3

SAFETY AND RELIABILITY OF A FIXED OFFSHORE
PLATFORM IN THE GULF OF THAILAND
by
Sakrit Charoenpornpanich
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of Master of Engineering in
Offshore Technology and Management
Examination Committee: Dr. Gregory L.F. Chiu (Chirperson)

Dr. Winai Ouypornprasert (Co-chairperson)
Dr. Pennung Warnitchai (Member)
Nationality: Thai
Previous Degree: Bachelor of Engineering in Civil Engineering
Chulalongkorn University
Bangkok, Thailand
Scholarship Donor: RTG Fellowship
Asian Institute of Technology

School of Engineering and Technology
Thailand
May 2010

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author, Mr.Sakrit Charoenpornpanich, has to state about sincere appreciation and
thank to the following people for their kindness.
Dr.Greg Chiu, author’s advisor, for his valuable suggestion and comment on this thesis.
His recommendations assisted the author to improve quality of thesis and stimulate author
to finish the thesis successfully.
Dr.Winai Ouypornprasert, author’s co-advisor, for his precious recommendation. Author is

impressed deeply with his kindness and intelligence.
Dr.Joko Harsono Widjaja, author’s professor at Offshore Technology and Management

faculty, Asian Institute of Technology, for any offshore knowledge and valuable
experience. He pays a lot of attention to his student.
Dr.Pennung Wanitchai, author’s thesis committee, for his comments on my thesis. It can
assist author to improve quality of thesis
Special thank to Mr.Washira Keaw-amatawong for any recommendation about SACS

software and sharing some of his experience in offshore structural design.
Finally, author would like to thank to OTM staff, my classmate, and my senior for every
encouragement which helps author constantly in daily life.

Sakrit Charoenpornpanich
ii

ABSTRACT
The safety of oil and gas offshore industry is very important since they always relate to
hydrocarbon products and unpredictable hostile environments. Consequently, reliability
analysis is considered to indicate a safety level of a platform. However, an analysis based
on the actual limit state requires an excessive computational effort, thus a complete second
order polynomial limit state should be considered, instead.
Monte-Carlo simulations with important sampling technique are used together with
complete 2nd-order polynomial limit states to evaluate failure probability. Moreover, the
computational effort can be further reduced by indicating dominant variables obtained
directly from the 2nd-order polynomial without mixed term. The results with incomplete
2nd-order polynomial limit states can be obtained efficiently without significant loss of
accuracy and seem to be advantageous over those results applying the concept of reduction
in the number of variables or the advanced FOSM methods in terms of computational
effort and confidence.
In conclusions, the complete 2nd-order polynomial limit states can be used in place of the
actual limit state to obtain good and efficient estimates of failure probability. With
incomplete 2nd-order polynomial limit states sufficiently accurate results can still be
obtained with significant reduction in computational effort.
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER TITLE PAGE
Title Page i
Acknowledgement ii
Abstract iii
Table of Contents iv
List of Tables vi
List of Figures viii
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background of the study 1
1.2 Problem statement 2
1.3 Objectives of the study 2
1.4 Scope and limitation of the study 2
1.5 Expected results 3
2 Literature Review 4
2.1 American Petroleum Institute 4
2.2 Structural reliability 6
2.3 Goodness-of-Fit test 11
2.4 Approximate limit-state function in the form of N-D
quadratic function 16
2.5 Environmental records of Thailand 20
3 Methodology 25
3.1 Approximate limit state 25
3.2 Failure probability of structural platforms analysis 28
3.3 Reduction of computational efforts 30
4 Results and Discussions 32

4.1 Introduction 32
4.2 Distribution functions of related variables 32
4.3 Case study 33
5 Conclusions and Recommendations 72

5.1 Conclusions 72
5.2 Recommendations 73
5.3 Recommendations for further study 73
6 Bibliography 74
Appendixes 76
7 Appendix A: Computer code for evaluation of approximate limit
. states 77
Appendix B: Computer code for evaluation of design point of
. Variables 110
iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER TITLE PAGE
Appendix C: Computer code for evaluation of failure probability

. from approximate limit states 132
Appendix D: Computer code for evaluation of failure probability
. from actual pile element limit states 183
v

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE DESCRIPTION PAGE
2.1 Descriptive of significant wave height data 20

2.2 Average monthly significant wave height 21
2.3 Relationship among return period, significant wave height, and
period at Songkhla shoreline 22
2.4 Summary of average maximum wind velocity 22
2.5 Maximum wind speed record form Samui island synoptic station 22
2.6 Maximum wind speed record form Prajuabkerekhun synoptic
station 23
2.7 An offshore wind speed statistic record of the Gulf of Thailand 23
2.8 Near-surface current speed statistic record of the Gulf of Thailand 24
2-9 Near-bottom current speed statistic record of the Gulf of Thailand 24
4.1 Distribution model of each random variable 32
4.2 General design parameters for platform model 35
4.3 Summary of related variable properties for operation case 36
4.4 Summary of related variable properties for extreme case 37
4.5 Sensitivity analysis summary of serviceability limit state 38
4.6 Sensitivity analysis summary of member element limit state 38
4.7 Sensitivity analysis summary of pile element limit state 39
4.8 Parameters of wind speed 64
4.9 Parameters of wave height 64
4.10 Parameters of current speed 64
4.11 Parameters of yield strength parameters of steel 35 ksi 64
4.14 Parameters of Young’s modulus of steel 65
4.15 Parameters of soil properties 65
4.16 Summary result of each approximate limit state 66
4.17 Summary result of actual limit state 66
4.18 Comparison of actual and approximate pile element limit state 67
4.19 Mixed-term contribution to failure probability 68
4.20 Comparison of complete second order polynomial approximate pile
element limit state of all variables and only x5, x6, and x8 variable 68
vi

