STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT

OF FIXED OFFSHORE STRUCTURES

Hermas Kornelius

Introduction

SIM is the process for demonstrating a structures fitness-for-purpose over its entire
life, and managing the effects of deterioration, damage, changes in loading and
accidental overloading.
The SIM process consists of four elements: data, evaluation, strategy, and program
The SIM process provides the opportunity for owners/operators to adopt risk
principles for developing SIM strategies.
A risk-based approach recognizes that higher risk platforms may warrant more
frequent, and more focused, inspection than lower risk platforms.
During the development of an inspection strategy, the platform risk category may
be used for setting survey intervals and work scopes as part of a risk-based SIM
strategy.
It is important to note that surveys alone do not guarantee structural integrity.

References

Definitions

anomaly
An in-service survey measurement, which is outside the threshold considered
acceptable from the design or most recent fitness-for-purpose assessment
assessment initiators
Changes in platform condition or operating experience, such as storms,
which require an existing platform to undergo an assessment to
demonstrate fitness-for-purpose
collapse
The ultimate load bearing capacity of the platform, at which the jacket
structure or deck columns are no longer able to support vertical loads.
condition assessment
The process of gathering the information on the platform's present condition
needed in order to perform a fitness-for-purpose assessment
consequence
The adverse effects of an extreme event, such as metocean, seismic, ice or
accidental, on personnel, the environment, or property

Definitions

damage tolerance
The quantity of deterioration or damage that a structure can withstand without failing

design level analysis

A fitness-for-purpose analysis of a platform using linear-elastic methods with an
appropriate safety margin, similar to the analysis methods used for new platform
designs

design life
The planned time period from initial installation or reuse until permanent
decommissioning, which may include extensions justified through the SIM process

deterioration
The reduction in the ability of a component to provide its intended purpose

exposure category
The classification used to categorize the platform consequence of failure based on the
consideration of life safety, environmental pollution, and business disruption

Definitions

inspection
The visit to the platform for purposes of collecting data required in
evaluating its structural integrity for continued operation
survey
A specific visual or non-destructive examination of one or more platform
components
fitness-for-purpose
A demonstration that an existing structure has adequate strength to resist
the imposed assessment loads
mechanical damage
A defect type that includes dents, bows, gouges, holes and separated or
severed members
mitigations
Platform strengthening, modification or repairs and/or operational
procedures that reduce loads, increase capacities, or reduce the exposure
category.

Definitions

redundancy
The availability of alternate load paths in a platform following the
failure of one or more structural components
non-redundant platform
A platform for which its global capacity is reached when one of its
elements reaches its maximum Capacity
redundant platform
A platform is considered redundant if its ultimate load carrying
capacity is not reached when one of its structural components
reaches its maximum capacity
not-normally-manned
A platform that does not have facilities to accommodate personnel
for overnight or extended stays.

Definitions

robustness
The ability of a structure to tolerate damage without failure.
residual strength
The ultimate strength of an offshore structure in a damaged
condition is expressed as the structures residual strength and is
highly dependent on the inherent robustness of the structure
reserve strength ratio
A measure of the ultimate load carrying capacity of a platform,
defined as the ratio of the base shear at ultimate capacity to the
base shear from the reference criteria
risk-based inspection
Inspection strategies developed from an evaluation of the risk of a
platform or group of similar platforms

Definitions

life extension
The process of extending the operational life of a
structure beyond the life considered during the
structures design.
ultimate capacity
The load at which a structure will collapse.
ultimate strength analysis
The fitness-for-purpose analysis of a platform using
non-linear methods

SIM Process

SIM Process

DATA

Up-to-date platform information is required for the

SIM process.
Information on the original design, fabrication and
installation, structural analyses, in-service
inspections, engineering evaluations, structural
assessments, modifications, strengthening, repairs,
and operational incidents, all constitute parts of the
SIM knowledge base
SIM data falls into two broad categories: platform
characteristic data, and platform condition data.

DATA
Characteristic Data
The platforms characteristic data is the baseline
data that represents the structure at installation.
The characteristic data includes:
general platform data
design data
fabrication data
installation data

DATA

Condition Data
The platform condition data represents the changes to the
characteristic data that may occur during the life of the
platform.
The condition data includes the following:
in-service

inspection data;
damage evaluation data;
corrosion protection data;
strengthening/modification/repair (SMR) data;
platform modifications;
condition monitoring data;
operational incident data

SIM Process

EVALUATION

SIM evaluation is the method of applying engineering

to assess the impact that new data has on the fitnessfor-purpose and the SIM strategy for the platform.
Evaluation is routinely performed throughout the life of
a platform. As additional data is collected, an
evaluation should be performed by a competent
structural engineer.
The evaluation should consider all relevant SIM data for
the platform and similar platforms, where appropriate.

