OTC-24683-MS

New Guideline for Seismic Assessment of Fixed Facilities in

Malaysian Water
Kaushik Mukherjee, M Sapihie B Ayob, Lai Tze Khai, Group Technical Solutions, PETRONAS; and
Nigel Wayne Nichols, PETRONAS Carigali Sdn. Bhd.

Copyright 2014, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference Asia held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2528 March 2014.

This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC 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 Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference 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 OTC copyright.

Abstract
A large part of the fleet of platforms in Malaysian waters are ageing with the increasing demand for enhancement in view of
further oil recovery and the additional development in the extended and nearby field. The enhancement process will also
require development of new facilities to comply with performance and integrity standards. The integrity issues imposed thus
needs to be dealt via multi-disciplinary efforts that include renewed regional seismic hazard mapping. To address this, a site
specific assessment was carried out in 2009 for Sabah, Sarawak and West Malaysia offshore concessions in the South China
Sea. The study concluded that the use of standard ISO spectral maps to be unconservative for the seismotectonic conditions
offshore Malaysia. A modified spectrum shape, generally consistent with the ISO 19901-2 had been developed to match
expected ground motion in each of the three blocks. The impact of the modified spectrum was assessed and recorded for
selective platforms in these regions. To formalise this, a new guideline has been developed for the seismic assessment of
existing platforms as well as newly built fixed structures in the Malaysian region. This, in combination with the newly
developed framework of adopting Performance Based Design, forms a comprehensive guideline closely aligned with company
performance targets and HSE expectations. This paper presents the salient features included in the guideline for the new design
in Malaysian waters, implementation of which will also ensure the fitness-for-purpose of the existing structures in line with the
ISO requirements and minimisation of associated risk.

Introduction
From the offshore engineering perspective, Malaysian waters were divided into three broad regions, namely, Peninsular
Malaysia (PMO), Sarawak (SKO) and Sabah (SBO). The ISO seismic microzonation indicates that the Malaysian waters were
falling in the no seismic zone, and hence the present practice prevails, all the platform structures in these regions were not
normally designed for seismic forces. Until recently platforms are assessed only for the major hazard which is extreme storm
events. However, in view of the recent seismic activities in the region and Tsunami in the year 2004 highlights the new
development and requirement for an in depth review and update study of the seismic effect for the region with the view of
developing a seismotectonic model, seismic map and new design criteria. In the year 2007, DAppolonia was entrusted to
perform a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment (PSHA) for the Sabah, Sarawak and West Malaysia offshore concessions
in the South China Sea. The results from the initial phase of the study conclude that the structures in Malaysian waters are
falling in the seismic zone, and hence, the subsequent phase of the study has been structured into main tasks that include
establishing the general framework for the seismic design criteria by developing a new seismotectonic model applicable for the
wide area of Malaysian water and performing PSHA. The second phase of the study has recognised that, albeit low,
PETRONASs three operating regions reside in seismically active areas, which leads Petronas Carigali (PCSB) to reinvestigate
the upgraded status and develop a guideline for the seismic design procedure applicable to both the existing platforms as well
as new constructions.

It is a fundamental requirement that offshore platforms shall have adequate strength against all matters influencing their
structural integrity. The technical aspects required addressing the newly developed seismic criteria, in line with the new ISO
19902 and ISO 19901-2, can easily be implemented in all future platform designs. For the existing structures, PCSB has
conducted a separate study to understand the effect on the fitness-for-purpose for these developed seismic criteria.
2 OTC-24683-MS

Seismic Risk Ranking

The risk ranking for seismic defined here is based on qualitative approach as highlighted in the Seismic Risk Ranking
Methodology [Ref. 12]. The methodology will provide an indicator of the system performance of each of the existing jacket
structures as well as new constructions in Malaysian water. This approach is part of the existing Structural Integrity
Management System [SIMS]. The likelihood scores will indicate whether the jacket structures are robust enough to withstand
both Extreme Level Earthquake [ELE] and Abnormal Level Earthquake [ALE] events in each region. Risk is a product of
likelihood of failure (LoF) and consequence of failure (CoF). The risk matrix shown in Figure 1 provides five categories of
consequence (1 to 5) and five categories of likelihood (A to E) of failure. Five risk levels are distinguished, and are represented
by the following five zones:

