Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ECHO-C-CAL-0001 Rev.0 SLE ECOM PDF
ECHO-C-CAL-0001 Rev.0 SLE ECOM PDF
Validation
Author‟s Org. 2 Years
PT DWE-ENGINEERING Expired Date
January 2016
Approval Sheet
Name Title Date Signature
Ade Kismantoro Facility Integrity Manager
Karyadi Junaedi Senior Structural Integrity Engineer
Eko Andi Rahman Structural Engineer
Revision Status
Rev. Date By Chk App Issued Purpose Owner Signature
A 2 August 2013 SGT MA SUT Issued For Review
0 30 January 2014 SGT/FPD CRM ARK Issued For Approval
PT PHE ONWJ Structural Re-Analysis „ECOM‟ Platform Service Life Extension
14 30 January 2014 Add Figure 2.4.3 Maximum Joint Punching Shear Position
Add Figure 2.4.4 Minimum Fatigue Life Location Joint 303 for
15 30 January 2014
Fatigue Life Less than 59 year
Add Figure 2.4.5 Minimum Fatigue Life Location Joint 307 for
16 30 January 2014
Fatigue Life Less than 59 year
Add Figure 2.4.6 Minimum Fatigue Life Location Joint 301 for
17 30 January 2014
Fatigue Life Less than 59 year
Add Figure 2.4.7 Minimum Fatigue Life Location Joint 305 for
18 30 January 2014
Fatigue Life Less than 59 year
62 30 January 2014 Revise Table 8.2.1 Fatigue Life Safety Factor Summary
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 5
9. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ 71
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
PHE ONWJ has requested PT Depriwangga Engineering, to perform necessary analyses to investigate
the structural integrity of the „ECOM‟. The analyses were performed for Service Life Extension of the
platform as required to continue further operation and maintain MIGAS SKKP for additional years of
service life.
This report provides descriptions of the structural analyses performed and draw conclusions about the
serviceability and safety of the platform. In-place, seismic, and fatigue analyses.
The analyses shall include in-place analysis, seismic analysis, foundation analysis, and fatigue for the
continued operation of the structure in accordance with requirements of the current API RP 2A – WSD 21st
Edition, Errata and Supplement 3, 2007 [Ref. 1].
1.3 Abbreviation
- AISC American Institute of Steel Construction
- API American Petroleum Institute
- ASD Allowable Stress Design
- ASTM American Standard Testing and Material
- AWS American Welding Society
- OD Outer Diameter
- PHE ONWJ Pertamina Hulu Energi Offshore North West Java
- THK Thickness
- T.O.S Top of Steel
- WSD Working Stress Design
The platform consist of two main directional grid lines as follows. Rows are designated as “A” and “B” in
the longitudinal direction and as “1” and “2” in the transverse direction. Platform North is parallel to rows
“A” and “B” that is 45 degrees East of True North.
The deck structure is an open rigid frame, formed by 36 inches OD legs. The jacket structure is a 4 (four)
legged steel template type structure, with 40 (fourty) inch OD legs. The jacket has one vertical face
adjacent to the wellhead end, while the other three faces are baterred at 1 : 8, with the working point at
elevation (+) 15‟-0”.
The jacket is supported by 36-inch OD ungrouted piles driven through the jacket legs to the required
design penetration. The piles penetration below mudline are approximately 140 ft.
All structural steel used conforms to ASTM Grade A-36 ( plate ) with minimum yield stress Fy of 36 Ksi
and ASTM-53 or API 5L Grade B ( tubular ) with minimum yield stress Fy of 35 Ksi, except all pipes shall
be from ASTM A-36 minimum yield stress Fy of 36 Ksi.
45.00 PN
TN
Main Deck T.O.S. Elv. (+) 40.25
ft
A1 B1 B2 A2
Figure 1.4.2 Sketches of Front view & Back view, ECOM Platform
B2 A2 A1
B1
45.00 PN
6‟-3/5” Riser
12‟-3/4” Riser TN
6‟-3/5” Riser
6‟-3/5” Riser
1 16‟- 0” Riser 2
6‟-3/5” Riser 6‟-3/5” Riser
12‟-3/4” Riser
16‟-0” Riser
6‟-3/5” Riser
16‟-0” Riser
16‟-0” Riser
24‟-0” Riser
6‟-3/5” Riser
30‟-0” Riser
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This section summarizes and concludes the results of structural analysis performed for the „ECOM‟
Service Life Extension.
The analysis input has been updated as per modification until latest requalification on 1998. Based on
Doc. No. ECOM-C-CAL-001 E Compression Platform Structural Design Report [Ref. 3], there is some
modification on member. The modification member has been included on this analysis.
The members are checked against the combined axial and bending forces for AISC / API Interaction
ratios. Based on analysis result of design criteria, it is found that the structure stresses are well within
allowable limit.
The detail output is presented on section 6.7.3. The maximum member stress ratio is 0.926 on Cellar
Deck Framing for Operating Condition and 0.750 on Cellar Deck Framing for Storm Condition.
All Joint Punching Shear Stresses for all the conditions analyzed satisfy the requirements of API RP 2A
WSD [Ref. 1]. The maximum Joint Punching Shear ratio is 0.368 for Operating Condition and 0.456 for
Storm Condition both at elevation (-) 36.00 ft.
Piles
The pile analysis was shown that minimum factor of safety for 1 year operating is 1.68 and factor of safety
for 100 years storm is 1.37. The factor of safety is less than required on API RP 2A WSD [Ref. 1]. The
factor of safety is considered acceptable and this is adopted from E-Compession Structural Design report
1998. The Conclusion is subsidence of platform need to monitoring periodically in accordance with
inspection program.
The members are checked against the combined axial and bending forces for AISC and API Interaction
ratios respectively. Based on analysis results, it is found that the structure stresses are well within
allowable limit. The maximum member stress ratio is 0.568 on Cellar Deck Framing for Strength Level
Earthquake (SLE) and 0.881 on Cellar Deck Framing for Ductile Level Earhquake (DLE). The detail output
is presented on section 7.4.3.
All Joint Punching Shear Stresses for all the conditions analyzed satisfy the requirements of API RP 2A
WSD [Ref. 1]. The maximum Joint Punching Shear ratio is 0.344 on Cellar Deck Framing for Strength
Level Earthquake (SLE) and 0.582 on Cellar Deck Framing for Ductile Level Earthquake both at elevation
(-) 36.00 ft. The detail output is presented on section 7.4.4.
All Pile Stresses satisfy the criteria of API RP 2A WSD [Ref. 1]. The Pile Axial Capacity, Axial Load, and
minimum factor of safety is 1.0. The minimum factor of safety in Pile Soil Interaction Analysis is 1.55 for
SLE condition and 1.15 for DLE condition. The detail result is presented on Section 7.4.5.
The fatigue analysis result is indicating that the jacket substructure is not adequate during operating
conditions for a service life of the next 20 years until 2034. Initially fatigue lives are evaluated using API
Welded Joint Standard (WJT) curve will be applied as S-N curve to meet the minimum service life of 59
years for SF = 2.
Joint 303
Joint 303 has been indicating on previous report [Ref. 3] that the fatigue life is less than service life
required. Regarding this investigation, the underwater inspection is providing mitigating and the result of
underwater inspection is presented on 3.8.2. The report is presented that the condition of joint 303 is good
and no crack.