EVALUATION
Recommendations for the performing data evaluation
are provided in the following sections:
Factors to consider
The risk of platform failure
The platform exposure category
The likelihood of platform failure
The requirement for platform assessment

EVALUATION
Evaluation requires consideration of numerous factors, including:

platform age, condition, original design criteria;

analysis results and assumptions for original design or subsequent
assessment;

platform reserve strength and degree of structural redundancy;

degree of conservatism or uncertainty in metocean criteria;

fabrication quality and occurrence of any rework or re-welding;

occurrence of any damage during transportation or installation;

extent of inspection during fabrication, transportation, and

installation;
in-service inspection findings;

EVALUATION

learning from other similar platforms;

platform modifications, additions, and
repairs/strengthening;
accidental (i.e., fire, blast, vessel impact, dropped
object, etc.) or metocean or other design event
overload;
fatigue sensitivity;
past performance of corrosion protection system;
criticality of platform to other operations;
platform monitoring data.

EVALUATION

In many instances much of this data will not be

available; however missing data may impact the
evaluation, strategy and program for the on-going
SIM of the platform. Where characteristic data are
not available, or are inaccurate, surveys of the
structure and facilities should be considered to
collect the necessary information

EVALUATION

A fitness-for-purpose assessment of the structure

shall be performed if the engineering evaluation of
relevant SIM data determines that an assessment
initiator, has been triggered.

EVALUATION
Assessment Initiators:

Addition of Personnel
If the life safety category as defined in Section 4.3.4.2 is changed to a more restrictive category, the
platforms structural strength shall be assessed.

Addition of Facilities
If the addition of facilities (e.g., additional pipelines, additional wells, or a significant increase in topside
hydrocarbon inventory capacity) increases the consequence of failure category, as defined in Section
4.3.4.3, the platforms structural strength shall be assessed.

Increased Loading on Structure

If the structure is altered such that the new combined environmental/operational loading is significantly
increased beyond the combined loadings of the original design using the original design criteria or the
level deemed acceptable by the most recent assessments, the platforms structural strength shall be
assessed. Increases in platform loading due to changes from the design or most recent assessment are
considered to be significant if the total of the cumulative change in loading is greater than 10 %.

EVALUATION
Assessment Initiators:

Inadequate Deck Height

If the platform has an inadequate deck height and the platform was not designed for the impact of wave
loading on the deck, the platforms structural strength shall be assessed. Deck height is measured to the
underside of the support structure for the cellar deck.

Significant Damage
If the platform has significant structural damage or deterioration, the platforms structural strength shall be
assessed. Cumulative damage and/or deterioration data should be evaluated to determine if it is significant.
The combined cumulative damage to the platform is considered to be significant if it results in a decrease in
the platform system capacity of 10 % or more.
If there is uncertainty in the determination in the percentage reduction of system capacity it is recommended
that an assessment be performed.

Cumulative Increased Loading and Damage

Cumulative decreases in platform system capacity due to damage or cumulative increases in platform system
loading due to changes from the design are considered to be significant if the sum of the cumulative changes
is greater than 10%. For example, if there is a 7 % decrease in system capacity and a 5 % increase in system
loading due to changes, then the combined total of 12 % is considered significant.

SIM Process

Strategy

A significant commitment to ongoing in-service inspection with the

goal of reducing the possibility of major repairs (clamps, member
replacements) in the future. This approach relies on early detection
of damage and defects with prompt implementation of relatively
inexpensive repairs and preventive measures. Early detection of
defects typically requires greater use of NDT techniques.
Minimization of in-service inspection scope where adequate
measures have been taken to reduce the risk of damage, defects, or
deterioration that would require major repair efforts in the future.
This approach assumes that in-service inspection without the use of
NDT techniques will be able to detect damage, defects, or
deterioration before structural integrity is threatened. This approach
may be appropriate for robust structures that are tolerant to
damage and overload.

