76.2 x 1.27 CHD 0.012 5697 OK
103L 103L-102X 76.2 x 1.27 BRC 0.046 1441 67 OK
103L-1031 120 x 1.27 CHD 2.148 31 Not OK
103L-103X 76.2 x 1.27 BRC 0.6x10-2 10184 OK
103L-1031 120 x 1.27 CHD 0.193 347 OK
103L-1102 66 x 1.27 BRC 0.161 415 OK
Page 13 of
50
Minimum Fatigue
Requirement2)
103L-1031 120 x 1.27 CHD 2.755 24 Not OK
103L-1101 66 x 1.27 BRC 7.302 9 Not OK
103L-1031 120 x 1.27 CHD 116.423 0.5 Not OK
103P 103P-203P 106 x 3.81 BRC 6.487 10 67 Not OK
1040 104L-1040 50.8 x 1.27 BRC 2.831 23 67 Not OK
204L-1040 76.2 x 2.54 CHD 9.906 6 Not OK
1220-1040 50.8 x 1.27 BRC 4.148 16 Not OK
102L-1040 76.2 x 2.54 CHD 13.217 5 Not OK
104L 104L-102X 76.2 x 1.27 BRC 77.573 0.8 67 Not OK
104L-204L 120 x 1.27 CHD 1794.454 0.03 Not OK
104L-1102 66 x 1.27 BRC 5.037 13 Not OK
104L-204L 120 x 1.27 CHD 62.209 1 Not OK
1223-104L 66 x 2.54 BRC 68.748 0.9 Not OK
104L-204L 120 x 1.27 CHD 1116.592 0.0 Not OK
104L-1040 50.8 x 1.27 BRC 139.963 0.47 Not OK
104L-204L 120 x 1.27 CHD 2026.188 0.0 Not OK
104P 104P-204P 106.7 x 3.81 BRC 2.255 29 67 Not OK
1220 1220-1214 50.8 x 1.27 BRC 0.304 220 67 OK
1220-1221 66 x 2.54 CHD 1.316 50 Not OK
1220-1213 50.8 x 1.27 BRC 0.4 143 OK
1219-1220 66 x 2.54 CHD 2.014 33 Not OK
1220-1040 50.8 x 1.27 BRC 12.897 5 Not OK
1219-1220 66 x 2.54 CHD 39.396 1 Not OK
202L 202L-101X 76.2 x 1.27 BRC 1.09 61 67 Not OK
102L-202L 120 x 1.27 CHD 19.35 3 Not OK
202L-301L 76.2 x 1.27 BRC 0.2 293 OK
202L-302L 120 x 4.5 CHD 0.3 203 OK
202L-2100 66 x 1.27 BRC 0.0 2278 OK
202L-302L 120 x 4.5 CHD 0.0 1706 OK
2217-202L 66 x 1.27 BRC 0.24x10-2 28117 OK
202L-302L 120 x 4.5 CHD 0.24x10-2 27614 OK
204L 104L-204L 120 x 1.27 CHD 2.702 24 67 Not OK
301L 201L-301L 120 x 4.5 CHD 1.222 54 67 Not OK
301X 301X-401L 61 x 1.27 BRC 0.0 6497 67 OK
301L-301X 71.1 x 1.27 CHD 0.22 300 OK
301X-1042 66 x 1.59 BRC 0.0 710 OK
301L-301X 71.1 x 1.27 CHD 4.726 14 Not OK
304L 203L-304L 76.2 x 1.27 BRC 0.4 154 67 OK
204L-304L 120 x 4.5 CHD 0.8 80 OK
304L-302X 71.1 x 1.27 BRC 0.9 71 OK
304L-404L 120 x 4.5 CHD 1.217 55 Not OK
401L 401L-4100 66 x 1.27 BRC 1.086 61 Not OK
401L-0015 120 x 4.5 CHD 0.994 70 ` OK
402L 402L-301X 71.1 x 1.27 BRC 3.885 17 Not OK
302L-402L 120 x 4.5 CHD 3.911 17 Not OK
4217-402L 66 x 1.27 BRC 8.761 7 Not OK
Page 14 of
50
Minimum Fatigue
Requirement2)
402L-0016 120 x 4.5 CHD 8.945 7 Not OK
403L 403L-302X 71.1 x 1.27 BRC 0.789 84 67 OK
1043-403L 120 x 4.5 CHD 1.095 61 Not OK
403L-0024 66 x 1.27 BRC 0.822 81 OK
403L-0000 120 x 4.5 CHD 0.421 159 OK
403L-4101 66 x 1.27 BRC 0.101 665 OK
403L-0000 120 x 4.5 CHD 0.072 924 OK
403L-4102 66 x 1.27 BRC 3.603 18 Not OK
403L-0000 120 x 4.5 CHD 4.354 15 Not OK
404L 404L-4102 66 x 1.27 BRC 2.131 31 Not OK
304L-404L 120 x 4.5 CHD 1.319 50 Not OK
4223-404L 66 x 1.27 BRC 2.978 22 Not OK
404L-0019 120 x 4.5 CHD 3.161 21 Not OK
4100 4100-4101 40.6 x 0.953 BRC 0.704 95 OK
401L-4100 66 x 1.59 CHD 0.943 71 OK
4100-4201 40.6 x 0.953 BRC 27.808 2 Not OK
402L-4100 66 x 1.59 CHD 22.028 3 Not OK
4102 4102-4101 40.6 x 0.953 BRC 0.359 186 OK
403L-4102 66 x 1.59 CHD 0.459 145 OK
4102-4204 40.6 x 0.953 BRC 46.612 1 Not OK
404L-4102 66 x 1.59 CHD 35.032 1 Not OK
502L 502L-5217 50.8 x 2.54 BRC 1.551 43 Not OK
502L-602L 124.5 x 5 CHD 3.719 18 Not OK
504L 504L-604L 124.5 x 5 CHD 1.183 56 Not OK
2.2 Conclusion
From the analyses result above it can be concluded that:
1. For In-place operating and storm condition, all members and joints are considered
acceptable without any additional strengthening.
2. For seismic condition, all members are acceptable. All joint punching shear check are also
considered acceptable. Need regular inspection for UC higher than 0.5
3. Some of primary joints in the platform jacket are not satisfy fatigue life requirements. It is
recommended to perform the regular underwater inspection for these joints and rectify
any welding improvement if required. High fatigue damage mean the platform need regular
and constant check to ensure the platform satisfy 25 more years service life.
Page 15 of
50
3. DESIGN CRITERIA
3.1 General
The structural configuration, environmental data and topside loadings for this requalification
analysis are mostly based on as built structural drawing, the report on the platform assessment
and surveys. The criteria presented in this section are applied in the platform analysis.
3.2 Environmental Data
The environmental data is taken from Osprey Field metocean parameters
3.2.1 Water Depth

The Mean Sea Level (MSL) of platform is 70.6 m as stated on Inspection Report
The water depths used in the analysis are given in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Water Depth

Height
No Description
(m)
1. Highest Astronomical Tide +2.4
2. Lowest Astronomical Tide -0.13
3. Storm Surge 100-year 0.91
4. Water depth:
a MSL 1.13
b 1 year Operating (Min Water Depth) 69.34
c 1 year Operating (Max Water Depth) 71.87
d 100 years Extreme (Min Water Depth) 70.25
e 100 years Extreme (Max Water Depth) 72.78
Page 16 of
50
3.2.2 Wave Criteria

