Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Mark A. Andrich*
Accenture, Sydney
Assessments of structural reliability under storm overload have been performed on various monopod configurations located on Australias North West Shelf (NWS). The results
have shown that these monopods have lower reliabilities than typical platforms in other
petroleum provinces, due to a number of factors. In itself, this may not be a concern, as
it may be argued that minimum facilities platforms have relatively low consequences of
failure. Reasons for this could center around these monopods being satellites with small
production throughput, having short service lives, being not-normally-manned, and having environmental protection features which minimize the possibility of a hydrocarbon
spill resulting from a structural failure. A suitable target probability of failure for monopod platforms may be computed using a cost-benefit approach, where the total platform
cost, including the cost of failure, is minimized. This analysis is developed for four distinct
monopod configurations involving single pile, pile cluster and outrigger foundations in
water depths ranging between 9-52m LAT. The relationship between platform CAPEX and
probability of failure is derived from first principles for cases of appurtenances located
within and external to the main caisson. DOI: 10.1115/1.1555115
Introduction
The efficient design of offshore hydrocarbon facilities is dependent on a number of factors: geographic location, metocean data,
platform configuration, expected economic return on the initial
investment, the accepted probability of failure and manning status,
being among the most important. For mature production fields,
such as the North Sea and the Gulf of Mexico, the influence of
these factors has long been considered, and design rules provide
information on acceptable probabilities of failure. These acceptable failure rates control the loading and hence the design of the
structure to be put into service. For more recently developed petroleum provinces, such as the North West Shelf NWS, where
local conditions vary significantly from those in the established
areas, and novel platform configurations are used more frequently,
recommendations based on current design practices may not provide optimal designs.
Production facilities broadly fall into two classes in terms of the
consequences of failure: manned or unmanned facilities. In the
former case, return periods of failure may be determined by the
socially acceptable probability of loss of life. Whitman 1 for
example, provides examples of rates that are considered acceptable; it is interesting to note that these rates vary depending on the
activity concerned, making it impossible to give a single acceptable probability of failure. In the particular case of the offshore
industry, a number of studies have examined methods for including fatalities and injuries caused by structural failure into economic calculations. With these methods, it is necessary to assign a
monetary value to the loss of life. A useful summary of a number
of methods is provided by Bea 2. For unmanned facilities, where
loss of life will not occur in the event of failure, return periods of
failure may be determined directly from economic considerations,
that is, from minimizing the total expected cost of the platform.
This is particularly true for the case of the NWS, where relatively small reservoirs frequently necessitate low-cost, or socalled minimum, production facilities. These typically consist of
either a braced or unbraced monopod, which is unmanned except
for routine maintenance. The low consequence of failure associated with low capital expenditure CAPEX facilities, and the neg*Research conducted while at the University of Western Australia
Contributed by the OOAE Division for publication in the JOURNAL OF OFFSHORE MECHANICS AND ARCTIC ENGINEERING. Manuscript received July 2001;
final revision, April 2002. Associate Editor: A. Naess.
ligible risk to life posed by such structures may mean that higher
annual probabilities of failure may be acceptable, when compared
to those used in other regions for their typical structures.
This paper seeks to examine the influence of the various factors
in the economic optimization of structures on the NWS. The values calculated here are determined using cost data obtained from
the actual failure of a monopod on the NWS. This provides a
unique opportunity to assess the impact of a real world failure cost
on the economic optimization of similar structures. Such true failure costs are very rarely available.
Four monopod platforms are considered, as shown in Fig. 1.
Two differing configurations are evident: B and C both have internal conductors and risers, while A and D have external conductors. These caissons cover a broad range of typical configurations
used on the NWS.
Failure Analysis
The initial stage in finding an optimum economic monopod
design is relating the long term environmental load to the return
period N. For offshore design, the wave characteristics are typically described with reference to the wave height. Figure 2 shows
typical results for a number of sites on the NWS plotted on a
Weibull distribution, using data provided by Tuty 3. Of note is
curve A, which has a bilinear distribution, due to the breaking
wave effect. After the wave breaks, the increase in wave height as
N increases is much slower, and is due only to increasing storm
surge. Curves B, C and D would also show this effect, if extended
out to a sufficiently long return period. Monopod A is in a relatively shallow site and hence the return period for breaking waves
is much shorter. It should be noted that the best-fit curves are
based on the last two available data points N50 and N100
years; this provides accurate extrapolation to longer return periods, including the return period of failure, as verified in earlier
North West Shelf studies.
The present study also only considers the natural variability of
the environmental loading. For the particular case of monopods on
the NWS, of interest here, previous studies 3 have shown that
the inclusion of other uncertainties, such as those with respect to
drag loading or resistance, have little effect on the overall probability of failure. This is due to the dominating influence of the
Type I wave height uncertainties, in comparison to all other
sources of uncertainty.
