OTC 8694
Repairs of Hurricane Damaged Platforms in the Bay of Campeche
Marco Souza, Yildirirn Bayazitoglu and Li-Shun Lu, Brown & Root Energy Services, Victor Valdbs, Pernex Exploracidn y
Produccidn, a n d Rogelio VAzquez, lnstituto Mexicano del Petrdleo
Copyr~ght1998. Offshore Technology Conference
Th~spaper was prepared for presentatton at the 1998 Offshore Technology Conferenw held
In Houston, Texas, 4-7 May 1998
T h ~ spaper was selected for presentallon by the OTC Program Commlnee follow~ngreview of
~nforrnationcontained In an abstract submitted by the author(+ Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been rev~ewedby the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject
to correction by the author(s) The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Offshore Tachnology Conference or its officers. Electronic reproduction.
d~str~bulion, or storage of any part of th~spaper for commercial purposes without the written
wnsent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohib~ted.Permlss~onto reproduce in prlnt
is restriaed to an abstract of not more than 300 words: illustrations may not be copied The
abstract must contatn conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was
presented.
Abstract
Several offshore platforms were damaged when the Hurricane
Roxanne passed through the Bay of Campeche (BOC), Gulf of
Mexico, in October 1995. A detailed assessment of the
facilities was performed following the guidelines given in
Section 17 of Supplement 1 of the API RP 2A-WSD, 20th
Edition (Reference 1) and the transitory criteria for the design
and assessment of existing platforms developed by PEPIIMP
(Reference 2). Critically damaged platforms were identified
for repair. The scope of repairs included jacket structural
members and support framing for deck facilities. This paper
gives an overview of various techniques used for repairs of the
underwater jacket structural members and joints. Different
underwater repair methods are discussed. Repairs of both
jacket and deck damages caused by Hurricane Roxanne are
presented as examples. The repair methods used are based on
currently available technology and they will provide practical
examples for economical platform repair in shallow, warm
water environment.
Introduction
Hurricane Roxanne, of October 1995, damaged several
platforms situated in the Marine Region of the Bay of
Campeche, Gulf of Mexico. A sample of 51 from the nearly
200 platforms were selected by Petrbleos Mexicanos
(PEMEX) and Instituto Mexicano del Petroleo (IMP) for
structural assessment. 'The selection was based on previous
damage history, damages found during the emergency
inspection campaign performed immediately after the passing
of the hurricane, and the significance of the platform in the oil
producing scheme. Thus, PEMEX and IMP decided to
perform the assessment of the 26 platforms of the sample and
the detailed engineering for the platforms found to require
repair. Special inspections were scheduled and performed so
the existing condition and damages of these platforms were
properly documented. Special inspection reports were issued
and the data obtained was analyzed in detail, which led to a
final selection of the damages to be repaired. The major
damages consisted of dents, cracks, a combination of dents
and cracks, and buckled members. Of the original set of
twenty six platforms selected for the assessment project,
twelve platforms were found to have damages which required
repair in order to preserve the integrity of the structure. On a
per platform basis, the selected damages requiring repairs can
be summarized as follows: two platforms required repairs in
both the jacket and the deck, two platforms required repair
in the deck only, and eight platforms required repair in the
jackets only. Detailed repair engineering analyses was then
carried out for the twelve platforms to be repaired, leading to
the repair of 15 damages for the jackets and 9 for the decks.
A list of the repaired platforms is presented in Table 1,
where the platforms characteristics and the type of repair is
indicated. Tables 1 and 2 contains a list of the repaired
damages in both the jackets and the decks, respectively, per
platform. The damaged members and nodes were labeled
according to IMP'S identification system (PL-IDE).
Different repair options were considered and the
corresponding preliminary detailed repair engineering analysis
was developed. The results obtained together with the
recommended repair options were analyzed in detail, and the
repair method to be used was defined for each damage. The
selected repair methods are summarized in Tables 2 and 3, for
the jacket and the deck damages, respectively.