Zone Very High (Red) represents Very High Risk Exposure

Zone High (Orange) represents High Risk Exposure

Zone Medium (Brown) represents Medium Risk Exposure

Zone Low (Yellow) represents Low Risk Exposure

Zone Very Low (Green) represents Very Low Risk Exposure
The division between the CoF and LoF categories is chosen taking into consideration the absolute magnitude of the values,
their ranges, and the need for consistent reporting when comparing different platform structure. The risk level for each zone
and thus the boundaries between zones has been based on CARIGALI risk acceptance limits.

Qualitative

Point Based

Score 170 5 M H H VH VH

Score 125 4 L M H H VH
Likelihood of Failure

Score 100 3 L L M H H

Score 70 2 VL L L M H

Score < 70 1 VL VL L L M

Qualitative - Point based system A B C D E

depending on Platform Robustness,
present condition and loading
susceptibility. A weighing system is Consequence of Failure
used to capture relative importance
of each rule to determine likelihood Localised Catastrophic
score as indicated above. Slight Leak Minor Leak Major Leak
Leak Leak Environmental
1 - 50boe 50 - 500boe 5,000boe
500boe 50,000boe
Quantitative - by doing detailed
analyses for ELE & ALE Cases to
Very Low Low Medium High Very High
estimate Redundancy & Likelihood < US$6MM US$6 - 45MM US$45 - 75MM US$75-100MM > US$100MM Business

Manned
Manned Evacuated/
Unmanned
Not-Normally Manned
Non- Life Safety
Evcuated

Figure 1: Seismic Risk Matrix

Likelihood of Failure
The likelihood of failure is analogous to the probability that the platform will experience catastrophic failure. Failure is defined
as collapse of the platform caused by deterioration, extreme loading, or a combination of both. The likelihood that a platform
will fail as a result of severe loading, whether attributed to extreme storm load, seismic or some other foreseeable design event,
is a function of the robustness of the structure. Robustness is a complex property but may be thought of as the combination of
the strength of the structural components (members and joints) and the ductility and redundancy of the structural system.
OTC-24683-MS 3

Essentially, the robustness of the platform is the inverse of the likelihood of failure i.e. the more robust the structure the less
likely it is to fail. In the seismic risk ranking assessment, the likelihood of failure categorisation depends on certain factors
such as Platform Robustness [year designed, number of legs, bracing system & grouted pile/leg annulus], Platform Present
Condition [location, water depth, type of soil & liquefaction potential] and Platform Loading Susceptibility [topside weight &
structure dynamics i.e., rigidity]. Rules have been developed, which combine various characteristics of the platform to produce
a score that defines the relative likelihood of structural failure of the platform with due regard for the baseline likelihood of
these factors. The system qualitatively assesses the failure likelihood using a scoring system that categorises the effect of each
factor combined with a weighing system which is used to capture the relative importance of each rule.
Consequence of Failure
The consequences of failure categorisation accounts for the consequences that might result in the event of platform
catastrophic failure. These are evaluation of safety consequences related to Life-safety related losses, Environmental losses
and Business/Economic losses. The overall consequence of failure is modelled as the most restrictive of the three
consequences of failure components as depicted in Figure 1.
Figure 2 presents a summary of risk ranking for the Petronas platforms in Malaysian waters.