Transactions of the ASME
The long term relationship between wave height and return period may be expressed as
Nexp b
H
Hd
(1)
M
H
Md
Hd
(2)
MU
Md
(3)
where the subscript d denotes that the variable is the design value.
For structures designed to the API code Working Stress Design,
20th edition 5 with a section utilization factor of 1, RSRC
1.66; where the C denotes the RSR is for the structure designed to the code, not for the structure optimized on economic
criteria. At failure, the section moment is assumed to equal the
ultimate moment capacity of the section, M M U assuming that
sources of uncertainty other than those inherent in the metocean
are ignored; thus, using Eqs. 13 above, the return period of
failure may be expressed in terms of the design RSR value
Nexp b RSR a/
(4)
Fig. 2 Metocean data and curves fitted to that data for example NWS monopods c.f. Table 1, for values. Symbols indicate original data.
Monopod
A
B
C
D
6.1
2.8
4.2
3.0
5.5
2.1
2.0
1.8
1.1
1.4
2.1
1.7
450
250
130
180
E C t C i E C f
(5)
where C i is the initial cost of the structure, and E(C f ) the risk cost
associated with failure. This expression neglects operating costs,
which are assumed to be constant for differing design options.
Thus, to arrive at a total expected cost formulation, in terms of the
design return period of failure, it is necessary to model each of the
terms on the right hand side of Eq. 5 as a function of return
period. Optimization of the structure for cost will require the design of the structure to be varied. This will effectively change the
RSR of the structure, and hence the return period at which failure
occurs.
The ratio of the optimized ultimate section moment to the design ultimate moment may be shown to have the following relationship
MU
RSR M d
(6)
(7)
where D is the diameter of the caisson determined on a cost optimization basis, and D C the diameter determined from the design
code. The value of f 1 (0 f 1 1) determines the proportion of the
effective hydrodynamic cross section due to the caisson. For a
monopod with external conductors, for example, while the diameter of the caisson may be varied, the diameter of the conductors
will remain constant. As the proportion of the hydrodynamic cross
section due to the conductors increases, the value of f 1 decreases.
If, for example, the monopod has a large number of conductors
with heavy marine growth, then f 1 0. This expression assumes
that all the load from the conductors is transferred to the main
caisson, i.e. any separate foundations for the conductors are neglected. Alternatively, for a monopod with internal conductors and
negligible marine growth, f 1 1.
Using Eq. 2, the moment on the cost-optimized caisson may
be related to the code design moment by
M
H
M d.C
Hd
D
1 f 1 f 1
DC
(8)
AC
D
ln N
b
/a
1 f 1 f 1
RSRC
D
DC
(9)
C i 1 f 2 f 2
A
C
A c i.d
(10)
AC
ln N
b
/a
1
RSRC
(11)
A
1
D
1 f 1 f 1
AC
RSRC
DC
ln N
b
/a 2/3
(12)
Results from this expression are shown in Figs. 4 and 5, for all
four monopod parameters. Figure 4 shows the variation in required area, nondimensionalized by the code design area, as the
return period of failure varies. It may be seen that the smallest
change is for monopod A, due to the breaking wave effect. Figure
5 shows the change in required area for differing values of f 1 .
From this figure, it may be seen that the effect of varying f 1 on the
cross sectional area is relatively minor. This is true for typical
Transactions of the ASME
1
PVF
N
(13)
1 1r L
r
(14)
Table 2 Cost of failure, relative to initial cost. Values in parentheses are multiplied by 1.6, to account for higher costs due to
replacement and repair operations being completed in a relatively short period of time.
Item
Deferred Production
Repair
Replacement
Substructure and Piles
Topsides
Pipelines
Wells
Total
C f .L. /C i.d.
1.5
1.6
0
3.1
C f .U. /C i.d.
3.0
0
1.01.6
0.30.5
1.21.9
1.93.0
7.4(10.0)
cost, in their analysis. The difference in values is due to the assumption of complete failure and the inclusion of cleanup costs
in 9.
The upper bound cost was estimated as 10.0 Ci.d , using the
assumptions shown in Table 2. These figures include a multiplier
of 1.6, which was determined by comparing the initial cost of the
Campbell substructure to the final repair costs. This factor appears
to be mainly due to time constraints resulting from a desire to
minimize operating losses.
E Ct 1 f 2 f 2
A
1
Ci.d C f PVF
AC
N
(15)
Cost versus water depth data for the four monopods are shown in
Fig. 7. Two curves are given for the four platforms considered,
with the initial cost (C i.d ) including
1. Design and fabrication of substructure and piles, and project
management costs and
2. as above plus installation cost.