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE DESCRIPTION PAGE
4.21 Comparison of complete second order polynomial approximate

pile element limit state of all variables and only x8 variable 69
4.22 Comparison of pile element limit state summary 70
4.23 Comparison of complete second order polynomial approximate
limit state and first order second moment method 71
vii

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE DESCRIPTION PAGE
2.1 Structural resistance and load effect 7

2.2 Sensitivity analysis in terms of conditional failure probability 9
2.3 The principle of stochastic uncertainty propagation 9
2.4 Relationship between standard uniform variate (U) and random
variable (X) 10
2.5 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test 12
2.6 Chi-square test 13
2.7 Relationship between the variables indices and the false mixed-
term index 19
2.8 Location of top three Hs during Southwest and Northeast monsoon 21
3.1 level of limit state 27
3.2 Evaluation of a second order polynomial approximate limit-state 28
3.3 Evaluation of probability of failure 31
4.1 Coordinate system for structural computer model 33
4.2 Isometric view of the platform model 34
4.3 Response surface of deflection limit state between Y1 and Y2 41
48 Response surface of deflection limit state between Y2 and Y7 43
4.13 Response surface of member limit state between Y1 and Y2 47
viii

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE DESCRIPTION PAGE

4.28 Response surface of pile limit state between Y1 and Y2 56
ix

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the study
Nowadays, the developing of the world economics is based on petroleum product so long
time. It has a significant role in almost of all industry and become a main source of the
world’s energy. Before nineteen century, crude petroleum oil got from only onshore wells
and its demand wasn’t as much as a present day; therefore, only onshore supply was
enough. In the late of nineteen century, while the demand of petroleum was increased
rapidly due to expansion of world economics, an onshore oil supply become harder and
harder to find a new large well. Therefore, an offshore oil exploration became a new
solution. The first offshore oil well in the world was in offshore summerlands, California,
1890s (Chakrabati, 2005). This was an application by extension of existing piers into the
water of Pacific Ocean. Nevertheless, in practical, the first steel oil offshore platform was
installed in the Gulf of Mexico, 1947 (H.Dawson, 1983). This was a steel structural
platform and located in 15 ft of water off Lousiana.
The safety of oil and gas offshore industry is very important since it always directly relate
to hydrocarbon product and unpredictable hostile environmental condition. A small
accident or failure, which can be occurred anytime during the procedure, can be generated
a catastrophe leading to loss both property and fatality. According to statistic about
offshore accidents by World Offshore Data bank (WOAD), there are some of examples of
offshore catastrophes such as a collapse of three-legged jack-up platform Ranger I, 1979
by fatigue failure at leg of platform, an explosion Piper Alpha platform in North Sea,
killing 167 men on July 6, 1988 by gas leaking, and a collapse of Alexander Kielland
platform, killing 123 men on March, 1980 by starting with fatigue failure of one brace
(Moan, 2009). Therefore, the safety and reliability of structural platform is very important
and should be considered carefully since design procedure.
In Thailand, the first oil and gas offshore drilling and exploration has started more than 30
years since 1971 in the Gulf of Thailand by Continental Oil Company of Thailand
(DEPARTMENT OF MINERAL FUELS). However, the first successful drilling and
exploration was performed by Union Oil, 1972. According to the statistic from Thailand
department of mineral fuels, over 1800 wells in the Gulf of Thailand have been explored
and drilled from 1971 until recently. In a present day, there are discovery of feasible oil
and gas wells spreading around the Gulf of Thailand. Thus the number of oil and gas
platform in the Gulf of Thailand will be developed continuously and still increase with
highly competition due to high benefit and demand of petroleum.
1

1.2 Problem statement
Nowadays, oil and gas’s offshore industries face with highly business competition. Having
a good image of company has a great deal effect of business value. The low number of
failure can be expressed safety level consideration leading to making a confidence from
company’s client, customer, and staff. However, higher safety level consideration leads to
significant higher construction cost due to structural safety requirement. Therefore, the
appropriate or acceptable safety level for each platform purpose must be identified for
economical decision-making.
To acquire a safety and reliability analysis of a complex structural platform, many of

related variables are considered leading to time and cost consuming. This is one of many
problems for reliability analysis procedure. Therefore, to reduce time and computational
effort in reliability analysis, an approximate method by using a second order polynomial
limit states is applied instead of actual limit states.
Studying behavior of fixed offshore platform model in varied environmental condition is

necessary to evaluate boundary of failure. These varied environments consist of varying of
wind, wave and current, but excluded seismic wave or any earthquake. The statistic
environmental data of the Gulf of Thailand is selected for this study. However, gathering
environmental data isn’t a part of this study but all environmental data are referenced from
reliable source.
1.3 Objectives of the study
1. To present an optional reliability method in term of second order polynomial

limit state.
2. To define probability of failure of four-leg fixed offshore platform from an
approximate limit state method and compare the result with actual limit state
method
3. To illustrate how to calculate the safety and reliability of four-leg fixed offshore
platform in the Gulf of Thailand based on varying environmental condition.
The varied environmental condition means varying in wind, wave and current in the Gulf
of Thailand based on statistic data from reliable source. An earthquake is excluded for this
study since rarely significant earthquake occurs in the Gulf of Thailand.
1.4 Scope and limitation of the study
Due to time constraint, only load effects from wind, wave, and current are considered in
this study. Any load effects from fatigue, seismic, and accident, such as drop object, blow-
outs and collision, are neglected. Wave statistic environmental data in the Gulf of Thailand
is referenced from Geo-Informatics and Space Technology Development Agency
(GISTDA) and Dynamic response of offshore minimum structure in the southern of the
Gulf of Thailand, master degree thesis by Songkiat, 2009.
One of four-leg platforms in the Gulf of Thailand, which are designed as per API RP2A-
WSD, is used for a case study. Failure probability of the platform by using approximate
method is evaluated and compared with results from conventional reliability method.
2