5 0 0 0 0 0

4 0 0 0 0 0
Likelihood of Failure

3 0 0 0 0 0

2 0 32 29 20 19

1 0 21 16 16 17

A B C D E

Consequence of Failure

Figure 2: Seismic Risk Ranking for the Petronas Platforms in Malaysian Waters

Seismic Risk Assessment as per ISO

The structures seismic risk depends on the seismic zone where the structure is located and the exposure level. In seismically
active areas, the designer shall strive to produce a robust and ductile structure meeting the requirements as discussed above,
capable of withstanding extreme displacements in excess of normal design values. The complexity of a seismic action
evaluation and associated design procedure depend on the structures Seismic Risk Category [SRC]. The categorisation is done
following the determination of seismic zone from seismic map [in Ref. 3] in conjunction with the structures exposure level as
per ISO 19902 [Ref. 4]. The details of seismic risk category and the subsequent design procedures are explained in ISO 19901-
2 [Ref. 3].

Seismic Design for Structures in Malaysian Water

Recent PSHA study by DAppolonia in Malaysian offshore concessions has indicated that PCSBs three operating regions,
PMO, SBO and SKO reside in seismically active areas. This leads PCSB to reinvestigate the upgraded status and develop a
guideline for the seismic design procedure and applicability to both the existing platforms and new constructions.
The seismic requirements are intended to reduce risks to persons, the environment, and assets to the lowest levels that are
reasonably practicable. This intent is achieved by performing:

Seismic risk categorisation and design procedures which are dependent on the platform's exposure level and the
severity of seismic events;

A two-level seismic design check in which the structure is designed to the ultimate limit state (ULS) for strength and
stiffness when subjected to extreme level earthquake (ELE) and subsequently checked to abnormal level earthquake
(ALE) or the accidental limit state (ALS) to ensure that it meets reserve strength and energy dissipation requirements.
4 OTC-24683-MS