Both sets of results are normalized by the respective value for
monopod A. The design and fabrication cost curve is seen to be
relatively linear. The shallowest platform shows a higher value,
which reflects the increased proportion of fixed design and fabrication costs for this platform.
The cost, inclusive of the installation component, does not appear to follow a linear trend, however. It should be noted that for
the deepest platform, there were significant installation difficulties, which resulted in this cost being much higher than expected.
Without these complications, the total cost of the structure might
have been closer to the other data points. As well, the fixed cost
component for monopod A was spread over 4 identical platforms,
thus lowering its net cost in relation to the other data points.
Overall, however, these cost data suggest that there is a significant
variable fraction in the cost of constructing platforms in the NWS.
Figure 8 shows results for f 2 0.5, for monopod C, for both
constant diameter and constant D/t ratio cases. This comparison
shows that there is little difference in the optimum return period
for the two differing assumptions regarding the cross sectional
area relationship. The return period of failure for minimum expected cost is found to be 110 and 150 years respectively. This
may be converted into an RSR using Eq. 4, to arrive at values of
1.5 or 1.7 respectively. Assuming a value of f 2 0.2 leads to op136 Vol. 125, MAY 2003
Fig. 8 Expected total cost and components, varying with return period. Model data for monopod C, with C f C i . d 3.1 and
f 2 0.5. Dashed lines are for a constant D t ratio, dotted lines
for a constant D.
timum return periods of 220 years and 350 years for the two A/A C
relationships, with corresponding RSRs of 2.1 and 2.5.
The influence of f 2 on the optimum return period of failure is
shown in Figs. 9 and 10. Figure 9 compares results for differing
assumptions regarding failure cost and A/A C , while Fig. 10 examines those for differing monopods. Both figures show that for
regions and methods of construction where the proportion of fixed
costs is relatively high, f 2 becomes an important factor in determining the economically optimum return period of failure. It may
also be seen that once f 2 0.5, the variation in optimum return
period is negligible.
The influence of environmental factors a and b and platform
configuration is shown in Table 3, where the four monopods
are considered. This table again shows the importance of the value
of f 2 . Also, for most configurations it shows that an RSR1.6,
which is typical for monopods designed to API 20th ed. WSD 15,
may not provide the most economical solution, and a higher RSR
value may be more appropriate. This holds true for both of the
assumed values of f 2 .
Figure 11 examines the effect of platform service life on the
optimum RSR for the four configurations. This figure indicates
that once a relatively low life value is exceeded, there is little
economic penalty in designing for a much longer platform life.
Essentially, this reflects the effect of the present value function; as
the life is extended, the cost of failure, in constant dollars, be-
Fig. 9 Optimum return period of failure varying with proportion of variable costs associated with construction, as cost of
failure changes. Monopod C.
Fig. 10 Optimum return period of failure varying with proportion of variable costs associated with construction for four
platforms considered. C f C i . d 3.1, constant D t ratio.
Discussion
From these results, it is possible to identify the most important
factors in determining the optimum return period of failure for a
monopod platform. The cost of failure (C f /C i.d ) and the proportion of variable costs in construction ( f 2 ), are seen to be the most
important factors. Platform configuration is also seen to be relatively important. These results are particularly relevant to the
NWS, where the proportion of fixed costs is likely to be relatively
Table 3 Comparison of optimum return periods of failure in
years and RSRs for different platform configurations and locations
Return Period RSR
Monopod
A
B
C
D
C f /C i.d. 3.1
f 2 0.2
f 2 0.5
10001.9
7502.0
3502.5
5402.2
3801.6
3001.7
1501.7
2201.7
C f /C i.d. 10.0
f 2 0.2
f 2 0.5
33602.2
24702.5
10303.6
17302.9
13001.9
9702.0
4402.4
7002.2
Conclusion
An economic analysis to determine the optimum design of
North West Shelf NWS monopod platforms was conducted. This
analysis considered a number of factors which influence the probable total cost of the structure. Of these, two were found to be the
most important: the economic consequences of failure, and the
proportion of fixed costs associated with the construction of the
platform. The influence of the proportion of fixed costs is particularly important in relation to the NWS where, due to the remote
location and relatively high mobilization costs, this proportion
may be quite large. On this basis, it appears that adopting an RSR
is excess of 1.6 may result in a more economically efficient design. However, adopting of a design return period of 2000 years,
as recommended by the ISO code 11 may in some cases be
somewhat onerous, from an economic perspective.
