See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/301419557

A Strengthening, Modification & Repair (SMR) Decisionmaking Toolkit for

Structural Integrity Management (SIM) of Ageing Offshore Structures.

Conference Paper · January 2015

DOI: 10.2118/176123-MS

CITATION READS

1 76

4 authors:

Nigel Wayne Nichols Riaz Khan

PETRONAS PETRONAS
15 PUBLICATIONS   20 CITATIONS    12 PUBLICATIONS   5 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

S.M. Ng Luong Ann Lee

Petroliam Nasional Berhad PETRONAS
4 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION    2 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Riaz Khan on 20 June 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 All final manuscripts will be sent through an XML markup
process that will alter the LAYOUT. This will NOT alter the
content in any way.

SPE-176123-MS

A Strengthening, Modification and Repair (SMR) Decision making Toolkit

for Structural Integrity Management (SIM) of Ageing Offshore Structures.
N.W. Nichols, R. Khan, S.M. Ng, and L.A. Lee, PETRONAS Carigali Sdn Bhd

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Bali, Indonesia, 20–22 October 2015.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
The Strengthening, Modification and Repair (SMR) toolkit is currently integrated into PETRONAS
Carigali Sdn. Bhd.’s (PCSB) Structural Integrity Compliance System (SICS) which is a web-based
application for the Structural Integrity Management (SIM) of fixed offshore structures. The objective of
the SMR toolkit is to allow a user (engineer/manager) to quickly and efficiently determine all available
SMR options for both jacket and topsides. The toolkit aids in the selection of suitable SMR technologies
for a range of applications based on several key information as entered by the user. The Toolkit provides
a variety of SMR options from key case studies from global and local databases and provides the most
appropriate solutions for the SMR on both jacket and topsides structures of fixed offshore structures. The
toolkit also has the ability to make use of other resources such as availability of particular vessels in
specific operating regions, financials, logistics, technical expertise and other decision-making criteria
prior to the engagement of implementation of any costly SMR scheme. The SMR decision-making toolkit
is ideal for practising structural integrity engineers in operations to perform high level feasibility studies
in determining the preferred SMR options. The database is continuously updated to provide new options
on case studies, availability of other resources and expertise, including availability of vessel and technical
resources including the pricing, to ensure operators have the best information at hand prior to making
decisions on SMR.

Nomenclature
AD Access to Damage
API American Petroleum Institute
DSV Diving Support Vessel
FFP Fitness-For-Purpose
ISO International Standards Organization
JIP Joint Industry Project
PCSB PETRONAS Carigali Sdn Bhd
ROV Remote Operated Vehicle
SICS Structural Integrity Compliance System
Internal
2 SPE-SPE-176123-MS-MS

SIE Structural Integrity Engineer

SIM Structural Integrity Management
SIMS Structural Integrity Management System
SMR Strengthening, Modification & Repair

Introduction
PCSB currently operates approximately 190 platforms in the three (3) regions in Malaysia which includes
the Region A, Region B and Region C. Over 60% of these platforms have been in operation for more than
20 years, 30% have already exceeded 30 years with several others in the very near future reaching their
initial design life of 20 to 25 years. The number of facilities for each of the regions by platform operation
is shown in Table 1.

Age Distribution (Years)

1- 10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 >30
Region A 19 5 3 1 14 2
Region B 9 5 24 9 16 50
Region C 7 0 1 7 6 12

Table 1 - PCSB Platform Profile, Age Distribution

A number of platforms have been extended beyond their original intended life as a result of additional
oil/gas discoveries and therefore there is a need to address the ongoing structural integrity of these ageing
assets. As the platforms operating life have been extended, there are other factors including changes in the
design codes, increase in metocean loading, additional topsides facilities with increase loading, damage
and loss of members and other challenges for which the platforms were not originally designed. To ensure
that the ageing offshore installations can demonstrate safe continuous operations, the SMR option may
have to be employed. The development of SMR options often require specialist and different skills on top
of the normal topsides and jacket designs. SMR options tend to be highly engineered work in order to
minimise the high costs associated with offshore and especially underwater activity. To facilitate the
situations where SMR work is required, PCSB has developed a toolkit to enable SIEs to select optimal
schemes and avoid inappropriate ones that may be costly and ineffective.