Annex B of ISO 19901-2 [Ref. 3] provides a worldwide map of 5% damped 1000-year return period spectral response
accelerations for oscillator periods of 1.0s and 0.2s. The magnitude of the 1.0s period oscillator spectral response acceleration
determines the seismic classification. For Malaysian waters, this is 0.02 for which a seismic classification of zone 0 applies.
For both Exposure Level 1 and 2 structures, the corresponding ISO seismic risk category is SRC 1. For SRC 1 fixed offshore
steel structures, ISO specifies that no evaluation is required. However, a detail study by Petronas revealed that the current ISO
seismic zoning is not applicable and that for PMO, SKO and SBO are classified as either ISO seismic zone 1 (0.03 to 0.10g) or
zone 2 (0.11 to 0.25g).
The re-classification of South China Sea development fields in Site Seismic Zone 1 or 2 is a significant change from the Site
Seismic Zone 0 proposed by ISO. Under the current ISO procedure, at least a simplified design approach is required for Zone
1. The study has also concluded that the spectra shape differs from the standard ISO format which is unconservative and direct
application of the ISO spectra will underestimate seismic actions for Peak Ground Acceleration [PGA] and low periods. For
this reason, site specific spectral shapes for each of the three blocks (PMO, SKO and SBO) were developed. In addition to this,
the acceleration values developed in the study refer to rock (ISO class A/B) site condition with shear wave velocity of
1500m/s. These values are required to be adjusted for the site condition at individual locations and modification of design
spectra to include site effects.
Seismic Performance Requirements
Two alternate procedures for seismic design are provided in ISO 19901-2. A simplified method may be used where seismic
considerations are unlikely to govern the design of a structure, while the detailed method shall be used where seismic
considerations have a significant impact on the design. The selection of the appropriate procedure depends on the exposure
level of the structure and the expected intensity and characteristics of seismic events. The simplified procedure allows the use
of generic seismic maps provided in ISO 19901-2; while the detailed procedure requires a site specific seismic hazard study.
The decision flowchart of selection process and steps associated with both procedures are provided in ISO 19901-2 [Ref. 3].
A two-level seismic assessment, i.e., ULS and ALS, are required to be performed as indicated earlier. During the ELE event,
structural members and foundation components are permitted to sustain localised and limited non-linear behaviour. As such,
ELE design procedures are primarily based on linear elastic methods of structural analysis, with non-linear soil-structure
interaction effects being linearised. For structures subjected to base excitations from seismic events, the response spectrum
analysis method has been adopted as comprehensive site specific response spectra were developed by DAppolonia for
assessment/design purposes.
This ALE analysis shall establish that in spite of large inelastic displacement, the structure does not globally collapse during
the earthquake (meeting ductility requirements as per clause 11.4 of ISO 19902) and the structural integrity of the topsides is
maintained. In most cases, it is not economical to design a structure such that the ALE event would be resisted without major
non-linear behavior. Therefore, ALE design check allows for non-linear methods of analysis; structural elements are allowed
to behave plastically, foundation piles are allowed to reach axial capacity or develop plastic behavior, and skirt foundations are
allowed to slide. In effect, the design depends on a combination of static reserve strength, ductility or energy dissipation to
resist the ALE actions. For structures subjected to base excitations from seismic events, either the static pushover [extreme
displacement method] or the non-linear time history analysis method is adopted for the ALE design check.
The objective of a static pushover analysis is to verify that the seismic reserve capacity factor, Cr, of the structure as designed
is greater than that initially estimated for design. The representative values of this factor are described in clause 11.3 in ISO
19902. The actions used in a static pushover analysis should represent the pattern of ALE seismic actions on the structure and
foundation. Action pattern in a pushover analysis may be constructed to match the shear and moment distributions determined
from an ALE response spectrum analysis along the height of the structure. Pushover analyses shall be performed in several
directions in order to identify the structures weakest direction. Yielding of structural members or piles shall not occur at
global action levels lower than or equal to the global ELE action. The seismic reserve capacity factor, Cr, shall be the smallest
value computed among all pushover analyses (i.e., weakest direction). The details of derivation of C r from pushover analyses
are explained in clause 11.6.3 of ISO 19902.
In Time-History analyses, the response of the structure-foundation is determined by a minimum of four sets of ground motion
records characterising the likely intensity, frequency content and duration of the ALE event. If seven or more time-history
records are used, global structural survival shall be demonstrated in at least four time-history analyses.
For Malaysia regions, the first method, i.e., the static pushover analysis method is recommended. The partial action [load] and
resistance factors for both ELE and ALE analyses shall be used following the ISO 19902 [Ref. 4] recommendations.
Site Class and Sensitivity Study
The ELE analysis is carried out using the exposure level L1 [Ref. 4] site specific response spectra provided by DAppolonia
and then repeated by applying upper or lower bound soil/foundation response spectra for all the platforms to study the
sensitivity of different soil conditions. The other exposure levels e.g., L2 & L3 may be used with demonstration of the actual
project. Essentially, the weaker soil condition is denoted as lower bound case. The selection of upper or lower bound soil
response spectra shall be based on the following criteria:
OTC-24683-MS 5

Determine platform site class based on the classification in the modified Malaysian Site Classes [Ref. Table 1].

If the site class is F2, use the F1 response spectra and denote as lower bound case since F2 site class requires site
specific response analysis. Select site class E response spectra as the upper bound case. The results based on F1 and E
response spectra can be used to postulate the platform behaviour in site class F2.

If the site class is F1, denote as lower bound case. Select site class E response spectra as the upper bound case.

If the site class is E, denote as upper bound case. Select site class F1 response spectra as the lower bound case.

If no site class is available, use the F1 response spectra and denote as lower bound case. Select site class E response
spectra as the upper bound case.
The site classification for existing facilities is considered representative as per the available soil profile details. For new
design, similar site classification methodology may also be used in lieu of site specific assessment.
Table 1: Determination of Modified Malaysian Site Class [DAppolonia]
SITE CLASS SOIL PROFILE NAME AVERAGE PROPERTIES IN TOP 30m OF EFFECTIVE SEABED
Soil shear wave velocity Sand: normalized cone Clay: soil undrained
Vs,30 (m/s) penetration resistance shear strength Cu,30
qcl,30(1) (bar) (kPa)
A Hard rock > 1500 Not Applicable Not Applicable
B Rock, thickness of soft 750 - 1500 Not Applicable Not Applicable
sediments < 5 m
C Very dense hard soil 350 - 750 > 200 > 200
and soft rock
D Stiff to very stiff soil 180 - 350 80 - 200 80 - 200
E Soft to firm soil 120 - 180 < 80 < 80
F1 Very soft NC clay 80 - 120 Minimum sand Consistent with Vs
component
F2 - Any profile, including those otherwise classified as A to F1, containing soils having
one or more of the following characteristics:

Vs,30 < 80 m/s

Soils vulnerable to potential failure or collapse under seismic actions
such as liquefiable soils, highly sensitive clays, collapsible weakly
cemented soils;

Ooze (clay containing more than 30% calcareous or siliceous material of
biogenic origin) with a thickness of more than 10 m;

Soil layers with high gas content or ambient excess pore pressure
greater than 30 % of in situ effective overburden

Layers greater than 2 m thick with sharp contrast in shear wave velocity
(greater than 30 %) and/or undrained shear strength (greater than 50
%) compared to adjacent layers

Similarly, the topside weight sensitivity study may also be performed for the production or the living quarter platforms, as it is
anticipated that vent/flare platform as well as drilling platform generally will not be subjected to substantial modifications or
extensions.

Response Spectra and Seismic Intensity

Recent site specific seismic hazard assessment was carried out by DAppolonia for Sabah, Sarawak and West Malaysia
offshore concessions in the South China Sea with the objective of establishing seismic design criteria for offshore structures in
these areas. The design criteria were developed to be generally consistent with the ISO 19901-2. The study concluded that the
standard ISO spectral form to be unconservative for the seismotectonic conditions of offshore Malaysia. A modified spectra
shape was developed to better simulate expected ground motion in each of the three blocks. Unless specified otherwise, it is
recommended that these modified response spectra shall be used for all future design/assessment of structures in Malaysian
waters. The different parts of the ALE spectra are computed using the following Equations 1 to 4 as indicated in the Figure 3
as well. Values of the different parameters used are given in Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4, which are recommended by the
DAppolonia study.
Indicative PGA and Sa(1.0) to be used for the region are given in Table 3. These would depend on exact location of the
platform in the region. The Seismic Exposure Levels L1, L2 & L3 are as per ISO [Ref. 4]. The exposure levels need to be
demonstrated during design stage. Table 5 listed the ALE design return period for the region depending on exposure level.
Correction factor, Cc of 1.2 (maximum value from ISO 19901-2, Table 10) shall be applied to the spectrum above to account
for uncertainties not reflected in the seismic hazard curve. It is assumed that this correction factor is not implicitly built in the
DAppolonias recommended spectrum [Figure 3].
6 OTC-24683-MS

The Equations Forming the Recommended Response Spectra

Sa,site (T) = [T PGA

T
1 + PGA]C
1
a for 0 T T1 (1)

Sa,site T = Ca PGA for T1 T T2 (2)

Sa,map 1.0s
Sa,site T = Cv for T2 T T3 (3)
T

Sa,site T = [S1.0s . T3(2-)

a,map
T2
Cv ] for T > T3 (4)
T2 is calculated from the Equation (3) applying appropriate boundary condition.

Figure 3: Recommended Seismic Acceleration Spectrum (Horizontal Direction)

Table 2: Parameter of Modified Design Spectral Shape

Block PGA T (s) S (1.0) T (s)

1 a 3

West Malaysia From hazard maps 2.1 0.5 0.04 From hazard maps 20

Sarawak From hazard maps 2.1 1.0 0.04 From hazard maps 8

Sabah From hazard maps 2.4 1.0 0.10 From hazard maps 8

Table 3: Indicative Design PGA and Sa (1.0) on Rock

Exposure Level L1 Exposure Level L2 Exposure Level L3
Block
PGA Sa (1.0) PGA Sa (1.0) PGA Sa (1.0)