1.5 Expected results
After this study is completed, the approximate reliability method is provided. Moreover,
comparison of results between an approximate and conventional method will be provided
also. This approximate reliability method can be reduced a lot of time to estimate
probability of failure and can be applied for other similar project or other environmental
condition
3

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
In accordance with understanding the basic concept of the design code and reliability of
fixed offshore platform in the Gulf of Thailand, the general idea of related theory and
research are provided. These topics related with this study are reviewed in this chapter as
following order,
1. American Petroleum Institute

2. Structural reliability
3. Goodness-of-Fit test
4. Approximate limit-state function in the form of N-D quadratic function
5. Environmental record of Thailand
The related detail of each main topic is expressed more in the sub-topic as following,
2.1 American Petroleum Institute
The American Petroleum Institute (API) is the national trade association for oil and natural
gas industry which consists of nearly to 400 members from all sections, such as
production, refinement and distribution, of America’s petroleum industry (American
Petroleum Institute, 2009). The role of API is not only a representative of the petroleum
industry to advocate and negotiate with the government, but also researching both
economic and toxicological effect, setting up of industry standard, and certification of
industry standard.
API was established in New York since March, 1919 with objectives as
• To support and encourage trade in American petroleum product

• To cooperate between oil and gas industry with the government in all matters of
national concern
• To advocate the study and development of technology related with oil and natural
gas industry
Since the first standard was established in 1924, nowadays, more than 500 standards and
recommended of practice are sustained by API organization, and many of them are used by
federal regulations reference. Each standard and recommend assists users to develop safety
and cost-efficiency.
2.1.1 Background of API recommended practice for fixed offshore platform
Nowadays, there are two versions of recommended practice for planning, designing and
constructing offshore platform, i.e. RP 2A, publishing by API. The first version is a
working stress design version, i.e. WSD. Its original guidance was published since 1970.
This recommended is provided the necessary design basis of fixed offshore structures that
including steel jacket or template platforms, tower and compliant tower, caisson, minimum
non-jacket and special structures that are fixed to the seafloor (American Petroleum
Institute, 2009). Another version is a load and resistance factor design, i.e. LRFD, version
4

which was published first time in 1993. These two versions are so similar equation but
difference mainly in safety factors depending on each theory concept.
The basic design criterion in API RP 2A WSD is: (A.Stacey & J.V., 2007)
Equation2.1
where
Rn = nominal strength
D = nominal dead load
L = nominal live load
W = nominal environmental load
SF = safety factor
The basic design criterion in API RP 2A LRFD is: (A.Stacey & J.V., 2007)
Φ Equation2.2
where
Φ = resistance factor
λ = environmental load factor
γD = dead load factor
γL = live load factor
However, this study will explain and focus on WSD version only since it’s more
conservative than LRFD and more practical in Thailand.
2.1.2 API recommended practice 2A –WSD
The API recommended practice 2A –WSD is used as a main guideline to design fixed
offshore platforms in offshore petroleum industry around the world including Thailand.
Each parameter, factor, and any values are got from accuracy and reliability statistic
source.
The latest edition of API recommended practice 2A –WSD is a twenty-first edition,

December 2000. However, it has been updated continuously with an errata and supplement
update 1 and 2, December 2002 and October 2005 respectively. In this edition, RP 2A-
WSD refers structural steel design concept to latest edition of the AISC Specification for
the Design, Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel for Building, conversely the new
AISC Load & Resistance Factor Design First Edition is not recommended for offshore
platform since both load and resistance factors are got from calibration with building
design practice (American Petroleum Institute, 2000). In fabrication design, RP 2A –WSD
follows welding and fabrication of ANSI/AWS D1.1-2002 Structural Welding Code-Steel
especially in chapter 9 and 10.
5

2.2 Structural reliability
The meaning of structural reliability can be defined to two main explanations, general and
mathematical sense (Christensen & J.Baker, 1982).
In general meaning, “structural reliability” means capacity of the structural system to

perform its design objectives and functions in specific time period. In another meaning, it
is defined as the probability of success or probability of failure of the structural system that
can’t higher than each limit state condition at a point in a specified time period.
Structural reliability analysis is a method, which refers from the theory of Frendenthal,
garrelts, Shinosuka, Ang and Cornell, using for forecasting a probability interested event.
The general concept of the method is uncertainties of variables in actual environment of
design engineering work both loading and resistance terms such as mean value of material
strength or deviation in construction. Main objective of this analysis is defining a
probability failure of a structure during a whole service life time.
2.2.1 Probability density function
For time invariant domain, reliability of a structural system is considered based on

assumption that structural resistance (R), which relates with structural strength variables,
and load effect (S), which deal with capacity load or applied load variables, are random
(Ouypornprasert, Course Material of Structural Safety and Reliability of Fixed Offshore
Platform, 2009). It can be defined with following equation,
, , ,…, Equation2.3
X ,X , ,…, Equation2.4
According to the definition, structural reliability, ps can be defined as:
0 Equation2.5
However, in practical, the complementary term of structural reliability is preferably used as
a failure probability, pf
1 Equation2.6
or
0 Equation2.7
For the simple case, a distribution of both structural resistance and load effect is a normal
distribution (bell shape) as shown in Figure 2.1. The overlap region between resistance and
load can be expressed the probability of failure, Pf.
6