The regular under water inspection is still required for this joint.
The Fatigue life on this joint is presented on Table 8.9.1. The fatigue life is less than service life. The
regular inspection shall require getting actual condition of this joint.
For the detail information structural plot of Maximum Member Stress, Joint Punching Shear check
maximum, and Minimum Fatigue Life location are shown on Figure 2.4.1 up to Figure 2.4.7.
Platform North
True North
O
45
Member : 2545-2325
Group : CD2
Operating UC: 1.107
Revised Operating UC: 0.926
Figure 2.4.1 Maximum Member Stress Unity Check Position for Inplace analysis at Cellar Deck T.O.S
El. (+) 24‟-0”
Platform North
True North
O
45
Figure 2.4.2 Maximum Member Stress Unity Check Position for Seismic analysis at Cellar Deck
T.O.S El. (+) 24‟-0”
True North
45
O Joint 403
Platform North Operating UC : 0.230
Storm UC: 0.184
SLE UC : 0.113
Storm UC: 0.184
Joint 303
Operating UC : 100.173
Revised Operating UC: 0.368
SLE UC : 1.279
Joint 207
Revised SLE UC: 0.075
DLE UC : 0.582
DLE UC: 2.140
Revised DLE UC: 0.075
Joint 203
Operating UC : 0.214
Joint 201
Storm UC: 0.310
SLE UC : 0.344
Joint 103
Operating UC : 0.266
Storm UC: 0.380
SLE UC : 0.282
DLE UC: 0.472
0
1
2
B
Figure 8.9.1 to Figure 8.9.5 below showed location of the Joint with Min Service Life from fatigue analysis :
TN
El (+) 10.00 ft
o
45 PN
El (-) 36.00 ft
Brace Member 314-303 381
Chord Member 303-381
Service Life Brace = 0.79
Service Life Chord = 0.22
Inspection Schedule 2014 Join 303
A
281
B
2
Figure 2.4.4 Minimum Fatigue Life Location Joint 303 for Fatigue Life Less Than 59 year
TN
El (+) 10.00 ft
PN
El (-) 87.00 ft
0
A
B
2
Figure 2.4.5 Minimum Fatigue Life Location Joint 307 for Fatigue Life Less Than 59 year
TN El (+) 10.00 ft
PN
El (-) 36.00 ft
Brace Member 301-358
Chord Member 301-1101
Service Life Brace = 1.71
Join 301 Service Life Chord = 0.36
Inspection Schedule 2014
0 A
B
2
Figure 2.4.6 Minimum Fatigue Life Location Joint 301 for Fatigue Life Less Than 59 year
TN
El (+) 10.00 ft
PN
Join 305
El (-) 36.00 ft
Brace Member 372-305
Chord Member 305-383 Brace Member 305-309
Service Life Brace = 4.66 Chord Member 305-383
Service Life Chord = 1.46 Service Life Brace = 63.42
Service Life Chord = 6.98
Inspection Schedule 2014
Inspection Schedule 2014
B
2
Figure 2.4.7 Minimum Fatigue Life Location Joint 305 for Fatigue Life Less Than 59 year
3. DESIGN CRITERIA
3.1 General
The Design Criteria is adapted from ECOM Platform Structural Design Drawing by PT FLUOR OCEAN
SERVICES, July 1975 [Ref. 4] combine with ECOM Platform Structural Design Report by PT Atlantic
Richfield Indonesia, August 1998 [Ref. 3].
Based on API RP 2A WSD Section 17.1 [Ref. 1], “This section is applicable only for the assessment of
platforms which were designed in accordance with the provisions in the 20th and earlier editions and for
platforms designed prior to the first edition of this publication.”
3.3 Specifications
The following Specifications shall be followed to design:
- PHEONWJ-S-SPE-0101 Specification for Structural Steel and Miscellaneous Metal.
- PHEONWJ-S-SPE-0102 Specification for Structural Welding.
- PHEONWJ-S-SPE-0109 Specification for Design and As-Built Drawings.
The Mean Sea Level (MSL) water depth as stated on the previous design report is 145.0 ft. The water
depths used in for the in-place and fatigue analysis are taken as follows:
RETURN PERIODS
DESCRIPTION
1-YEAR 100-YEARS
Highest Astronomical Tide (HAT) 3.8 ft 3.8 ft
Storm Tide 0.30 ft 0.50 ft
Max. Water Depth taken (MSL + ½ HAT + Storm Tide) 147.2 ft 147.4 ft
The Water Depth of 147.4 ft (MSL) has been used in the Seismic Analyses. Sea water density used in
analysis is 64.2 lb/ft3.
3.4.3 Wind
The 1 Year and 100 Year Wave Characteristics used in the Inplace Analysis are as follows:
The API RP 2A WSD [Ref. 1] section 2.3.1.b (3) allows the use of a Wave Kinematics Factor in the range
of 0.85 – 0.95 for tropical storms, applied to the horizontal velocities and accelerations from two –
dimensional regular wave.
A factor of 0.95 is used for the in-place analysis 1 year operational condition and 0.90 for 100-year storm
condition. For Fatigue Analysis, this factor is taken as 1.0.
The following table gives the basic current profile for the In-place Analysis:
0 0.80 0.90
10 1.20 1.50
20 1.40 1.80
30 1.50 2.00
40 1.70 2.20
50 1.80 2.40
60 2.00 2.60
70 2.10 2.80
80 2.30 3.10
90 2.40 3.30
100 2.60 3.60
A current blockage factor is applied in accordance with API RP 2A WSD [Ref. 1], section 2.3.1.b (4).
Current blockage factors for a four leg platform are as follows:
Heading Factors
End On 0.80
Diagonal 0.85
Broadside 0.80
0 - 4.92 0.51
4.92 - 9.84 2.36
9.84 – 14.76 1.5
14.76 – 19.68 1.77
19.68 – 24.6 3.15
24.6 – 39.97 3.15
39.37 - 52.5 3.46
52.5 – 68.9 3.66
68.9 – 82.02 1.38
82.02 - 98.42 1.29
98.42 – 111.55 0.9
111.55 - 127.95 0.39
127.95 - 142.72 0.51
The following Drag Coefficients (Cd) and Inertia Coefficients (Cm) values are applied in accordance with
API RP 2A WSD [Ref. 1]:
Table 3.4.7 – Hydrodynamic Coefficient used in the Analysis
Member Description Cd Cm
Smooth Cylinder 0.65 1.6
Rough Cylinder 1.05 1.2
Member Description Cd Cm
Smooth Cylinder 0.7 2
Rough Cylinder 0.7 2
No corrosion allowance is considered in previous analysis report [Ref. 3] as per previous wall thickness
measurement .
Now in 2014, refer to “ECOM Underwater Platform Inspection and Maintenance and Report 2010” in 2010
[Ref. 6], results demonstrate (Table 3.8.1, section 3.8) there was no corrosion has been below MSL. The
worst condition, has applied on current model analysis. The UWPI 2010 [Ref. 6] give information about the
actual corrosion is greater than PHE ONWJ Specification for Corrosion allowance of ¼”.