West Malaysia 0.142 0.072 0.080 0.051 0.044 0.035

Sarawak 0.142 0.038 0.082 0.025 0.045 0.017

Sabah 0.195 0.114 0.138 0.080 0.093 0.054

OTC-24683-MS 7

Table 4: Site Coefficients (Ca & Cv) for Deep Foundation

Site Class Ca Cv
A 1.0 1.0
B 1.2 1.0

C 1.2 1.3
D 1.2 1.5
E 1.2 2.3
F1 1.2 3.1
F2 Site-specific analyses shall be performed

Table 5: Design ALE Return Period (Years)

Exposure Level
Block
L1 L2 L3

West Malaysia 3600 1350 505

Sarawak 3225 1270 495
Sabah 3525 1325 500

ELE Spectra
The ELE spectra are obtained by dividing the ALE spectral ordinates by the seismic reserve capacity factor, Cr, which is
assumed to be fixed at 1.4 for the assessment, considering ductile requirements are not strictly met in all the PCSB fleet of
platforms in the region. This could be enhanced to a value of 2.0 for an existing or a new design where the ductility
requirements as per ISO 19902 are met. In new design, enhanced values can also be considered following ductility
requirement as per ISO. The actual value of Cr should later be verified by static pushover analyses as a part of ALE design
check as discussed earlier.
For vertical directions (for both ELE and ALE), the site vertical spectral acceleration at a period T shall be taken as half the
corresponding horizontal spectral acceleration.
Damping
While computing the dynamic characteristics of braced, pile-supported fixed steel offshore structures performing the dynamic
analysis to compute the earthquake forces, the recommended acceleration spectra developed above corresponds to a uniform
structural modal damping ratio of 5% of critical. To obtain acceleration spectra corresponding to other damping values, the
ordinates may be scaled by applying a correction factor D as recommended in Equation 5 of ISO 19901-2 [Ref. 3].
The following Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6 presents the new sample ALE Response Spectra corresponding to the
DAppolonias recommendation for the three Malaysian Regions, i.e., PMO, SKO and SBO respectively.
0.5
SOIL F1 - Lower Bound
SOIL E - Upper Bound

0.4
Spectral Acceleration (g)

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Period (s)

Figure 4: Sample ALE Response Spectra for PMO Platform

8 OTC-24683-MS

0.6
SOIL F1 - Lower Bound
SOIL E - Upper Bound
0.5

Spectral Acceleration (g)

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Period (s)
Figure 5: Sample ALE Response Spectra for SKO Platform

0.6
SOIL F1 - Lower Bound
SOIL E - Upper Bound
0.5
Spectral Acceleration (g)

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Period (s)
Figure 6: Sample ALE Response Spectra for SBO Platform

The recent Hazard Contours [Maps] of the PGA for the platforms with different Exposure Levels [L1, L2 and L3] located in
the three Malaysian Regions, i.e., PMO, SKO and SBO are shown in the Figure 7, Figure 8 and Figure 9 respectively.

Figure 7: PGA Hazard Contours Exposure Level L1

OTC-24683-MS 9

Figure 8: PGA Hazard Contours Exposure Level L2

Figure 9: PGA Hazard Contours Exposure Level L3

Seismic Risk Mitigation for Jackets

Failure of the heavily loaded primary components may contribute in the global failure mechanism of the jacket structure and
hence, it is recommended to perform detail studies to reduce the risk of platform loss during earthquake and the mitigation
plans thereof to enhance the strength of the highly loaded component, effectively redistribute the loads to the vicinity
components. The mitigation plans shall rationalise the load path inside the jacket structure, which eventually yield a high load
factor (reserve strength) against the global ELE actions.
Based on qualitative assessment and risk categorisation, nine (9) existing high risk PCSB platforms located in offshore
Malaysia were selected for seismic assessment and risk mitigation during seismic event. The assessment was based on the
Extreme Level Earthquake (ELE) and Abnormal Level Earthquake (ALE) analyses performed for these platforms. The
summary of the analyses results are presented in Table 6. The load factor (LF) showing in Table is defined as the ratio of the
ultimate seismic action that causes the platform to collapse to the global ELE response action. The representative platforms are
considered as robust against the global ELE action, as high LFs were observed against the global ELE action. The findings
indicate that although the seismic forces may not be the governing criteria for global failure, the effective load transfer may not
always take place due to possible lacking in the ductility design. From the conventional pushover analyses performed on
existing structures under extreme metocean condition, it is understood that the primary member failures are generally triggered
by these heavily loaded components. In lieu of the detailed assessment mentioned here, the following mitigation plans such as
grout filling design of pile-leg annulus, Clamp technology for local connections and wherever required, for existing structures,
grout filling of members and joints to enhance resistance to compressive and punching shear loads respectively may be
included in the design / recommendation. For new design these plans should be considered upfront.
10 OTC-24683-MS

