Cost-Effective Design Criteria for

Australian Monopod Platforms

Rodney Pinna
Beverley F. Ronalds
School of Oil & Gas Engineering,
University of Western Australia,
Western Australia 6009

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.

132 Vol. 125, MAY 2003

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

Copyright 2003 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://vibrationacoustics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 03/07/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Fig. 1 Monopod configurations

The long term relationship between wave height and return period may be expressed as

Nexp b

H
Hd

(1)

where H d is the design wave height typically for a 50 year return

period on the NWS, and a and b the 2 parameter Weibull distribution constants.
The relationship between the wave height and the section moment at the location of failure in the caisson may be written as

M
H

Md
Hd

(2)

where is a fitting parameter 4. Values of a and for the four

monopods are given in Table 1, stated for the critical location
along the main caisson, where failure occurs.

The reserve strength ratio of a structure is generally defined as

the ratio of ultimate failure load of the structure to the design load.
For a monopod structure, where failure occurs at an easily identifiable location, this value may also be considered to be the ratio
of the ultimate strength of the cross section at the point of failure
to the design moment, i.e.
RSR

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)

Return periods of failure for the four monopods assuming RSRC

1.6 are given in Table 1.
An economically optimum design is achieved when the total
expected cost, E(C t ), is minimized. This expression accounts for
both the CAPEX, and the probable cost of failure. The required
expression is
Table 1 Typical parameters for NWS monopods

Fig. 2 Metocean data and curves fitted to that data for example NWS monopods c.f. Table 1, for values. Symbols indicate original data.

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering

Monopod

N for RSRc 1.6)

years

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

MAY 2003, Vol. 125 133

Downloaded From: http://vibrationacoustics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 03/07/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

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

M U.C RSRC M d.C

(6)

where M U.C is the ultimate moment for a structure designed to

API WSD, and M d.C is the design moment at the critical section
for this nonoptimized structure.
As monopods AD are essentially drag dominated structures,
for a given return period and thus wave height, the load on the
caisson is proportional to the effective hydrodynamic crosssection, which is in turn proportional to the diameter of the structure, given that the change in diameter is not large enough to
affect either the value of , or the location of the critical section.
This will generally be true in practice. If the diameter of the
cost-optimized structure is allowed to change from that of the
original code-designed structure, then the relationship between
M d.C and M d is, for the same return period
D
Md
1 f 1 f 1
M d.C
DC

(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)

This expression may then be combined with Eq. 6 to lead to the

final optimized cross sectional area normalized by the cross sectional area given by the design code, i.e.
A
DC

AC
D

ln N
b

/a

1 f 1 f 1
RSRC

D
DC

(9)

Initial Cost Model

The initial cost of the monopod is determined by its design,
which is in turn a function of the environmental loading on the
structure, as shown in Eq. 7. Two sets of assumptions may be
considered, with regard to the design of the structure
134 Vol. 125, MAY 2003

Fig. 3 Variation of required cross sectional area with changing

return period of failure, for caissons of constant diameter

1. the caisson diameter D remains constant, and the wall

thickness t is varied or
2. D is varied and the ratio D/t is held constant.
Case 1 is realistic for a monopod with conductors internal to
the caisson, as the diameter is dictated by space requirements for
the conductors. Case 2 represents a monopod with external conductors and risers, where it is structurally efficient to vary the
diameter of the structure.
With these assumptions, Eq. 7 may be simplified to two different forms, discussed below. The relationship between initial
cost for the optimized structure and A/A C is then given by

C i 1 f 2 f 2

A
C
A c i.d

(10)

where f 2 (0 f 2 1) allows for the proportion of variable costs in

the construction of the monopod substructure. That is, as f 2 tends
to zero, the proportion of fixed costs, such as mobilization expenses for offshore installation, become larger. This factor also
accounts for the uniformity of strengthening of the caisson with
increasing load. Smaller values of f 2 indicate that strengthening,
and hence increasing cross sectional area, are restricted to a
smaller zone of the structure near the critical location.
Case 1Constant Diameter. For a caisson with a constant
diameter and internal conductors f 1 1 and DD C , which reduces Eq. 7 to unity. This gives the result
A

AC

ln N
b

/a

1
RSRC

(11)

This case is applicable to monopods B and C. Results for this

expression are shown in Fig. 3, applying the equation to all four
monopods.

Case 2Constant Dt Ratio

For this case, applicable to monopods A and D, the relationship
between area and return period may be shown to be

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

Downloaded From: http://vibrationacoustics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 03/07/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Fig. 4 Variation in area with changing return period of failure,

with f 1 0, i.e. the diameter of the conductors is much larger
than that of the main caisson. D t is constant.

Fig. 6 Influence of discount rate on optimum return period of

failure

platforms with return periods of failure in the range of the

economically optimum value. Together, these various results show
that the analysis is relatively insensitive to the value chosen
for f 1 .