A summary of available repair techniques examined as
possible options for the repair of the damages is presented in
this paper, and a list of corresponding references is provided.
The design criteria adopted, and the structural analyses done
during the detailed repair engineering are also presented in the
paper. Examples of the repairs for both the jackets and the
decks illustrate some of the repair techniques used, and
correspond to the jacket repairs of Platforms No. 9, 18, 19 and
KU-M, and the deck repairs of Platforms No. 4, and 17.
2 M.A.SOUZA. Y. BAYAZITOGLU, L..S.LU. V. V A L D ~ SR.
Repair Options
'Repair7 is taken in its usual content, which is the
reinstatement to the original form and condition as intended in
the design of the structure (Reference 3). Several are the
available methods for the repair of damaged offshore
structures. Among the most commonly used methods, the
following are ten possible options which were considered for
the repair of the nine jackets' different damages: Grinding and
Peening, Cutting, Underwater Dry Welding, Underwater Wet
Welding, Internal Grouting, Grouted Clamps, Pre-stressed
Grouted Clamps, Pressurized Grouted Clamps, Resin Clamps,
and Mechanical Clamps. The following correspond to a brief
summary of the key aspects of each of the above listed repair
techniques.
Grinding and Peening
Grinding and Peening are generally used for crack removal
and control of jacket members. Peening would only be used
for fatigue crack control and improvement. Neither technique
will bring any improvement in design strength of the jacket
members. Grinding and smoothing out crack profiles is used
for preventing future crack growth. Reference 3 contains data
indicating that with the proper use of these techniques
improvements in the fatigue life may be expected. Further
details can be found in References 4 and 5.
Cutting
The complete or partial removal of damaged members is an
effective and economical technique in situations were severe
damages occur. Detailed engineering analyses should be
carried out to assess the structure in the absence of the
removed member or part, both global and locally. This
condition can be either permanent or a temporary one until a
replacement or new part is installed. Reference 5 reports the
use of the Cutting technique for the repair of a dented and
cracked X-node.
Underwater Dry Welding
Dry welding is a proven technique used in numerous
underwater jacket repairs. The quality of the underwater dry
welding can be comparable to that on land. In order to assure
that the welds are not wet by sea water during the welding
process a protective device (habitat) is needed. Different
types of protective devices are used, the cost being directly
related to each available option. The most common dry
welding method is the dry hyperbaric welding at ambient
pressures. In this method a chamber encloses the repair area
and is tied back to the structure. The size of the chamber is
such that it allows complete access and adequate working
space at the repair site. Different processes can be used in the
dry hyperbaric welding: Shielded Metal Arc Welding -
SMAW, solid wire Gas Metal Arc Welding - GMAW, Gas
Tungsten Arc Welding - GTAW, and Flux Core Arc Welding
- FCAW. The SMAW process is the oldest and has been used
in most shallow water repairs. Detailed information on the
108
, V~QUEZ OTC 8694
different processes, uses, advantages and disadvantages,
pressure effect, change of chemistry, just to name a few of the
important related topics, can be found in References 6, 7, 8
and 9. The guidelines for underwater dry welding are
provided by the American Welding Society - AWS
(Reference 10).
Underwater Wet Welding
In this welding technique the weld metal is in contact with the
sea water immediately after deposition. Wet welds have
different chemical composition and mechanical properties
than those of dry welds. Underwater wet welding has been
used in numerous repairs in the Gulf of Mexico and very little
in the North Sea repairs. The main reasons for such difference
are the characteristics, sizes and thickness of the steel used in
the two regions. The report of a successful repair of a major
structural member in the North Sea using underwater wet
welding can be found in Reference 11. The AWS D3.6
Specification (Reference 12) provides the guidelines for the
underwater wet welding, and specifies the welds for the
following four types: Classes A, B, C, and 0. Class A
underwater welds are intended to be suitable for applications
and design stresses comparable to their conventional surface
counterpart by virtue of specifying comparable properties and