Strategy

The inspection plan defines the frequency and scope of the inspection, the
tools/techniques to be used and the deployment methods.
The plan should be periodically updated throughout the platforms service
life following receipt and evaluation of relevant SIM data, e.g., inspection
data, results of platform assessments, etc

Risk Based Inspection

Risk is defined as the combination of the likelihood of

some event occurring during a time period of interest
and the consequences (generally negative) associated
with the event.
In mathematical terms, risk is expressed as:
Risk = Likelihood Consequence
The primary purpose of developing and implementing a
risk-based approach is to highlight to the
owner/operator risks from a safety/health/environment
perspective and/or from an economic standpoint and
appropriately target inspection, maintenance, and
repair resources.

Risk Based Inspection

A risk-based approach allows an owner/operator to prioritize and

optimize the use of inspection resources.
The risk-based strategy for the development of inspection scopes of work
requires a thorough understanding of a platforms susceptibility to damage,
the tolerance of damage, and the known condition.
The inspection program should be consistent with the overall strategy, based
on the data evaluation.
The strategy should be comprised of a risk-based inspection interval, a riskbased inspection scope, the relevant deployment method (diver versus
ROV), and survey technique (general visual versus close visual/NDT).
The underwater inspection in a risk-based program should be a minimum of
Level II, however, the strategy should specify if Level III or Level IV
inspections are required.
Damage or deterioration found during a risk-based inspection may trigger
a Level III or Level IV inspection.

Risk Based Inspection

Risk Level 1 Platforms that reside in this risk category should be

considered for a major focus of resources; which may include an
increased inspection frequency and intensity of inspection and/or
more detailed engineering.
Risk Level 2 Platforms that reside in this risk category may be
considered for a moderate focus of resources.
Risk Level 3 Platforms that reside in this risk category may be
considered for less focus of resources; which may include a reduced
inspection frequency and scope of inspection.

RBI Interval

Platforms with higher consequence may require more frequent

inspection than that based on the structures risk-based interval.
In addition the risk-based interval may require adjustment to
account for the design-life or present condition of the CP system.

SIM Program

SIM Program

The SIM Program represents the execution of the detailed work

scope and should be conducted to complete the activities defined
in the SIM strategy.
The SIM Program may include one or more of the following:
baseline inspections;
routine above water inspections;
routine underwater inspections;
special inspections;
strengthening, modification and/or repair activities

MIGAS Periodic Platform Inspection

Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4

: Minor inspection
: Major Inspection
: Minor Inspection
: Complete Inspection

Periodic Platform Inspection

Above water inspection

Underwater inspection
General visual inspection
CP reading
Marine growth measurement
Thickness measurement
Scour survey
Damage survey
MPI of selected joints

MG
1

CP

UT
1

Scour
1

1
EL. (+) 4.00 M

EL. (-) 14.00 M

EL. (-) 37.00 M

EL. (-) 64.00 M

EL. (-) 94.00 M

ELEVATION ROW 1

MG :
UT:
CP:

ELEVATION ROW 2

1 legs for < 4 legs platform,

2 legs for > 4 legs platform.
min. 1 legs for all type platform
all legs for all type platform

ELEVATION ROW A

ELEVATION ROW B

PLAN VIEW AT EL. (-) 14.00 M

430P
403L

440P
404L

433

MPI:
Overstressed joints

435

436
818

817

Low fatigue life joints

814

Joints on damaged member

139.1375
287.1115

437

418

419

420

421

488

489

490

491

438

408

406

214.3523
98.76986

444

492

493

494

495

424

425

426

427

496

497

498

499

119.0737
52.21968

445
112.3405
214.6647

821
443

822
442

NOTES :
BRACE
CHORD

410P
401L

Y
X

441

420P
402L

Risk Based Underwater Inspection

Risk is defined as the combination of the likelihood of

some event occurring during a time period of interest
and the consequences (generally negative) associated
with the event.
In mathematical terms, risk is expressed as:
Risk = Likelihood Consequence
The primary purpose of developing and implementing a
risk-based approach is to highlight to the
owner/operator risks from a safety/health/environment
perspective and/or from an economic standpoint and
appropriately target inspection, maintenance, and
repair resources.

Risk Based Underwater Inspection

RISK
Inspection
Plan

COF
Safety

Interval

Environment

Scope

Bussiness

LOF
Baseline
Platform
Condition
Loading
Susceptibility

Method

RBUI Probability of Failure

Factors to be consider in assesing POF:
1. Baseline (design)

Platform vintage

Bracing and number of legs

Grouting of piles

2. Platform present condition

Last inspection
Corrosion
CP function
Anode

Damage
Marine growth
Flooded member
Scour

RBUI Probability of Failure

Factors to be consider in assesing POF:
3. Platform load susceptibility
Wave in deck
Fatigue
Earthquake
Appurtenances

RBUI Consequence of Failure

Factors to be consider in assesing COF:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Safety
Environment
Asset / Bussiness Loss
Reputation

RBUI - Risk Ranking

The risk ranking is used to determine the priority of an asset to other assets for
undergoing inspection. Maintenance and repair (IMR) work. Asset with higher risk
will have higher priority to be included in the IMR program than assets with lower
risk.