Figure 2.1: Structural resistance and load effect
From this concept, failure condition can be defined as following equation,
Equation2.8
where
is a failure surface or limit state, 0 is defined safe state ,and 0 is

defined failure state.
Failure probability of general actual load effects and structural response are presented in
integral form since the limit state function is consisted of several random variables.
Equation2.9
or
1 g Equation2.10
where
is the joint probability density function of a vector of random variable.
1 g is an indicator function of g define as
1 g = 1 ; for
= 0 ; otherwise
7

2.2.2 Limit state
The fundamental definition of limit state in structural meaning is a term of structural

resistance which is larger than applied loading on the structural. The general equation of a
condition for a limit state not to be surpassed is shown as Equation 2.11 (A.Stacey & J.V.,
2007).
, , , 0 Equation2.11
where
is a design value for action

is a design resistance of components
is a factor representing the importance of the structure
is a factor dealing with model uncertainties
Generally, the fundamental limit state for offshore designing and installation are
2.1) Serviceability limit state
This limit state condition relates with operating usage such as deformation and vibration.
2.2) Ultimate limit state
This limit state condition relates to the maximum value of resistance and applied load.
2.3) Fatigue limit state
This limit state condition relates with the accumulated effect of repeating or cycle of
applied load such as wave load and wind load.
2.4) Accidental limit state
This limit state condition relates with damage from any accidental load such as drop object
and explosion.
2.2.3 Techniques for reliability
1) Sensitivity analysis
Sensitivity analysis is a conventional technique for reducing basic variables without

significant loss of accuracy of result (Ouypornprasert, Course Material of Structural Safety
and Reliability of Fixed Offshore Platform, 2009). For actual reliability problems, the total
value of failure probability is controlled by only some strong influence basic variables.
Therefore, reduction in the number of basic variables as low as possible and consideration
only dominant basic variables are reasonable for saving both time and cost of reliability
analysis procedure. The influence of each variable Xi on pf is considered in partial
derivatives term.
8

Equaation2.12
wherre
w respect to Xi
is thee sensitivityy function with
Pf caan’t be knowwn yet; theerefore, can’t be an

nalyzed dirrectly in thiis step. How
wever, it
can be
b estimated by using conditionaal failure probability concept. Only Xi vaariable is
consiidered in thhis proceduure and othher variablees are keptt at the connstant deterrministic
valuees, actually at the meann values of each
e variable.
Figurre 2.2: Senssitivity anaalysis in terrms of cond

ditional faillure probab
bility
2 Monte Carlo
2) C simulaation
Monnte Carlo simmulation is “the art of approximat

a ing an expeectation by tthe sample mean of
a funnction of siimulated raandom variaables” (And derson, 19999). In the oother wordss, it is a
compputer algoriithms for reeplication thhe actual daata based onn an assumpption or disttribution
functtion (H-S.AAng & H.T Tang, 19844). This sim mulation iss required tto solve sttochastic
uncertainty probblem and generate ranndom variab bles based on
o a set of known or assumed
a
probability distrribution funnction
Figuree 2.3: The principle

p off stochasticc uncertaintty propaga
ation
S
Source: Witttwer (2004))
9

In engineering purposes, the response of any systems can be forecasted by applied the
Monte Carlo simulation via random number. However, by theory, Monte Carlo solutions is
also sampling technique, thus the result is approximate unless the sample data is large
enough.
The random variables is simulated by using relationship between a cumulative probability

(Fx(x)) and a standard uniform variate (U) as Equation 2.13 and shown in Figure 2.4
Equation2.13

Figure 2.4: Relationship between standard uniform variate (U) and random
variable (X)
Source: H-S.Ang & H.Tang (1984)
3) Important sampling technique
Important sampling is one of variance reduction techniques to select an appropriate

distribution from random variable simulation (Anderson, 1999). The main concept of this
technique is a consideration in the important values frequently for decreasing the variance
of the estimator, in the other words, to focus the sampling data in the most important area
(Ouypornprasert, Course Material of Structural Safety and Reliability of Fixed Offshore
Platform, 2009). The importance sampling technique is expressed as following,
X X X
Equation2.14
where
= A function of x
= A probability density function of a vector of random variable
= An importance function, 0 for any Ω
10

This integral can be approximated by
∑ Equation2.15
where
N = the number of simulation
If 0, the optimal importance function is (R.Y.Rubinstein, 1981)
Equation2.16
Therefore, if the function closing to the optimal importance function is considered, the
reliable result will be expected. However, on the application of important sampling
technique procedure, the contribution from important regions isn’t considered reasonably if
the sampling points focus too much on an important region. This situation is called “under-
sampling”. In the contrary, “oversampling” is occur if the sampling points focus too much
on a small region. The contribution from other regions isn’t considered reasonably and
sampling scheme is so strongly biased.
2.3 Goodness-of-Fit Test
In primary statistical analysis, before using any sample data, they need to be tested to find
the most appropriate continuous distribution model. Plotting the point on probability paper
to specify the distribution is a simply way for visual Goodness-of Fit test. However, to get
accurate result, it should be evaluated by two analysis tests, Kolmogrorov-Smirnov and
Chi-square test.
2.3.1 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test

Kolmogorov-Smirnov test is a non-parametric test of equality of probability distribution
for estimation of minimum distance. It’s used to compare the sample with the reference
distribution model. This method will compare between cumulative frequencies from the
sample and hypothesis distribution function by detecting the maximum difference value
from Equation 2.17 (Ouypornprasert, Course Material of Structural Safety and Reliability
of Fixed Offshore Platform, 2009).
max| | Equation2.17
where
Fx (X = xn) is a cumulative probability of the simulation distribution at point X = xn

Sn is a cumulative relative frequency of the sample data.
11

The maximum difference between theoretical distribution function and sample distribution
function over whole range are measured. The hypothesis distribution model is accepted, If
Dn is less than the critical value, with the confident level α (H.S Ang & H.Tang, 1975).