The 1-year and 100-years return period wave characteristics describe in the table below shall
be considered for In-place analysis. Wave theory of Stokes 5th order was used in this analysis.
Table 3.2 Wave Data
Return Maximum Wave Maximum Wave
Period Height (ft) Period (s)
1-year 3.7 8
100-years 10.97 12.8
A deterministic fatigue analysis will be performed using the basic wave data. Wave loads due to
fatigue waves shall be computed using Stokes Fifth wave theory in conjunction with Morrison’s
equation and based on API regions of applicability of wave theory. 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. The number of individual wave in 25
years associated with 25 years return period was presented in Table 3.3.
Page 17 of
50
Table 3.3 Number of Individual Wave in 25 years Associated with Return Period
Wave
N NE E SE S SW W NW Total
height
0 - 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.2 - 0.5 21174118.39 1548381.601 116128.62 154838.1601 270966.7801 1083867.12 5419335.602 8941903.744 38709540.02
0.5 - 1 21076530 1541245.338 115593.4004 154124.5338 269717.9342 1078871.737 5394358.683 8900691.828 38531133.45
1 - 1.5 2603275.497 190367.4952 14277.56214 19036.74952 33314.31166 133257.2466 666286.2332 1099372.285 4759187.38
1.5 - 2 135160.3143 9883.752417 741.2814313 988.3752417 1729.656673 6918.626692 34593.13346 57078.67021 247093.8104
2 - 2.5 3987.660802 291.6022525 21.87016893 29.16022525 51.03039418 204.1215767 1020.607884 1684.003008 7290.056312
2.5 - 3 183.7112536 13.43409533 1.00755715 1.343409533 2.350966682 9.403866729 47.01933365 77.58190052 335.8523832
3 - 3.5 8.805280888 0.643896226 0.048292217 0.064389623 0.11268184 0.450727358 2.25363679 3.718500704 16.09740564
3.5 - 4 0.144111417 0.010538312 0.000790373 0.001053831 0.001844205 0.007376818 0.036884092 0.060858752 0.2634578
Page 18 of 50
3.2.3 Wave Kinematics Factor

API RP 2A – WSD, Section 2.3.1b (3) allows the user of wave kinematics factor in the range
of 0.95-1.00 for extra-tropical storm, applied to the horizontal velocities and accelerations
from the two-dimensional regular wave. A factor of 1.00 has been applied for the 1 year
return period wave and 0.90 for the 100 years return period wave.
3.2.4 Current Profile

The following table presents the basic current profile.
Table 3.4 Current Profile
Current Speed (m/s)
Percent of Depth from Mudline (%)
Operating Condition Storm Condition
0 0 0
10 1.080 0.511
20 1.192 0.564
30 1.263 0.598
40 1.316 0.623
50 1.359 0.643
60 1.394 0.660
70 1.425 0.675
80 1.453 0.688
90 1.478 0.699
100 1.500 0.710
3.2.5 Current Blockage Factor

The current blockage factors for 6 legged jacket as per API RP 2A is described in the table
below and shall be considered in the analysis.
Table 3.5 Current Blockage Factor
Wave Heading 4 Legged Jacket
End-on 0.80
Diagonal 0.85
Broadside 0.80
353079618/NBU-INTAN-B/RPT/S/001 Rev. 1 Page 19 of 50

3.2.6 Marine Growth Profile
3.2.7 Hydrodynamics Coefficients

Drag coefficient (Cd) and inertia coefficient (Cm) values used in the analysis as shown
below
Table 3.6 Hydrodynamics Coefficient
Shape Condition In-place Seismic Fatigue
Smooth 1.20 1.20 0.70
Cd
Rough 0.70 1.20 0.70
Smooth 1.60 1.60 2.00
Cm
Rough 2.00 1.60 2.00
3.3 Soil Data

Soil data determined from site specific borehole data of Report No. BWN/03-11/0609A,
Final Report, Soil Investigation for BH Osprey A, Osprey A Location, by TL Geosciences Sdn.
Bhd.
3.4 Steel Materials

Structural steel properties are listed in Table 3.10.
Table 3.7 Steel Material properties

Properties Value
Yield Strength 36 ksi (tubular)
Elastic Modulus 29.00 x 103ksi
Shear Modulus 11.60 x 103ksi
Steel Density 490.00 lbs/ft3
3.5 Allowable Stresses

Permissible stresses shall be as per API RP 2A. A 33% increase in allowable stress is used for
In-place 100 year storm condition and 70% increase for seismic condition.
3.6 Earthquake Criteria
The response spectrum and Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) data as per guidelines in defined
Final Report Seismic Hazard Evaluation presented in Table 3.10 & 3.11.
Table 3.8 Response Spectrum
Response Value
Period (sec)
100 year (SLE) 800 year (DLE)
0.25 0.020 0.036
0.50 0.041 0.074
1.00 0.067 0.120
2.00 0.095 0.175
3.33 0.098 0.184
5.00 0.092 0.177
10.00 0.065 0.128
33.00 0.035 0.065
Table 3.9 PGA Occurrence

Analysis Condition PGA
SLE 0.035
RLE 0.065

4. STRUCTURAL MODELING
4.1 General
A three-dimensional computer model using SACS software was developed to assess the
structural integrity of the KL Platform. The In-place structural integrity KL Platform has
been checked using a composite model of the topside and jacket. The space frame model of
the platform has been assembled using 2 nodes, beams and rod elements available in the
SACS library.
Geometric shapes of the computer model that are developed using Precede and will be used
in the analyses, included also file inputs for computer model.
4.2 Description of the Model
The jacket structure is modeled with all of its primary members including jacket legs,
horizontal framing and vertical bracings etc. The leg cans are modeled for the leg joints at
the framing levels. The Boat landing also modeled in this analysis. Nonlinear PSI has been
considered for boundary conditions of the piles at mudline level. Eccentricities at nodes are
modeled where they fall outside the API RP 2A allowable limits. The marine growth and
corrosion allowance for jacket members also have been applied.
Figure 4.1. KL Platform 3D Model

5. LOADING CALCULATION
5.1 General
This section presents loads considered for the requalification analysis in order to simulate
all the load received by the platform during its service life. Contingencies were considered
through the loading combinations. The loadings for In-place analysis include the followings:
 Computer generated dead load
 Wave and Current loads
5.2 Structural Dead Loads
Dead loads are classified as structural self-weight and miscellaneous dead load. Structural
self-weight, to be generated by computer program, covering the weight of structural
member on the model. A contingency factor of 1.05 is applied to cover for miscellaneous
item not included in the computer model such as shim plates, stiffeners, etc.
Dead load of structural steel including buoyancy of all primary and secondary structural
steel which are modeled in SACS Program is automatically generated by SACS program. The
summaries of structural dead loads are given in table 5.1.
Table 5.1 Structural Dead Load
Basic Load (KN)
LC Description
Operating Operating Storm Storm
Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum
DEAD Dead load 14439.994 14489.612 14457.524 14509.951
Buoyancy 9394.206 9668.587 9519.229 9685.731
Total Structure selfweight 5045.788 4821.025 4938.295 4824.22
5.3 Environmental Load

Omni-directional wave parameters will be used for In-place analysis. Eight directions of
environment attacks will be considered in order to obtain the most critical condition for
structure and its foundation. The wave crest position resulting in maximum base shear will
be selected for both orthogonal and diagonal incidences.