Likelihood of Failure (LoF) Categories

A Non-robust structure
B Minimally robust
C Moderately robust
D Robust
E Highly Robust

Consequence of Failure (CoF) Categories

H High
M Medium
L Low

RBUI - Inspection Interval

RBUI - Inspection Program

RBUI - Inspection Program

Example : RBUI Planning ABC Well Tripod

1. Year Installed

1991

2. Leg Number

3. Bracing Combination
3.1. Longitudinal

3.2. Transversal

4. Grouted

No

5. Last UWPI

2010

6. Mechanical Damage

Low

6.1. Above Water

Appurtenance corroded
and damaged

6.2. Underwater

Dent in jacket member

7. Corrosion
7.1. Above Water
7.2. Underwater

Insignificant
Main structure slight to
moderate
No Anomaly

8. Flooded Member
9. Marine Growth Thickness

Insignificant
1.83 in

10. Scour Depth

0.328 ft (Light)

11. CP Function

NO

11.1. Above Water (2011)

-817 to -825 mV

11.2. Underwater (2010)

-600 to -630 mV

12. Wave in Deck

OK

12.1. Actual Deck Height

(+) 29.5 ft

12.2. API Required Deck Height

(+) 27.5 ft

13. Earthquake
14. Manned Platform
15. Environmental Consequence
16. Business Consequence

Assessed
No
110 bopd
5.4 MMUSD

FNB Well Tripod

Risk Calculation Summary

Likelihood of Failure

Platform Vintage
Bracing
Baseline
Combination
Grout Pile
Last Inspection
Mechanical
Damage
Platform Current Corrosion
Flooded Members
Condition
Marine Growth
Scour
CP Function
Platform Loading Wave in Deck
Susceptibility Earthquake

80
20
0
15
0
0
0
0
20
35
15

185

Consequence of Failure

Component
Life Safety Consequence
Environmental Consequence
Business Consequence

Score Range

A
B
C
D
E

> 210
177 - 210
161 - 177
149 - 161
< 149

Component
CoF
Category
Category
Low
LOW
Low
Low

CoF

Component

Total
LoF
Score
Score Category
0

LoF
Ranking

LoF

ABC Well Tripod

Risk Level : Medium
Inspection SOW : L2, L3

Example: XYZ Process Platform

1. Year Installed

1974

2. Leg Number

3. Bracing Combination
K

3.2. Transversal

5. Last UWPI

9. Marine Growth Thickness

10. Scour Depth

3.1. Longitudinal
4. Grouted

8. Flooded Member

No
2010

Insignificant
1.05 in
No Observation
(Light)

11. CP Function
11.1. Above Water (2012)
11.2. CP retrofit (2012)

Yes
-864 870 mV
-1082 to -1107 mV

6. Mechanical Damage

Insignificant

6.1. Above Water

Appurtenance damaged
and corroded

12.1. Actual Deck Height

(+) 60.5ft

6.2. Underwater

Appurtenance damaged

12.2. API Required Deck Height

(+) 27.5 ft

7. Corrosion
7.1. Above Water
7.2. Underwater

Insignificant
Main structure slight to
heavy corroded
No anomaly

12. Wave in Deck

13. Earthquake
14. Manned Platform
15. Environmental Consequence
16. Business Consequence

OK

Assessed
No
718 bopd
36.3 MMUSD

Risk Calculation Summary

Likelihood of Failure

Platform Vintage
Bracing
Baseline
Combination
Grout Pile
Last Inspection
Mechanical
Damage
Platform Current Corrosion
Flooded Members
Condition
Marine Growth
Scour
CP Function
Platform Loading Wave in Deck
Susceptibility Earthquake

80
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
50
15

200

Consequence of Failure

Component
Life Safety Consequence
Environmental Consequence
Business Consequence

Score Range

A
B
C
D
E

> 210
177 - 210
161 - 177
149 - 161
< 149

Component
CoF
Category
Category
High
HIGH
Low
Medium

CoF

Component

Total
LoF
Score
Score Category
35

LoF
Ranking

LoF

XYZ Process Platform

Risk Level : High
Inspection SOW: L2, L3, L4

Thank You..!