OTC 20675

API RP 2SIM: Recommended Practice for Structural Integrity Management

of Fixed Offshore Platforms
S. DeFranco, P. OConnor, BP; F. Puskar, Energo Engineering; J. Bucknell, GL Noble Denton; and K. Digre, API
Consultant

Copyright 2010, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2010 Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, 36 May 2010.

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
API Recommended Practices for the design and operation of GoM platforms have evolved in recent years due to the impact
of large hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico. This evolution of the API offshore practice is based primarily on work performed
by the API HEAT Committee, interim API guidelines (e.g., API 2INT-EX), results from updated technology, and the
ultimate harmonization of API RP 2A and ISO 19902. This paper summarizes the latest version of the proposed API RP
2SIM (Structural Integrity Management) and clarifies the intent and basis for the proposed revisions to previous draft
versions of API RP 2SIM.

Background
API RP 2SIM (RP2SIM) has been the subject of recent papers that clearly explain its overall intent, philosophy, and link to
international and existing API practices. In summary, SIM (Structural Integrity Management) is a rational framework for
evaluating the integrity of a structure through its entire life cycle. SIM was first incorporated into international practice in the
mid-1990s in Draft E of ISO 19902. ISO 19902 was officially published in 2007.
RP2SIM incorporates sections of ISO 19902, API RP 2A 21st Ed. (Section 14 and Section 17) and API 2INT-EX as a
basis with a significant expansion in explanation and clarification. RP 2SIM has been organized around the framework of the
overall SIM process consisting of Data, Evaluation, Strategy and Program. The main sections of the document are as follows:

Section 1: Introduction, Purpose and Scope

Section 2: Normative References
Section 3: Definitions and Acronyms
Section 4: Structural Integrity Management Process
Section 5: Surveys
Section 6: Damage Evaluation
Section 7: Structural Assessment Process
Section 8: Assessment Criteria and Loads API 20th Edition and Earlier Platforms
Section 9: Assessment Criteria and Loads API 21st Edition and Later Platforms
Section 10: Mitigation and/or Risk Reduction
Section 11: Decommissioning

The reader is referred to OConnor et al. (2005) and Puskar et al. (2006) for further details on each of these sections.
RP2SIM will replace the portion of API Bulletin 2INT-EX related to fixed platforms. The original intent of 2INT-EX was
an interim guidance document based upon results of the HEAT studies that indicated an assessment was recommended for
fixed high consequence L-1 and A-1 structures and floating structures located in the Central Region of the GoM. The Central
Region is the location of the largest increase in the estimated extreme hurricane conditions. The interim notation for the EX
Bulletin designates that it will be ultimately replaced by other API documents, in this case RP2SIM for fixed platforms.
2INT-EX will be fully replaced once the associated floating structure API documents have been updated to account for
assessment, with this work currently underway within API.
2 OTC 20675

In this paper, focus is placed on the following areas of RP2SIM:

Recent changes to structural assessment categories
Recent changes to acceptance criteria
Discussion of structural assessment techniques
Discussion on the application of risk based underwater inspection

Structural Assessment Categories

API RP 2A 20th edition Section 17 Assessment of Existing Platforms included consideration of exposure from life
safety and consequence of failure for the assessment of existing platforms. Section 17 was developed to provide a means to
evaluate the structural integrity of platforms designed before the first edition of API RP2A and also for later platforms
designed and installed while API RP 2A evolved through increased understanding of GoM conditions, actual platform
failures during hurricanes, improved structural analysis techniques, improved joint strength and fatigue design methods, and
improved hydrodynamic load recipes. Figure 1 graphically shows the evolution of RP2A and impact from major hurricanes.

Figure 1: The Evolution of Offshore Platform Design in the Gulf of Mexico. Offshore platform design has
evolved based upon a combination of events (hurricanes), improvements in industry standards (API)
and advances in industry practices. (Adapted from Puskar et al. 2006).

