The fixed steel offshore platform VEGA-A has been operating in the Sicily channel since 1988. The platform, one of the largest in the Mediterranean Sea, is equipped with a monitoring system that collects environmental (by means of a current meter, a depth gauge, and a system for detecting wind speed and direction) and structural (by means of nine accelerometers) data. After a description of the recording system, this paper provides a statistical interpretation of the structural response of the platform over the last 20 years. The structural monitoring system is aimed at performing dynamic identification (i.e., evaluating main frequencies and mode shapes), and part of the acquired data is directly processed on the platform in order to constantly check their representativeness in relation to the structural control of the platform. The possible variation of main frequencies and mode shapes over time may be due to both changes in environmental loads/conditions and/or structural damage; in this respect, a data-driven approach capable of recognizing anomalies in the dynamic behavior was adopted here to assess the performances of the platform over the 20 years monitoring period.
RahgozarRBitarafM. A summary evaluation of output-only damage-sensitive features for structural health monitoring of offshore platforms subjected to ambient loads. Ocean Eng2022; 266(3): 112892.
2.
GoyetJStraubDFaberMH. Risk-based inspection planning of offshore installations. Struct Eng Int2018; 12(3): 200–208.
3.
Lotfollahi-YaghinMAShahverdiSTarinejadR, et al. Structural health monitoring (SHM) of offshore jacket platforms. In: Proceedings of the 30th international conference on ocean, offshore and arctic engineering - ASME 2011, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 19–24 June 2011, paper no. OMAE2011-49816, pp. 1–10. New York: ASME.
4.
MurawskiLOstachowiczWOpokaS, et al. Practical application of monitoring system based on optical sensors for marine constructions. Key Eng Mater2012; 518: 261–270.
5.
HosseinlouFMojtahediA. Developing a robust simplified method for structural integrity monitoring of offshore jacket-type platform using recorded dynamic responses. Appl Ocean Res2016; 56: 107–118.
6.
MendesPCorreia JoséAFOMourãoA, et al. Fatigue assessments of a jacket-type offshore structure based on static and dynamic analyses. Pract Period Struct Design Constr2020; 26(1): 04020054.
7.
PezeshkiHAdeliHPavlouD, et al. State of the art in structural health monitoring of offshore and marine structures. Maritime Eng2023; 176(3): 89–108.
8.
AliLKhanSBashmalS, et al. Fatigue crack monitoring of T-Type joints in steel offshore oil and gas jacket platform. Sensors2021; 21(9): 3294.
9.
AmiriNShaterabadiMReza KashyzadehK, et al. A comprehensive review on design, monitoring, and failure in fixed offshore platforms. J Marine Sci Eng2021; 9(12): 1349.
10.
TygesenUTWordenKRogersT, et al. State-of-the-Art and Future Directions for Predictive Modelling of Offshore Structure Dynamics Using Machine Learning. In: Proceedings of the 36th IMAC, a conference and exposition on structural dynamics - IMAC2018 (ed. PakzadS.), Orlando, USA, 12–15 February 2018, pp. 223–233. Switzerland: Springer Cham.
11.
ZhuJ. Review on structural health monitoring of offshore platform. J Phys: Conference Series2021; 2014 (1): 012019.
12.
LengJGardoniPWangM, et al. Condition-based structural health monitoring of offshore wind jacket structures: opportunities, challenges, and perspectives. Struct Health Monit2023; 22(5): 3558–3575.
13.
HeZLiWSalehiH, et al. Integrated structural health monitoring in bridge engineering. Autom Constr2022; 136: 104168.
14.
TutivénCTriviñoHVidalY, et al. Structural health monitoring of offshore jacket platforms via transformers. In: Proceedings of the European workshop on structural health monitoring - EWSHM2022 (eds. RizzoP.MilazzoA.), Palermo, Italy, 4–7 July 2022, vol. 1, pp. 166–175. Switzerland: Springer Cham.
15.