Figure 5.1 Environmental Load Directions

5.7.1 Wave and Current Load

Wave and current loads are computer generated. The summary of wave and current loads
in operating and storm condition are given in Table 5.7.
Table 5.2 Wave and Current Load Operating Minimum
Load Total Load (KN)
Description
Case FX FY
OMN1 Operating Envir Load at 0 Deg. Dir Min W.D 1483.765 3.737
OMN4 Operating Envir Load at 135 Deg. Dir Min W.D 1125.204 -491.700
Table 5.1. Wave and Current Load Operating Maximum

Description
Case FX FY
OMX1 Operating Envir Load at 0 Deg. Dir Max W.D 1425.560 2.928
OMX4 Operating Envir Load at 135 Deg. Dir Max W.D -1093.761 1131.490
OMX5 Operating Envir Load at 180 Deg. Dir Max W.D -1453.743 -3.358
OMX6 Operating Envir Load at 225 Deg. Dir Max W.D -1089.017 -1138.278
OMX7 Operating Envir Load at 270 Deg. Dir Max W.D 19.641 -1532.895
OMX8 Operating Envir Load at 315 Deg. Dir Max W.D 1088.65 -1095.094
Table 5.2. Wave and Current Load Storm Minimum

Description
Case FX FY
SMN1 Storm Envir Load at 0 Deg. Dir Min W.D 3276.975 5.879
SMN4 Storm Envir Load at 135 Deg. Dir Min W.D -2380.063 2470.963
SMN5 Storm Envir Load at 180 Deg. Dir Min W.D -3368.797 -6.472
SMN6 Storm Envir Load at 225 Deg. Dir Min W.D -2373.225 -2481.706
SMN7 Storm Envir Load at 270 Deg. Dir Min W.D 49.914 -3463.993
SMN8 Storm Envir Load at 315 Deg. Dir Min W.D 2377.216 -2379.349

Table 5.3. Wave and Current Load Storm Maximum

Description
Case FX FY
SMX1 Storm Envir Load at 0 Deg. Dir Max W.D 2885.078 5.635
SMX4 Storm Envir Load at 135 Deg. Dir Max W.D -2094.822 2169.395
SMX5 Storm Envir Load at 180 Deg. Dir Max W.D -2974.430 -6.406
SMX6 Storm Envir Load at 225 Deg. Dir Max W.D -2087.867 2180.054
SMX7 Storm Envir Load at 270 Deg. Dir Max W.D 35.860 -3062.457
SMX8 Storm Envir Load at 315 Deg. Dir Max W.D 2079.022 -2093.190
6. IN-PLACE ANALYSIS
6.1 General
All primary, secondary jacket and deck members have been modelled and analyzed using
the SACS 5.5 Programs. Environmental loads such as wave, current, the hydrodynamic
effect and the structural stiffness are generated automatically. Topside loads also generated
or summed by the SEASTATE module. Wave and current loads are generated in accordance
with Morison’s equation as given in API RP 2A – WSD.
6.2 Soil Pile Non-Linear Analysis

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. Soil non-linearity was
considered by using the generated load deflection data (P-Y, T-Z and Q-Z).
A full jacket soil pile interaction analysis has been performed using the SACS-PSI program
module based on soil report. The soil curves T-Z, Q-Z and P-Y will be included along with
pile member. The pile soil 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. All the piles will be modelled and attached to the jacket at the respective joints.
The pilehead is located at the mudline. Soil and the pile properties are modelled up to the
design penetration for complete structure-pile interaction.
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.

6.3 Methods of Analysis

The analysis can be conveniently divided into five major stages, namely:
 Modeling and generation of functional loads using the ‘SACS-PRECEDE’ program module.
 Generation of environmental loads, buoyancy and self-weight using the ‘SACS-
SEASTATE’ program module and the formulation of design cases by combining the basic
load cases.
 Load vector generation and stiffness condensation of the pile of Platform using the ‘SACS
V’ program module for input into the ‘SACS-PSI’ foundation model; generation of a set of
interface displacements and rotations by the ‘SACS-PSI’ program module.
 Back substitution of interface displacements and rotations generated in the ‘SACS-PSI’
program module to obtain final pile nodal displacements and rotations.
 Post processing of results using ‘SACS-JOINTCAN’ and ‘SACS-POSTVUE’ program
modules. The Post Processing from SACS enables Member and Joint Punching Shear
Unity Checks to be performed in accordance with API RP 2A – WSD and AISC.
6.4 Basic Load Cases

Basic load case descriptions considered for the analysis are given in the following table.
Table 6.1 Basic Load Case
LC Description
SW11-18 Selfweight – Operating Minimum Water Depth
SW21-28 Selfweight – Operating Maximum Water Depth
SW31-38 Selfweight – Storm Minimum Water Depth
SW41-48 Selfweight – Storm Maximum Water Depth
OMX1 Operating Environmental Load at 0 Deg. (Max WD)
OMX3 Operating Environmental Load at 90.0 Deg. (Max WD)
SMX1 Storm Environmental Load at 0 Deg. (Max WD)
OMN1 Operating Environmental Load at 0 Deg. (Min WD)


SMN1 Storm Environmental Load at 0 Deg. (Min WD)
6.5 Load Combinations

The design load conditions for static In-place analysis are selected based on the operating
philosophy of the platform and each set of loads are selected and combined to give the worst
loading conditions. The load combinations used in the In-place analysis for 1-year operating
(Minimum-Maximum Water Depth) and 100-years (Minimum-Maximum Water Depth) are
summarized in Table 6.2 through table 6.5.
Table 6.1. Load Combination for Operating Condition with Minimum Water Depth
Load Combination - Operating Minimum Water Depth
LC Basic Load Case
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 DEAD
SW Selfweight 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05
TPSD Topside Load 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05
OMN1 Envir Load at 0 Deg. Dir 1.00 - - - - - - - -
OMN2 Envir Load at 45 Deg. Dir - 1.00 - - - - - - -
OMN3 Envir Load at 90 Deg. Dir - - 1.00 - - - - - -
OMN4 Envir Load at 135 Deg. Dir - - - 1.00 - - - - -
OMN5 Envir Load at 180 Deg. Dir - - - - 1.00 - - - -
OMN6 Envir Load at 225 Deg. Dir - - - - - 1.00 - - -
OMN7 Envir Load at 270 Deg. Dir - - - - - - 1.00 - -
OMN8 Envir Load at 315 Deg. Dir - - - - - - - 1.00 -

