LIFE EXTENSION OF A FIXED OFFSHORE PLATFORM STRUCTURE

BASED ON MONITORING RESULTS

S. Copello, RINA Services, P. Castelli, Edison.

This paper was presented at the 11th Offshore Mediterranean Conference and Exhibition in Ravenna, Italy, March 20-22, 2013.
It was selected for presentation by OMC 2013 Programme Committee following review of information contained in the abstract
submitted by the author(s). The Paper as presented at OMC 2013 has not been reviewed by the Programme Committee.

ABSTRACT
The structure of the existing offshore platform Vega A, operated by Edison in the Sicily
Channel, has been subject to a reassessment process in order to extend its operating life
beyond the original design life.
Such requalification analysis has been focused on a fatigue verification of the jacket structure
with the target of life extension, as well as other reassessment issues such as the actual
status of structural components, present topside configuration, etc., all considerations aimed
to eventually update a proper inspection and maintenance plan, everything considered as
normal practice in the offshore field where the number of existing platforms subject to
reassessment process due to expiration of the original design life is increasing.
What is peculiar in this case is the availability of a large amount of significant information
recorded during the occurred service life of the platform by the monitoring system mounted
on the structure since early phases of installation, which has definitively increased the level
of reliability in the new structural assessment.
In particular, it has been possible to re-evaluate the platforms response to environmental
loads (the governing loading for structural safety) whose characterization has been reviewed
and updated according to a large amount of wave, wind and current data measured on site
for a long term and, what is more, to calibrate the calculated dynamic response, which is the
basis for the fatigue assessment, with respect to the actual jacket accelerations continuously
recorded on field by relevant monitoring devices.
In the following the different steps of the reassessment process carried out through the
calibrated structural response are described, by highlighting how the monitoring effort, along
with a proper maintenance, has facilitated the achievement of the goal of life extension.

INTRODUCTION
The Vega field, operated by Edison, is located at approximately 12 miles South from the
southern coast of Sicily. It includes a fixed platform, Vega A, and a floating storage offloading
unit (FSO), located at 1,5 miles from the platform, and connected to the platform through
sealines. The FSO is moored to the seabed through an arc-yoke articulated system
composed of (Figure 1):
- A column connected to the sea bottom and extending above sea water level;
- A yoke connecting the column tip to the FSO bow tanker beam.
The offshore facility was installed in August 1987 with the FSO unit being the 250,000 DWT
converted tanker Vega Oil. Due to international double hull requirements, in July 2008 the
FSO Vega Oil was disconnected and replaced in September 2009 by the converted 110,000
DWT Aframax tanker named Leonis.
In relation to the FSO substitution, a new yoke has been designed and installed so that both
the FSO and the SPM have been subject to renewal of classification by RINA, to comply with
the operator requirement for a field life extension.

In the same field, the structural design of the Vega A platform (Figure 2) was originally
certified by RINA for an operating life of 25 years, thus an assessment of the fixed platform
has been also required by the operator in order to extend the jacket life beyond its original
design life, according to a prescribed target of further 25 years of service.

Fig 1: Vega field arc-yoke mooring system Leonis FSO

Given that target, RINA has carried out, as normal practice /Ref. 1/, the structural analyses of
the jacket with the main purpose of conducting a fatigue assessment of the tubular
connections and consequently to define the relevant inspection and maintenance plan to
comply with for the extended service.
To this aim, an updated structural model of the Vega A jacket has been built by integrating
original design data with the information relevant to the present status of the platform (such
as topside weight distribution) and data collected during the past service life via inspection
campaigns carried out and, what is more, via a monitoring system which has been installed
on the structure since the early phases of its operating life.