SMR and the SIM process

PCSB has embarked on developing SIMS for their Malaysian operations which is also in compliance with
the API RP2SIM [1] and the ISO 19902:2007[2]. SIM is often defined as the application of qualified
standards, by competent people, using appropriate processes and procedures throughout the structures life
cycle, to ensure that the structures FFP is maintained. Prior to implementation of any SMR scheme it is
often necessary to perform various levels of re-assessment or employ risk reduction measures. Where this
is not possible, or the acceptance criteria for re-assessment has not been met, then some level of SMR
work is often required for FFP. ISO 19902:2007 [2] Section 24 provides guidance on the various levels
of assessments that may be performed prior to employing SMR.

Internal
SPE-SPE-176123-MS-MS 3

Developing the SMR Toolkit

In early 2000, MSL Consultants managed two (2) JIPs on behalf of various global operators, on the
Assessment of Repair for Ageing and Damaged Structures [3] and Guidelines for the Definition and
Reporting of Significant Damage of Fixed Steel Structures [4]. These JIPs had a fundamental impact on
how assessments and SMR techniques are viewed in the offshore structures industry with key findings
being adopted in the recently published API RP 2SIM [2]. SMR techniques outlined in [3] are shown on
Figure 1.0.

Figure 1 - SMR Schemes [3]

When developing the toolkit, PCSB considered all techniques outlines in [1], [2] and [3]. The SMR toolkit
is fully integrated into current PCSB’s SICS which is a web-based application for the SIMS of fixed
offshore structures. The main objective of the SMR toolkit is to allow the user (engineer/manager) to
quickly and efficiently determine all available SMR options for both jacket and topsides, to make decisions
with regards to budgeting, resource allocation and future planning and scheduling of engineering and
offshore activities. The toolkit aids in the selection of suitable SMR technologies for a range of
applications based on several key information as entered by the user. The SMR techniques/technologies
provided within the toolkit include the following:
 Dry Welding
 Wet Welding
 Weld improvement
 Cold forming
 Clamps
 Grouting
 Bolting
 Composites
 Member removal
 Anti-corrosion Wrap

Internal
4 SPE-SPE-176123-MS-MS

SMR Jacket Module.

For the SMR Jacket module, to commence the SMR option evaluation, user inputs are required for high
level data to aid in the selection/recommendation of a number of potential SMR techniques. User inputs
include:

(a) Damage characteristics - Nature of damage, geographical location, location of damage/water depth,
priority, accessibility to damage and level of severity. The input of this data is required for the cost
estimation.

(b) Technique resources related - Availability of fabrication facilities and DSV. Prior to results
generation based on the user inputs as mentioned above, user is allowed to impose restriction on any SMR
techniques if applicable. User can also decide on availability of previous experience for each technique.
Case study for each technique will be available as well for user’s reference. Several parameters are
considered against each SMR technique. The parameters are closely related to both design and installation
aspects and allows the user to assess the strength and weakness of a technique. It also considers other
relevant factors such as equipment requirement etc for each SMR technique.