BaquerizoJTutivénCPuruncajasB, et al. Siamese neural networks for damage detection and diagnosis of jacket-type offshore wind turbine platforms. Mathematics2022; 10(7): 131.
16.
ZhangMQBeerMQuekST, et al. Comparison of uncertainty models in reliability analysis of offshore structures under marine corrosion. Structural Safety2010, 32(6): 425–432.
17.
CaglioLKatsanosEStangH, et al. Structural damage detection of offshore structures using Kalman filtering. In: Proceedings of the European workshop on structural health monitoring - EWSHM2022 (eds. RizzoP.MilazzoA.), Palermo, Italy, 4–7 July 2022, vol. 3, pp. 1044–1054. Switzerland: Springer Cham.
18.
DevriendtCMagalhãesFWeijtjensW, et al. Structural health monitoring of offshore wind turbines using automated operational modal analysis. Struct Health Monit2014; 13(6): 644–659.
19.
El-KafafyMDevriendtCGuillaumeP, et al. Automatic tracking of the modal parameters of an offshore wind turbine drivetrain system. Energies2017; 10(4): 574.
20.
ChangSLiuFJiX. A tracking method of equivalent constraint boundary for offshore monopile wind turbines from measured accelerations. Ocean Eng2022; 256: 111391.
21.
HeMLiangPZhangY, et al. Unified method for fully automated modal identification and tracking with consideration of sensor deployment. Eng Struct2022; 260: 114223.
22.
PereiraSReyndersEMagalhãesF, et al. The role of modal parameters uncertainty estimation in automated modal identification, modal tracking and data normalization. Eng Struct2020; 224: 111208.
23.
YangX-MYiT-HQuC-X, et al. Continuous tracking of bridge modal parameters based on subspace correlations. Struct Control Health Monit2020; 27(10): e2615.
24.
OliveiraGMagalhãesFCunhaÁ, et al. Vibration-based damage detection in a wind turbine using 1 year of data. Struct Control Health Monit2018; 25(11): e2238.
25.
SunSYangBZhangQ, et al. Long-term continuous automatic modal tracking algorithm based on Bayesian inference. Struct Health Monit2024; 23(3): 1530–1546.
26.
BettiMSpadacciniOVignoliA. Nonlinear modelling for offshore robustness. a sensitivity study. In: IABSE Workshop - safety, failures and robustness of large structures - IABSE2013 (ed KiviluomaR.), Helsinki, Finland, 14–15 February 2013, pp. 128–135.
27.
RizzoMBettiMSpadacciniO, et al. Improvement of structural monitoring of jacket platform. In: Proceedings of the 27th International ocean and polar engineering conference - ISOPE2017, San Francisco, USA, 25–30 June 2017, pp. 957–964.
28.
BettiMCastelliPGalanoL, et al. Long-term structural monitoring of a steel jacket offshore platform. validation of Meteo-Marine data and implications for maintenance. In: Proceedings of the European workshop on structural health monitoring - EWSHM2022 (eds. RizzoP.MilazzoA.), Palermo, Italy, 4–7 July 2022, vol. 2, pp. 1038–1047. Switzerland: Springer Cham.
29.
SpadacciniOVignoliA. Dynamic identification of a steel jacket platform. In: Proceedings of the First ISOPE European offshore mechanics symposium - ISOPE1990, Trondheim, Norway, 20–22 August 1990, pp. 315–321.
30.
ChiostriniSVignoliA. Structural integrity monitoring of an offshore platform. In: Proceedings of the Forth international ocean and polar engineering conference - ISOPE1994, Osaka, Japan, 10–15 April 1994, pp. 528–533.
31.
BettiMRizzoMSpadacciniO, et al. Offshore platform structural damage identification versus robustness. In: IABSE Workshop - safety, robustness and condition assessment of structures - IABSE2015 (ed KiviluomaR.), Helsinki, Finland, 11–12 February 2015, pp. 86–93.
32.