API Task Group 92-5, WG3, (Petrauskas et al., 1994) developed reduced environmental assessment criteria for each
exposure category that was calibrated to acceptance criteria (Digre et al., 1994) and incorporated into Section 17. Explicit in
the use of Section 17 is that use of reduced criteria may leave a platform vulnerable to damage or collapse in a hurricane.
The concept of exposure level was expanded to the design of new facilities in API RP 2A 21st edition through the
incorporation of consequence based design criteria (Ward et al., 2000). Further, API RP 2A 20th Edition introduced an
updated wave load recipe in 1992 that recommended the use of directionality, current blockage, wave spreading, and other
factors to improve the estimation of design hydrodynamic forces.
Finally, post-hurricane analysis of wave heights by the API HEAT Team indicated that hurricane generated wave heights
from recent storms exceed the design level wave published in previous editions of API RP2A. Since the Section 17 A-1
category metocean criteria was calibrated using the full population storm data prior to these storms, the risk of platform
collapse implicit in the use of Section 17 calibrated metocean criteria may be higher than originally thought at the time.
Given the wide spectrum of design practices coupled with recent impact from full population hurricanes in the GoM, the
API Task Group for 2SIM decided to utilize the above to create three categories, based on the reference API RP2A edition,
for categorizing platforms for structural assessment. Platforms are proposed to be categorized according to their basis for
design as follows:

API RP 2A 19th Edition and earlier. Note that this includes platforms designed prior to API RP 2A 1st Edition.
API 20th and 21st Edition
API 22nd Edition
OTC 20675 3

Based on the above, the draft acceptance criteria that will be proposed in AP RP 2SIM are given in Table 1 and are
discussed further below.

Table 1: DRAFT STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA (**see final version of RP 2SIM**).
API RP2A Edition Acceptance Criteria
Except for A-1 platforms in the Central GoM, use Section 17 as-is, however, operators are advised to consider that the risk of
platform collapse from hurricane loading may be higher than the original calibration of Section 17 as a result of the new
19th and earlier metocean criteria for the GoM (API RP 2MET).

A-1 platforms located in the Central GoM use ELM1 1.2 with the RP2MET 100 year Hmax as a reference wave.
Design Level2 Ultimate Strength Level3
East, West GoM: L-1 Use original design criteria East, West GoM: RSR4 1.7
20th and 21st Central GoM: L-1 Use 100 Yr Hmax from RP 2MET Central GoM: ELM 1.2 using the 100 Yr Hmax from
RP2MET as a reference wave
L-2: Use original design criteria RSR 1.3
L-3: Use original design criteria RSR 1.0
Design Level Ultimate Strength Level
L-1: Use original design criteria Use RP2MET robustness level wave, ELM 1.0
22nd
L-2: Use original design criteria Use RP2MET robustness level wave, ELM 1.0
L-3: Use original design criteria Use L-1 RP2MET 100 yr level wave, ELM 1.0
Notes:
1. ELM (Environmental Load Multiplier) = collapse base shear / reference base shear (Ultiguide Phase 2, 1999).
2. In the absence of the actual design criteria, design wave heights for the appropriate consequence category should be used. A different exposure category
than design may be used if a change in exposure is justified.
3. Acceptance criteria from Ward et al. (2000).
4. RSR (Reserve Strength Ratio) = collapse base shear / API RP2A 20th edition 100 year base shear.

Figure 2: Comparison of API 2MET to API RP 2A L-1 Wave Heights (Stear, 2010)

Draft Acceptance Criteria

Figure 2 shows the latest API RP2MET 100 year conditions for the three GoM regions compared to the RP2A 21st
edition 100 year (L-1) wave height conditions. The Section 17 acceptance criteria for A-1 and A-3 platforms, which was
based on the overall metocean conditions of the time (early 1990s), may therefore underestimate the risk of damage or
destruction to platforms located in the Central and Western regions. In contrast, the Section 17 A-2 criteria are based on
Sudden Hurricanes and Winter Storm conditions, which have not changed in the GoM. The A-2 criteria are intended to
preserve life-safety since the platforms are intended for evacuation for metocean conditions higher than A-2. Recent
experience in hurricanes Rita, Katrina and Ike indicates that all of the destroyed A-2 platforms experienced metocean
conditions larger than A-2 (Energo, 2007 & 2010a) and thus the platforms performed as anticipated. Since the Sudden
Hurricane criteria has not changed and since A-2 platforms have performed well in recent hurricanes, the SIM Task Group
decided to recommend the original Section 17 acceptance criteria in RP2SIM for 19th and Earlier platforms. This approach
4 OTC 20675