Ultimate Pile Capacity Curves 36 inch pile diameters for ECOM platform reproduce in Figures 3.5.1
The Seismic Data is taken from the report titled “ECOM Platform Structural Design Report” by PT Atlantic
Richfield Indonesia, August 1998 [Ref. 3].
This seismic analysis has been performed for Strength Level Earthquake and Ductility Level Earthquake.
The directional factors are applied according to API RP 2A WSD [Ref. 1], as follows:
X - 1.00
Y - 1.00
Z - 0.50
PSV (in/sec/g)
T (secs)
100-Years 800-Years
The fatigue wave height categories and wave height periods together with the wave numbers for each
wave height category is contained in the Environmental Report from Wave Data for Deterministic Fatigue
Analysis based on Platform Structural Design Report by PT Atlantic Richfield Indonesia, August 1998
[Ref. 3]. In this analysis, the eight directional distributions have been considered in the deterministic
fatigue analysis. The wave height distribution data is presented in Table 3.7.1
0
Table 3.7.1 – Combined Number of Wave Occurrences (Occurrence in 10 Years)
Wave
Periode
Height N NE E SE S SW W NW
(s)
(ft)
Based on API RP 2A WSD [Ref. 1] Section 15.2.1, Equation 15.2.1-1 the design fatigue life, L, for Reused
Platform is shown below;
L = SF1 L1 + SF2 L2
Where,
0 The "ECOM PLATFORM” was originally designed for 20 years ( install on 1975 ) and it is intended to
extend the Service Life for an additional 20 years ( on 1994), and now prepare for second requalification
to extend the Service Life (2033).
3.9 Materials
3.9.1 Steel Specification
Steel grades and yield strengths (unless noted otherwise on drawings) are taken as follows for the
analyses:
- All steel plates, shapes , bars & conductor pipes ASTM A -36 Fy = 36 ksi
- All tubular API 5L Grade B Fy = 35 ksi
Allowable stresses are those specified in API RP 2A WSD [Ref. 1] and are yield strength dependent. The
following increases in allowable stresses are permitted for the load conditions noted:
4. STRUCTURAL MODELING
4.1 General
The computer model includes all primary and secondary members of the leg and deck, including boat
landing, and risers. Plots of the computer model are presented in Attachment 10.1, which indicate both the
joint numbering system and the member group codes. A summary of the member group properties is also
included.
The risers are modeled with connecting members, which allow only lateral transfer load.
For the in-place analysis, the foundations below mudline are modeled to their actual penetrations in the
SACS/PSI Analysis. Since the dynamic analysis in SACS Program use linear theory, non-linear
foundations must be represented with linearly equivalent system. The equivalent linear foundation must
be incorporated into the SACS model for the purpose of dynamic analysis.
A three dimensional space frame analysis has been performed for seismic and fatigue analyses. The
computer model is identical to the in-place model.
The platform foundation comprises of three main risers. Soil non-linearity has been considered by using
the load deflection data (P-Y, T-Z, and Q-Z) in line with soil investigation report. As this is a non-linear
analysis, PSI operates on combined load cases rather than basic load cases.
4.3 Appurtenances
All deck and leg appurtenances have been included in the structural computer model. The following
appurtenances are included in the analysis at location indicated in Attachment 10.1. Figure isometric view:
1 – Boat landing
7 – 6 3/5” dia. Risers
2 – 12 3/4” dia. Risers
4 – 16” dia. Risers
1 – 20” dia. Riser
2 – Barge bumpers
4 – 24” dia. Caissons
1 – 30” dia. Caisson
Model sketches of the appurtenances are included in Attachment 10.1, Figure isometric view.
The dead weight of these appurtenances are computer generated with loads being distributed as follows:
- Risers on jacket walkway and mudline
- Barge Bumper on jacket and jacket walkway
- Caisson on jacket jacket and jacket walkway
Other appurtenances dead weight which are not included in the model are hand calculated and applied as
point loads or member loads at the appropriate locations.
To account for non-modeled elements which contribute to wave force, Cd and Cm value of the supporting
members are modified accordingly.
45.00 PN
6”-3/5” Riser
12”-3/4” Riser TN
6”-3/5” Riser
6”-3/5” Riser
1 16”- 0” Riser 2
6”-3/5” Riser 6”-3/5” Riser
12”-3/4” Riser
16”-0” Riser
6”-3/5” Riser
30”-0” Caison
Boatlanding
24”-0” Caison 24”-0” Caison
24”-0” Caison 24”-0” Caison
5. LOADING CALCULATION
The structural design loading used in this analysis is adapted from the previous report “ECOM
PLATFORM.” The detail calculations of each loading with the applied loads are presented in the following
sections. The loading is considered in the analyses are broken down as follows:
- Structural Dead Loads
- Appurtenances Loads
- Topside Loads
- Environmental Loads
Load (kips)
Description
1-year Operating 100-years Storm
Dead Load 1737.773 1737.773
Buoyancy 738.830 739.304
Dead Load (include buoyancy) 998.943 998.469
Bulk loads are adapted from the previous ECOM PLATFORM Report. The following loads have been
adopted for the Main Deck loading in this analysis.
Bulk loads are adapted from the previous ECOM PLATFORM Report. The following loads have been
adopted for the Cellar Deck loading in this analysis.
The equipment load defined as individual item load for Main Deck in this analysis, adapted from the
previous ECOM PLATFORM Report.
The equipment load defined as individual item load for Cellar Deck in this analysis, adapted from the
previous ECOM PLATFORM Report
Piping Loads are applied as uniform distributed of member load on Main deck, adopted from previous
report of ECOM PLATFORM.
Piping Loads are applied as uniform distributed of member load on Cellar deck, adopted from previous
report of ECOM PLATFORM.
Bridge Loads are applied as uniform distributed of member load on deck, adopting from previous report of
ECOM platform with X-direction load is 0.422 kips and Y-direction load is 1.318 kips. The vertical Bridge
Loads for the Analysis arrived at the following table below:
Daerator Loads are applied as uniform distributed of member load on Cellar deck, adopting from previous
report of ECOM. The Daerator Loads for the Analysis arrived at the following table below:
Live Loads are applied as uniform distributed of member load on main deck, adopting from previous report
of ECOM platform with maximum live load is 150 and minimum live load is 50 psf. The Total Live Loads
for the Analysis arrived at the following:
Live Loads are applied as uniform distributed of member load on cellar deck, adopting from previous
report of ECOM platform with maximum live load is 150 psf and minimum live load is 50 psf. The Total
Live Loads for the Analysis arrived at the following:
The wave and current loading employed in the structural analysis were based on Morison‟s equation in
accordance with API RP 2A WSD [Ref. 1] Section 2.3 Considering the wave parameters and water depth
at the site, Stokes 5 Wave Theory was selected to compute the wave particle velocities and acceleration.
Eight (8) directions of environmental attack are considered for the In Place Analysis in order to obtain the
most critical for the Structure and its foundations. The directions of environmental attack considered for
the In Place Analysis are shown in Figure 5.5.1
The wind load is automatic calculated in SACS software by specifying wind areas representing the
projected area of the different level and axis. The wind load is computed in 8 directions corresponding to
the wave direction. The wind loads will be applied as point load by joint distribution automatically by
software.
NE E
45.00 PN
TN
315.00 270.00 SE
225.00
N S
0.00 180.00
NW
SW
45.00
135.00
W
90.00
6. IN-PLACE ANALYSIS
6.1 General
All primary jacket frame and deck frame were modeled and analyzed using the SACS suite of programs.