Table 6: Result Summary for the Pilot Platforms

Topside ALE Results Summary
Water
Platform Frame Eqp. & Lower Upper
Region Depth # of Legs
Name Configuration Live Load Bound Bound Failure Mechanism
[m]
[kN] Cr LF Cr LF
3 Legs, D/K
Foundation capacity
A 69.8 3 leg piles, [bottom bay 10,732 3.94 2.65 3.79 3.34
governed
Not grouted only]
4 Legs, D/X
PMO B 70.7 4 leg piles, [bottom bay 5,857 3.61 2.58 5.06 3.50 Pile failure inside the legs
Not grouted only]
8 Legs,
Combination of joint and
C 68.7 8 leg piles, D/K/X 116,476 2.58 1.76 3.79 2.66
member failures
Not grouted
4 Legs Members & joints at strut
4 leg piles to jacket top elevation
D 36.6 Part grouted D/K 5,835 5.27 3.88 8.34 5.01 connections. Collapse
5 shear piles caused by foundation
1 skirt pile failure only.
SKO 4 Legs D/X
Collapse caused by
E 68.6 4 leg piles [bottom bay 6,855 7.65 3.02 9.53 3.99
foundation failure
Not grouted only]
4 Legs Collapse are governed by
F 46.3 4 leg piles D 4,396 4.60 3.76 5.90 4.91 pile bending about
Not grouted mudline
4 Legs D/K
Collapse caused by
G 63.2 4 leg piles [bottom bay 18,915 3.96 2.04 3.10 2.48
foundation failure
Not grouted only]
4 Legs
Collapse caused by
H 10 4 leg piles X 4,068 4.26 3.33 5.84 4.47
foundationfailure
SBO Not grouted
Both leg piles and
6 Legs foundation piles are
I 42.8 6 leg piles D/X 163,768 3.11 1.88 3.94 2.48 highly utilized. Collapse
Not grouted caused by foundation
failure.

Conclusions
It is transpired from the seismic risk ranking exercise that a substantial amount of platforms [56 out of 170] are still falling
within the medium to high risk category although the original ISO seismic zone mapping indicates that Malaysian waters are
not falling inside the seismic zone. Recent PSHA by DAppolonia in Malaysian offshore concessions has concluded that
PCSB platforms located offshore Malaysia reside in seismically active areas and suggested upgradation of current seismic
zoning [to Zone 1 or 2]. ISO, the parent international body, for which Malaysia is a full member. ISO is currently undertaking
an update of the ISO 19901-2 [Ref. 3] Seismic Design Procedures and Criteria. These include the updates of seismic maps,
the proposed Malaysian zonal upgradation and hazard contours.
Following this new development, therefore, seismic induced loads need to be considered not only in managing structural
integrity of existing offshore platforms but also in the process of designing new structures. In order to maximise safety and to
safeguard the environment and its business, Performance Based Design [PBD] approach of incorporating target integrity or
reliability requirements upfront in the design of new constructions need to be established. The PBD philosophy [Ref. 10]
intended to be addressed at the earliest stage of the design phase in order to capture the benefits of the consequences of such
applications. A statement or a procedure in this term shall be developed upfront explaining explicitly requirements of an
efficient seismic design considering regional or site-specific hazard criteria, redundancy and ductility requirements as stated
earlier. This will be aimed at setting a basis for the optimal, reliable and ranked design at the detail engineering stage.
Though the structures are designed to the same code, each structure can be substantially different with regards to the level of
reliability, the redundancy, ductility and systems capacity can now-a-days be controlled by the design team as validated and
efficient non-linear analysis software is available to model system performance. This is backed by an understanding of the
physical processes involved and of the associated uncertainties, forms the meaningful reliability evaluations.
Application of this newly recommended seismic assessment guideline on the selected existing structures indicated that
although the seismic forces may not be the governing criteria for global failure, the effective load transfer may not always take
place due to possible lacking in ductility design. For those old structures in higher risk category, the mitigation plans like grout
filling of pile-leg annulus, Clamp technology for local connections and wherever required, grout filling of members and joints
may be included in the modification /recommendation. To optimise the component risk on the topside, identification and a
OTC-24683-MS 11