Fig 2: Vega A Platform

DESCRIPTION OF THE PLATFORM AND MODEL UPDATING

The submerged structure of the Vega A platform is a 8-legs steel jacket structure in a water
depth of about 138m, framed by seven plans, each at elevation -120.8, -96.0, -75, -54.0, -33,
-13, +7m with respect to the mean water level, starting from a rectangular base measuring
70m x48m. up to the top side of 50mx18 m. The pile legs are tubular members with variable
section from 2000mm outside diameter (OD) x 50mm wall thickness (WT) from the bottom to
1700mm OD x 50mm WT at the upper levels, provided with horizontal bracings at each plan
and rows tubular brace members between the plans themselves.
The jacket is fixed to the ground by 20 foundation piles (3 for each of the 4 leg corners and 2
for the internal legs), whose outside diameter is 2590 mm, penetrating 63.5m below the sea
bottom, while the connection between piles and legs is made by sleeves filled by concrete
grouting in the pile-sleeve section interface.
The jacket of the platform is completed by 2 boat landings and other appurtenances such as
bumpers, casings and risers that are not structural members but are to be considered in the
model because their contribute to the hydrodynamic loading, as well as the launch runners
used during the platform installation phase (carried out by launching) and still present along
some jacket legs. For the appropriate evaluation of the structural dead loads (weight and
buoyancy) it is worth noting that along the 2 lowest jacket plans sections the legs are still
flooded, due to launching design procedure.
Finally, for the appropriate model of the jacket hydrodynamic response, the specific presence
of the sacrificial anodes on the structural members has been taken into account.
By considering all available up-to-date information relevant to the present conditions of the
platform, an updated structural space frame 3D model of the Vega A jacket has been carried
out by RINA licensed software NSO (Figure 3).
In particular the jacket geometry and material from as built drawings /Ref. 2/ and structural
steel specification /Ref. 3/ has been validated by fabrication data book.
As far as the foundations model is concerned, the pile-soil interaction has been modelled by
appropriate characterization of the soil layers along the pile depth as well as pile tip bearing
capacity, all deduced by original soil geotechnical report /Ref. 4, 5/ and validated by
installation driveability analysis /Ref. 6/.

.
Fig 3: Vega A Platform Structural Model
3

In order to complete the updated model of the platform so to reflect the present conditions as
much as possible, both the generated structural weight of the jacket (about 17820 tons) and
the topside modules masses and positions have been validated by their values available
from project final weight control report /Ref. 7/ in addition to information obtained from
topside survey and operators record, from which, e.g., it is reported that the drilling rig
equipment has been present on the platform up to the end of the year 2002. Relevant mass
has been considered in the dynamic and fatigue analyses carried out accordingly.
In order to complete the updated model of the jacket, very important information have been
obtained from inspection reports available /Ref. from 8 to 12/ for all the surveys carried out
for the submerged structure during the service life of the platform, in terms of general and
close visual inspection outcomes, particularly:
- Wall thickness measurements;
- Cathodic protection measurements;
- Marine growth measures and cleaning policy;
- Non-destructive examination of the welded joints.

THE MONITORING SYSTEM

Since the early phases of its service life, on the platform it was installed a monitoring system,
which, even if subject to modifications and upgrading through the years, has continuously
provided the following data from 1988:
- Directional wave motion;
- Current velocity and direction;
- Sea level variation:
- Wind velocity and direction;
- Air temperature.
The present system, installed on Vega-A by the company DEAM srl at the end of 2001, is
made by:
- Wave meter, based on the measurement of water column pressure;
- Sensors for measurement of wind velocity (anemometer) and direction;
- Current meter, to record the 2-components current velocity;
- Sensors for acquisition of meteorological data.
Inside these categories, there are different timeframe for measurements, i.e. the
meteorological parameters are detected any ten minutes inside each hour, while waves, sea
level and current are detected along 17 minutes each hour.
All data collected on the platform, whether following a first elaboration on the platform
(reduced data), or by rough data, are sent to the Department of Civil Engineering (DICeA) of
the University of Florence, which has the role of validating the samples and following
statistical interpretation of the data relevant to the environmental parameters /Ref. 13/.
As regards to wave characterization, that post processing phase provides:
- Significant wave height;
- Maximum wave height;
- Significant wave period;
- Associated period to maximum wave height;
- Zero-crossing period;
- Peak period;
- Wave incoming direction.

Similar process is undertaken for the structural behavior, which has been monitored since
the commissioning of the platform by installation of strain gauges and accelerometers on
some structural bracings.
At present, 6 accelerometers are employed for accelerations measurements (6 linear and 3
angular). In total, 17 sensors are present on the platform, in the positions indicated in Figure
4, with the characteristics shown in the table reported as Figure 5, where it is reported the
duration, the frequency and the number of samples for any set of data collection.