Environmental loads such as wave and current, the hydrodynamic effect and the structural stiffness are
generated automatically and topside loads generated or summed by the SEASTATE module. Wave and
current loads were generated in accordance with Morison‟s equation as given in API RP 2A WSD [Ref. 1]
equation 2.3.1.b -10.
The non-linear static structural analysis was done by utilizing PSI module in this computer program. The
piles are modeled to their full penetration below mudline, with section properties as shown in the drawing.
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. The analysis was performed with the structure
and piles being considered linear, while the soil behavior is non-linear.
Piles above the mudline are modeled as separate tubular members concentric with the leg members.
Below the link node elevation, the pile-soil foundation system is modeled. Soil non-linearity has been
considered below the conductor head joint by using the load deflection data (P-Y, T-Z, and Q-Z) in line
with soil investigation report.
The soil and pile 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.
Since load dependent soil non-linearity is being considered in the analysis, all relevant load cases have to
be combined appropriately and separate unique displacements have to be computed for each specified
load combination. These nodal displacement in-turns produce nominal member forces for appropriate
code checks, based on relevant sectional properties and other data. The most severe of the utilization
ratios along with the corresponding load combination provides the design case.
PSI Program was used to perform the interactive non-linear analysis of soil pile structure. Non-linear
beam column is represented the pile model. An iterative procedure is used to find the pile influence on the
deflection of the structure. The iterations are continued until the pile head displacements converge within
a pre-set tolerance under the applied loading.
All primary jacket and deck frames were modeled and analyzed using the SACS Program. The Non-linear
Static Structural Analysis was done by utilizing the PSI Module in this Computer Program.
The Post Processing from SACS enables Member and Joint Punching Shear Unity Checks to be
performed in accordance with API RP 2A WSD 21st Edition [Ref. 1].
START
SEAINP.MODEL
Seastate input with JCNINP.MODEL
environmental load as Joint can input for
per attack direction joint check analysis
LINIEAR STATIC WITH PILE SOIL INTERACTION AND JOINT CAN ANALYSIS
SACS IV
SACS Output
- PSILST.MODEL Output file
- PSICSF.MODEL Solution file
- PSIOCI.MODEL Structural Loading Combine
- PSINPF.MODEL Soil graphic solution
- PSVDB postvue database 3D output solution
Re-check Structural
Model & Loading Pile UC & SF OK? NO Re-check soil input
and data
YES
YES
FINISH
Figure 6.3.1 Flowchart for Inplace Analysis of ECOM Service Life Extension
The Wave and Current Loadings are generated to maximize the platform‟s Base Shear. The Wave Crest
Position and Water Depth producing the maximum Base Shear is pre-determined and used.
The Wave Crest Positions of the Wave Attack Directions that produce the maximum Compressive and
Tensile Pile Loading are selected to maximize the Overturning Moment about the mudline. The Basic
Load Cases used in these analyses is presented here under;
1 DEAD LOAD
2 APPURTENANCES LOAD
0
6.6 Load Combinations
Basic load cases were factored and combined as appropriate in order to develop the most enormous
condition for the structure and its foundation. The basic load combination and applied factors that make up
the 1-year operational and 100-years storm load condition are shown below;
1 DEAD LOAD 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
2 APPURTENANCES LOAD 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
3 BULK LOAD ON MAIN DECK 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
4 BULK LOAD ON CELLAR DECK 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
5 EQUIPMENT LOADS ON MAIN DECK 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
6 EQUIPMENT LOADS ON CELLAR DECK 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
7 PIPING LOADS ON MAIN DECK 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
8 PIPING LOADS ON CELLAR DECK 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
9 LIVE LOAD ON MAIN DECK 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
10 LIVE LOAD ON CELLAR DECK 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
11 BRIDGE VERTICAL LOAD 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
12 BRIDGE HORIZONTAL LOAD, X-DIRECTION 100 483 - -483 100 -483 - 483
18 1-YEAR WIND LOAD ON DECK, X-DIRECTION 100 100 - -100 -100 -100 - 100
19 1-YEAR WIND LOAD ON DECK, Y-DIRECTION - 100 100 100 - -100 -100 -100
22 DAERATOR LOAD (80 kips) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
1 DEAD LOAD 105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
2 APPURTENANCES LOAD 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
3 BULK LOAD ON MAIN DECK 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
4 BULK LOAD ON CELLAR DECK 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
5 EQUIPMENT LOADS ON MAIN DECK 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
6 EQUIPMENT LOADS ON CELLAR DECK 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
7 PIPING LOADS ON MAIN DECK 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
8 PIPING LOADS ON CELLAR DECK 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
11 BRIDGE VERTICAL LOAD 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
12 BRIDGE HORIZONTAL LOAD, X-DIRECTION 100 483 - -483 100 -483 - 483
20 100-YEARS WIND LOAD ON DECK, X-DIRECTION 100 100 - -100 -100 -100 - 100
21 100-YEARS WIND LOAD ON DECK, Y-DIRECTION - 100 100 100 - -100 -100 -100
22 DAERATOR LOAD (80 kips) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
6.7 Results
6.7.1 Platform Loads
For the result of basic load summary for inplace analysis is shown below;
Dead
Load FX FY FZ MX MY MZ Buoyancy
Load
Condition (kips) (kips) (kips) (ft-kips) (ft-kips) (ft-kips) (kips) (kips)
Combined load summary result for 1 year operating and 100 years storm condition is shown on overleaf;
Table 6.7.2 – Inplace 1-Year Operation and 100-Years Combined Summary Result
Load FX FY FZ MX MY MZ
Comb (kips) (kips) (kips) (ft-kips) (ft-kips) (ft-kips)
Computer analysis output summaries are given in Attachment 10.4. The output includes member unity
check, joint punching shear check, basic load seastate summaries, pile unity check and pile summaries
below mudline.
The maximum Platform base shear and overturning moment under 1-year operating and 100-years storm
conditions are summarized in Table 6.7.3.
The members are checked against the combined axial and bending forces for AISC / API Interaction
ratios. Based on analysis result of design criteria, it is found that the structure stresses are well within
allowable limit. The computer output is given in Attachment 10.4. Member unity check summary are
presented in Table 6.7.4.
Max.
Description Group Load Revised
Member Combined Location
OD x WT ID Cond. UC
UC
Max.
Description Group Load Revised
Member Combined Location
OD x WT ID Cond. UC
UC
2) Cellar Deck
2545-2325 W21 x 55 CD2 28 1.107 0.926
Secondary Beam
603-703 36" OD x 1.0" Thk DL1 31 0.664 - Deck Leg
Note:
1) Considered acceptable since overstressed members unity check is less than 10% stress check tolerance.
2) Unity checks after revised by moment cut off. See attachment 10.7.1
Max.
Description Group Load Revised
Member Combined Location
OD x WT ID Cond. UC
UC
A summary of the member unity checks (UC) is produced from the computer output and presented in
Attachment 10.4. For more detail the Position of the maximum member stress unity check is shown on
Figure 6.7.1.
