Assessments of structural reliability under storm overload have been performed on various monopod configurations located on Australia’s 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.

Issue Section:
Technical Papers
Keywords:
oil technology, marine systems, design engineering, cost-benefit analysis, failure (mechanical), load distribution, storms, structural engineering
Topics:
Design, Failure, Monopod platforms, Caissons
1.
Whitman
,
R. V.
,
1984
, “
Evaluating Calculated Risk in Geotechnical Engineering
,”
J. Geotech. Eng.
110
, pp.
143
–
188
.
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, Zu¨rich, 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 Platforms–Working 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. 351–368.
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 Structures–Fixed Steel Structures, ISO 19902-99, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
Copyright © 2003
 by ASME
You do not currently have access to this content.