(c) Design Parameters

 Water depth limits - This is to assess the suitability of executing a technique in different elevation
at the jacket i.e. either for above water or various range of depth below water.
 Access to damage - This is to assess suitability of executing a technique under different access to
a location as the following:
 Open external – located at external face of jacket framing or other appurtenances such as
boatlanding, riser guard etc and is not congested.
 Congested external – located at area as described in ‘open external’ but is in vicinity of
other objects such as other structural members, conductors, risers, caissons and its support
structures which causes congestion
 Open Internal - where damage is located at internal section of jacket framing or other
appurtenances such as boatlanding, riser guard etc but is not congested.
 Congested internal – located at area as described in open internal but is in vicinity of other
objects suchas other structural members, conductors, risers, caissons and its support
structures which causes congestion
 Previous Experience - This is to consider the advantage from having previous experience or
otherwise. Previous experience will be helpful in executing a technique with minimum issue.
However, execution of some techniques will still come with different challenges despite of having
previous experience. For example, assembly of habitat for hyperbaric welding is likely to create
different challenges due to difference of geometry or water depth for each case.
 Design guidance - This is to consider advantage if specific and comprehensive design guidance
exists and otherwise readily available design guidance can help in reducing error and hence re-
design during engineering stage. More effort will be required if no adequate design guidance is
available and several design assumptions will be required.
 Wave load penalty - This is to consider if post-installation/completion of a technique will
permanently result in additional environmental loading attracted by the jacket structure.
 Weight penalty - This is to consider if post-installation/completion of a technique will eventually
result in additional gravitational weight onto the jacket structure.
 Safety - This is to consider the risk in term of safety to implement a technique mainly during
fabrication and installation stage.
Internal
SPE-SPE-176123-MS-MS 5

(d) Installation Parameters

 Level of urgency - This is to consider if a technique is suitable for different level of priority to
repair the damage. Level of priority is as per PCSB’s anomaly management prioritisation.
 Fabrication facilities - This is to consider advantage from having local fabrication facilities or
disadvantage if otherwise in the selected region.
 DSV availability - This is to consider advantage from having local diving support vessel or
disadvantage if otherwise in the selected region.
 Installation ease - This is to consider if a technique is either easily executed or in opposite way.
 ROV suitability - As ROV is always preferred than using diver for both economical and safety
reason.
 Specialist equipment and specialist personnel - This is to consider level of dependency of a
technique on specialist equipment and/ or personnel during installation. It is a disadvantage if a
technique requires specialist equipment and/ or personnel as this will reduce flexibility during
installation such as having equipment and specialist personnel readily available at any time or
equipment spare part replacement in case of breakdown.
Post-installation requirements - This is to consider if a technique requires further follow up or other
requirement (which again need resources) after completion. Example of post installation requirement is
to carry out routine inspection on bolted joints to ensure all bolts are still fastened and tightened.

Damage  Type of damage

Characteristics  Geographical location
 Location of damage
 Access to damage
 Severity
 Urgency
 Quality of fabrication
facilities
 Availability of DSV
Technical  Damage Feasibility
Feasibility
Design  Water depth limit
 Access to damage
 Previous experience
 Design guidance
 Wave load penality
 Weight penality
 Safety
Installation  Level of urgency
 Fabrication facility
 DSV availability
 Installation ease
 ROV suitability
 Specialist equipment
 Specialist personnel
 Post installation

Table 2 - Jacket SMR User Inputs

Internal
6 SPE-SPE-176123-MS-MS

SMR Jacket Scoring System.

A scoring system is developed for each of the above mentioned parameters against each SMR technique.
The scoring is relative to each SMR technique to illustrate the most preferred to least preferred options
when considering a particular parameter. For example, in the case of considering installation ease under
installation parameters, repairing using clamping methods will score higher (i.e easier to
implement/install), than that of dry welding within cofferdam due to nature and difficulty in building up
the cofferdam prior to welding. The score value ranges from 1 to 5, with the lowest value representing
least preferred option. On account of the parameter scoring system, the User is not expected to adjust these
parameters while using the toolkit. However, the toolkit provides options for the expert user or the toolkit
custodian to update the score value, when there is new advancement in knowledge and technology. A
weighting system (Table 3) is also introduced on the parameter’s relative importance and validity. The
weighing value ranges between 1 to 10 representing least important to most important. An agreed set of
weighting values are pre-set in the toolkit to avoid the user from the need of frequent intervention. The
technical feasibility/applicability for each SMR technique is also evaluated against the nature of the
damage. Reference is made to the JIP [3], which proposes a technical feasibility matrix for jacket SMR
options (Table 4). This matrix has been enhanced for PCSB’s three operating regions and included in the
toolkit.