testing requirements. Class B underwater welds are intended
for less critical applications where lower ductility, greater
porosity, and other relatively large discontinuities can be
tolerated. Class C underwater welds need only satisfy lesser
requirements than Classes A and B. Class 0 underwater
welds are intended for applications where the load-bearing
function is not a primary consideration. Reference 12 also
specifies inspection levels and the permissible defects in the
welds for each of the above listed weld types. Fatigue aspects
of wet welding are discussed in References 11 and 13.
Information on the effects of water surrounding wet welding
can be found in Reference 7, where the cooling rate of wet
welds is shown to be roughly twice that of dry welds. Such
cooling rate characteristic increases the possibility of
hydrogen induced cracking in wet welding in the HAZ
(Heated Affected Zone). The higher the carbon content of the
parent material, the higher the tendency for the hydrogen-
induced cracking caused by the wet welding. The "rule of
thumb" resulting from analysis of relatively large data bases
is that carbon equivalent (CE) content of 0.40% in weight can
be welded with ferritic electrodes without undue danger of
HAZ cracking (Reference 14). Reference 11 reports a
successful underwater repair in the North Sea with CE ratios
greater than 0.40%.
Internal Grouting
The internal grouting is used for increasing both the cross-
sectional and the overall strength of a member while keeping
the outer dimensions the same. The mass of the member
changes accordingly with the additional mass corresponding
to the internal grouting.
OTC 8694 Repairs of Hurricane Damaged Platforms in the Bay of Campeche
A common procedure for the internal grouting of a
member can be summarized as follows: Before the internal
grouting takes place, bags are inserted through 2" diameter
holes drilled into the member to be repaired, located at both
ends of the area to be grouted. The bags are then inflated with
grout and allowed to cure for at least one day, becoming the
grouted seal bags. Regarding the internal grouting, two 2"
diameter holes are drilled into the member to be repaired, one
at each end of the area to be grouted. The two holes
correspond to the inlet and the outlet ports. The grout flows
into the member at the inlet port and exits the member at the
outlet port. In order to achieve a successful internal grouting
the specified grout capacity and the grouting process must be
right, otherwise the expected full strength may not be
obtained. Design procedures for internal grouting are found
in References 3 and 15. References 16 and 17 contain useful
information on internal grouting. Experimental results
corresponding to tests carried out on six members with
different dimensions filled with a standard offshore grout and
tested under combined axial and bending load can be found in
Reference 16, together with design curves. Reference 18
contains results of a series of-tests with steel tubular
specimens with dent damage and various diameter-to-
thickness ratios, and internally grouted.
Grouted Clamps
Grouted clamps have been widely used for strengthening and
repairs in the Gulf of Mexico, North Sea, and other parts of
the world. A grouted clamp consists of outer sleeves larger
than the existing member or joint to be repaired such that an
annular space of usually 2" exists between the outside part of
the member and the inside part of the sleeve. The sleeves
have inlet and outlet ports for the grouting of the annular
space. Longitudinal and end seals are used to prevent grout
leaks. References 15, 19, 20, 21 and 22 contain extensive
data on the main aspects of the grouted clamps. It is important
that electrical continuity of the clamp with the rest of the
structure is considered in the clamp design. A grounding strap
connecting the clamp sleeve to the structure provides the
required electrical continuity and the clamp can be covered by
the cathodic protection system of the structure. The main
design guidelines for the design of grouted connections are
given by API RP 2A-WSD (Reference 23), and the UK
Department of Energy (DOE) (Reference 15). The API
guidelines were developed for pile to jacket grouted clamps
but are suitable for grouted clamps design as well. The API
equations are widely used and considered to be conservative.
The DOE grouted connection equation is intended also for
grouted piles connections but is suitable for grouted member
connections as well. Reference 20 contains a
recommendation on a revised formulation of one particular
key coefficient, the grouted bond surface condition coefficient
(usually labeled C,), which may be non-conservative for large