Fig 4: Sensors on Vega A Platform

Fig 5: Sensors properties

5

UPDATING OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AND STATIC ANALYSIS

After completion of the updated structural model, and propaedeutical to the following
dynamic and fatigue analysis to be performed for platforms life extension, a static analysis
has been carried out in relation to the two typical design conditions that are to be verified
according to the international standard API code used for fixed offshore structures /Ref. 14/:
- Operating condition (i.e. with wave, current and wind loading characterized by 1-yr
return period);
- Extreme condition (i.e. with wave, current and wind loading characterized by 100-yrs
return period);
This latter condition has been particularly analyzed to check the accuracy of the model in
comparison with the original design results /Ref. 15/, in terms of global loads resultant at the
structures base or pile loads, by taking into account of course the occurred and modeled
variation on environmental actions and weight distribution.
Indeed a first important benefit for the structure obtained from the monitoring results has
been the reduction of the environmental loads acting on the platform: for instance in the
following Table 1 the values of wave heights (for both operating and extreme conditions)
adopted at design stage as a result of the former meteomarine study /Ref. 16/ are reported in
comparison with the new values obtained as main outcome of the elaboration of more than
20 years of recorded data on the platform /Ref. 17/.
Also, new data are more refined with respect to the incoming direction (original design
referred to 4 sectors only); from the comparison it can be seen how new data are more
homogeneous and with a significant reduction in extreme values, which eventually results in
a favorable contribution for the purpose of extending the platforms life.
Furthermore, from the specific analysis of wave heights raw data /Ref. 18/, it has been
possible to get an appropriate calibration of the theory that best represent the actual values
of recorded wave velocities and acceleration, specifically the adoption of a 3rd order wave
theory better describe the wave parameters distribution than the Stokes 5th order theory used
in the original design and, in any case, the theoretical prediction overestimated the actual
recorded values. That conservative assumption does result in a margin of safety actually
present in the designed structural members, safety gained for the present reassessment
analysis.
Similar comparison and observations can be obtained from the analysis of Table 2 as
regards to prediction of wind velocity.

Tab. 1:

Maximum values of wave heights comparison

Operating Conditions

Direction () Hmax design (m)

0
3.7
30
60
90
10.3
120
150
180
10.3
210
240
270
11.4
300
330

Hmax 2012 (m)

6.5
7.2
7.0
7.3
7.9
6.1
7.1
7.3
7.3
8.8
9.6
9.7
6

Extreme Conditions
Hmax design (m)
5.5

15.5

15.4

17.1

Hmax 2012 (m)

6.5
7.5
8.4
13.0
15.2
11.3
12.8
12.3
12.1
15.0
15.8
15.7

Tab. 2:

Maximum values of wind velocities comparison

Operating Conditions

Direction () v design (m/s)

120
27.3
150
27.3
210
27.3
240
27.3
27.3
300

v 2012 (m/s)
21.1
21.7
26.5
30.7
25.5

Extreme Conditions
v design (m/s)
43.4
43.4
38.0
48.7
48.7

v 2012 (m/s)
31.0
36.2
39.5
41.5
34.2

The static analysis carried out for both environmental and operating conditions showed non
critical elements with respect to the structural members and joints checks performed
according to API requirements.
These results are shown in graphical form (e.g. in Figure 6 it is reported the output for
member checks in extreme conditions) in terms of unity check (UC) of the structural
components, which can be represented as the ratio between the loads demand and the
resistance capacity of each component (by also accounting for appropriate safety factors
according to the rules /Ref. 14/), therefore resulting in a safe state if UC < 1.

Fig 6: Outcome of structural members check in extreme condition

In particular, the following maximum values of the UC factor resulted for the platforms
structural components in the two analyzed conditions:
- UC = 0.942 for the members in operating condition (for a compression + bending +
hydrostatic collapse limit state);
- UC = 0.708 for the members in extreme condition (for a compression + bending +
hydrostatic collapse limit state);
- UC = 0.303 for the joints in operating condition (for punching shear check);
- UC = 0.489 for the joints in extreme condition (for punching shear check);
- UC = 0.339 for the pile bearing capacity under compression + bending.
7

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS AND VALIDATION ACCORDING TO MONITORING