Parameters Weightings

1 Water depth limit 8

2 Priority 8
3 Access to damage 5
4 Fabrication facilities 5

5 DSVA 5

6 Previous Experience 5

7 Design Guidance 1

8 Wave Load Penalty 3

9 Weight Penalty 3

10 Safety 10

11 Installation ease 10

12 ROV suitability 8

13 Specialist equipment 3

14 Specialist personnel 3

15 Post installation requirement 3

Value ranged from 1 to 10
1 as least important
10 as most important

Table 3 - Typical Weighting for SMR input parameters

Internal
SPE-SPE-176123-MS-MS 7

Defect
Inadequate static Inadequate fatigue
Technique Fatigue Non-fatigue strength strength
Dent Corrosion
crack crack High Fabr.
Member Joint
loads fault
Dry Welding yes yes Yes(3) Yes(3) Yes(1) Yes(1) No yes
Wet Welding No(1) yes Yes(3) Yes(3) Yes(1) Yes(1) No yes
Toe grinding No(2) No No No No No yes No
Remedial grinding Yes Yes(1) No No No No No
Hammer peening No No No No No No yes No
Stressed
Yes yes No yes yes No yes yes
Mechanical clamp
Unstressed grouted
Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
clamp
Stressed grouted
Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
clamp
Neoprene-lined
No yes No yes No No No
clamp
Grout-filling of
No No yes yes yes Yes(4) Yes(4) No
members
Grout filling of
No No yes No yes Yes(4) Yes(4) No
joints
Bolting No yes No No No No No No
Member removal Yes(5) Yes(5) Yes(5) Yes(5) No No Yes(5) Yes(5)
Composites yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

Note: Color Coding

1. Usually in conjunction with additional strengthening measures. Applicable Not Applicable
2. Except to apply weld beads in unstressed grouted connection/ clamp repairs.
3. To apply patch plates.
4. Applicability depends on type and sense of loading.
5. If member is redundant (otherwise replace it).

Table 4 - Applicability of SMR techniques

The Cost Estimation for each SMR technique is part of the results generated. Weighting for geographical
location, severity, damage location and access to damage are considered in the cost estimation. The User
is also allowed to update the weighting and unit cost (but with restricted access) in future to reflect latest
market rate and advancement of technologies/knowledge. A simple workflow diagram for the SMR Jacket
module is illustrated in Figure 2 (a), while Figure 2 (b) shows a five step process of the SMR jacket toolkit
option evaluation. Figure 3 shows the SMR Toolkit jacket module summary page with the five (5) steps
functions to generate preferred SMR Jacket options.

Internal
8 SPE-SPE-176123-MS-MS

(a) (b)
Figure 2- Work Flow Diagram for SMR Jacket Module and 5 Step Process to generate preferred SMR Jacket options in the Toolkit

Internal
SPE-SPE-176123-MS-MS 9

Figure 3 - SMR Toolkit Jacket Module Summary page

SMR Topsides Module

As with the SMR Jacket module, user inputs are required for high level data to aid in the
selection/recommendation of a number of potential SMR techniques for the SMR Topsides module.

Damage characteristics related - Damaged component, type of damage, geographical location, priority,
level of severity (for cost estimation only). The user to determine if hot work is/is not allowed. If hot work
is allowed, user to determine if habitat is required for hot work.