values of the ratio length of the grouted clamp (L) over the
3
outside diameter of the member (D,). Reference 18 contains
results of a series of tests with steel tubular specimens with
dent damage, various diameter-to-thickness ratios, and
grouted clamp.
Pre-stressed Grouted Clamps
Pre-stressed grouted clamps are similar to the grouted clamps,
the main difference in the design being the level of the pre-
stress compressive loading in the grout. Three methods can be
used to get a pre-stress load into the grout: the use of
expansive grout, the use of stud bolts, and the use of
pressurized grout. The latter is considered as a repair method
on its own and is described separately. There are two design
guidelines which address the ultimate capacity of pre-stressed
grout grouted clamps: the modified UK DOE equations
(Reference 20), and the recommended equations by
Billington et al. (Reference 3). The former guideline
incorporates results obtained from extensive finite element test
results. The latter incorporates suggested changes based on
the review of the test data and statistical analyses on the work
performed for the DOE (Reference 15).
Pressurized Clamps
The pressurized clamps have a similar function to that of the
pre-stressed clamps and have two sleeves around the member
to be repaired with two corresponding annular spaces. The
grouting is a two-steps process. First, the annular space
corresponding to the innermost sleeve is injected with grout in
a similar way to that of the grouted clamp. This grout is
allowed to set to a desired strength level, which is usually
reached after one or two days. After the strength level is
reached then the second step of the process takes place, the
pressurized annulus is filled and pressured to a pre-determined
level. Reference 20 contains details of this type of clamps.
Resin Clamps
Resin clamps exhibit some features similar to those of the
grouted clamp. The main difference is the use of resin, such
as polyurethane resin, instead of grout to fill the annular space
between the sleeve and the member to be repaired.
Polyurethane resin has much higher bond strength than grout,
the required annular space is smaller than that required by the
grout, to mention two positive aspects. On the negative
aspect, the preparation of the surface for the resin requires
additional surface treatment consisting of a combined
corrosion inhibitor and biocide. The authors are not aware of
the use of resin clamps in the repair of any offshore platform
to date, although it has seen some use in the repair of concrete
structures (Reference 24).
Mechanical Clamps
Mechanical clamps are similar to grouted clamps, the
difference being the absence of the annular space between the
clamp and the member or connection to be repaired. The
sleeve is in direct contact with the outside of the repair
element. Mechanical clamps are used to connect two
4 M.A.SOUZA, Y. BAYAZITOGLU, L..s. LU, V. V A L D ~ SR.
members together. They are commonly used in situations
where a connection with a high load capacity is not required.
Typically, mechanical clamps are used were new members or
bracing is required. Reference 3 provides a design equation
for the design of mechanical connectors. The recommended
equation is based on an extensive series of tests on mechanical
clamps. Although in general simple to install, fabrication
tolerances are much tighter than those for grouted clamps.
Details and design guidelines can be found in Reference 14.
A combination of the different available techniques has
been used in the repair of damaged offshore platforms, as for
instance the combination of mechanical clamps and wet
welding to attach external braces, as reported in Reference 25.
Design-level A n a l y s e s
Design Criteria and Analysis Approach
To determine the structural condition of the jacket when
subjected to environmental wave and wind loading, two
distinct design-level analyses were performed. These analyses
served to evaluate the stress levels of the piles, joints, and
structural members of the jacket for both the damaged and
repaired conditions. The adequacy of the structural elements
was assessed based on the allowable stress criteria in the API
RP 2A-WSD, 20Ih Edition (Reference 23). For the analyses,
the jacket was modeled as a three-dimensional structure. Its
geometry was simulated as a system of linear elements and
nodes which simulate the structural members and joints,
respectively. Other non-structural members such as
conductors, casings, barge bumpers, launch runners, boat
landings, risers, and riser guards were included in the model
as simulated substructures.
The design-Ievel analysis used the latest metocean data