Figure 2.5: Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
Source: von Mises (1964)
2.3.2 Chi-square Test
Chi-square test, which is an abbreviation of Pearson’s chi-square test, is a statistical

hypothesis distribution test. This test is used to consider the difference between the
observed frequencies and hypothesis frequencies for value of random variable (Sharp,
1979). The level of significant in this test is set at 0.05 or it can say that the confidence
level is set as 95 %. The formula is expressed as following,
∑ Equation2.18
where
ni = The observed frequency in each intervals
ei = The frequency of expectation.
The degree of freedom is defined as
1 Equation2.19
where
k = Number of intervals
12

Nevertheless, when the formula is applied with statistic distribution, in this case hypothesis
distribution, the parameter of distribution is added. Therefore, the degree of freedom is
summarized as
1 Equation2.20
where
p = Number of parameters estimated for the hypothesized distribution.

Figure 2.6: Chi-square test
Source: Taylor (2005)
However, gathering actual environmental data requires cost and a lot of time. If the data
isn’t record directly, distribution functions of environment load can be assumed based on
reliable record as following,
1) Distribution functions of wind
According to American National standard ANSI A58.1- (1972), wind loading conditions
were assumed base on the extreme value distributions type II - Frẻchet distribution (with
an infinite upper tail). At that time, this was the most appropriate of wind distribution with
extreme wind speeds for any areas that not subject to hurricane wind.
, 0, 0, 0 Equation2.21
where
2
Γ 1 Γ 1 1/
m , 2
Γ 1
/Γ 1
13

Then, there was a new conclusion expressed that the extreme value distribution type I-
Gumbel distribution (with an infinite upper tail) was more suitable for wind distribution
model than Frẻchet distribution model ( E.Simiu & N.A.Heckert, 1996, cited in Simiu et
al., 1987).
/ Equation2.22
where
6/
0.57722 6 /
However, Gumbel distribution model is not the perfect model since according to the the
study of Ellingwood in 1980, the safety index for structure based on Gumbel distribution
was unrealistic failure probabilities (E.Simiu & N.A.Heckert, 1996, cited in Ellingwood et
al, 1908).
The reverse Weibull distribution (with finite upper tail) is proposed to the extreme wind
speed model and performed statistical experiment based on the peak over threshold
approach (E.Simiu & N.A.Heckert, 1996). The best-fitting model from comparing a set of
seven distribution models, i.e. normal, double exponential, lognormal, Gumbel, Frẻchet,
Weibull, and reverse Weibull, is the reverse Weibull model.
/ , Equation2.23
where
/
/Γ 1 2/ Γ 1 1/
Γ 1 1/
1/
From the study of wind speeds for structural analysis and design in Thailand based on
wind data since1969 to 2001, the parameter c and E(x) of the reverse Weibull distribution
function is equal -0.232 and 40m/s to 60 m/s, respectively. (Wimuttasoongviriya &
Jirawacharadej).
2) Distribution functions of wave height
Generally, the distribution functions of wave can be assumed as one of these well- known
distribution model as following,
2.1) Rayliegh distribution function

1 exp Equation2.24
where
/
14

2.2) Gumbel distribution function
/ Equation2.25
where
6/
0.57722 6 /
2.3) Weibull distribution function
1 Equation2.26
where
Γ 1
Γ 1
The Rayleigh distribution model gives an under prediction of the probability of occurrence
of freak wave. This freak wave occurs when the height of wave from crest to trough is
greater than two time of the significant wave height (Mori, Liu, & Yasuda, 2002).
Moreover, from a recent study conclusion, Rayleigh distribution is not appropriate for
simulation the probability of occurrence of both crest and trough of extreme wave height
since its results are under-predicts and over-predicts the probability of occurrence of the
extreme crest and trough height, respectively (Stansell, 2005).
3) Distribution functions of current
With typical environmental condition, the distribution function of ocean current velocities
can be assumed as normal distribution if the current isn’t performed under tidal flows
condition (Green & Stigebrandt, 2003).

Equation2.27
√
where
However, according to Ocean Surface Current Analyses-Real Time - OSCAR data and
reconstructed OSCAR – ROSCAR data that include Gulf stream, Kuroshio, Brazilian
currents, Somali currents, California currents, and Peru currents since 1 January 1992 to 31
December 2007, the distribution function of ocean surface current speeds can be assumed
as Weibull distribution as shown in Equation2.28 (Chu).
15

1 Equation2.28
where
Γ 1
Γ 1
2.4 Approximate limit-state function in the form of N-D quadratic function
Typically, the actual limit-state function or of any n random variables is defined an

infinite series term as equation [29]; nevertheless, in reliability analysis, an approximate
limit-state function , for example a first order and second order polynomial, is applied
in instead of general actual limit-state function (Ouypornprasert, Course Material of
Structural Safety and Reliability of Fixed Offshore Platform, 2009).
∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ Equation2.29
2.4.1 First order approximate limit state
According to first order formulation, the infinite series terms limit state in Equation2.29
can be reduced to Equation 2.30
∑ Equation2.30
or
X ∑ Equation2.31
where
is a standard normal variate. x* and y* are the design point.
Mean and standard deviation of Equation 2.31 can be expressed as following,
∑ Equation2.32
∑ Equation2.33
16