RizzoMBettiMSpadacciniO, et al. Structural dynamic monitoring of VEGA-A platform: 30 years of data. In: Proceedings of 9th European workshop on structural health monitoring - EWSHM2018, Manchester, UK, 10–13 July 2018, pp. 1–13.
33.
ZiniGBettiMSpadacciniO, et al. Optimal sensors position for structural health monitoring of steel jacket offshore platforms. In: Proceedings of 10th ECCOMAS thematic conference on smart structures and materials - SMART 2023 (eds. SaravanosD.BenjeddouA.ChrysochoidisN.TheodosiouT.), Patras, Greece, 3–5 July 2023, pp. 817–828.
34.
Van OverscheePDe MoorB. Subspace identification for linear systems. 1st ed. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996, pp. 254.
35.
ZiniGBettiMBartoliG. A quality-based automated procedure for operational modal analysis. Mech Syst Signal Process. 2022; 164: 108173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2021.108173
36.
DevriendtCMagalhãnesFWeijtjensW, et al. Structural health monitoring of offshore wind turbines using automated operational modal analysis. Struct Health Monit2014; 13(6): 644–659.
37.
García-MacíasEVenanziIUbertiniF. Metamodel-based pattern recognition approach for real-time identification of earthquake-induced damage in historic masonry structures. Autom Constr2020; 120: 103389.
38.
BarsocchiPBartoliGBettiM, et al. Wireless sensor networks for continuous structural health monitoring of historic masonry towers. Int J Archit Heritage2021; 15(1): 22–44.
39.
KjeldJGAvendaño-ValenciaLDVestermarkJ. Effect of wind and wave properties in modal parameter estimates of an idling offshore wind turbine from long-term monitoring data. Mech Syst Signal Process2023; 187: 109934.
40.
SongMMehrNPMoaveniB, et al. One year monitoring of an offshore wind turbine: variability of modal parameters to ambient and operational conditions. Eng Struct2023; 297: 117022.
41.
BrinckerRVenturaCEAndersenP. Damping estimation by frequency domain decomposition. In: Proceedings of IMAC-XIX: A conference on structural dynamics, Hyatt Orlando, USA, 5–8 February 2001, pp. 698–703.
42.
PeetersBDe RoeckG. Reference-based stochastic subspace identification for output-only modal analysis. Mech Syst Signal Process1999; 13(6): 855–878.
43.
LiZEscoffierSKotronisP. Study on the stiffness degradation and damping of pile foundations under dynamic loadings. Eng Struct2020; 203: 109850.
44.
WangS. Damage detection in offshore platform structures from limited modal data. Appl Ocean Res2013; 41: 48–56.
45.
FarrarCRWordenK. Damage-sensitive features. In: FarrarCRWordenK. (eds) Structural health monitoring. A machine learning perspective. 1st ed. UK: John Wiley & Sons, 2013, pp. 161–243.
46.
NieZGuoELiJ, et al. Bridge condition monitoring using fixed moving principal component analysis. Struct Control Health Monit2020; 27(6): e2535.
47.
FigueiredoESantosAMachine learning algorithms for damage detection. In: NobariASAliabadiMHF (eds) Vibration-based techniques for damage detection and localization in engineering structures. 1st ed. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co Pte Ltd, 2018, pp. 1–39.
48.
YanA-MKerschenGDe BoeP, et al. Structural damage diagnosis under varying environmental conditions—Part I: a linear analysis. Mech Syst Signal Process2005; 19(4): 847–864.
49.
PathirageCSNLiJLiL, et al. Structural damage identification based on autoencoder neural networks and deep learning. Eng Struct2018; 172: 13–28.
50.
GoodfellowIBengioYCourvilleA. Deep learning. 1st ed. Cambridge: MIT press, 2016, p. 787.
51.
SilvaMFSantosASantosR, et al. Damage-sensitive feature extraction with stacked autoencoders for unsupervised damage detection. Structural Control Health Monitoring2021; 28(5): e2714.