Platform North
True North
O
45
Member : 2545-2325
Group : CD2
Operating UC: 1.107
Revised Operating UC: 0.926
Figure 6.7.1 Maximum Member Stress Unity Check Position for Inplace analysis at Cellar Deck T.O.S
El. (+) 24‟-0”
Joint Punching Shear Stress Checks in accordance with API RP 2A WSD [Ref. 1] have been performed
for all tubular joints. The Allowable Stresses are factored by 1.33 for the 100-Years Storm Condition.
Maximum Joint Punching Shear Stress Unity Check for the In-Place Service Life Extension is summarized
in the table below:
Note:
1) Unity checks after revised by tubular joint check. See attachment 10.7.3
Note:
1) Unity checks after revised by tubular joint check. See attachment 10.7.3
For the detail information structural position of joint check maximum location is shown in Figure 6.7.2.
True North
O
45
Platform North Joint 403
Operating UC : 0.230
Storm UC: 0.184
0 Joint 303
Operating UC : 100.173
Revised Operating UC: 0.368
Joint 103
Operating UC : 0.266
Storm UC: 0.380 Joint 203
Operating UC : 0.214
Storm UC: 0.310
2
B
Figure 6.7.2 Maximum Joint Punching Shear Position for Inplace Analysis
6.7.5 Piles
Piles below mudline have been checked against allowable stresses for 1-year Operating conditions, 100-
years storm conditions in accordance with API RP 2A WSD [Ref. 1].
One-third increase in the allowable stresses has been considered for 100-years storm loading as per API
RP 2A WSD [Ref. 1], section 3.1.2.
PSI Program was used to perform the interactive non-linear analysis of Soil Pile Structure. All piles satisfy
the API RP 2A WSD [Ref. 1] requirements for Factors of Safety (FoS) against axial failure. The pile axial
loads, axial capacities and minimum Factors of Safety, which occurring during 1-year Operating conditions
and 100-years storm conditions are summarized in the following Table 6.7.8.
Note:
1) The Ultimate Pile Capacity is taken by previous analysis report [Ref. 3]
The above pile ultimate axial capacity Factor of Safety (FoS) must satisfy the requirements by API RP 2A
WSD [Ref. 1] are as follows:
- 1-year Operation Conditions FoS > 2.00
- 100-year Storm Conditions FoS > 1.50
From Table 6.7.8, the pile safety factor is still considered acceptable, this is adopted from previous
analysis report [Ref. 3], provided that restriction is made for live load allowance and the platform is
monitored periodically for subsidance in accordance with the inspection program. Unless the platform is to
be modified in the future or damage is found, no further engineering is necessary and the service life may
be extended until the year 2015 provided that the inspection schedule below is implemented. The
mitigation action should be conducted such as reducing load and soil reinvestigation to recalculate pile
capacity for a further structural assessment.
Maximum lateral deflections review working point as acting joint to describe the maximum structure
response on lateral deflection. Lateral deflection check result is summarized in the following table:
0
Table 6.7.9 – Lateral Deflection Check 1-Year Operation Condition
801 1800 1002 1.10 0.69 102 0.13 0.13 0.97 0.56 1.12 9.00 0.12 SAFE
803 1800 1002 1.12 0.81 104 0.06 0.22 1.06 0.59 1.21 9.00 0.13 SAFE
805 1800 1008 0.97 -0.85 106 0.14 -0.17 0.83 -0.68 1.07 9.00 0.12 SAFE
807 1800 1002 0.95 0.80 108 0.02 0.05 0.93 0.75 1.19 9.00 0.13 SAFE
0
Table 6.7.10 – Lateral Deflection Check 100-Years Storm Condition
801 1800 2008 2.34 -2.08 102 0.37 -0.29 1.97 -1.79 2.66 9.00 0.30 SAFE
803 1800 2008 2.35 -1.97 104 0.23 -0.24 2.12 -1.73 2.74 9.00 0.30 SAFE
805 1800 2008 2.19 -2.09 106 0.35 -0.39 1.84 -1.7 2.51 9.00 0.28 SAFE
807 1800 2008 2.19 -1.99 108 0.26 -0.37 1.93 -1.62 2.52 9.00 0.28 SAFE
A summary of maximum deflection is produced from the computer output and presented in Attachment
10.4.
1 A
2 B
Summary of maximum pilehead displacement for inplace analysis 1 year operating and 100 years storm
condition presented in the following table:
7. SEISMIC ANALYSIS
7.1 General
Effects of the loads induced by a probable seismic event have been considered to assure that the
structure can successfully survive these loads.
The major parameters that govern in a Seismic Analysis are the related “ground motions” imparted to the
structure and the “factors” to be used in scaling the ground motion to the expected level of ground shaking
at the site. The Dames and Moore Report [Ref. 8] is used to determine the ground motion. The region A,
100-year return period or Strength Level Earthquake Analysis, is considered in this analysis with a PGA
value of 0.160, and 800-year return period or Ductility Level Earthquake Analysis, is considered in this
analysis with a PGA value of 0.233. The Seismic Re-analysis is performed using the SACS Computer
Software, which is the same program that was used in the previous design.
SACS Model from Inplace Model (Storm Condition) is used with some modification; Superelement
Creation added on the Option of SACS input, applied dead load, 3/4 live load, no environmental load and
applied Lateral Force at Selfweight in X (SUX) and Y-directions (SUY). Soil Data (PSIINP) from Inplace
Analysis is used with additional Superelement Load Case (SUX and SUY). Output from this program is
DYNSEF linearization pile below mudline file solution.
SACS Model from Superelement model is used with some modification; Option on Superelement is
changed to Superelement Input (using DYNSEF from Superelement Creation) and no Lateral Force of
Selfweight. Output from this program is SACCSF.
The Extract Mode Shape of the structure is calculated using the SACS DYNPAC Program. The input for
this program is a modified common Input File used for Static Analysis with retained joint added, which
contains Dead loading and Live load for converting to mass. Live load storm condition has been applied in
this analysis, based on „ECOM‟ Platform structural drawings [Ref. 4]. This program produces 2 (two) files;
a Mass File which contains the Mass Properties of the structure (added mass), and a Mode File which
contains the Dynamic Characteristics of the structure. Both of files are used in calculating the structure‟s
Natural Frequency. Output from this program is DYNLST, DYNMAS and DYNMOD. Check the mass
participation factor must reach 90% above at all axis and converted mass value match with total design
load selected, if the check is not satisfy review and modify model.
The Earthquake Analysis of the structure is calculated using Dynamic Response Input (DYRINP) with
some modification; damping Ratio 5 %, Response Spectrum Input, VGA Input and Loading Factor : X-Dir
= 1.0, Y-Dir = 1.0 and Z-Dir = 0.5 and combine with DYNMOD and DYNMAS from Extract Mode Shape.
Output from this program is DYRLST and Dynamic Response Common Solution (DYRCSF). Check Total
Base Shear (for each direction) and compare to Superelement Output (PSILST) for Lateral Force (SUX &
SUY), the difference value should not exceed 10%.
The Element Stress and Code Check are calculated using Post Input (PSTINP) and Dynamic Response
Common Solution (DYRCSF). Output from this program is Post Output List (PSTLST) and Post Common
Solution File (PSTCSF). And also create PSVDB to review output result and show the pilehead deflection
for single pile analysis.