Finally, the failure probability can be determined from Equation 2.34
Φ β Equation2.34
Where safety index is a ratio of mean and standard deviation,
2.4.2 Second order polynomial approximate limit state
According to second order formulation, the infinite series terms limit state in Equation 2.29
can be reduced to Equation 2.35
∑ ∑ ∑ Equation2.35
where a0, bi, cij and dijk are unknown coefficients
However, an approximate limit-state function can be presented in reduced variable term,

/ as Equation 2.36 due to rapidly decreasing of probability density value
of a random variable.
∑ ∑ ∑ Equation2.36
where μi = mean value of the random variable xi
σi = the standard deviation of the random variable xi
αi, βi, γij = unknown coefficients
Furthermore, to simplify in analysis procedure, the reduced variable limit-state function,

, can be considered in to two parts as Equation 2.37, which consists of a second-order
polynomial without mix-term as Equation 2.38 and a second-order polynomial with only
mix-term Equation2.39. The number of unknown coefficient is 2n+1 for the equation with
mix-term and n(n-1)/2 for only mix-term equation.
From
Equation2.37
∑ ∑ Equation2.38
2∑ ∑ Equation2.39
17

where
Equation2.40
According to the equation Equation2.38, if the center of interpolation is chosen as an

origin in the reduced space, the value of the limit-state function at this point is α0. Next
step, the value on each axis, Yi, is obtained by choosing points from both negative and
positive, then γij are obtained independently by perform as equation Equation2.40
2.4.3 Adaptive scheme
The adaptive scheme consists of four fundamental concepts as discussed below
1) Sensitivity analysis
Sensitivity analysis is evaluated automatically after the second order polynomial equation
without mixed-term has been calculated. The value of each reduced variable on the failure
surface is used to define an important level of each variable.
2) Linearization
The conditional failure probability for each mixed-term can be presented by distance
between a point on false failure surface and original point of reduced space in the
inclination of 45degrees to both axes. The related calculations are expressed as following,
Equation2.41
arctan Equation2.42
where
= False mixed term index

, = Variable index for Yi ,Yj
18

Yj False limit state surface
(yi,yj)
Actual limit state surface
δj δij
Yi
45 θij
δi
Actual interpolation points
Figure 2.7: Relationship between the variables indices and the false mixed-term index
Source: Ouypornprasert (2009)

3) Sorting
After false mixed-term indices are obtained, it will be sorted from minimum to maximum
value. The lowest value of false mixed-term index contributes highest effect to the total
probability of failure value. Consequently, sorting of false mixed-term indices value is an
effective procedure to indicate the importance level of each mixed-term.
4) Cut-off criteria
In this procedure, cut-off criteria are considered from various objectives such as limitation
of computer efficiency. However, a recommended criterion is a using minimum value of
false mixed-term index plus three as a limitation.
19

2.5 Environmental record of Thailand
2.5.1 Wave
According to the digitized data of GISTDA data, daily maximum significant record of
seven buoys in the Gulf of Thailand is provided in the Table 2.1and Table 2.2 (Hansanti,
2009).
Table 2.1: Descriptive of significant wave height data
Huahin KoChang KoSichang KoTao Plathong Rayong Songkhla
Location ID HH KC KS KT PT RY SK
Water depth (m) 18 32 19 45 55 17 35
Latitude 12o 30’N 12o 00’N 13o 00’N 10o 11N 9o 42’N 12o 30’N 7o 15’N
Longitude 100o 10’E 102o 12’E 100o 49’E 99o 59’E 101o 26’E 101o 10’E 101o 13’N
First date 2-Apr-93 15-Feb-93 2-Jan-93 14-Feb-93 2-Jan-93 2-Jan-93 11-Mar-93
Last date 21-May-95 5-Feb-95 16-Feb-95 22-Mar-95 2-Feb-95 8-Jan-95 19-Feb-95
Duration (days) 780 721 776 767 762 737 711
No. of data 675 443 519 602 615 542 493
% data available 87% 61% 67% 78% 81% 74% 69%
Min. Hs (m) 0.17 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.23
Max. Hs (m) 1.88 2.57 1.30 2.82 2.81 1.99 2.81
Range Hs (m) 1.71 2.45 1.18 2.70 2.70 1.87 2.58
Mean Hs (m.) 0.75 0.74 0.49 0.86 0.97 0.69 0.89
SD (m.) 0.29 0.47 0.18 0.47 0.52 0.34 0.56
Source: Hansanti (2009)
20

Table 2.2: Average monthly significant wave height
Hs (m.)
Location Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Huahin 0.66 0.88 0.85 0.71 0.71 0.70 0.81 0.76 0.62 0.57 0.84 0.91
KoChang 0.88 0.65 0.60 0.39 0.63 1.03 1.49 1.32 0.94 0.41 0.51 0.54
KoSichang 0.38 0.52 0.51 0.50 0.51 0.72 0.75 0.71 0.50 0.34 0.43 0.51
KoTao 0.95 0.72 0.87 0.58 0.51 0.80 0.88 0.74 0.77 0.79 1.45 1.53
Plathong 1.03 1.14 1.04 0.56 0.69 0.96 1.37 - 1.34 0.66 1.16 1.21
Rayong 0.57 0.65 0.72 0.56 0.68 0.92 1.23 1.20 0.92 0.41 0.48 0.54
Songkhla 1.34 1.11 0.84 0.56 0.39 0.53 0.71 0.71 0.66 0.68 1.31 1.46
Source: Ouypornprasert (2009)
The maximum wave height, Hmax, is calculated from the relationship between maximum
wave height and significant wave height, Hs,as Hmax = 1.9 Hs (DET NORSKE VERITAS,
2007).