maintains the preservation of life-safety aspect of Section 17 as measured by the A-2 conditions. However, additional
warnings have been included in RPSIM that A-1 and A-3 platforms in the Central and Western Regions may be at higher
environmental (those platforms with larger amounts of oil storage) and economic risk than originally intended by Section 17,
and platform owners should consider this in their assessment evaluations.
The 20th and 21st Edition RP2A platforms had generally good performance in recent hurricanes, especially L-1
structures. See Figure 3 for an example of platform performance in hurricane Ike. There is only one recorded failure of an L-1
platform in any of the recent hurricanes and this occurred in Ike. Platforms designed to RP2A 20th Edition or later L-1 criteria
are designed with approximately a 20 to 40% greater base shear compared to 19th Edition or prior RP2A platforms. They also
contain modern joint, member design, fabrication, etc. approaches. L-2 platforms did not perform as well, with most of the
destroyed L-2s being tripod structures. The Robustness checks introduced in RP2A 22nd edition should help to ensure that
tripods have enough robustness that if damaged in a hurricane they have an improved chance of survival.
L-3 platforms performed well with no failures in Ike, partly because these are shallow water structures and as the wave
height increases, the wave overtops the structure, and if the structure is designed properly, then there is little increase in
global base shear since these structures generally have small decks. There have been a few cases of L-3 failures in prior
hurricanes, but this has been attributed to L-3 platforms where the owner had installed a deck that is too large for a platform
of this type.
Because of this generally good performance, it was decided that the recommended Acceptance Criteria for this generation
of L platforms would be the same as the original design, although ultimate strength techniques can be used for assessment.
The target RSRs are taken from the original Consequence Based Design approach (Ward et al., 2000) used to establish the
acceptance criteria for these structures with the exception of L-1 platforms in the central GoM. This acceptance criterion was
taken from 2INT-EX due to the significant increase in Hmax for that area (Stear, 2010).

Figure 3: Destroyed Platforms According to API Category in Hurricane Ike (Energo, 2010a).
The pie chart shows API category, number of platforms, percent as a function of total destroyed.

The 22nd Edition RP2A acceptance criteria is for the latest generation of platforms that will be designed using a new
robustness check (Zwerneman and Digre, 2010), in the form of structural detailing or a specific robustness analysis, that
should improve a platforms likelihood of survival in extreme hurricanes. This robustness check is similar in concept to the
ductility level analysis contained in API RP 2EQ for seismic design of platforms. Review of platform performance in the
recent hurricanes indicates that robustness plays a significant role in determining if a platform survives extreme conditions
(Energo, 2010a). This is most apparent in the relatively poorer performance of tripods in hurricanes and the lack of redundant
load paths once a structural member or the foundation begins to fail. The recommended acceptance criteria for these
structures will include an option that the platform meets the robustness level conditions using an assessment type, ultimate
strength analysis approach. The specific robustness waves will be defined in RP2A 22nd Edition and this is still under
development.

Assessment Techniques
Structural assessment involves the evaluation of the structure using analytical methods that compare the estimated
performance of the platform against acceptance criteria. The original Section 17 contained in RP2A recommended three basic
types of assessment Design Level Analysis, Ultimate Strength Analysis and Prior Exposure and these are repeated in
RP2SIM. In Section 17 the analysis approaches and the assessment criteria were inter-related within the same section. In
RP2SIM the assessment and assessment criteria are separated. Section 7 of RP 2SIM provides updated assessment processes
OTC 20675 5

for structural evaluation and analyses, which then refers to Sections 7 and 8 for specific metocean and acceptance criteria.
Future updating of analysis approaches or criteria can now be made without the need to change multiple sections.
RP2SIM also provides improved assessment guidance and includes recent technical advances for assessment including
Linear Ultimate Strength Assessment, Assessment by Prior Exposure, use of Mean Steel Yield Strength, and updated
guidance for Assessment of Existing Piled Foundations. Each of these is described below including additional guidance and
clarification.