RESULTS
The dynamic analysis of the platform in the present conditions has been performed to
evaluate the natural periods and modal shapes of the structures.
In particular the calculated first 3 frequencies have been compared to the values of the same
dynamic parameters obtained as main outcome from the monitoring of the structure and,
consequently, a proper calibration of the model is reached.
A prediction model of the structural dynamics as close as possible to the real response is of
paramount importance for the following fatigue spectral analysis, which is driven by the
vibration analysis results and is the definitive assessment to be performed for the life
extension of the jacket.
The jacket and the topside models adopted for the dynamic analysis have been the same
ones used for the static analysis, apart from the pile section below the mud-line which cannot
be treated for the dynamic response analysis with the full non-linear foundation model used
for the static in-place analysis. The foundation pile behaviour must be linearized by
evaluating the characteristics of a special pile-stub element. This element simulates the pile
soil interaction during the dynamic analysis, taking into account for the characteristics of axial
load transfer along the pile shaft and the pile response to lateral loads.
The dynamic mass model carried out includes:
- Jacket masses accounting for spatial orientation and distribution;
- Topside masses accounting for spatial orientation and distribution (structures,
equipment, pedestal cranes and live loads);
- Appurtenances (such as risers and boat landings);
- Added and entrapped masses below the sea level;
- Marine growth weight;
- Mass of the piles.
The dynamic analysis has been carried out through eigenvalues (natural periods) and
eigenvectors extraction, for a sufficient number of modes of vibration, so that a minimum
90% mass participation is achieved.
As mentioned above, the results obtained from the dynamic analysis carried out on the
updated structural model have been eventually validated in relation to data from monitoring,
which, in turn, reflects the actual behavior of the structure.
From the final analysis of the monitoring data (carried out on yearly basis), the structural
response derived by the records of the deck accelerations is very useful for the purpose of
definition of the global dynamic behavior. In particular the outputs of the 9 accelerometers
(both linear and angular) presently installed on the structure have been processed to get
average spectral response on a 3-months basis. The comparison between elaborated
average spectra and raw data collected during the past platforms life shows a substantial
stability in the dynamic response of the structure, which means that no significant variation in
both mass and stiffness distribution have occurred along the lifetime.
From the examination of the elaborated spectra /Ref. 13/ it can be drawn that prevailing
harmonics are reported with a frequency of about 0.45Hz in x-direction and 0.50Hz in ydirection. This latter is slightly higher than the value of 0.48Hz reported in 2001, but equal to
the value reported from 2002 to date.
By the way, such peak values of the spectral response are quite higher than the values
estimated at design stage in the platforms seismic analysis (i.e. fx = 0.300Hz and fy =
0.316Hz, /Ref. 19/), probably due to underestimation of the foundation stiffness in the design
soil-structure prediction model.
Given the actual natural periods obtained from the monitoring, the present dynamic analysis
has been calibrated accordingly.

In order to reach the same vibrations response, the sensitivity of the natural periods to the
following parameters, which were uncertain or affected to some extent by model
assumptions, has been investigated:
- Marine growth thickness;
- Contribution of the conductors to global structural stiffness;
- Foundation stiffness,
with the final determination of the structural frequencies as reported in the following Table 3:

Tab. 3:
Shape of vibration

Evaluated structural frequencies

Frequency from monitoring Calculated frequency (Hz)

(Hz)

1st mode
2nd mode
3rd mode

0,45
0,50
0,78

0,42
0,51
0,78

The corresponding 3 modes are reported in the following Figure 7.

Fig 7: First 3 modes of vibration of Vega-A jacket.

FATIGUE ANALYSIS AND CHECKS

A stochastic spectral fatigue analysis has been performed to evaluate the fatigue damage, at
the welded tubular connections of the jacket through the following calculation steps:
- Stress range transfer function;
- Environmental load spectrum;
- Stress response spectrum;
- Fatigue damage evaluation.

The wave response analysis has been used to determine the system transfer function. This
approach assumes that an infinite train of repeatable wave form are stepped through the
structure and the response is established. In order to accurately define all the peaks and
valleys inherent the sub-structure response transfer function, a sufficient number of
frequencies and the corresponding wave heights are to be selected. The selection of such
frequencies is based on the dynamics of the structure, thus the more realistic is the dynamic
response, the more reliable is the fatigue assessment.
The wave data for the fatigue check is provided on a statistical basis, where the normal
parameters are the significant wave height and the zero up-crossing period, as detailed in
/Ref. 17/.
Then, Jonswap energy spectrum with the peak enhancement factor appropriate for the site
has been used.
Each connection of the jacket, that is each welded tubular joint, has been checked at 8 points
around the circumference of the joint.
The stress distribution all around the tubular joint connections has been defined considering
hot spot stresses calculated on the basis of parametric formulation of the stress
concentration factors available in literature for tubular joints, whereas the S-N curve for the
evaluation of the fatigue life, applicable for tubular connections as well, is available from API
rules /Ref. 14/.
The evaluation of fatigue damage, and the corresponding calculation of the fatigue life of
each tubular joint of the jacket, has been performed by comparing the summation of
damages relevant to the various stress range sets, following the Miner-Palmgren model, with
the allowable S-N curve.
The results of the fatigue assessment, in terms of fatigue life for each connection, are
reported in the following Table 4, for the connections with the lowest fatigue lives (lower than
200 years): all the jacket joints satisfy the requirement of fatigue life greater than 50 years
(25 years of target extension life multiplied by the safety factor 2, adopted for joint
connections in and below the splash zone, according to /Ref. 14/).