Table 6.2. Load Combination for Operating Condition with Maximum Water Depth
LC Basic Load Case
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEAD
SW Selfweight 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05
OMX1 Envir Load at 0 Deg. Dir 1.00 - - - - - - - -
OMX2 Envir Load at 45 Deg. Dir - 1.00 - - - - - - -
OMX3 Envir Load at 90 Deg. Dir - - 1.00 - - - - - -
OMX4 Envir Load at 135 Deg. Dir - - - 1.00 - - - - -
OMX5 Envir Load at 180 Deg. Dir - - - - 1.00 - - - -
OMX6 Envir Load at 225 Deg. Dir - - - - - 1.00 - - -
OMX7 Envir Load at 270 Deg. Dir - - - - - - 1.00 - -
OMX8 Envir Load at 315 Deg. Dir - - - - - - - 1.00 -
Table 6.3. Load Combination for Storm Condition with Minimum Water Depth
LC Basic Load Case
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 DEAD
SW Selfweight 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05
SMN1 Envir Load at 0 Deg. Dir 1.00 - - - - - - - -
SMN2 Envir Load at 45 Deg. Dir - 1.00 - - - - - - -
SMN3 Envir Load at 90 Deg. Dir - - 1.00 - - - - - -
SMN4 Envir Load at 135 Deg. Dir - - - 1.00 - - - - -
SMN5 Envir Load at 180 Deg. Dir - - - - 1.00 - - - -
SMN6 Envir Load at 225 Deg. Dir - - - - - 1.00 - - -
SMN7 Envir Load at 270 Deg. Dir - - - - - - 1.00 - -
SMN8 Envir Load at 315 Deg. Dir - - - - - - - 1.00 -
Table 6.4. Load Combination for Operating Condition with Maximum Water Depth
LC Basic Load Case
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEAD
SW Selfweight 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05
OMX1 Envir Load at 0 Deg. Dir 1.00 - - - - - - - -
OMX2 Envir Load at 45 Deg. Dir - 1.00 - - - - - - -
OMX3 Envir Load at 90 Deg. Dir - - 1.00 - - - - - -
OMX4 Envir Load at 135 Deg. Dir - - - 1.00 - - - - -
OMX5 Envir Load at 180 Deg. Dir - - - - 1.00 - - - -
OMX6 Envir Load at 225 Deg. Dir - - - - - 1.00 - - -
OMX7 Envir Load at 270 Deg. Dir - - - - - - 1.00 - -
OMX8 Envir Load at 315 Deg. Dir - - - - - - - 1.00 -
Page 29 of 50
Table 6.5. Load Combination for Storm Condition with Maximum Water Depth
LC Basic Load Case
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 DEAD
SW Selfweight 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05
SMX1 Envir Load at 0 Deg. Dir 1.00 - - - - - - - -
SMX2 Envir Load at 45 Deg. Dir - 1.00 - - - - - - -
SMX3 Envir Load at 90 Deg. Dir - - 1.00 - - - - - -
SMX4 Envir Load at 135 Deg. Dir - - - 1.00 - - - - -
SMX5 Envir Load at 180 Deg. Dir - - - - 1.00 - - - -
SMX6 Envir Load at 225 Deg. Dir - - - - - 1.00 - - -
SMX7 Envir Load at 270 Deg. Dir - - - - - - 1.00 - -
SMX8 Envir Load at 315 Deg. Dir - - - - - - - 1.00 -
Table 6.6. Load Combination for Storm Condition with Maximum Water Depth
LC Basic Load Case
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 DEAD
SW Selfweight 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05
SMX1 Envir Load at 0 Deg. Dir 1.00 - - - - - - - -
SMX2 Envir Load at 45 Deg. Dir - 1.00 - - - - - - -
SMX3 Envir Load at 90 Deg. Dir - - 1.00 - - - - - -
SMX4 Envir Load at 135 Deg. Dir - - - 1.00 - - - - -
SMX5 Envir Load at 180 Deg. Dir - - - - 1.00 - - - -
SMX6 Envir Load at 225 Deg. Dir - - - - - 1.00 - - -
SMX7 Envir Load at 270 Deg. Dir - - - - - - 1.00 - -
SMX8 Envir Load at 315 Deg. Dir - - - - - - - 1.00 -
Page 30 of 50
6.6 Results
6.6.1 Platform Loads
The topside loads summary of Intan – B Platform in operating condition is presented below.
Table 6.2 Summary Load for Intan-B Platform
Basic Load
LC Description
(KN)
A. Structure Generated Weight
SW Selfweight Operating - Minimum 5045.788
SW Selfweight Operating – Maximum 4821.025
SW Selfweight Storm - Minimum 4938.295
SW Selfweight Storm - Maximum 4824.22

TOTAL LOAD 19629.33
6.6.2 Member Stress Check

Maximum member combined stress and unity check for Platform global analyses are
summarized in Table 6.7. Detail output listing is included in Appendix C.
Table 6.3 Member Stress Summary
UC
Member Properties Grade Group Description
Op. Min Op. Max Storm Min Storm Max
0020-501L ASTM36 AISC 9th B81 0.38 0.40 0.71 0.69 OK
0023-503L ASTM36 AISC 9th B82 0.19 0.24 0.48 0.46 OK
101L-101X ASTM36 AISC 9th BR1 0.18 0.17 0.27 0.24 OK
203L-102X ASTM36 AISC 9th BR2 0.24 0.24 0.42 0.38 OK
1102-1104 ASTM36 AISC 9th D11 0.14 0.15 0.28 0.24 OK
1201-1106 ASTM36 AISC 9th D12 0.11 0.14 0.23 0.22 OK
103L-1101 ASTM36 AISC 9th H11 0.10 0.17 0.33 0.29 OK
1217-102L ASTM36 AISC 9th H12 0.33 0.39 0.65 0.59 OK
1102-102X ASTM36 AISC 9th KB1 0.08 0.08 0.140 0.12 OK
1220-1040 ASTM36 AISC 9th KB2 0.83 0.83 1.35 1.12 OK
102L-202L ASTM36 AISC 9th LG1 0.16 0.18 0.27 0.25 OK
104P-204P ASTM36 AISC 9th PL1 0.32 0.37 0.63 0.56 OK
204P-304P ASTM36 AISC 9th PL2 0.26 0.29 0.46 0.42 OK
OSWJ 1 Page 31 of 50
6.6.3 Joint Punching Shear

The joint punching shear unity check summary is as depicted in Table 6.8. Detail output
listing is described in Appendix C. All the joint UCs are within allowable limit.
Table 6.4 Joint Punching Shear UC Summary
Diameter Yield Strength UC
Joint Location
(OD cm x WT cm) (N/mm2) Op. Min Op. Max Storm Min Storm Max
102L Ø 120 x 1.27 248.300 1.808 1.777 3.341 2.993 El.(-) 70.6
104L Ø 120 x 1.27 248.300 1.451 1.665 2.796 2.618 El.(-) 70.6
204L Ø 120 x 1.27 248.300 1.167 1.197 2.462 2.174 El.(-) 47.1
202L Ø 120 x 1.27 248.300 0.824 1.125 2.054 1.854 El.(-) 47.1
103L Ø 120 x 1.27 248.300 0.775 0.787 1.534 1.365 El.(-) 70.6
1220 Ø 66 x 2.54 248.300 0.762 0.775 1.503 1.333 El.(-) 70.6
6.6.4 Pile Axial Factors of Safety (F.o.S)

All piles satisfy the API RP 2A – WSD requirements for Pile Axial Safety Factor against axial
failure. The pile axial capacity of 42” pile is calculated based on Soil Report. Pile axial loads,
capacities and safety factor are summarized in the Table 6.9.
Table 6.9. Pile Axial Capacity Check
Length Pile Axial Pile Capacity
Pile Group LC Remark
(ft) Load(kips) (kips)
OPERATING MINIMUM
101P PL1 102.4 321.1 17 2791.0 Ok
102P PL1 102.4 841.6 18 2798.7 Ok
103P PL1 102.4 331.9 13 2791.0 Ok
104P PL1 102.4 842.2 12 2798.7 Ok
OPERATING MAXIMUM
101P PL1 102.4 700.7 26 2791.0 Ok
102P PL1 102.4 908.1 28 2798.7 Ok
103P PL1 102.4 703.0 22 2791.0 Ok
104P PL1 102.4 919.8 24 2798.7 Ok
STORM MINIMUM
101P PL1 102.4 1264.2 36 2791.0 Ok
102P PL1 102.4 1388.6 38 2798.7 Ok
103P PL1 102.4 1265.9 34 2791.0 Ok
104P PL1 102.4 1419.2 32 2798.7 Ok
STORM MAXIMUM
101P PL1 102.4 1135.1 46 2791.0 Ok
102P PL1 102.4 1276.1 48 2798.7 Ok
103P PL1 102.4 1134.9 44 2791.0 Ok
104P PL1 102.4 1303.0 42 2798.7 Ok

Pile members have been checked for combined axial and bending stresses according to API
RP 2A recommendations which refer to AISC specification. Allowable bending stress of 0.60
Fy were used in computing stress utilization factors for operating and installation load
conditions. One-third increase in the allowable stresses has been included for extreme
storm condition. The piles are modeled to their full penetration below mudline.
Piles above mudline (above pile head joint) are modeled as separate tubular members
concentric with the leg members. Below the link node elevation, the pile-soil foundation
system is modeled. The result of foundation analysis is summarized in table below.
Table 6.10. Pile Below Mudline Unity Check Summary