Figure 2.8 : Location of top three Hs during Southwest (left) and Northeast
(right) monsoon
Source: Hansanti (2009)
21

The another source of wave characteristic around the Gulf of Thailand is a characteristics
of wave and shoreline change at Songkhla report as following,
Table 2.3: Relationship among return period, significant wave height, and
period at Songkhla shoreline
Return period Significant wave height Period of significant wave height

(Yr) (Meter) (Second)
1 2.7 9
10 3.1 9.8
25 3.5 10.2
50 3.7 10.4
100 3.8 11.2
Source: harulukhana (1991)
2.5.2 Wind
Wind data based on Wind Hydrology of Southern part of Thailand report

(Chumnummanee & Photapirom) and wind statistical record from synoptic station of Thai
Meteorological Department at Samui and Prajuabkerekhun synoptic station are tabulated in
the Table2.4, Table 2.5, and Table2.6 respectively. These regions locate closely to the Gulf
of Thailand; however, it’s measured at the onshore station.
Table 2.4: Summary of average maximum wind velocity
Return period Average maximum wind velocity at 10 m

(Yr) (m/s)
10 20-33
25 25-39
50 28-44
100 31-49
Source: Chumnummanee & Photapirom
Table 2.5: Maximum wind speed record form Samui island synoptic station
Year Knot Year Knot

1990 28 2000 23
1991 33 2001 33
1992 33 2002 32
1993 30 2003 28
1994 30 2004 27
1995 28 2005 35
1996 28 2006 27
1997 25 2007 35
1998 30 2008 30
1999 28
Source: Thai Meteorological Department (2008)
22

Table 2.6: Maximum wind speed record form Prajuabkerekhun synoptic
station
Year Knot Year Knot

1990 30 2000 32
1991 30 2001 25
1992 40 2002 35
1993 35 2003 33
1994 36 2004 25
1995 36 2005 22
1996 32 2006 25
1997 40 2007 26
1998 30 2008 28
1999 35
Source: Thai Meteorological Department (2008)
According to the document of an oil company in Thailand, the offshore annual wind record
in the Gulf of Thailand summary is tabulated as Table 2.7
Table 2.7: An offshore wind speed statistic record of the Gulf of Thailand
Annual wind speed (m/s) Total in all direction

0.0 to 1.0 0.0569
1.0 to 2.0 0.1497
2.0 to 3.0 0.2226
3.0 to 4.0 0.2041
4.0 to 5.0 0.1557
5.0 to 6.0 0.0985
6.0 to 7.0 0.0600
7.0 to 8.0 0.0309
8.0 to 9.0 0.0137
9.0 to 10.0 0.0049
10.0 to 11.0 0.0019
11.0 to 12.0 0.0002
12.0 to 13.0 0.0002
Total 1.00
23

2.5.3 Current
As the same reference source as annual wind speed, annual current speed from statistical
record of the Gulf of Thailand is tabulated in Table 2.8 and Table 2.9
Table 2.8: Near-surface current speed statistic record of the Gulf of Thailand
Annual current speed (m/s) Total in all direction

0.0 to 0.1 0.2958
0.1 to 0.2 0.3884
0.2 to 0.3 0.2052
0.3 to 0.4 0.0694
0.4 to 0.5 0.0261
0.5 to 0.6 0.0100
0.6 to 0.7 0.0030
0.7 to 0.8 0.0010
0.8 to 0.9 0.0005
0.9 to 1.0 0.0002
Total 1.00
Table 2.9 : Near-bottom current speed statistic record of the Gulf of Thailand
Annual current speed (m/s)

Total
0.0 to 0.1 0.3529
0.1 to 0.2 0.4009
0.2 to 0.3 0.1779
0.3 to 0.4 0.0529
0.4 to 0.5 0.0129
0.5 to 0.6 0.0017
0.6 to 0.7 0.0003
Total 1.00
24

CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the methodology to evaluate safety and reliability of fixed offshore
platform. The methodology of the study consists of three main procedures as express
below.
1. Approximate limit state

2. Failure probability of structural platforms analysis
3. Reduction of computational efforts
In a general, actual limit states are considered for safety and reliability analysis. However,
this conventional method requires a lot of time; therefore, approximate limit states are
presented for overcoming the problem. Details of each procedure are explained more as
following,
3.1 Approximate limit state
The objective of this procedure is to evaluate the approximate limit states in term of second
order polynomial equations which consist of non mixed-term and mixed-term. These
second order polynomial limit states are applied to an evaluation of failure probability in
the next procedure. Each step of approximate limit state analysis is expressed step by step
as following,
3.1.1 Selection of random variable
In the complex structural system as offshore structure, It relates to a lot of random

variables, for example applied loading, material property or even marine growth thickness.
All of these variables have effects either direct or indirect to the structural reliability of
offshore platform. However, the important level of each variable to the structural reliability
is different. Therefore, only important variables should be considered.
In this study, the variables can be classified to two terms as following,
Load effect terms
1. Wind velocity variable

2. Wave height variable
3. Wave period variable
4. Current velocity variable
For wind velocity and wave height variable, their relationship are assumed as independent
to each other. In the contrary, wave height and wave period variable are assumed as fully-
dependent by Equation3.1
0.091 5.2 Equation3.1
25