Acknowledgments
public is shown in Fig. 13 1,7. This diagram shows that acceptable costs of failure in the range of US$10M to US$100M 1984
dollars correspond to acceptable return periods of failure of 180
to 870 years. This compares reasonably well with the optimum
return periods in Table 3, which were determined based on economic criteria. It is interesting to observe that the lines of accepted
and marginally accepted probability do not result in a uniform
risk, where risk is defined as the product of the probability of
failure and the consequence of failure, across the range of costs.
Bea 2 briefly discusses the placement of these lines, noting that
their positions are based on the investigators evaluation of how
the public has accepted the trade-offs between likelihood and consequence. In contrast, the current results show a relatively uniform
risk value for each monopod.
Structural strength may be assessed in terms of the RSR, or
failure return period. Currently, most NWS monopods are designed in accordance with the API WSD code. The use of this
code typically results in a structure with an RSRC 1.6. As shown
in Table 1, this corresponds to failure return periods in the range
of 130 to 450 years. In comparison, Table 3 suggests that, depending on the proportion of fixed costs, a somewhat higher RSR may
be appropriate. For the lower bound cost of failure case, assuming
a relatively large proportion of fixed costs, return periods of failure in the range of 350 to 1000 years are suggested, corresponding
to RSRs of between 1.9 and 2.5. For a lower proportion of fixed
costs, an RSR of around 1.6 appears appropriate. Assuming a
higher failure cost results in these values increasing. In comparison, the ISO code for fixed steel structures recommends a failure
return period of 2000 years for new, unmanned platforms. While
such comparisons should be made with some caution, in that the
comparison is between notional and real failure probabilities, it
is interesting to note that the value suggested by ISO 11 is at
least partially based on a generic cost benefit analysis.
It is also notable that using the present analysis, only two combinations of assumptions result in an optimum failure return period in excess of the recommended ISO failure return period value
for unmanned structures. This suggests that designing to this target may be a somewhat onerous condition for the NWS, as far as
the optimum economic solution is concerned, should suitable environmental safeguards be in place. This is mainly due to the
relatively low economic consequences of failure for the types of
minimum platforms employed in this region, compared with those
used in developing the ISO code failure return period of 2000
years.
138 Vol. 125, MAY 2003
Nomenclature
a, b Weilbull curve fitting parameters
A,A c cross-sectional area of caisson, and cross sectional
area determined by code design
D,D c diameter of optimized caisson, and diameter determined by code design
f 1 proportion of the effective hydrodynamic crosssection due to the caisson
f 2 proportion of variable costs in monopod construction
H,H d wave height, design wave height
L monopod design life
M ,M d moment on caisson, and design moment
N storm return period in years
wave height exponent
References
1 Whitman, R. V., 1984, Evaluating Calculated Risk in Geotechnical Engineering, J. Geotech. Eng. 110, pp. 143188.
2 Bea, R. G., 1989, Reliability Based Design Criteria for Coastal and Ocean
Structures, The Institution of Engineers Australia, Canberra.
3 Tuty, S., Ronalds, B.F., Harding, J.R., and Fakas, E., 2001 Storm Overload
Response of North West Shelf Monodpods, Safety, Risk and Reliability
Trends in Engineering, Safety and Risk in Engineering, Zurich, pp. 1001
1006.
4 Ronalds, B. F., Anthony, N. R., Tuty S., and Fakas, E., 2000, Monopod
Structural Reliability Under Storm Overload, Proceedings of the 19th Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering Conference, American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, New York.
5 American Petroleum Institute, 1993, Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore PlatformsWorking Stress Design,
20th ed., API Publishing Services, Washington, D.C.
6 Ronalds B. F., Wong Y. T., Tuty S., and Piermattei E. J., 1998, Monopod
Reliability Offshore Australia, Proceedings of the 17th Offshore Mechanics
and Arctic Engineering Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York.
7 Bea, R. G., 1990, Reliability Criteria for New and Existing Platforms, OTC
6312, Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference., Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, pp. 393 407.
8 Moan, T., 1998, Target Levels for Structural Reliability and Risk Analysis of
Offshore Structures, Risk and Reliability in Marine Technology, Balkema,
Rotterdam, pp. 351368.
9 van de Graaf, J. W. and Gunturi, R. K., 2000, Reliability Based Platform
Ultimate Strength Criteria, for Design and Reassessment of Steel Offshore
Platforms in the South China Sea Environment, Proceedings of the APEC
Workshop on Assessing & Maintaining the Integrity of Existing Offshore Oil &
Gas Facilities, Beijing.
10 Health and Safety Executive, 2000, Review of SSSV Safety Issues, Health and
Safety Executive, London.
11 International Organization for Standardization, 1999, Petroleum and Natural
Gas Industries Offshore StructuresFixed Steel Structures, ISO 19902-99, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.