Linear Ultimate Strength Assessment

An ultimate strength assessment can be performed using linear as well as nonlinear techniques. Section 17 briefly
mentioned the use of a Design Level analysis with all safety factors and conservatism removed as a first pass option for an
ultimate strength assessment, prior to use of full nonlinear pushover techniques. This approach was further defined in 2INT-
EX and termed a Linear Ultimate Strength Analysis. This approach has also been incorporated into RPSIM. The safety
factors to be removed are contained in the RP2A WSD member unity design check equations. In addition, the mean steel
yield strength should be used (instead of nominal strength) and a dynamic amplification factor (DAF) should be used when
needed as discussed below. One convenient and simple approximate method is to use an allowable stress increase of 70% for
the basic ASIC allowable stresses (versus the normal 1/3 increase). This allowable stress increase results in minor yielding
but not significant damage for most tubular members, and is the same approach that is used in the Strength Level Earthquake
(SLE) linear check for seismic regions as described in RP2A 21st Edition, Section C2.3.6c4. If all of the platform members
have a unity check (UC) of 1.0 or less, then the platform will likely remain linear for the ultimate strength metocean
conditions and the platform will pass the assessment. However, if one or more of the primary structural members have UC
greater than 1.0 then these members have technically failed and the validity of this approach is suspect and a formal
nonlinear ultimate strength analysis is recommended. On a case by case basis, the failure of up to a few members may be
justified as acceptable by engineering judgment if it is clear that the failure of these members would not result in a collapse
mechanism and that nearby members are adequately sized to take handle load redistribution.

Assessment by Prior Exposure

Recent hurricanes Ivan (2004), Katrina (2005), Rita (2006) and Ike (2008) exposed thousands of GoM platforms to
extreme hurricane conditions. Many of these structures experienced metocean conditions close to or larger than RP2A 100
year conditions. Some waves reached 75 to 90 feet in height and in some cases higher, in particular the Central Region due to
Ivan and Katrina. This provides an opportunity to use prior exposure, otherwise known as proof-testing, to assess the
structure. Prior exposure means that the platform was subjected to and survived, without significant damage, metocean
conditions greater than or equal to the assessment criteria, either in the form of specific wave heights or target RSR.
When performing an assessment by prior exposure, careful attention should be paid to the specific metocean conditions
during the hurricane, typically determined through a hindcast study, and how these compare to the assessment criteria.
Directionality of the waves, winds and currents and how these align with each of the structures primary strength directions
need to be considered. For example, if a platform experienced a wave greater than the RP2SIM A-1 Ultimate Strength wave
in one of the orthogonal directions, this does not mean that the platform has been fully proof tested via prior exposure. The
direction of loading needs to have aligned with the weakest of a platforms strength directions. Also, currents and winds
should be properly accounted for in the prior exposure assessment.
Alternatively, the combined wave/wind/current can be measured as total base shear acting on the structure and this is a
more convenient method to compare to the base shear representative of an A-1 ultimate strength wave in that direction for the
structure. When the assessment is using a target RSR approach, such as 1.2 in the Central Region, the prior exposure base
shear needs to be shown to be 1.2 times the 100 year condition for the platforms location. In addition, deeper water depth
platforms, in say 300 feet or greater, should consider a dynamic amplification factor (DAF) that needs to be included in the
target base shear. As an example, a 400 ft water depth platform located in the Central Region would need to have experienced
a base shear equal to the 100 year RP2MET condition (about 80 ft in this water depth), multiplied by 1.2 for the A-1 target
and then increased further by say 15% for the DAF. The resultant base shear would be 1.38 times that of an 80 ft wave and its
associated wind and current. Few GoM fixed platforms have been exposed to this level of loading.
Study of these hurricanes by Energo (2007, 2009) and well as HEAT indicates that while 100 year API conditions may
have been exceeded at many offshore platform locations, these conditions may not have been sufficient to load, and therefore
not adequately proof load, most offshore structures beyond their ultimate strength level, especially L-1 and A-1 structures.
Hurricanes Ivan and Katrina resulted in the largest waves of 90 to 100 ft which is close to ultimate strength waves, but they
also passed though portions of the GoM with the fewest number of platforms. In contrast, Rita and Ike had maximum wave
heights in the range of range of 70 to 80 feet. These loadings may also have not been in the weakest direction of the platform.
In summary, prior exposure can be a useful method that can be used for assessment if performed in a careful and precise
manner taking into account the specific loading acting on the platform during the hurricane as well as the particular
characteristics of the platforms strength, including orientation.
6 OTC 20675