START
Superelement Creation
Input:
- SACINP model no environmental load
- SEAINP load combine superelement
- PSIINP pile super element creation option
Analysis Wizard:
- Linear Analysis With Pile Soil Interaction
Output:
- PSICSF static solution file
- PSILST lateral force for base shear check
Not OK!!! - DYNSEF pile superelement linearization
file
CHECK 1
Mass Participation not
exceeds 90% and Dynamic Characteristic
converted load to mass Input:
must match with design or - SACINP model retained joint
check and review model - SEAINP load combine dynamic Not OK!!!
and script file. - DYNSEF from superelement output
- DYNINP extract mode shape option
CHECK 2
Analysis Wizard:
Base Shear dynamic result
- Extract Mode Shape
must converge with lateral
Output:
force superelement or adjust
- DYNMASS dynamic mass file
lateral LC factor
- DYNMOD dynamic mode file
- DYNLST mass participation and mass
converted check
Dynamic Response
Input:
- PSICSF static solution file
- DYNMASS dynamic mass file
- DYNMOD dynamic mode file
- DYRINP earthquake response option
Analysis Wizard:
- Earthquake
Output:
- DYRCSF dynamic response solution file
- DYRLST base shear check with
superelement lateral force
SEISMIC ANALYSIS
SERVICE LIFE EXTENSION
FINISH
Figure 7.2.1 Flowchart for Seismic Analysis of ECOM Service Life Extension
The Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) value and the Pseudo Velocity (PSV) Spectra are taken from the
Final Report Seismic Hazard Evaluation Offshore Northwest Java, Indonesia, Dames & Moore, 1980
which take based on Report “E COMPRESSION STRUCTURAL DESIGN REPORT” by PT Atlantic
Richfield Indonesia [Ref. 3], shown as follows:
Platform Location : Region A
Strength Level Seismic : 0.160 G
Ductility Level Seismic : 0.233 G
The Design Spectra normalized to 1.0 g used in the analysis are reproduced in Section 4.3.4. The
directional factors are applied according to API RP 2A WSD [Ref. 1], as follows:
X - 1.00
Y - 1.00
Z - 0.50
From Static Analysis output, combined dead load, all gravity loads and live loads is define as load
combination 1000 static weight. The summary of 1000 loads summation given in table below:
Factored Load
Load Case Load Description Load Factor
(Kips)
TOTAL 4729.585
From load case 1 total buoyancy of structural dead load is 739.304 kips, Total structural dead load
exclude buoyancy is 1737.774 kips.
7.3.3 Mass
From the dynamic analysis output, the summary of various weights considered for the dynamic analysis is
given in Table 7.3.2.
The structural masses of modeled elements including fluid added mass and marine growth are generated
by SACS DYNPAC program. Additional mass from the appurtenances and topside loads is applied as
distributed mass at the appropriate locations. This is based on the loading of 100-year storm conditions
and calculated as Load Cases Converted to Weight.
2 1 1048.39
3 1 44.090
4 1 46.098
5 1 137.265
7 1 173.666
8 1 98.896
11 1 41.800
22 1 80.000
9 0.75 67.581
2 Blanket Live Load
10 0.75 147.334
TOTAL 2904.925
Dynamic Mass Summary plate element and member element calculate from structural model, total mass
of both equal with dead load exclude buoyancy multiply with 1.05 contingency factor from static load
output.
Table 7.3.4 – Dynamic Mass and Static Dead Load Structural Model Summary
Dynamics Static
No. Description
Mass (kips) Dead Load*1.05 (kips)
1 Plate Elements 0
1737.774 * 1.05
2 Member Elements 1824.654
The fundamental period corresponding to the first mode of vibration, from Dynamic Characteristic Analysis
the first five mode result of the jacket is as follows:
0 Table 7.4.1 – Summary Dynamic Property Result under SLE Seismic Condition
Table 7.4.2 – Summary Dynamic Property Result under DLE Seismic Condition
The number of modes and the number of retained degrees of freedom that considered in the dynamic
analysis is adequate in ensuring the participation of most of the masses. The cumulative mass
participation factor should not less than 90% for all direction.
The mass participation factors and the cumulative participation factors in X, Y and Z directions for each
mode are listed in the following table for first ten modes;
Attachment 10.5 presents the natural periods and frequencies of the first 60 modes. These modes can be
found in Seismic Analysis Output.
The Base Shear for Load Case 1 of the Structure under the Strength Level Earthquake (SLE) and
Ductility Level Earthquake (DLE) was generated in 2 (two) Orthogonal Axis Directions as follows:
Note:
1) Convergence check results is less than 10%, hence seismic results is acceptable.
Note:
1) Convergence check results is less than 10%, hence seismic results is acceptable.
Member Stress Checks in accordance with API RP 2A WSD [Ref. 1]. The Allowable Stresses are factored
by 1.7 for Ductile Level Earthquake Condition. From SLE and DLE analysis output, there are no members
have indicated overstress.
Member group summary unity check report form analysis output, which was occur during seismic analysis
summarized in the table bellow for ready reference:
0
Max.
Description Group Load
Member Combined Location
OD x WT ID Cond.
UC
3309- 803 W24 x 120 MD1 2 0.499 Main Deck Main Beam
3001-3101 W21 x 55 MD4 2 0.561 Main Deck Secondary Beam
777- 707 W24 x 120 CD3 2 0.383 Cellar Deck Main Beam
2549- 791 W12 x 26 CD6 1 0.568 Cellar Deck Secondary Beam
607- 707 36" OD x 1.0" Thk DL1 2 0.557 Deck Leg
Max.
Description Group Load
Member Combined Location
OD x WT ID Cond.
UC
Max.
Description Group Load
Member Combined Location
OD x WT ID Cond.
UC
3309- 803 W24 x 120 MD1 2 0.571 Main Deck Main Beam
3001-3101 W21 x 55 MD4 2 0.597 Main Deck Secondary Beam
777- 707 W24 x 120 CD3 2 0.747 Cellar Deck Main Beam
2549- 791 W12 x 26 CD6 1 0.881 Cellar Deck Secondary Beam
607- 707 36" OD x 1.0" Thk DL1 2 0.819 Deck Leg
A summary of the member unity checks (UC) in Strength Level Earthquake and Ductility Level Earthquake
is produced from the computer output and presented in Attachment 10.5. For more detail the Position of
the maximum member stress unity check is shown on Figure 7.4.1.
Platform North
True North
O
45
0
Member : 2549- 791
Group : CD6
UC SLE Condition : 0.568
UC DLE Condition : 0.881
Figure 7.4.1 Maximum Member Stress Unity Check Position for Seismic analysis at Cellar Deck
T.O.S El. (+) 24‟-0”
Table 7.4.9 – Joint Punching Shear Stress Unity Check SLE Condition
0
Location Joint Number UC Revised
Jacket Elevation (+) 10 ft 407 0.113 -
Jacket Elevation (-) 36 ft 303 1.279 0.0751)
Jacket Elevation (-) 87 ft 201 0.344 -
Jacket Elevation (-) 145 ft 103 0.282 -
Note:
1) Unity checks after revised by tubular joint check. See attachment 10.7.3
Table 7.4.10 – Joint Punching Shear Stress Unity Check DLE Condition
Note:
1) Unity checks after revised by tubular joint check. See attachment 10.7.3
For the detail information structural plot of joint check maximum location is shown on overleaf;
True North
O
45 Joint 407
Platform North SLE UC : 0.113
Storm UC: 0.184
Joint 303
SLE UC : 1.279
Revised SLE UC: 0.075
Joint 201
SLE UC : 0.344 Joint 207
DLE UC : 0.582
Joint 103
SLE UC : 0.282
DLE UC: 0.472
2
B
Figure 7.4.2 Maximum Joint Punching Shear Position for Seismic Analysis
Dynamic response methode in earthquake analysis assume the joint act as single degree of freedom and
independently in that case stress are to be checked only at the member ends. Therefore, capacity and
factor of safety pile conservatively solve by single pile analysis. Load on single pile analysis taken from
joint displacement on each pilehead joint.