given in the transitory criteria developed by PEPIIMP
(Reference 2).
Loads applied to the structural models included jacket
gravity loads, deck gravity loads, wave loads, wind loads and
buoyant loads. Load combinations included eight storm wind
and wave directions (+X, +X+Y, +Y, -X+Y, -X, -X-Y, -Y,
and +X-Y), combined with gravity and buoyant loads.
However, no load reduction (i.e., LRF = 1.00) was allowed in
the design-level analyses for environmental wind and wave
loads.
The water depth used in the analyses was derived from the
special inspection report. An omnidirectional wave height of
15.00 m with a corresponding period of 12.20 seconds was
used to represent the storm wave.
In order to assess the structural condition of the damaged
structure, a design-level analysis of the platform structure in
the damaged condition was performed (damaged condition
analysis). After this initial assessment, a feasible repair
condition was selected and analyzed to verify whether the
recommended repairs enabled the structure to perform within
code requirements (repaired condition analysis).
, VAZQUEZ OTC 8694
The modeling of the complete platform structures for the
damaged condition analysis and for the repaired condition
analysis can be summarized as follows.
Damaged Condition Analysb
For the damaged condition analysis, the dented members were
modeled with modified cross-sectional properties (i.e.,
equivalent sections), cracked joints were modeled by releasing
the corresponding degrees of freedom at the member ends,
buckled members were modeled with intermediate joints at
locations of maximum lateral deflection, and where cracks
were present, structural members were modeled as flooded
with water. For the repaired condition analysis, all repaired
members were considered as having its original strength.
Loads applied to the structural models included: jacket
gravity loads, deck gravity loads, wave loads, wind loads and
buoyant loads. Load combinations included eight storm wind
and wave directions combined with gravity and buoyant loads.
A LRF of 1.00 was considered for environmental wind and
wave loads in the design-level analyses.
Repaired ConditionAnalysis
For the repaired condition analysis the repaired members were
considered as restored to its original strength. The same
design loads for the design-level analysis in the damaged
condition analysis were applied to the repaired structure. The
results of the design-level analysis for this condition
indicated that by restoring the damaged elements to its
original strength, the structural integrity of the jacket and
deck were satisfactory.
Examples
Different techniques were used for the repairs of jackets and
decks, as summarized in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.
Illustrations of some of the techniques used for the jacket
repairs are presented in Figures 1 through 7. Figures 8 and 9
illustrate the techniques used for the deck repairs.
The reattachment of a retrofitted anode assembly with
clamps is shown in Figure 1. This repair corresponds to
damage No. 8 of Table 2. Member 215-3 14 exhibited dents
and cracks at one of the anode's supports. The anode was
mounted on clamps which were reattached to Member 215-
314, away from the original location, as shown in Figure 1.
The damages were repaired with the wet welding of a pup
section, as also shown in Figure 1.
Figure 2 illustrates the use of grouted clamps with shear
keys for the repair of cracked joints. It corresponds to the
repair of damage No. 9 of Table 2. The corresponding joint
was situated at Elevation (-)6.096 m. A similar solution was
used for the repair of damage No. 10, Table 2.
The removal of a member as a repair technique is shown in
Figure 3. It corresponds to the repair of damage No. 5 of
Table 2. The removed member was part of the X-brace
between Elevations (-)26.5 17 m and (-)45.720 m.
Figure 4 illustrates the use of cutting and wet welding for
the repair of damages. This was used for the repair of damage
OTC 8694 Repairs of Hurricane Damaged Platforms in the Bay of Campeche
No. 11 of Table 2 . The cut element corresponds to a mudmat
kicker brace.
Figures 5 , 6 and 7 correspond to the damages and repairs
of Platform KU-M. Severe damages were suffered by its
jacket and are listed in Table 2, damages No. 14 and 15.
The photograph shown in Figure 5 is an illustration of
damage No. 15 of Table 2. It corresponds to a total
separation at the connection between a horizontal member, a
conductor framing member and a leg, coupled with a 20cm
vertical displacement. Besides this damage, several cracks at
the other connections and at intermediate locations on main
horizontal members, at the same elevation, also occurred.