Joint Properties Grade Group LC UC Description
OPERATING MINIMUM
OPERATING MAXIMUM
STORM MINIMUM
STORM MAXIMUM
7. SEISMIC ANALYSIS
7.1 General
The design considerations for KL-PLATFORM based on OSWJ01
7.2 Load Cases
7.2.1 Acceleration
The response spectrum data as per guidelines stated in Section 3.6 with the value of G as
0.125 for strength level and 0.188 for ductility level has been used as a conservative
approach.
As a conservative measure, the directional factors that are applied in the analysis are:
X : 1.000
Y : 1.000
Z : 0.500
7.2.2 Mass
This section described the basic load cases used in the mass modelling. Mass representing
the weight of structural steel, non-generated deck dead load, non-generated jacket dead
load, equipment and piping were distributed as lump masses to the main nodes of the
model to achieve the correct center of mass. The mass generated in the SACS model include
the deck and jacket members, plates, marine growth, member element normal added mass
and flooded member entrapped fluid.
Table 7.1 Mass Summary
Mass (kn)
Description
X-Dir Y-Dir Z-Dir
Topside Load 0 0 -3433
Selfweight 2504.86 2553.03 -4817
Gravity 0 0 -3605
Total Mass 2504.86 2553.03 -11855
7.2.3 Static Load

Static load is identical with In-place static analysis.
7.3 Method Analysis
7.3.1 Foundations/Soil Pile Simulation

The soil pile simulation method for seismic condition is similar with In-place analysis with
exception that the load involved is extracted from seismic analysis result.
7.3.2 Global Coordinate

The global coordinate used for seismic analysis is similar with In-place analysis.
7.3.3 Natural Frequency of the Structure

This analysis is for determining the first ten natural periods and mode shapes of the
structure. It forms the basis for development of model forces in the dynamic response
analysis.
7.3.4 Dynamic Response

The In-place analysis model was used to developed the Dynamic/Eigen Value analysis.
A sufficient number of retained degrees of freedoms were chosen to capture the mode
shapes. For every joint that has a lumped mass, the three translation degrees of freedoms
shall be retained. The rotational degrees of freedom, which have an insignificant impact on
the mode shapes, have not been included.
The dynamic analysis has been performed using DYNPAC module of SACS programs which
generated dynamic characteristic including eigen vector or natural mode shape and eigen
value or natural periods.
This program creates common solution file containing mode shape and a mass file which
are used for dynamic response analysis.
7.4 Result of Seismic Analysis
7.4.1 Natural Period

Extracted from the dynamic analysis output results. The fundamental period corresponding
to the first mode of vibration of the structures is 1.44 second. The first three modes of
vibration of the platform are listed in the Table 7.2 below:
Table 7.2 Platform Natural Period
Osjw01 Platform
Mode No.
Period (sec) Mode Shape
1 2.144 1st Global Sway – Y
2 2.105 1st Global Sway – X
3 1.187 1st Global Torsion
7.4.2 Mass Participation Factor

For dynamic analysis, 150 modes were considered in analysis and have been extracted in
Table 7.3 to represent a cumulative mass participation factor of more than 90% for global X,
Y and Z directions.
Table 7.3 Mass Participation Factor Summary
MODE X Y Z X Y Z
1 0.891405 0.02007 0.006277 0.891405 0.02007 0.006277
2 0.02108 0.832874 7.32E-05 0.912485 0.852944 0.00635
3 0.000145 0.000601 0 0.912629 0.853545 0.00635
4 0.053695 0.000078 0.000881 0.966324 0.853623 0.007231
5 0.003388 0.000543 0.002344 0.969713 0.854166 0.009574
6 0.000194 0.047145 0.000933 0.969906 0.901311 0.010507
7 5.5E-06 0.016797 0.001011 0.969912 0.918108 0.011518
8 0.004248 6.18E-05 0.001184 0.97416 0.918169 0.012701
9 0.00077 1.06E-05 0.091081 0.97493 0.91818 0.103783
10 0.000719 7.3E-06 0.295547 0.975649 0.918187 0.39933
11 0.001068 0.000111 0.04213 0.976717 0.918298 0.44146
12 3.09E-05 0.003635 0.030739 0.976747 0.921933 0.472199
13 0.001273 0.000906 0.035113 0.97802 0.92284 0.507312
14 4.39E-05 0.016189 0.019299 0.978064 0.939028 0.526612
15 0.000768 3.35E-05 0.180575 0.978831 0.939062 0.707187
16 0.000239 0.004474 0.052914 0.979071 0.943536 0.760101
17 0.000113 0.004155 0.025745 0.979183 0.947691 0.785846
18 0.000275 0.000001 0.007539 0.979458 0.947692 0.793385
19 5.3E-06 0.000262 0.000435 0.979464 0.947954 0.79382
20 1.52E-05 6.8E-06 2.07E-05 0.979479 0.947961 0.79384
21 4.54E-05 0.000106 0.001489 0.979524 0.948067 0.79533
22 0.000726 7.22E-05 0.102724 0.98025 0.948139 0.898053
23 0.000033 8E-07 0.008699 0.980283 0.94814 0.906752
24 3.28E-05 9.3E-06 0.002466 0.980316 0.948149 0.909218
25 1.24E-05 8.31E-05 0.004403 0.980328 0.948232 0.91362
26 3.81E-05 0.000387 0.005963 0.980366 0.948619 0.919583
27 3.58E-05 0.000682 0.001067 0.980402 0.949301 0.92065
28 5.7E-06 1.4E-06 2.62E-05 0.980408 0.949303 0.920676
29 5.39E-05 0.009998 0.000209 0.980461 0.9593 0.920885
30 3.12E-05 0.000752 0.001535 0.980493 0.960053 0.92242
31 0 3E-07 0.003012 0.980493 0.960053 0.925432
32 0 0.000399 0.006338 0.980493 0.960452 0.93177
33 1.59E-05 0.000251 0.000102 0.980509 0.960703 0.931872
34 3.03E-05 0 0.002222 0.980539 0.960703 0.934093
35 3.9E-06 2.72E-05 0.000161 0.980543 0.96073 0.934254
36 4.76E-05 0.000329 0.000207 0.980591 0.961059 0.934461
37 1.46E-05 9.21E-05 5.8E-06 0.980605 0.961151 0.934467
38 0.000598 7.78E-05 0.005609 0.981203 0.961229 0.940076
39 1.84E-05 0.003568 0.001097 0.981221 0.964797 0.941173

40 1E-07 0.00022 1.6E-06 0.981222 0.965017 0.941175
41 1.22E-05 0.000458 7.59E-05 0.981234 0.965475 0.941251
42 3.2E-06 5.45E-05 0.003709 0.981237 0.965529 0.94496
43 0.000155 0.002203 0.00084 0.981392 0.967732 0.9458
44 0.000414 0.000174 0.000952 0.981806 0.967906 0.946752
45 0.000311 2.97E-05 0.003026 0.982117 0.967935 0.949778
46 0.000698 0.000141 0.008825 0.982815 0.968076 0.958603
47 0.000348 0.00027 0.002646 0.983163 0.968346 0.961249
48 0.000143 0.000164 0.000192 0.983306 0.968509 0.961441
49 0.000118 0.001245 0.000137 0.983424 0.969754 0.961578
50 1.4E-06 0.000452 4.6E-06 0.983426 0.970206 0.961583
7.4.3 Base Shear

Base shear for seismic analysis as per seismic criteria in Section 7.2.1 was presented in
table 7.4 below.
Table 7.4 Summary of Base Shear Forces

Base Shear (KN)
Direction SLE DLE
X (kips) 2290 3890
Y (kips) 2510 4500
7.4.4 Member Stresses

Member code check were performed in accordance with AISC and API RP2A-WSD. All
jacket, deck and piles members above mudline has been checked for strength level
condition and ductility level condition.
Load
Case
SLE
Load
Case
DLE
7.4.5 Joint Punching Shear