Mean Steel Yield Strength

Section 17 provides general statements that the yield strength should be increased from nominal to mean in order to
determine the best estimate of platform strength which is the common approach for an existing structure. However, there
was no specific reference in terms of the amount of increase or justification. API recently sanctioned a study by Energo
Engineering [2010] to investigate this issue including how other offshore standards as well as onshore standards for building
address the use of nominal versus mean yield strength. The work also included the collection of steel strength test data from
several platform owners to establish a dataset and corresponding steel yield strength increase for typical existing GoM
platforms. The work showed that in particular the onshore industry commonly recommends the use of mean steel strength for
assessment of existing buildings. The GoM platform data included 189 samples of A36 steel material taken from 17
platforms and showed a clear mean strength of about 46 ksi. The key recommendations of the study have been included in
RP2SIM and are summarized as follows:

If available, actual tested yield strengths should be used for assessment when using the ultimate strength approach.
The best approach for assessment is to use the actual yield strength of a member since it ensures the correct load path
that determines the platforms ultimate strength. Many newer platforms, or older platforms that have well
documented fabrication records, have this data available and it should be utilized.

If actual strengths are not available then they can be approximated by using estimated mean yield strength. The
suggested range for steel with a nominal strength of 36 ksi is 40 to 46 ksi. The lower 40ksi value represents about a
10% increase, similar to what some other building codes suggest as the minimal increase, and is equal to about the
mean minus one standard deviation of the GOM test data, or about 85% of all steel in the platform should have a
strength of 40 ksi or larger. The higher 46 ksi value represents the mean of the GOM test data, or 50% of all steel in
the platform should have a larger strength. This is also approximately the upper value suggested by some standards.
An average 43 ksi value for mean yield strength provides a reasonable approximation of this range. Data was not
available for 50 ksi material and no specific guidance is provided; however it is generally known that the increase
from nominal to mean for higher strength steel is much less than for A36 material.

In some structural assessments, the platforms ultimate strength may be dependent on the yield strength of a few
critical members, for example the deck legs. In these cases, it is recommended that a steel sample be taken and the
yield strength determined provided the sample can be taken in an efficient and safe manner.

Assessment of Existing Piled Foundations

Following hurricane Andrew in 1992, it was noticed that there were few observed pile foundation failures. Similar
findings were noted in recent hurricanes Ivan, Katrina, Rita and Ike (Energo, 2006, 2007 and 2010a). In addition, ultimate
strength assessments of several of the undamaged platforms indicated that a foundation failure should have occurred, but did
not. The common thinking in the industry at the time was that there was additional conservatism in the foundation system
that should be included when performing an ultimate strength platform assessment. In response, API and MMS sanctioned a
detailed study by the University of Texas at Austin to investigate this matter in detail and provide recommendations (OTRC,
2009; Gilbert et al., 2010). The study concluded that the performance of piled foundations in hurricanes is consistent with
expectations and there is no evidence of excessive conservatism. Structural analyses were most likely not matching observed
performance in hurricane due to the assumptions, approaches and techniques used to perform the analysis. Assessment of
existing piled foundations is different than for new design and additional considerations and revised approaches should be
used. The study provided specific guidance for the assessment of existing piled foundations to be included in RP2SIM. This
additional guidance is summarized as follows.