All Pile Stresses satisfy the criteria of API RP 2A WSD [Ref. 1]. The Pile Axial Capacity, Axial Load, and
minimum Factors of Safety, which occur under Seismic Condition, are summarized in the following Table
7.4.13.
Note:
1) The Ultimate Pile Capacity is taken by previous analysis report [Ref. 3]
Above Pile Factor of Safety satisfies the API RP 2A WSD [Ref. 1] requirement for Seismic Analysis, i.e.
minimum of 1.0 under Ductility Level Earthquake.
8. FATIGUE ANALYSIS
8.1 General
The Fatigue Re-analysis is performed using the „FATIGUE‟ Module of the SACS Suite of Programs. A
Deterministic Fatigue Analysis is performed to indicate the resistance of the platform to Cyclic Fatigue
Loading induced by waves.
L = SF1 L1 + SF2 L2
Where,
Criteria service life result to satisfy with API RP 2A WSD [Ref. 1] summarized on table below:
Wave
Height (ft) Period (sec) Number Of Wave
Direction
2 4.7 6,714,600
6 6.5 229,880
45.00 PN N NE
TN E
315.00 270.00
225.00
NW SE
0.00 180.00
W
S
45.00
135.00
SW
90.00
A deterministic fatigue analysis will be performed using the basic wave criteria provided in Section 3.7.1.
Wave loads due to fatigue waves shall be computed using Stoke‟s fifth order wave theory in conjunction
with Morrison‟s equation. 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.
Analysis has been carried out considering annual wave occurrence diagram for eight directions as per the
environmental data. For each direction considered, six wave heights have been used to compute stress
range against wave height relationship. Each wave from each direction is subjected to the structure. The
maximum and minimum base shears are generated and all member end stresses are calculated
accordingly through a static analysis. The „FATIGUE‟ module then processes each group of the load
cases and determines the maximum and minimum end stresses for addition as the maximum stress
range. Hot spot stresses are determined at eight positions around the brace-chord intersection and Stress
Concentration Factors (SCF‟s) are applied. The fatigue damage is calculated in accordance with Miner‟s
Hypothesis as follows:
ni
m
i 1
1.0
Ni
where:
ni = number of cycles occurring in one year in stress range i
Ni = number of cycles in stress range i needed to cause failure
m = number of stress ranges considered
START
Crest Analysis
Input:
- SACINP model
- SEAINP from wave crest data and fatigue data
Analysis Wizard:
- Seastate Environmental Load
Output:
- SEALST get crest position for maximum and minimum base shear each
wave direction, height and period.
FATIGUE ANALYSIS
SERVICE LIFE EXTENSION
FINISH
Figure 8.5.1 Flowchart for Fatigue Analysis of ECOM Service Life Extention
8.8 Results
Results from the Fatigue Analysis indicated that there are joints that have a Fatigue Life less than 59
years. The conclusion and advisor for this condition is presented on section 2.4. Joint with minimal service
life is summarized in the following table below:
The summary of fatigue analysis from SACS Program is presented in Attachment 10.6.
Figure 8.9.1 to Figure 8.9.5 below showed location of the Joint with Min Service Life from fatigue analysis :
TN
El (+) 10.00 ft
PN
o
45
Brace Member 303-1102
Chord Member 303-381
Service Life Brace = 292.54
Service Life Chord = 22.10
Inspection Schedule 2014
Brace Member 309-303
Chord Member 303-381 Brace Member 303-384
Service Life Brace = 11.74 Chord Member 303-381
Service Life Chord = 2.04 Service Life Brace = 0.32
Inspection Schedule 2014 Service Life Chord = 0.09
Inspection Schedule 2014
El (-) 36.00 ft
Brace Member 314-303 381
Chord Member 303-381
Service Life Brace = 0.79
Service Life Chord = 0.22
Inspection Schedule 2014 Join 303
A
281
B
2
Figure 8.8.1 Minimum Fatigue Life Location Joint 303 for Fatigue Life Less Than 59 year
TN
El (+) 10.00 ft
PN
El (-) 87.00 ft
B
2
Figure 8.8.2 Minimum Fatigue Life Location Joint 307 for Fatigue Life Less Than 59 year
TN
El (+) 10.00 ft
PN
El (-) 36.00 ft
Brace Member 301-358
Chord Member 301-1101
Service Life Brace = 1.71
Join 301 Service Life Chord = 0.36
Inspection Schedule 2014
B
2
Figure 8.8.3 Minimum Fatigue Life Location Joint 301 for Fatigue Life Less Than 59 year
TN
El (+) 10.00 ft
PN
Join 305
El (-) 36.00 ft
Brace Member 372-305
Chord Member 305-383 Brace Member 305-309
Service Life Brace = 4.66 Chord Member 305-383
Service Life Chord = 1.46 Service Life Brace = 63.42
Service Life Chord = 6.98
Inspection Schedule 2014
Inspection Schedule 2014
B
2
Figure 8.8.4 Minimum Fatigue Life Location Joint 305 for Fatigue Life Less Than 59 year
9. REFERENCES
[1]. Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms –
Working Stress Design, API Recommended Practice 2A-WSD (API RP 2A-WSD) 21st Edition, Errata
and Supplement 3, October 2007.
[2]. American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC ASD), “Manual of Steel Construction, Allowable Stress
th
Design”, 14 Edition 2010.
[3]. “ECOM STRUCTURAL DESIGN REPORT”. by PT Atlantic Richfield Indonesia, August 1998
[4]. The latest „ECOM‟ Platform structural drawings (As Built) by PT FLOUR OCEAN SERVICES in
association with ATLANTIC RICHFIELD INDONESIA on 1974.
[5]. “Above Water Platform Inspection ECOM Well P/F” Doc No. 015/ROI-IX/AWPI/SCI/PHE-
ONWJ/2012
[6]. “ECOM Underwater Platform Inspection and Maintenance and Report 2011” by subsea IMR team.
2010
[7]. Doc. No. PHEONWJ-S-PRC-0010, Rev.0, “Guidance On Fixed Offshore Jacket Platform Design”, by
PERTAMINA Hulu Energi ONWJ.