A joint punching shear check was performed on all tubular joints in the model as per AISC
(Ref.[1]) and API RP2A-WSD (Ref.[2]). Joint unity check output listing presented in
Appendix C. Summary of maximum joint unity check for SLE and DLE condition are shown
in table 7.6.
Table 7.5 Joint Punching Shear Checks for Seismic
Chord Brace Yield
Joint UC Location
(ODxWT) (ODxWT) Strength (ksi)
SLE
101L Ø 120 x 1.27 Ø 66.00 x 1.27 36.000 1.736 El.(-) 70.6
102L Ø 120 x 1.27 Ø 66.00 x 1.27 36.000 1.246 El.(-) 70.6
104L Ø 120 x 1.27 Ø 76.00 x 1.27 36.000 2.01 El.(-) 70.6
DLE
101L Ø 120 x 1.27 Ø 66.00 x 1.27 36.000 2.363 El.(-) 70.6
102L Ø 120 x 1.27 Ø 66.00 x 1.27 36.000 2.759 El.(-) 70.6
104L Ø 120 x 1.27 Ø 76.00 x 1.27 36.000 4.601 El.(-) 70.6

Pile members below mudline have been checked for combined axial and bending stresses
according to API RP 2A recommendations which refers to AISC specification
Table 7.6 Pile Below Mudline Unity Check Summary
Properties Load
Joint Grade Group UC Description
(ODxWT) Case
SLE
DLE
7.4.7 Pile Capacity Check

The results of PSI analysis show that piles are sufficient to support the platform during
seismic condition. The maximum pile axial load of Ø 42” steel pile along with required
penetration and Factor of Safety (F.o.S) for both SLE and DLE condition are presented in
Table 7.8.
Table 7.7 Pile Axial Capacity Check
Pilehead Row Length Pile Axial Pile Capacity1
LC Remark
and No (M) Load(kN) (kn)
SLE
101P A1 24.08 -3889.26 PILE 1532449.5 Ok
102P A2 24.08 143.85 PILE 1546720.0 Ok
103P B1 24.08 -312.23 PILE 1532449.5 Ok
104P B2 24.08 -368.03 PILE 1546720.0 Ok
DLE
101P A1 24.08 -5466.43 PILE 1532449.5 Ok
102P A2 24.08 374.89 PILE 1546720.0 Ok
103P B1 24.08 -624 PILE 1532449.5 Ok
104P B2 24.08 754.72 PILE 1546720.0 Ok
8. FATIGUE ANALYSIS
8.1 General
The Fatigue analysis is performed using FATIGUE module from SACS suite program. A
deterministic fatigue analysis is performed to indicate of the platform resistance to cyclic
fatigue loading due to waves.
8.2 Wave Load

Analysis has been carried out considering 25 year wave occurrence for 4 directions as per
the environmental data. For each direction considered, 9 wave heights have been used to
compute stress range against wave height relationship. The 25 year wave occurrence is
shown in Table 3.3. The natural period and critical damping from center of damage has
been used to account for dynamic amplification effect in calculation of the loading.
8.3 Wave Heights and Wave Periods

The significant wave height vs direction of the fatigue analysis was presented in Table 3.3.
Fatigue analysis will used significant wave height each direction for analysis fatigue
damage. Methods of Analysis
Fatigue analysis has been performed to analyze the fatigue endurance of the different
structural joints that are constantly subjected to reversal of stresses due to cyclic nature of
wave loading. Deterministic approach using Palmgren-Miner’s hypothesis of linear
cumulative damage and the appropriate S-N curves is being used to predict the fatigue life
of different structural elements using X’ prime curves as given in API RP 2A (Ref.[2])
guidelines for all joints between structural members.
Fatigue analysis has been carried out considering annual wave occurrence diagram for all
eight directions. 7 wave heights for each direction are considered, to compute stress range
against wave height relationship. The estimated natural period of the jacket and critical
damping (2%) was used to account for dynamic amplification effects in calculation of the
loading.
The fatigue analysis consists of the following steps:
 Super Element creation using Centre of Damage waves.
 Dynamic Analysis to evaluate DAF for wave frequencies.
 Fatigue Damage Analysis for Jacket (Fatigue Life Estimation).
The following sections describe the procedure for the steps mentioned above.
8.3.1 Centre of Damage Wave Calculation

The aim of the deterministic fatigue analysis is to estimate the stress range for selected
number of wave height and their occurrences. In order to achieve an acceptable degree of
accuracy in the analysis, wave heights have been divided into 7 class intervals. The analysis
has been performed using 8 waves from each direction which will be representative wave
of 7 class intervals.
The stress range(s) is generally assumed to be proportional to the wave heights by the
power 1.8 i.e.
S  H1.8
The number of cycles to failure,
N  Sm
Where m = slope of S-N curve
= (-) 3.74 from API RP 2A
 N  S-3.74
 N  H1.8  -3.74
 N  H-6.732
Damage (d) is the ratio of number of occurrences (n) to the number of cycles to failure (N)
n
d
N
 d  nH6.732
Centre of Damage Wave Height may thus be expressed as
H
d  H 
 nH6.732
H 
d  nH 6.732
& Centre of Damage period as
T
 d T 
 nH6.732
T 
d  nH 6.732
This Centre of Damage wave height and period is used to generate linearized foundation
spring for platform dynamic response. Centre of damage calculation is presented in
Appendix E.
8.3.2 Superelement Creation

The super element for fatigue analysis is created for the maximum operating functional
loads on the platform based on Centre of Damage waves. Foundation linearisation has been
performed using SACS’ super element foundation module. SACS creates the super element
foundation (SEF), which generates equivalent linear spring values to be used as a
foundation in subsequent dynamic analysis.
8.3.3 Dynamic Analysis

Engineering Dynamic Inc.’s SACS program has been used to determine the structure’s
natural period. Since the platform natural period for fatigue condition is less than 3
seconds, no dynamic amplification of the wave forces have been considered for checking
the tubular connections. Dynamic amplification factors of the wave frequencies have been
applied at fatigue life estimation step.
8.3.4 Fatigue Life Estimation

The fatigue life estimation procedure calculates the hot spot stress ranges for all the wave
heights as specified in Section 8.5 for each of the 8 combined wave occurrence directions.
The numbers of wave occurrences at each of these heights are assigned and the damage
caused by all wave occurrences is obtained by summation.
8.4 Stress Concentration Factors (SCF’s)

The stress concentration factor (SCF) of tubular joints are obtained by Eftymiou’s approach
for joint type T, K, Y and etc, is computed automatically by SACS program.
8.5 S-N Curves

The stress strain curve for this analysis is extracted from API RP2A (Ref [2]), the X’ curve is
selected, which best applies to the actual condition.
8.6 Dynamic Amplification Factor

The effect of resonance of the wave to the structure is taken into account as a product of the
natural period of the platform and wave forcing period with 2% energy dissipation. This
product is termed as Dynamic Amplification Factor (DAF). The DAF calculation of each
direction for every wave height is given in the following formulae.
1
DAF 
(1  r )  (2r ) 2
2 2
Where :
r = Ratio between platform natural period to wave forcing period
ξ = Energy dissipation
The platform natural period used in this calculation is 1.44 from seismic strength level
analysis.
8.7 Intended Service Live Calculation