1. When the foundation controls the assessment, include a geotechnical engineer familiar with platform assessments.
There are aspects of geotechnical engineering that cannot be fully captured in a recommended practice and additional
guidance is often needed. An assessment is different from new design so the geotechnical engineer needs to be
familiar with assessment technology.
2. Include well conductors in the structural analyses. The conductors provide additional lateral foundation support to the
platform system. Ensure the conductor guide framing is sufficiently modeled to account for conductor loading to the
jacket.
3. Use the mean steel yield strength for the piles and conductors. The steel yield strength is an important factor in
determining lateral foundation resistance and the best estimate value should be used. See additional discussion above
regarding steel yield strength.
4. Use static versus cyclic p-y curves for lateral soil resistance for ultimate strength assessments. The ultimate lateral
capacity of the foundation system is reached as the piles push laterally into undisturbed soils. This differs from the
design of new platforms where cyclic curves are used.
5. Be careful when relying on a soil boring that was not drilled at the location of the platform or was not drilled using
OTC 20675 7

modern methods of sampling and testing. A geotechnical engineer can help determine if a nearby boring is
appropriate for the platform location, otherwise a site specific boring should be used.
6. Try to obtain pile driving records as well as soil boring logs to help estimate the axial pile capacities. Although not
always available, these records are particularly useful where there are questions about the soil stratigraphy or the final
pile penetration.
7. When the pile foundation system is governing the capacity of the platform in a pushover analysis, check the
sensitivity of the foundation system capacity to the lateral and axial (overturning) capacities of the piles
independently. If the failure mode is in the lateral direction, then there are a variety of structural factors that become
important, such as steel yield strength, horizontal bracing and conductor guide framing. If the failure mode is axial,
then geotechnical factors such as the soil stratigraphy become important.

Risk Based Underwater Inspection

Previous versions of API RP 2A Section 14 provided basic factors for determining survey intervals (see API RP 2A 21st
edition 14.4.2). ISO 19902:2007 Section 23 expanded this guidance and also included a recommendation that engineered risk
based underwater inspections (RBUI) should be utilized. In the absence of an engineered RBUI program, however, a default
inspection strategy should be implemented. It is important to note that the ISO 19902 default inspection intervals were
selected to be the shorter duration as originally published in API RP 2A Section 14. RP2SIM also recommends default
inspection intervals and program in lieu of an engineered risk based inspection program.
To this end, the following factors are important considerations for development of an engineered underwater inspection
program:
Development of quality RBUI programs requires structural engineering input from engineer(s) who understand and
have practical experience in evaluating system structural performance with considerations of the impact of
component damage and degradation, post elastic response/ductility, as well as structural robustness.
RBUI programs require quality baseline data in order to establish a condition baseline.
RBUI programs require a data management system to maintain data for the life of the structure.
RBUI, when applied to a diverse fleet of platforms, should compress inspection intervals for higher risk platforms
and expand intervals for lower risk platforms.
Specific inspection techniques should be selected to appropriately detect damage consistent with a platforms
consequence category and sensitivity to damage.
In summary, API RP 2SIM provides detailed guidance on the considerations of developing an engineered underwater
inspection program with references to published technical papers and joint industry projects.

Summary
API RP 2SIM provides a useful and timely guideline for the continued use of existing fixed based platforms. It is an
update and extension of the concepts originally contained in RP2A Section 14 Survey and Section 17 Assessment plus API
Bulletin 2INT-EX. It is also compatible with the assessment of existing offshore steel structures as contained in ISO 19902.
The long term plan is for RP2A to be recommended for the design of new offshore fixed steel structures and RP 2SIM to be
recommended for existing offshore fixed steel structures. Pending final API approval, the first API RP 2SIM should be
published in 2010.