10. ATTACHMENTS
10.1.5 KY – LY
10.1.6 KZ – LZ
ATTACHMENT 10.1
STRUCTURAL GEOMETRY
ECHO-C-CAL-0001 Rev.0
PT PHE ONWJ Structural Re-Analysis „ECOM‟ Platform Service Life Extension
ATTACHMENT 10.1.1
ISOMETRIC
ECHO-C-CAL-0001 Rev.0
PT PHE ONWJ Structural Re-Analysis „ECOM‟ Platform Service Life Extension
ATTACHMENT 10.1.2
JOINT’S NAME
ECHO-C-CAL-0001 Rev.0
PT PHE ONWJ Structural Re-Analysis „ECOM‟ Platform Service Life Extension
ATTACHMENT 10.1.3
MEMBER’S GROUP
ECHO-C-CAL-0001 Rev.0
PT PHE ONWJ Structural Re-Analysis „ECOM‟ Platform Service Life Extension
ATTACHMENT 10.1.4
MEMBERS’S SECTION
ECHO-C-CAL-0001 Rev.0
PT PHE ONWJ Structural Re-Analysis „ECOM‟ Platform Service Life Extension
ATTACHMENT 10.1.5
KY – LY
ECHO-C-CAL-0001 Rev.0
PT PHE ONWJ Structural Re-Analysis „ECOM‟ Platform Service Life Extension
ATTACHMENT 10.1.6
KZ – LZ
ECHO-C-CAL-0001 Rev.0
PT PHE ONWJ Structural Re-Analysis „ECOM‟ Platform Service Life Extension
ATTACHMENT 10.1.7
MEMBER’S LENGTH
ECHO-C-CAL-0001 Rev.0
PT PHE ONWJ Structural Re-Analysis „ECOM‟ Platform Service Life Extension
ATTACHMENT 10.1.8
MEMBER’S YIELD STRESS
ECHO-C-CAL-0001 Rev.0
PT PHE ONWJ Structural Re-Analysis „ECOM‟ Platform Service Life Extension
ATTACHMENT 10.1.9
MEMBER’S LOCAL CS
ECHO-C-CAL-0001 Rev.0
PT PHE ONWJ Structural Re-Analysis „ECOM‟ Platform Service Life Extension
ATTACHMENT 10.1.10
JOINT FIXITY
ECHO-C-CAL-0001 Rev.0
PT PHE ONWJ Structural Re-Analysis „ECOM‟ Platform Service Life Extension
ATTACHMENT 10.1.11
MEMBER’S RELEASE
ECHO-C-CAL-0001 Rev.0
PT PHE ONWJ Structural Re-Analysis „ECOM‟ Platform Service Life Extension
ATTACHMENT 10.2
BASIC LOAD
ECHO-C-CAL-0001 Rev.0
PT PHE ONWJ Structural Re-Analysis „ECOM‟ Platform Service Life Extension
ATTACHMENT 10.3
SACS INPUT OF FINITE ELEMENT MODEL
ECHO-C-CAL-0001 Rev.0
PT PHE ONWJ Structural Re-Analysis „ECOM‟ Platform Service Life Extension
ATTACHMENT 10.3.1
SACS INPUT INPLACE ANALYSIS
ECHO-C-CAL-0001 Rev.0
PT PHE ONWJ Structural Re-Analysis „ECOM‟ Platform Service Life Extension
ATTACHMENT 10.3.2
SACS INPUT SEISMIC ANALYSIS
ECHO-C-CAL-0001 Rev.0
PT PHE ONWJ Structural Re-Analysis „ECOM‟ Platform Service Life Extension
ATTACHMENT 10.3.3
SACS INPUT FATIGUE ANALYSIS
ECHO-C-CAL-0001 Rev.0
PT PHE ONWJ Structural Re-Analysis „ECOM‟ Platform Service Life
Extension
ATTACHMENT 10.3.4
PSI INPUT
ECHO-C-CAL-0001 Rev.0
PT PHE ONWJ Structural Re-Analysis „ECOM‟ Platform Service Life Extension
ATTACHMENT 10.4
SELECTED SACS OUTPUT OF INPLACE ANALYSIS
ECHO-C-CAL-0001 Rev.0
PT PHE ONWJ Structural Re-Analysis „ECOM‟ Platform Service Life Extension
ATTACHMENT 10.4.1
SACS OUTPUT 1 YEAR OPERATING CONDITION
ECHO-C-CAL-0001 Rev.0
PT PHE ONWJ Structural Re-Analysis „ECOM‟ Platform Service Life Extension
ATTACHMENT 10.4.2
SACS OUTPUT 100 YEAR STORM CONDITION
ECHO-C-CAL-0001 Rev.0
PT PHE ONWJ Structural Re-Analysis „ECOM‟ Platform Service Life Extension
ATTACHMENT 10.5
SELECTED SACS OUTPUT OF SEISMIC ANALYSIS
ECHO-C-CAL-0001 Rev.0
PT PHE ONWJ Structural Re-Analysis „ECOM‟ Platform Service Life Extension
ATTACHMENT 10.5.1
SELECTED SACS OUTPUT OF SLE SEISMIC
ANALYSIS
ECHO-C-CAL-0001 Rev.0
PT PHE ONWJ Structural Re-Analysis „ECOM‟ Platform Service Life Extension
ATTACHMENT 10.5.2
SELECTED SACS OUTPUT OF DLE SEISMIC
ANALYSIS
ECHO-C-CAL-0001 Rev.0
PT PHE ONWJ Structural Re-Analysis „ECOM‟ Platform Service Life Extension
ATTACHMENT 10.6
SELECTED SACS OUTPUT OF FATIGUE ANALYSIS
ECHO-C-CAL-0001 Rev.0
PT PHE ONWJ Structural Re-Analysis „ECOM‟ Platform Service Life Extension
ATTACHMENT 10.7
MISCELLANEOUS CALCULATION
ECHO-C-CAL-0001 Rev.0
PT PHE ONWJ Structural Re-Analysis „ECOM‟ Platform Service Life Extension
ATTACHMENT 10.7.1
MOMENT CUT OFF
ECHO-C-CAL-0001 Rev.0
PT PHE ONWJ Structural Re-Analysis „ECOM‟ Platform Service Life Extension
ATTACHMENT 10.7.2
MEMBER CORRODED OVERRIDE
ECHO-C-CAL-0001 Rev.0
PT PHE ONWJ Structural Re-Analysis „ECOM‟ Platform Service Life Extension
ATTACHMENT 10.7.3
JOINT CHECK RECALCULATION
ECHO-C-CAL-0001 Rev.0
PT PHE ONWJ Structural Re-Analysis „ECOM‟ Platform Service Life Extension
ATTACHMENT 10.7.4
ITERATION OF SUPERLEMENT
ECHO-C-CAL-0001 Rev.0
PT PHE ONWJ Structural Re-Analysis „ECOM‟ Platform Service Life Extension
ATTACHMENT 10.7.5
SEISMIC DATA FROM DAMES & MOORE 2000
ECHO-C-CAL-0001 Rev.0
PT PHE ONWJ Structural Re-Analysis „ECOM‟ Platform Service Life Extension
ATTACHMENT 10.8
SELECTED INSPECTION REPORT
ECHO-C-CAL-0001 Rev.0
PT PHE ONWJ Structural Re-Analysis „ECOM‟ Platform Service Life Extension
ATTACHMENT 10.9
SELECTED DRAWING REFERENCE
ECHO-C-CAL-0001 Rev.0
PT PHE ONWJ Structural Re-Analysis „ECOM‟ Platform Service Life Extension
ATTACHMENT 10.10
CLIENT COMMENTS
ECHO-C-CAL-0001 Rev.0