walk-down assessment followed by the analytical assessment and suitable mitigation plans such as system modification,
maintenance, additional tie-down and changes in the operating procedures may be effectively adopted.

Acknowledgements
The Authors would like to thank Petronas Carigali Sdn. Bhd. [PCSB] and Group Technical Solutions [GTS] Management for their continual
support and encouragement in performing this study and subsequent publication thereof. Also the authors like to thank the relevant PCSB
and Consultants personnel for their continuous help and review during the project phase and successful completion. The team efforts for the
members within GTS are highly appreciated. The authors are grateful to the reviewers for their constructive comments.

References
1. American Petroleum Institute, (2007); Recommended practice for planning, designing and construction of fixed offshore platform
working stress design, API RP2A-WSD, 21st Edition, December 2000, Errata and Supplement 1, December 2002, Errata and
Supplement 2, September 2005, Errata and Supplement 3, October 2007.
2. American Petroleum Institute, (1993); Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms
- Load and Resistance Factor Design, API RP2A-LRFD, 1st Edition, 1993.
3. International Standards Organisation, (2004); Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries Specific Requirements for Offshore
Structures - Part 2: Seismic design procedures and criteria, ISO 19901-2, 2004.
4. International Standards Organisation, (2007); Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries Fixed Steel Offshore Structures, ISO
19902, 2007.
5. International Standards Organisation, (2010); Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries Specific Requirements for Offshore
Structures - Part 3: Topsides Structure, ISO 19901-3, 2010.
6. DAppolonia, (2007); Phase I Seismotectonic Model & Logic Tree Assumptions; Development of Seismotectonic Model and
Definition of Main Hypotheses for PSHA Logic Tree, Report No. 4719433-ST-ET-003, Rev. 0; 07-119-H2, Rev. 1, September
2007.
7. DAppolonia, (2007); Phase I Design Criteria; Selection of Seismic Design Code and Definition of Requirement for the PSHA,
Report No. 07-119-H1, Rev. 0, June 2007.
8. DAppolonia, (2009); Seismic Hazard Study Phase II for Offshore Sabah, Sarawak and West Malaysia: Amplification for Sites
Offshore Malaysia Report, Report No. 08-438-H2, Rev. 1, March 2009.
9. DAppolonia, (2009); Seismic Hazard Study Phase II for Offshore Sabah, Sarawak and West Malaysia: Seismic Design Criteria
Report, Report No. 08-438-H3, Rev. 1, May 2009.
10. Petronas Carigali Sdn Bhd, (2011); Performance Based Design Guideline, PCSB Doc. No. WW ALL E 04 009, Rev 0, January
2011.
11. Scientige, (2009); Seismic / Earthquake Studies for Very High and High Risk PMO, SKO & SBO Facilities: Extreme Level
Earthquake (ELE) & Abnormal Level Earthquake (ALE) Assessment Basis, Doc. No. PCSB-SSS-RPT (T)-AB-001, Rev 3,
November 2009.
12. Scientige, (2011); Seismic Risk Ranking Methodology Provision of Structural Integrity Management System for PCSB
Operations, Doc. No. PCSB-SIMS-RPT(T)-SRR, Rev 2, March 2011.