This corresponds to damage No. 14 of Table 2.
Figure 6 contains a summary of damages Nos. 14 and 15
of Table 2 , together with the corresponding repair solutions.
The photograph of Figure 5 corresponds to the B-2 location in
Figure 6. As illustrated, the damages are of severe nature,
with major cracks and separation. The repair solutions
include the removal of the conductors framing, and the
attachment of grouted clamps for the strengthening of the
main horizontal members which displayed cracks but no
separation at the connections, are indicated in Figure 6.
The main horizontal members which displayed separation
are to be removed, and new horizontal members are to be
attached with mechanical clamps to the structure, at Elevation
(-)3.960 m, as illustrated in Figure 7.
Besides the repairs mentioned above, internal grouting of
twelve K-joints also took place. The need for internally
grouting such joints was found out during the ultimate
strength analysis in the repaired condition. The results of the
analysis showed that twelve K-joints were failing and leading
Platform KU-M to collapse. With the internal grouting of the
joints the platform performs within code requirements.
Figure 8 shows the use of a pup section to repair a dented
member, damage No. 3 of Table 3.
Figure 9 illustrates the repair of damage No. 8 of Table 3.
'This solution provided a 77% decrease on the interaction ratio,
and a 25% decrease on the maximum combined stresses.
Summary
An overview of different techniques for the repair of damaged
offshore platforms was presented. A list of the damages
suffered by the platforms which required repairs, together
with the corresponding repairs, was also presented. Examples
were used to illustrate the use of different techniques in the
repairs of platforms damaged by Hurricane Roxanne in the
Bay of Campeche.
Acknowledgments
The authors appreciate and acknowledge the contribution of
various individuals of the PEMEX, IMP and Brown & Root
organizations. In special the support received from Ing. Hector
Leyva Torres of PEMEX, Ing. Raul Mendoza Mata and Ing.
Oscar Valle Molina of IMP, and B.K. Chin of Brown & Root.
5
The valuable contributions of Ing. Joaquin Permsquia and Ing.
Felipe Diaz, of PEMEX, Ing. Roberto Ortega of IMP, and
Chris Snell and the Platform Repair Project Team of Brown &
Root are also greatfilly acknowledged.
References
1. American Petroleum Institute: "Recommended Practice
for Planning, Designing, and Constructing Fixed
Ofshore Platforms- WSD". Supplement 1, API RP2A-
WSD, 20' Edition, 1996.
2. PEMEX Exploracibn y Production - Instituto Mexicano
del Petroleo: "Criterio Transitoriopara la Evaluacibn y
el Diseiio de Plataformas Marinas Fijas en la Sonda
de Campeche ",Primera Edicion, 1997.
3. F.P. Shuttleworth and B.J. Billington, "A New Approach
to Designing Repair Clamps for Offshore Structures",
Proceedings of the O m o r e Technology Conference,
OTC Paper 6076, Houston, May 1989.
4. P.J. Tubby and J.G. Wylde, "Remedial Grinding: A
Viable Repair Technique for Fatigue Cracks in Tubular
Joints", Proceedings of the Ofshore Technology
Conference, OTC Paper 6457, Houston, May 1990.
5. D.E. Williams and M.D. Callan, "Repair of a Cracked and
Dented X-Node on an Offshore Platform", Proceedings of
the Ofshore Technology Conference, OTC Paper 5709,
Houston, May 1988.
6. K. Masubuchi, et al., "Technologies and Practices of
Underwater Welding", International Conference
on Underwater Welding, pp. 48-69, Trondheim, Norway,
June 1983.
7. N. Christensen, "The Metallurgy of Underwater
Welding", International Conference On Underwater
Welding, pp. 7 1-93, Trondheim, Norway, June 1983.
8. M. Tystad, et al., "Requirements to Underwater Welding
and Weld Inspection - Qualification of Procedures and
Personnel"' International Conference on Underwater
Welding, pp. 207-2 11, Trondheim, Horway, June 1983.
9. H.F. Petershagen and H. Hoffmeister, "Fatigue Properties
of Hyperbaric Dry Repair Welds", Proceedings of the
Ofshore Technology Conference, OTC Paper 7279,
Houston, May 1993.
10. American Welding Society, "Structural Welding Code",
AWS D1.l-96, pp. 14-17.
11. S. Ibarra, et al., "The Structural Repair of a North Sea
Platform Using Underwater Wet Welding Techniques",
Proceedings of the Ofshore Technology Conference,
OTC Paper 6652, Houston, May 1991.
12. American Welding Society, "Specification for Underwater
Welding", AWS D3.6-93.
13. D.K. Matlock, et al., "An Evaluation of the Fatigue
Behavior in Surface, Habitat, and Underwater Wet
Welds", International Conference on Underwater
Welding, pp. 303-3 10, Trondheim, Norway, June 1983.
6 M.A.SOUZA, Y. BAYAZITOGLU, L..S. LU, V. V A L D ~ S R.
, VAZQUEZ OTC 8694