profitable operations. The dependence of Eq. 14 on r, in terms of

optimum failure return period, is shown in Fig. 6 for the four
structures. Values of r10% and L15 years are adopted for the
remainder of results quoted, unless otherwise noted.
The value for C f may be determined in a number of ways. Two
sets of assumptions are considered here; an upper bound C f .U ,
which involves the complete replacement of the platform substructure, piles, topsides, wells and pipelines, including deferred
production; and a lower bound value, C f .L , where it is assumed
that the substructure is repaired, and the only costs are those of the
repairs and deferred production. It is also assumed that there is no
environmental damage due to hydrocarbon loss; this assumption is
discussed later. Table 2 shows the assumed values for these components, relative to the initial cost, C i.d , of the design, fabrication
and installation of the substructure and piles.
The values are based on a study of the Campbell platform failure, which occurred off the NWS in 1996 during cyclone Olivia
6. Investigation of the failure confirmed that the design of the
structure was in accordance with the API code 5. This event was
particularly interesting, as it showed that failure of a monopod is
not necessarily catastrophic with Campbell rendered inoperable
by a 6 deg lean in the main caisson, which required straightening
to resume operation.
There were two main economic consequences of this event; the
cost of repairs on the structure and the deferral of revenue due to
delayed production during repairs, which took a total of 11
months to carry out. For this case, it was possible to determine a
lower bound failure cost of 3.1 times the initial cost of construction (Ci.d ), in constant 1992 dollars. Compared to some previous
estimates of the potential failure cost, this value is relatively low.
For example, van de Graaf and Gunturi 9 use a value of 20 times
the initial installed platform cost, rather than just substructure

Failure Cost Model

The expected cost of failure may be simply modeled as the
following 7
E C f C f P F a PVF
C f

1
PVF
N

(13)

where C f is the cost of failure and P(F a is the annual probability

of failure. The value of P(F a ) must be a real probability, rather
than a notional value. This implies that caution should be exercised when comparing failure probabilities determined from an
economic analysis with notional values. Moan 8 provides a detailed discussion.
The present value function, PVF, is used to discount future
costs. For a continuous replacement function, the PVF may be
expressed as
PVF

1 1r L
r

(14)

Typical values for r are in the range of 5% to 15%, and depend on

the internal rate of return required by the platform operator for

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

Fig. 5 Variation in area with changing return period of failure,

for monopod C. f 1 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75 and 1, with D t constant

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering

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)

MAY 2003, Vol. 125 135

Downloaded From: http://vibrationacoustics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 03/07/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Fig. 7 Cost versus water depth data, normalized by the cost

data for monopod A.

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.

Minimum Expected Cost

To arrive at a minimum total cost for the structure, it is necessary to write the equation for the total cost of the structure. In
terms of the design cost, this may be written as

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.

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://vibrationacoustics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 03/07/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

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.

Fig. 12 Optimum platform RSR, as C f C i . d is varied. Constant

D t ratio.

comes less important. In other words, the PVF becomes a function

of r alone, as L. For the platforms considered here, it appears
that this point is around 20 years. The effect of failure cost is
shown in Fig. 12. It may be seen in this figure that the value of
failure cost is also important in determining the optimum RSR.

high, when compared to the North Sea or Gulf of Mexico. For

f 2 0.5, the influence of this factor is relatively minor. NWS platforms may typically have f 2 below this value, due to the relatively
sporadic construction, and high fixed proportion of installation
costs, for the region. This high proportion of fixed costs is due to
the lack of locally situated infrastructure, thus requiring the deployment of overseas installation equipment, which is accompanied by high mobilization charges.
The cost of failure is also shown to have an important influence
on the optimum RSR. The values adopted here are intended to
represent best and worst case scenarios, in terms of replacement
costs. Several factors have been neglected in the analysis
howeverloss of life, environmental damage, and loss of confidence in the operator and/or industry. For monopods, the first of
these factors may be neglected, as they are designed to be unmanned in routine operation and during storm events. Thus, loss
of life is unlikely.
Environmental damage is a possibility; current practice is, however, to employ subsurface safety valves SSSV in wells and
subsea shutdown valves SSDV in export pipelines, which have
proved effective in obviating environmental damage 10 provides a detailed discussion of SSSV safety issues. Costs due to
environmental damage are also relatively difficult to evaluate, as
they strongly depend on the location of the platform, and the
regulatory regime that is in place with respect to clean-up costs.
Thus, evaluation of this risk depends to a large extent on the
confidence of the operator in their pollution control measures.
Loss of confidence in the operator and/or industry, which may
be termed goodwill costs, are the most difficult to quantify. The
loss of a platform, particularly if accompanied by environmental
damage, may result in onerous conditions being applied to future
developments by the operator. Further, such a loss may result in
difficulties in attracting future capital and, for publicly listed companies, a negative effect on share price. For the overall industry,
repeated platform failures may push operating costs to a higher
level, as strict conditions are placed on future developments, and
may even force the closure of the entire industry in the region.
The extent to which these costs, which may amount to many times
the replacement costs of a platform, are included in an economic
analysis can only be determined by an individual operator, as the
importance of these factors will be highly dependent on the companys operating philosophy. The neglect of both possible environmental costs and goodwill costs in the present analysis are
based on experience in the region, derived from the failure discussed earlier. Where failure has occurred, environmental protection systems proved adequate, and operator experience has shown
little loss of goodwill.
An indication of the level of risk historically accepted by the

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

Fig. 11 Optimum platform RSR, as the service life is varied.

C f C i . d 3.1, constant D t ratio.

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering

MAY 2003, Vol. 125 137

Downloaded From: http://vibrationacoustics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 03/07/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

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

Fig. 13 Acceptable and marginally acceptable probability diagram 7

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

This work was undertaken as part of a research project within

the Cooperative Research Center for Welded Structures CRC
WS. The CRCWS was established and is supported under the
Australian governments Cooperative Research Centres program.
The support and input of Apache Energy, Mobil Exploration &
Producing Australia, West Australian Petroleum and WNI Science
and Engineering are gratefully acknowledged.

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.

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://vibrationacoustics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 03/07/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use