Based on API RP 2A, the intended service life for KL platform is is found to be 67 years based
calculation below:
Intended Service Live = OL x SF1 + EL x SF2
= 42 x 1 + 25 x 1
= 67 Years
Where:
OL = Operating Live (from year of installation)
EL = Extended Life
SF1 = Safety Factor for Operating Life
SF2 = Safety Factor for Extended Life
8.8 Results
The Fatigue lives of jacket joints have been estimated using deterministic approach. The
most critical joint are listed in Table 8.1, while the location of these joints are depicted in
Figure 8.1 and 8.2.
Table 8.1 Joint with Fatigue Less than 100-years
Minimum
Joint Brace to Chord Fatigue Life Remark
Requirement2)
0024 0024-504L 64.8 x 0.67 BRC 0.728 91 67 OK
403L-0024 66 x 1.27 BRC 0.028 2362 OK
101L 101L-101X 76.2 x 1.27 BRC 0.499 134 67 OK
101L-1030 120 x 1.27 CHD 29.268 2 Not OK
101L-1100 66 x 1.27 BRC 1.910 35 Not OK
101L-1030 120 x 1.27 CHD 20.873 3 Not OK
101L-1101 66 x 1.27 BRC 5.688 11 Not OK
101L-1030 120 x 1.27 CHD 87.080 0.7 Not OK
101L-103X 50.8 x 1.27 BRC 0.39x10-3 168611 OK
101L-1030 120 x 1.27 CHD 0.34x10-2 19860 OK
101P 101P-201P 106.7 x 3.81 BRC 7.566 8 67 Not OK
101X 102L-101X 76.2 x 1.27 BRC 0.268 249 67 OK
Minimum
Requirement2)
202L-101X 76.2 x 1.27 CHD 6.632 10 Not OK
201L-101X 76.2 x 1.27 BRC 0.236 283 OK
101L-101X 76.2 x 1.27 CHD 5.822 11 Not OK
1030-101X 61 x 1.27 BRC 0.87x104 772329 OK
1.1L-101X 76.2 x 1.27 CHD 0.18x10-2 36229 OK
1100-101X 50.8 x 1.27 BRC 0.12x10-2 57019 OK
101L-101X 76.2 x 1.27 CHD 0.012 5498 OK
102L 102L-101X 76.2 x 1.27 BRC 48.637 1 67 Not OK
102L-202L 120 x 1.27 CHD 1201.891 0.0 Not OK
102L-1040 76.2 x 1.27 BRC 6.315 10 Not OK
102L-202L 120 x 1.27 CHD 267.297 0.25 Not OK
102L-1100 66 x 1.27 BRC 11.199 5 Not OK
102L-202L 120 x 1.27 CHD 134.810 0.4 Not OK
1217-102L 66 x 2.54 BRC 59.978 1 Not OK
102L-202L 120 x 1.27 CHD 1019.217 0.06 Not OK
102P 102P-202P 106.7 x 3.81 BRC 2.944 22 67 Not OK
102X 104L-102X 76.2 x 1.27 BRC 0.637 105 67 OK
204L-102X 76.2 x 1.27 CHD 15.815 4 Not OK
203L-102X 76.2 x 1.27 BRC 0.624 107 OK
103L-102X 76.2 x 1.27 CHD 15.465 4 Not OK
1031-102X 61 x 1.27 BRC 0.13x10-3 521153 OK
103L-102X 76.2 x 1.27 CHD 0.31x10-2 21947 OK
1102-102X 61 x 1.27 BRC 0.87x10-3 76647 OK
103L-102X 76.2 x 1.27 CHD 0.012 5697 OK
103L 103L-102X 76.2 x 1.27 BRC 0.046 1441 67 OK
103L-1031 120 x 1.27 CHD 2.148 31 Not OK
103L-103X 76.2 x 1.27 BRC 0.6x10-2 10184 OK
103L-1031 120 x 1.27 CHD 0.193 347 OK
103L-1102 66 x 1.27 BRC 0.161 415 OK
103L-1031 120 x 1.27 CHD 2.755 24 Not OK
103L-1101 66 x 1.27 BRC 7.302 9 Not OK
103L-1031 120 x 1.27 CHD 116.423 0.5 Not OK
103P 103P-203P 106 x 3.81 BRC 6.487 10 67 Not OK
1040 104L-1040 50.8 x 1.27 BRC 2.831 23 67 Not OK
204L-1040 76.2 x 2.54 CHD 9.906 6 Not OK
1220-1040 50.8 x 1.27 BRC 4.148 16 Not OK
102L-1040 76.2 x 2.54 CHD 13.217 5 Not OK
104L 104L-102X 76.2 x 1.27 BRC 77.573 0.8 67 Not OK
104L-204L 120 x 1.27 CHD 1794.454 0.03 Not OK
104L-1102 66 x 1.27 BRC 5.037 13 Not OK
104L-204L 120 x 1.27 CHD 62.209 1 Not OK
1223-104L 66 x 2.54 BRC 68.748 0.9 Not OK
104L-204L 120 x 1.27 CHD 1116.592 0.0 Not OK
104L-1040 50.8 x 1.27 BRC 139.963 0.47 Not OK
104L-204L 120 x 1.27 CHD 2026.188 0.0 Not OK
Minimum
Requirement2)
104P 104P-204P 106.7 x 3.81 BRC 2.255 29 67 Not OK
1220 1220-1214 50.8 x 1.27 BRC 0.304 220 67 OK
1220-1221 66 x 2.54 CHD 1.316 50 Not OK
1220-1213 50.8 x 1.27 BRC 0.4 143 OK
1219-1220 66 x 2.54 CHD 2.014 33 Not OK
1220-1040 50.8 x 1.27 BRC 12.897 5 Not OK
1219-1220 66 x 2.54 CHD 39.396 1 Not OK
202L 202L-101X 76.2 x 1.27 BRC 1.09 61 67 Not OK
102L-202L 120 x 1.27 CHD 19.35 3 Not OK
202L-301L 76.2 x 1.27 BRC 0.2 293 OK
202L-302L 120 x 4.5 CHD 0.3 203 OK
202L-2100 66 x 1.27 BRC 0.0 2278 OK
202L-302L 120 x 4.5 CHD 0.0 1706 OK
2217-202L 66 x 1.27 BRC 0.24x10-2 28117 OK
202L-302L 120 x 4.5 CHD 0.24x10-2 27614 OK
204L 104L-204L 120 x 1.27 CHD 2.702 24 67 Not OK
301L 201L-301L 120 x 4.5 CHD 1.222 54 67 Not OK
301X 301X-401L 61 x 1.27 BRC 0.0 6497 67 OK
301L-301X 71.1 x 1.27 CHD 0.22 300 OK
301X-1042 66 x 1.59 BRC 0.0 710 OK
301L-301X 71.1 x 1.27 CHD 4.726 14 Not OK
304L 203L-304L 76.2 x 1.27 BRC 0.4 154 67 OK
204L-304L 120 x 4.5 CHD 0.8 80 OK
304L-302X 71.1 x 1.27 BRC 0.9 71 OK
304L-404L 120 x 4.5 CHD 1.217 55 Not OK
401L 401L-4100 66 x 1.27 BRC 1.086 61 Not OK
401L-0015 120 x 4.5 CHD 0.994 70 ` OK
402L 402L-301X 71.1 x 1.27 BRC 3.885 17 Not OK
302L-402L 120 x 4.5 CHD 3.911 17 Not OK
4217-402L 66 x 1.27 BRC 8.761 7 Not OK
402L-0016 120 x 4.5 CHD 8.945 7 Not OK
403L 403L-302X 71.1 x 1.27 BRC 0.789 84 67 OK
1043-403L 120 x 4.5 CHD 1.095 61 Not OK
403L-0024 66 x 1.27 BRC 0.822 81 OK
403L-0000 120 x 4.5 CHD 0.421 159 OK
403L-4101 66 x 1.27 BRC 0.101 665 OK
403L-0000 120 x 4.5 CHD 0.072 924 OK
403L-4102 66 x 1.27 BRC 3.603 18 Not OK
403L-0000 120 x 4.5 CHD 4.354 15 Not OK
404L 404L-4102 66 x 1.27 BRC 2.131 31 Not OK
304L-404L 120 x 4.5 CHD 1.319 50 Not OK
4223-404L 66 x 1.27 BRC 2.978 22 Not OK
404L-0019 120 x 4.5 CHD 3.161 21 Not OK
4100 4100-4101 40.6 x 0.953 BRC 0.704 95 OK
401L-4100 66 x 1.59 CHD 0.943 71 OK
Minimum
Requirement2)
4100-4201 40.6 x 0.953 BRC 27.808 2 Not OK
402L-4100 66 x 1.59 CHD 22.028 3 Not OK
4102 4102-4101 40.6 x 0.953 BRC 0.359 186 OK
403L-4102 66 x 1.59 CHD 0.459 145 OK
4102-4204 40.6 x 0.953 BRC 46.612 1 Not OK
404L-4102 66 x 1.59 CHD 35.032 1 Not OK
502L 502L-5217 50.8 x 2.54 BRC 1.551 43 Not OK
502L-602L 124.5 x 5 CHD 3.719 18 Not OK
504L 504L-604L 124.5 x 5 CHD 1.183 56 Not OK
The design intended life of KL Platform is 67 years. As recommended by API-RP-2A,the design