14. Paul D. Watson et al., "Fitness for Service Design

Application for Underwater Wet Welds", Proceedings of
the International Workshop on Underwater Welding of
Marine Structures, American Bureau of Shipping, Edited
by Stephen Liu, David L. Olson, Charles Smith, John S.
Spencer, New Orleans, Louisiana, 1994.
15. UK Department of Energy, "Grouted and Mechanical
Strengthening and Repair of Tubular Steel Offshore
Structures", Report No. OTH-881283, HMSO, 1988.
16. I.E. Tebbett and P. Forsyth, "New Test Data on the
Capacity of Cement-Filled Steel Tubulars", Proceedings
of the Ofshore Technology Conference, OTC Paper 5484,
Houston, May 1987.
17. G.M. Brown, et al., "Improving Structural Integrity by
Injection of Grout Into Fatigue-Critical Nodes in Offshore
Structures", Proceedings of the Ofshore Technology
Conference, OTC Paper 5984, Houston, May 1989.
18. J.M. Ricles, T.E. Gillum and W.B. Lamport, "Grout
Repair of Dent-Damaged Steel Tubular Bracing",
Proceedings of the Ofihore Technology Conference,
OTC Paper 7 151, Houston, May 1993.
19. P.Forsyth and I. Tebbett, "New Test Data on The Strength
of Grouted Connections With Closely Spaced Weld
Beads", Proceedings of the Ofihore Technology
Conference, OTC Paper 5833, Houston, May 1988.
20. A.S. Elnashai, et al., "A Prestressed, High-Strength
Grouted Connection for Offshore Construction",
Proceedings of the Ofshore Technology Conference,
OTC Paper 4892, Houston, May 1985.
21. W.B. Larnport, "Ultimate Strength of Grouted Pile-To-
Sleeve Connections", Phd Thesis, The University of
Texas at Austin, May 1988.
22. A.S. Elnashai, et al., "Full-Scale Testing and Analysis of
Prestressed Grouted PilelPlatform Connections",
Proceedings of the Ofshore Technology Conference,
OTC Paper 5325, Houston, May 1986.
23. American Petroleum Institute: "Recommended Practice
for Planning, Designing, and Constructing Fixed
Ofihore Platforms- WSD". API RP2A-WSD, 20rhEdition,
1993.
24. I.E. Tebbett, "The Last Five Years' Experience in Steel
Platform Repairs", Proceedings of the Ofshore
Technology Conference, OTC Paper 5385, Houston, April
1987.
25. R.E. Moore, P.H. Kwok, and S.S. Wang, "Repairing
Damaged Platforms", ASME, PD-Vol. 68, Offshore and
Arctic Operations, 1995.
OTC 8694 Repairs of Hurricane Damaged Platforms in the Bay of Campeche 7

-
Table 1 Repaired Platforms
Platform Name Platform Service Jacket Deck Platform Water
Platform Repaired Repaired TYpe Depth (m)
No.
4 ABKATUM " A Production Yes Yes 8 Piles 35.9
5 ABKATUM " A Tie-In Yes No 12 Piles 37.8
6 ABKATUM " A Drilling Yes No 8 Piles 36.1
8 ABKATUM " D Production No Yes 12 Piles 38.7
9 BATAB "1A Wellhead Yes No 4 Piles 45.6
13 IXTOC A Communications Yes No 8 Piles 49.4
15 I POOL " A ( Temporary Production Yes Yes 8 Piles 33.8
17 POOL " A Quarters No Yes 8 Piles 34.4
18 POOL "A" Compression Yes No 8 Piles 33.8
19 POOL " A Drilling Yes No 8 Piles 33.8
20 POOL " D Drilling Yes No 8 Piles 38.9
nla KU-M Drilling Yes No 8 Piles 71.32

-
Table 2 Jacket Repaired Damages
I Platform I Damage 1 Damage Description I Repair Method
No. I No.
4 1 IMudline horizontal Member 401-402dented and IWet welding of a doubler plate
1 cracked 2 m from leg
5 2 1 Temporaw Member 305-315 dented, laterally 1 Removal of Member 305-315
deflected,-and cracked at node 315
3 Horizontal diagonal Member 308-312cracked at Reattachment of the retrofitted anode with mechanical
midspan at anode support clamps
6 4 -
K-braced members 302409 and 314409 Comoletion of the missina weld with wet welding -
I missing weld at Node 409
9 5 IX-braced Member 310-315 cracked at X-braced ( Removal of Member 310-315
I ode 315
13 6 I Horizontal top. of .jacket Member 101-106cracked Welding of a pup section over the cracked joint
I at Node 101
15 7 IMember 106-205dented 8 laterallv deflected at Weldina of the cracked ioint
mid span, and cracked at Node 108
18 8 Vertical diagonal Member 215-314 cracked at Reattachment of the retrofitted anode with mechanical
midspan at anode support clamps
19 9 K-braced Member 122-210cracked at K-braced
Node 21 0
10 K-braced Members 106-211 and 123-211 Grouted Clamp
cracked at K-braced Node 21 1
11 Jacket leg Member 301-401 cracked 8 torn at Removal of mudmat kicker brace
Imudmat kicker brace node I
Wet welding of a pup section over the crack
20 I 12 1Conductor guide diagonal brace Member 301-1 Wet welding of a doubler plate over the crack
I I 1307 cracked at Node 301
I I
1 KU-M
1 13