Tab. 4:
Node
448
454
448
201
454
201
673
647
463
463
464
682
681
682
464
184
184
666

Chord
1391-1392
1369-1370
1391-1392
937-938
1369-1370
937-938
1806-1807
1809-1810
1387-1388
1387-1388
1389-1390
1794-1795
1796-1797
1794-1795
1389-1390
559-560
559-560
1811-1812

Fatigue analysis results

Brace
2235
2224
2232
2199
2223
2200
1805
1805
1363
1345
1354
1994
1997
1993
1362
2171
2170
3936

Life(years)
87
113
113
116
118
120
121
123
129
131
149
153
168
170
171
172
177
193

Side
Chord
Chord
Chord
Chord
Chord
Chord
Brace
Chord
Chord
Chord
Chord
Chord
Chord
Chord
Chord
Chord
Chord
Chord

As shown in Table 4, the most critical joint in terms of fatigue life (87 years) is located at
elevation -33m below the sea level.
10

UPDATING OF IMR AND RELIABILITY BASED INSPECTION PLAN

Notwithstanding the engineering assessment results, the life extension of the jacket shall be
subject to the provision of an appropriate inspection, maintenance and repair (IMR) plan,
which, in turn, can be updated by using the newly performed fatigue analysis, as well as the
outcomes of the inspections actually carried out.
Indeed, during the jacket past service life, besides the monitoring, the platform has been
subject to regular maintenance and inspection activities, as usual for offshore platforms.
The same joint (at node 448) which has been found as most critical in the present
assessment has been subject to non-destructive examination by MPI (magnetic particle
inspection) in the 1993 with no cracks detected.
In general, 23 out of 110 main structural connections have been inspected by NDE in the
offshore campaigns carried out from 1989 to 2011.
A specific IMR plan is considered for the appropriate maintenance of the jacket, reporting the
schedule of close visual inspections of welded joints as well as other controls such as wall
thickness measurements, cathodic protection measurements and marine growth cleaning.
During the past years most of the planned MPI have been replaced by surveys performed by
flooded members detection (FMD) method, particularly for the deeper jacket structural plans
(i.e. plans at el. -54m and -75m) where the NDE inspection is more difficult and expensive.
All the inspected joints did not reveal defects inside the welds, apart from a micro crack
detected during the 1989 inspection on a connection of the plan at -13m depth. In 1990 the
same weld was subject to further MPI without showing any defect.
In relation to the extension life issue, a new IMR plan has been developed to be applied to
the jacket structure starting from the year 2013.
The new updated IMR plan is based on the above discussed jacket analysis, particularly the
fatigue analysis results have been considered to select critical and representative joints to be
inspected according to the new schedule, which is covering the period of extended life.
Moreover the actual inspections outcomes can be considered and fully combined with the
fatigue evaluation at each jacket joint by using a reliability approach, which allows the
planning of future inspections on a rational basis.
In particular, by using the reliability approach, the probability of failure or, correspondingly,
the safety margin, with respect to the fatigue limit state can be expressed by an index,
properly called safety index , whose evaluation can be determined in closed analytical form
by using, e.g., the lognormal format for the different statistical parameters which contributes
to the fatigue life evaluation for a given tubular joint of an offshore platform /Ref. 20/.
Such reliability evaluation allows to determine the safety margin with respect to the fatigue
failure as a function of time; thus, it is possible to represent the trend of this safety margin,
which, of course, is decreasing with increasing age of the structure (green line in Figure 8).
The same margin can be updated by using the inspection events /Ref. 20/, which, in any
case, represents a factor of knowledge on the structure, reducing uncertainty and, therefore,
increasing the safety margin, particularly in case that no cracks are detected.
For instance, the safety margin evaluated for the above reported critical joint 448 is
reported as basic case (green line) by supposing that it will reach the safety target (i.e. the
minimum allowable safety, red straight line in Figure 8) at the time of its planned next NDE
inspection, that is in the year 2015.
However, by considering that the same joint was inspected in the 1993 with positive
outcome, the safety margin is consequently increased (yellow line) in such a way that it could
be actually not inspected till the year 2027; moreover, by actually inspecting the joint with
positive result in planned 2015, relevant index will be further updated (pink line) by
maintaining the safety margin far greater than the minimum required one: it is highlighted
how the reliability evaluation provides further confidence on the interpretation of the
engineering assessment results for planning future inspection scheduling.