Acknowledgments
RP 2SIM is being developed under a Joint Industry Project sponsored by API, the MMS and several operators. The
authors thank the JIP participants for their efforts in developing this new recommended practice.

References

API Bulletin 2INT-EX, Interim Guidance for Assessment of Existing Offshore Structures for Hurricane Conditions, American Petroleum
Institute, May 2007.

API RP 2A-WSD, Recommended Practice for Planning, Design and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms, 21st Edition, Errata and
Supplement 2, October 2005.

BS EN ISO 19902:2007, International Standards Organization, Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries Fixed Steel Offshore Structures.

Digre, K.A., Krieger, W.F., Wisch, D., and Petrauskas, C., API Recommended Practice 2A, Draft Section 17, Assessment of Existing
Platforms, Proceedings of BOSS 94 Conference, July 1994.
8 OTC 20675

Energo Engineering, Assessment of Fixed Offshore Platform Performance in Hurricanes Andrew, Lilli and Ivan, report for MMS, TAR
No. 549, January 2006.

Energo Engineering, Assessment of Fixed Offshore Platform Performance in Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, report for MMS, TAR No.
578, May 2007.

Energo Engineering, Reliability vs. Consequence of Failure for of API RP 2A Fixed Platforms Using API Bulletin 2INT-MET, report for
MMS, TAR No. 609, March 2009.

Energo Engineering, Assessment of Damage and Failure Mechanisms for Offshore Structures and Pipelines in Hurricanes Gustav and
Ike, report for MMS, TAR No. 642, February 2010a.

Energo Engineering, Determination of Mean Yield Strength of Gulf of Mexico Fixed Steel Platforms for Ultimate Strength Assessment,
Report to API, March 2010b.

Gilbert, R.B., Chen, J-Y, Materek, B., Puskar, F., Verret, S., Carpenter, J., Young, A. and Murff, J.D., Comparison of Observed and
Predicted Performance for Jacket Pile Foundations in Hurricanes, Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Paper No.
20861, May 2010.

O'Connor, P., Bucknell, J., DeFranco, S., Westlake, H., and Puskar, F. Structural Integrity Management (SIM) of Offshore Facilities
Paper 17545, Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, 2-5 May, 2005.

OTRC, 2009, Analysis of Potential Conservatism in Foundation Design for Offshore Platform Assessment, Final Project Report Prepared
for the Minerals Management Service under MMS Award/Contract M08PC20002, MMS Project Number 612, October.

Petrauskas, C., Finnigan, T.D., Heideman, J.C., Vogel, M., Santala, M., Berek, G.P. Metocean criteria/loads for use in assessment of
existing offshore platforms, Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Paper 7484, 2-5 May 1994, Vol. 3, 155-167.

Puskar, F.J., Westlake, H.S., OConnor, P.E. and Bucknell, J. The Development of a Recommended Practice for Structural Integrity
Management (SIM) of Fixed Offshore Platforms, Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Paper No. 18332, May 2006.

Stear, J. RP 2MET: An API Standard for Metocean, Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Paper No. 20693, May 2010.

Ultiguide Phase 2 - DnV, SINTEF, BOMEL (1999) ULTIGUIDE Best practice guidelines for use of non-linear analysis methods in
documentation of ultimate limit states for jacket type offshore structures. April 1999.

Ward, E., Lee, G., Hall, R., Turner, J.W., Botelho, D., and Dyhrkopp, F., Consequence-based criteria for the Gulf of Mexico: development
and calibration of criteria, Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Paper No. 11886, May 2000.

Wisch, D. J., Puskar, F. J., Laurendine, T. E., OConnor, P. E., Versowsky, P. E., and Bucknell, J., An Update on API RP 2A Section 17
for the Assessment of Existing Platforms, Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Paper No. 16820, May 2004.

Zwerneman, F.J., and Digre, K. A. 22nd Edition of API RP 2A Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed
Offshore Platforms Working Stress Design, Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Paper No. 20837, May 2010.