Topsides SMR Considerations

Damage  Damage component
Characteristics  Type of damage
 Geographical location
 Severity
 Urgency
 Hot work
Technical Feasibility  Location ranking
 Urgency Ranking
 Severity ranking
 Damage feasibility
 Previous experience

Table 5 - SMR Toolkit Topsides User Inputs

Internal
10 SPE-SPE-176123-MS-MS

SMR Topsides Scoring System

Similar to that of SMR Jacket Module, the scoring is relative to each SMR technique to better illustrate if
a technique is most preferred, least preferred or in between by considering the particular aspect of damage
characteristics.Scoring for all damaged components are pre-set in the toolkit based on best rationales and
knowledge at the present time. Similar to that of Jacket SMR Module, the scoring system is rather complex
as each score value is relative to each other, user is not expected to adjust these score values to reduce
chances of errors every time using the toolkit. However, the toolkit still provides option for user to update
the score value when there is new advancement in knowledge and technology.

Apart from the parameters/user’s input data, the technical feasibility for each SMR technique will also be
evaluated against the selected damaged component and its type of damage. A technical feasibility matrix
for each damaged component needs to be developed based on best knowledge of present technology.
Similar to jacket SMR module, client/user’s preferences on any particular SMR technique or successful
recordson implementation of any particular SMR technique will be sought after and then incorporated into
the feasibility matrix. Cost estimation for each SMR technique is also part of the results generated from
the toolkit. Weighting for geographical location, severity, type of damage and damaged component are
considered in the cost estimation. Both the weightings and unit cost will incorporate client/user’s input
prior to finalisation. Based on the evaluation of all parameters/user’s input as well as technical feasibility,
results showing calculated scores for each SMR technique including cost estimation will be presented.
The User can then decide the best SMR technique with reference to the scoring and the cost estimation
provided. Figure 4 (a), while Figure 4 (b) shows a five step process for SMR topsides option evaluation.
Figure 5 shows the SMR Toolkit topsides module summary page with the five steps functions to generate
preferred SMR topsides options.

Internal
SPE-SPE-176123-MS-MS 11

(a) (b)
Figure 4 - Work Flow Diagram for SMR Topsides Module and 5 Step Process to generate preferred SMR Topsides options in the
Toolkit

Figure 5 - SMR Toolkit Topsides Module Summary page

Conclusions

 The methodology in the SMR toolkit has been developed from recognized JIPs and studies.
 The methodology also includes the guidance from global codes and practices and represents
proven and oft-accepted technologies.
 The SMR toolkit is ideal for operators who are managing an ageing fleet of offshore structures and
often require SMR work to continue FFP measures for continued safe operations. The toolkit also
provides cost estimation of preferred schemes which is ideal to facilitate long term planning of
resources and scheduling.
 The toolkit, while it provide, credible options, is not an engineering design/analysis tool. Therefore
complex SMR technologies such as clamp design must undergo proper engineering and design
after being selected as a preferred option. It is advisable therefore that the user has some level of
experience in SMR work or is supervised by a seasoned SIM practitioner.
 The toolkit is easy to use and provides a series of options for SMR that is applicable for known
damage scenarios.
 The toolkit, while developed for use in Malaysia, can be used in all other global operating regions.
Care must be taken when adjusting weighting factors for other regions and this should only be
done with the backup of valid data and an experienced practioner in SMR work.
 It provides an extensive database on factual and documented SMR case studies both globally and
regionally. The toolkit can be easily updated to include current technologies and up to date
knowledge on SMR techniques.

Internal
 12 SPE-SPE-176123-MS-MS

References
1. API RP2 SIM. Recommended Practice for the Structural Integrity Management of Fixed Offshore
Structures. 2014. American Petroleum Institute. Ist Edition
2. ISO 19902: 2007 Fixed Steel Offshore Structures. British Standards International. 2007.1st
Edition.
3. Mineral Management Service (MMS).JIP on the Assessment of Repair Techniques for Ageing or
Damage Structures.MSL Engineering Ltd. DOC REF C357R001 Rev 1. Nov 2004.
4. Mineral Management Service (MMS) JIP on the Definition and Reporting of Significant Damage
for Offshore Platforms. MSL Engineering Ltd. DOC REF CH161R001 Rev 1. Jan 2003.

Internal

View publication stats