14
1 Conductor guide diagonal brace Member 303- Wet welding of a doubler plate over the crack
308 cracked at Node 303
Conductor guide framing at El. (-)6.706m with Remove the conductor guide framing
major cracks at the connections to main
horizontal members
15 Major cracks at the connection ends of main Addition of new horizontal member with mechanical
horizontal members clamps
 -
M.A.SOUZA, Y. BAYAZITOGLU, L..S. LU, V. VALDES, R. V k Q U E Z OTC 8694

1
I Platform 1 Damage 1 Damage Description ( Repair Method
No. No.
4 1 The base of a brace member connected to Leg 8-2 at Elev. (+)10.10 m Full penetration and fillet welds
'lad cracked welds
principal girder between Legs A-2 and A-3 at Elev. (+)20.90 m Weld the 10.75'0 x 0.365" W.T.
ecame deformed. The inspection report indicated that after the storm, tubular to the existing plate girders
midsection of the bottom flange was bent resulting in a large
orizontal deflection and warped web

' k 4
diagonal K-brace member from Leg 8-3 above Elev. (+)14.45 m to
he midspan of the girder between Legs 8-3 and 8-4 at Elev. (+)20.90
became buckled and had a dent. The largest displacement was 11
n m from the original surface
The principal girder between Legs 8-2 and 8-3 at Elev. (+)20.90 m
Weld a pup section over the dented
area of the 12.75"ta pipe

8 5
1 I
became deformed. The inspection report indicated that after the storm, tubular to the existing plate girders
.he midsection of the bottom flange was bent resulting in a large
)lorizontal deflection and warped web.
hhe diagonal member of the truss above Elev. (+)I571 m. develo~eda Full penetration and fillet welds
brack atthe joint in Leg B-1. The crack was 170 mm long and 15 mm

An intermediate girder adjacent to the girder from Leg B-1 to Leg C-1 Weld the 10.75'0 x 0.365" W.T.
3ecame severely deformed. The edge of the lower flange became tubular to the existing plate girders
offset from the top flange by about 23 cm, and the web also became
warped.
The principal girder between Legs A-2 and A-3 at Elev. (+)13.91 m Weld stiffeners to the existing girder
was severely damaged. 2.31 m of the bottom flange at the midspan
region showed deflection of +I- 35 mm from the flange centerline.
From the inspection report photographs, it seems that a beam clamp
was previously attached to the bottom flange. The clamp was used
for pulling up heavy loads, which caused the local twisting of the
flange.
17 8 The bottom flange of the girder between Legs A-1 and A-2, at Elev.
(+)14.14 m, became deformed, showing a horizontal deflection of 7.5 tubular to the existing plate girders
cm at the midspan. The deep web plate became warped accordingly.

1 1 9 The bottom flange of the girder between Legs B-1 and 8-2, at Elev.
+)14.14 m, became deformed. showing a horizontal deflection of 8.8
m at the midspan. The deep web plate became warped accordingly.
Weld the 10.75"~ x 0.365 W.T.
tubular to the existing plate girders

A
AYDDE L CLAW
Asxm 1 7

h i - CAP PL 9.5,. &

Fig. 1-Reattachment of the retrofitted anode assembly with Fig. 2-Attachment of a grouted clamp at a cracked joint.
clamps.
10 M.A.SOUZA,Y. BAYAZITOGLU,L..s. LU, V. V A L D ~ SR.
, VAZQUEZ OTC 8694

Fig.7-Horizontal reinforcement.

Flg.9Reinforcement of girders.

Fig.8-Welding of a pup section over dented member.