22nd DANUBIA-ADRIA Symposium on Experimental Methods in Solid Mechanics

September 28 - October 1, 2005 MONTICELLI TERME / PARMA - ITALY

RISK ASSESSMENT OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS OF THE OFFSHORE GAS AND OIL PLATFORMS
Damir Semenski, Hinko Wolf University of Zagreb, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, pp 102, HR-10002 Zagreb, Croatia e-mail: damir.semenski@fsb.hr, hinko.wolf@fsb.hr

Introduction Due to the task defined for the offshore manned and unmanned platforms there is a request for the survey rules defined for specific platform to ensure the control of selected structural elements. Selection of structural elements of jacket & deck where it is necessary to perform monitoring and survey should be done according to ISO standards and recommendations of American Petroleum Institute (API) and based on a design project documentation of platforms. Results of the research project were applied in periodical surveys of IVANA A, B, D and E offshore platforms, under the inspection of Croatian Registry of Shipping (CRS).

Level III consists of visual inspections of selected underwater areas of known or suspected damage. Preselection of areas to be surveyed should be based on evaluation of areas particularly susceptible to structural damage, or to areas where repeated inspections are desirable in order to monitor their integrity over time. Level IV requests the nondestructive testing (NDT) of underwater elements. Preselection of the areas of known or suspected damage is based on results of the Level III survey.
Risk based classification of elements Platforms are assigned in three categories: L-1, L-2 and L-3 for both life safety and consequence of failure considerations. Thus L-1 represents high consequence exposure leading to L-3 of low consequence.

Fig 1. Ivana A offshore platform

Survey levels Survey has being divided in four levels as follows: Level I consists a general examination of all structural members in the splash zone and above water. Level II includes general underwater visual inspection to detect the presence of the following: excessive corrosion, accidental and environmental overloading, scour, seafloor instability and damage.

Fig 2. Risk based underwater inspection principles

Elements are classified by assessment of higher, medium or low risk thus depending frequency and level of survey. Figure 2 shows the survey principle based on RBUI (Risk Based Underwater Inspection). It should be emphasized that platform L-1 of high consequence recognizes only the elements of high (colored red) and medium risk (colored yellow). Detail assessment process Leads as follows: The existing platform should be (1) selected, (2) categorized, (3) assessed by conditions and (4) basically screened the design documents. Component (5) represents the analysis check. If platform by its operational load does not pass the assessment, it is necessary to consider (6) mitigation actions.
Assessment of elements Design stress analysis should be performed for the nominal load for L-1 platforms, which is of 85% of the load caused by metocean conditions based on 100-years statistics. The ultimate strength analysis is a requirement just in case when the platform doesnt pass the design level analysis, by using the reserve strength ratio (RSR) criteria, which is defined as follows:

to proceed to Level III of preselected elements of medium risk. The assessment of the integrity of components in Levels III and IV can be performed by using the SINTAP procedure (Structural INTegrity Assessment). Experimental methods are necessary to be applied.

Fig. 3. Undewater inspection of structural elements

Conclusions Principles of survey procedure are supported by newest cognitions and experience of the Minerals Management Service (MMS). MMS is a bureau of U.S. department of Interior, which ensures the safety and integrity of the existing structures, among others oil and gas platforms. Damaging process analysis is significant for determination of reliability of mechanical structures' components while the numerical simulations of crack appearances and growing will process phenomena of structural damages. Advanced experimental methods will provide the verification of behavior of elements with structural damage analysis. Acknowledgement Authors would like to acknowledge the company INAGIP d.o.o., Zagreb.
References [1] ISO/CD 19902, 2001. [2] API RECOMMENDED PRACTICE 2A-WSD (RP 2A-WSD), 21st ed., Dec. 2000. [3] IVANA A, B, D and E Platforms, Undervater Inspection at IVANA Field Offshore Croatia. Elaboration of DNT Offshore, INAGIP Zagreb, 2004. [4] D. Semenski, Interpretation of Results of Evaluation and Selection of Structural Elements for Survey: JACKET & DECK, Ivana A platform, University of Zagreb, Elaboration of Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Zagreb, 2004. [4] N. Gubeljak, M. Kocak, U. Zerbst, Use of SINTAP procedure for the assessment of strength mis-matched HSLA steel welds, Welding in the world, vol. 45, spec. issue, pp 177-185, July 2001. [5] G.M. Fury: Ultimate Strength Assessment, MMS Workshop: Assessment of Existing OCS Platforms, New Orleans, 2003.

RSR =

Environmental load at collapse Design environmental load

It is well known that one should direct attention to the joints as extremely stressed mechanical parts of structure. According to API, it is claimed that joints be able to carry at least 50 percent of the buckling load for compression members and at least 50 percent of the yield stress for members loaded primarily in tension. Interaction ratio I.R. is described as characteristic value for interaction of combined loading of members (e.g. combination of tension or compression and bending), which is reduced to axial stress. Equivalent of 50% of axial loading is value 0.5 of interaction ratio, which is a criterion for selection of members of higher risk.
Underwater surveys Underwater surveys are usually executed by using the suitable equipment mounted on a remote operating vehicle (ROV). Registration of measurements can be performed in real time and can be documented by number of on-site photos, as illustrated in Figure 3. Survey procedure Procedure of survey of structural elements and criteria for their selection ensures the safety and integrity of the existing structures. As especially important, Level III survey can be described through step-by-step procedure. Step 1: Level III survey is realized in specified joints only for preselected elements (members) of higher risk. Step 2: If Level III survey of preselected element of higher risk does not pass, it is necessary to proceed to Level IV survey of this element. Level III survey should be performed to other members of particular joint. Step 3: If Level IV survey shows some damage of inspected element that needs reparation, it is necessary