fatigue life of each joint should be at least once the intended design life of the structure. In the
analysis, 25 years of extension of service life is required while the platform itself has been in
operation for about 42 years. The intended service life for KL platform fatigue analysis is 67 years.
From table fatigue lives above, some joints at jacket leg do not meet the requirement.
Joint 502L
Fatigue Life = 18 Years
Joint 4010 Joint 402L

Fatigue Life = 2 Years Fatigue Life = 7 Years
Joint 401L
Joint 301X
Joint 301L
Joint 202L
Joint 101X
Joint 101P
Joint 102P
Joint 101L Joint 102L

Figure 8.1. ROW A Joint Location
Fatigue Life = 0.7 Years Fatigue Life = 0.0 Years
Joint 504L
Joint 403L
Joint 404L
Joint 304L
Joint 204L
Joint 102X
Joint 104P
Joint 103P Fatigue Life = 29 Years
Joint 103L Joint 104L

Fatigue Life = 0.5 Years Fatigue Life = 0.0 Years
Figure 8.2. ROW B Joint Location
9. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

9.1 Conclusion
The Intan-B Platform, a six legged jacket type structure with piles driven through its leg, is
subject to independent analysis covering (1) in-place analysis, (2) seismic analysis and (3)
fatigue analysis in order to get MIGAS SKKP for an additional 15 years of service life.
Result obtained from the analysis indicate that the Intan-B is acceptable from structural
integrity point of view in order have a 15 years service life extension (until 2029).
Result from In-place and Seismic Analysis shows that the Intan-B Platform is still adequate
without any strengthening.
The result of Fatigue Analysis obtained that the Intan-B is acceptable from structural
integrity point of view in order to have a 15 years service life extension (until 2029).
9.2 Recommendation
The current condition is based on latest inspection, metocean parameter from MGRID 4-1
(USCS) and site visit data and had been used as the basis of calculating the integrity of
Intan-B Platform. The strength and integrity of the platform structure need to be
established, therefore it is recommended to:
1. Maintain and improve the structural existing condition such as the marine growth
thickness and corrosion check/prevention by performing regular underwater
inspection, marine growth cleaning and platform maintenance.
2. Annual underwater inspection for joints with fatigue lives less than requirements.
10. REFERENCE
10.1 Standards, Codes, & Company Specification
1 AISC – ASD American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC),

Manual of Steel Construction, Allowable Stress Design”,
13thEdition
2 API RP 2A American Petroleum Institute, “Recommended Practice

for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed
Offshore Platforms – Working Stress Design”, API RP
2A – WSD, 21st Edition, December 2000, including
Errata and Supplement of 1, 2 and 3
3 SPECS NO.GS-600 Rev General Specification Structural Standard Design

2 Practices by CNOOC SES Ltd
4 UWPI-2013 Under Water Inspection Final Report of Structure

Intan – B Well Platform by PT Patra Dinamika, 2013
5 DAMES & Seismic Hazard Evaluation, Offshore Northwest Java,

MOORE/JOB NO. Indonesia, by Dames & Moore, June 1992
4930-990
6 REPORT NO. In-place Analysis For Additional 5-20” DIA Conductors

PREL/STR/ITB/101 and Deck Extension For Bridge Support As Well As
Additional Equipment, by PT. Wira Matra Guna,
January, 2003
7 REPORT NO.J-154/89- Foundation Design Criteria for Platform Intan-B, Java

2 Sea Based on Integrated Geophysical and Geotechnical
Study, by PT Soil Maklelan, Geotechnical Consultants,
December, 1989
8 Metocean Report Metocean parameter at MGRID 4-1 (USCS).
9 Design Engineering Main Deck Extension for Intan-B Platform

Report

Final Project ALAPAN - Nabigh Nabiyl (25515305)

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Final Project ALAPAN - Nabigh Nabiyl (25515305)

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

ENGINEERING PROJECT

STRUCTURAL DESIGN REPORT

Institu Teknologi bandung

Rev. Date Description By Chk App

Nabigh Nabiyl - 25515305

Nabigh Nabiyl - 25515305

5.7.1 Wave and Current Load .........................................................................................25

Nabigh Nabiyl - 25515305

8.5 Methods of Analysis ............................................................................................................40

Nabigh Nabiyl - 25515305

Figure 1.1 Location of Osprey Field

1.2 Purpose and Scope of Work

Nabigh Nabiyl - 25515305

7) Provide any necessary recommendations to ensure the structural integrity during

1.3 Platform Description

Table 1.1 Intan-B Description

Nabigh Nabiyl - 25515305

Figure 1.1. KL Platform Key View

Nabigh Nabiyl - 25515305

2. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

2.1.1 Member Stress Check

Table 2.2. Member Stress Summary for Seismic Analysis

Nabigh Nabiyl - 25515305

Nabigh Nabiyl - 25515305

2.1.2 Punching Shear

Table 2.3 Joint Punching Shear UC Summary for Seismic

Nabigh Nabiyl - 25515305

2.1.2 Pile Stress Check

Nabigh Nabiyl - 25515305

2.1.3 Pile Axial Factors of Safety (F.o.S)

Nabigh Nabiyl - 25515305

2.1.4Critical Joint Fatigue Life

Nabigh Nabiyl - 25515305

Nabigh Nabiyl - 25515305

Nabigh Nabiyl - 25515305

3.2.1 Water Depth

Table 3.1 Water Depth

Nabigh Nabiyl - 25515305

3.2.2 Wave Criteria

Nabigh Nabiyl - 25515305

Nabigh Nabiyl - 25515305

3.2.3 Wave Kinematics Factor

3.2.4 Current Profile

3.2.5 Current Blockage Factor

353079618/NBU-INTAN-B/RPT/S/001 Rev. 1 Page 19 of 50

Nabigh Nabiyl - 25515305

3.2.6 Marine Growth Profile

3.2.7 Hydrodynamics Coefficients

3.3 Soil Data

Nabigh Nabiyl - 25515305

3.4 Steel Materials

Table 3.7 Steel Material properties

3.5 Allowable Stresses

Table 3.9 PGA Occurrence

353079618/NBU-INTAN-B/RPT/S/001 Rev. 1 Page 21 of 50

Nabigh Nabiyl - 25515305

Figure 4.1. KL Platform 3D Model

353079618/NBU-INTAN-B/RPT/S/001 Rev. 1 Page 22 of 50

Nabigh Nabiyl - 25515305

5.3 Environmental Load

353079618/NBU-INTAN-B/RPT/S/001 Rev. 1 Page 23 of 50

Nabigh Nabiyl - 25515305

Figure 5.1 Environmental Load Directions