11

Fig 8: Fatigue reliability index evaluation

CONCLUSIONS
The common process of reassessment of an existing offshore platform, in order to extend its
operating life, which typically implies a structural reanalysis of the jacket with particular
attention paid to the fatigue issue, is significantly improved by availability of monitoring data,
gathered by a measurement system installed on the platform since the early phases of its
operating life.
The large amount of significant information recorded has eventually increased the level of
reliability in the new structural assessment, by allowing:
- The revision of statistics of wave, wind and current data with relevant reduction of
the characteristic meteomarine loadings acting on the platform;
- The calibration of the estimated structural dynamic response, which is the basis for
the fatigue assessment of the jacket welded joints, with respect to the actual jacket
accelerations continuously recorded on field by mounted accelerometers.
No critical situations have been highlighted by updated structural analyses carried out; in
particular the performed fatigue assessment has shown that the jacket original design life
can be extended up to the requested target of 25 years, provided that the operator will
continue with the regular inspection and maintenance measures carried out during the whole
platforms service life. To this aim a rational updating of the IMR plan has been prepared on
the basis of both new engineering analyses and inspections results.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank all the Edison and RINA colleagues, based in Siracusa and
Genoa respectively, as well as the personnel of DEAM and professors and researchers at
DICeA of University of Florence, without whose effort and contribution the job described in
the paper wouldnt have been possible and, above all, it wouldnt have been possible to
reach the goal of extending the operating life of the Vega A platform.

12

REFERENCES
/1/
/2/
/3/
/4/
/5/
/6/
/7/
/8/
/9/
/10/
/11/
/12/
/13/

/14/

/15/
/16/
/17/

/18/

/19/
/20/

RINA, Guidelines for Requalification of Existing Offshore Platforms, Rev. 1, 7.2.2011;

Vega A Platform Project Approved for construction set of drawings, issued by
Tecnomare;
Vega A Platform Project Doc. No. 656513-SPE-E020-C101
- Structural Steel
Specification, Rev. 4;
DAppolonia Project No. 81-958, July 1982, Offshore Geotechnical investigation Vega
1, Vega 2;
DAppolonia Project No. 83-134, December 1983, Offshore Geotechnical
investigation Vega 4 Site;
DAppolonia Project No. 86-317, December 1986, Review of Pile Driving and Redrive
of Test Results Vega A Platform Offshore Site;
Vega A Platform Project Doc. No. W652513-REL-W010-G015 Topside
Modules
Weight Control Report n 22;
Vega A Jacket Survey Report, RANA, 1987;
Vega A Jacket Survey Report, Marine Consulting, 1988, 1997, 1998, 2001, 2006;
Vega A Jacket Survey Report, Marex, 1989, 1990, 1993;
Vega A Jacket Survey Report, DNT, 2004, 2007, 2009, 2010;
Vega A Jacket Survey Report, Impresub, 2011;
Universit degli Studi di Firenze, Dip. Ingegneria Civile e Ambientale, Analisi e
interpretazione dei dati ambientali e strutturali della piattaforma Vega A nel periodo
1988-2010 Relazione conclusiva, 2010;
API, American Petroleum Institute, API RP2A Recommended Practice for Planning,
Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms - Load and Resistance Factor
Design, 1st edition amended with Supplement 1, Effective Date April 1, 1997;
Vega A Platform Project Doc. No. 656513-REL-J010-S529, In Place Static Analysis,
Rev. 1;
Glenn A.H. & Ass. (1984) Valutazione degli effetti ambientali relativi allattivit
offshore del Campo Vega;
DEAM Report No. 400204-VEGA-EDI-AV-r0, Aprile 2011, Valori Estremi dei
Parametri meteo-marini e numro di onde singole (basati sui dati rilevati dal sistema di
monitoraggio fino al 31/12/2010);
DEAM Report No.400204-VEGA-EDI-AR-r0, Giugno 2011, Estensione della vita
operativa Piattaforma Vega A, Sezione 2, Analisi dei dati raw e confronto con i valori
teorici;
Vega A Platform Project Doc. No. 656513-REL-J020-S533, Earthquake Structural
Analysis, Rev. 0;
R. Facciolli, C. Ferretti, R. Piva, S, Copello, System Fatigue Reliability Updating for
Offshore Structures, Proc. OMAE 1995, Paper 1241.

13