Resistance terms
1. Yield strength of structural steel variable

2. Young’s modulus of structural steel variable
3. Properties of foundation soil variable.
Yield stress and Young’s modulus variable are assumed independent from each other.
3.1.2 Definition of limit states
Limit states in this study are classified to two types, i.e. serviceability limit state and first
yield limit state. Details of each limit state are explained as following,
1) Serviceability limit state
Serviceability limit state is a limit state that governs vibration, deflection in the operation
use (A.Stacey & J.V., 2007). This limit state is considered as the global failure limit state
and presented as the Equation3.2

∆ , , , , ,
∆ 1 Equation3.2
∆
where
∆ = Serviceability limit state

∆ = Allowable deflection of platform, (L/200 typically)
x1 = Wind velocity variable
x2 = Wave height variable
x3 = Current velocity variable
x4 = Yield strength of structural steel variable
x5 = Young’s modulus of structural steel variable
x6 = Properties of foundation soil variable
2) First yield limit state
First yield limit state is a limit state which relates to allowable resistance as same as
ultimate limit state, but its scope is limited only with the first yield point in elastic zone.
This limit state is considered as the local failure. Therefore, a result of this limit state is
defined as fail condition if any primary member or element of platform is failed. The first
yield limit states are expressed as following,

1 , , , , , 6 Equation3.3
1 , , , , , Equation3.4

where
= Limit state of structural member element
= Limit state of pile member element
MaxUcmem = Maximum unity check ratio of member element
MaxUcpile = Maximum unity check ratio of pile under element
26

3.1.3 Level of limit state
The limit states can be classified into different level since each failure type has different
effects to reliability of the whole structural system. For example, critical failure type, as
pile failure which directly relates to collapse of the platform, should be considered
separately from the uncritical failure. The level of limit state in this study is shown in the
Figure 3.1
Limit state of
pile member element

Critical
Limit state of
structural member
element
Uncritical
Limit state of
serviceability Uncritical
Figure 3.1: level of limit state
3.1.4 Evaluation of approximate limit state
Limit states of actual structural model are so complicate and may not be derived directly
by statistical methods. Therefore, the optional method which evaluates second order
polynomial limit state is applied instead of actual limit state. Each second order polynomial
limit state is derived as following step,
1.) Evaluation of non mixed-term factor of each single random variable

1. Apply a reasonable value of each random variable.
2. Increase or decrease each random variable and record value of limit state
3. Repeat step 2 until can specify failure boundary ( g( )=0 ) and record the result.
2.) Evaluation of mixed-term factor of each pair random variable

1. Apply reasonable value of each pair random variable.
2. Increase or decrease with the same proportion of reduced space variable, 45
degree, of each pair of random variable and record value of limit state
3. Repeat step 2 until can specify failure boundary ( g( )=0 ) and record the result.
27

In this study, SACS5.2 software is used to calculation any responses of structural platform
by using quasi-static analysis based on API RP 2A-WSD 21th edition.
Selection of related variable
Evaluation of non mixed-term factor
Sensitivity analysis
Evaluation of mixed-term factor
Second order polynomial approximate limit-state
Figure 3.2: Evaluation of a second order polynomial approximate limit-state
3.2 Failure probability of structural platforms analysis
The purpose of this procedure is considered the probability failure of the structural
platform by using reliability method. The random variables are simulated from Monte-
Carlo simulation and applied with the second order polynomial approximate limit state
which is derived from previous procedure. Detail of each step of probability failure of
structural platform analysis is expressed step by step as following,
28

3.2.1 Selection statistic distribution model
For reasonable data simulation, the appropriate distribution model of each random variable
is required. This procedure consists of following step,
1) Data Gathering
The data are observed and recorded statistically with in the period as hour by hour, or day
by day based on data type. These data are used as a reference for design and analysis
procedure and applied to find the most suitable distribution model in the next step.
However, data gathering isn’t included in the study due to the limitation of cost and time,
but data are reference from reliable source.
2) Goodness-of-Fit Test
The goodness of fittest is the method to determine the best fit of distribution model from
the data. This data is plotted and compared with each well-know distribution model, such
as normal distribution, log-normal distribution, Gumbel distribution, and Weibull
distribution, by 2 methods as following,
2.1) Kolmogrorov-Smirnov Test

2.2) Chi-square Test
The appropriate distribution model must have maximum difference value less than the
critical value both Kolmogrorov-Smirnov and Chi-square Test. In this study, Civil
Engineering Statistical TEST, CESTEST is applied as and mathematical tool to assist to
find the most appropriate distribution model based on the goodness of fittest. CESTEST
can compare the data with the distribution model as listed below.
1. Normal distribution
2. Uniform distribution.
3. Shifted Exponential distribution.
4. Shifted Rayleigh distribution.
5. Gumbel (Type I-Largest values) distribution.
6. Gumbel (Type I-Smallest values) distribution.
7. Lognormal distribution
8. Gamma distribution.
9. Frẻchet (Type II-Largest) distribution.
10. Weibull (Type III-Smallest) distribution
11. Beta distribution.
However, for testing other specified distribution model as reverse Weibull distribution,
CESTEST can be modified and added on the distribution.
3.2.2 Random variable simulation
In this procedure, each set of random variables is generated by Monte Carlo simulation
based on their distribution model, mean and standard deviation. These sets of random
variables are prepared for finding probability of failure in the next step
29

3.2.3 Evaluation of probability of failure
The failure probability of structural platform by actual and approximate limit state methods
are calculated and compared to each other. This procedure can be considered in two parts
as following,
1) Finding probability of failure from the actual method
1.1) Input sets of random variables which derive from previous step into the
analysis software package.
1.2) Run and analysis by software analyze package based on API RP2A
WSD code.
1.3) Consider and collect the results of each set of random variables
1.4) Calculate probability of failure
2) Finding probability of failure from the approximate method
2.1) Input set of random variables which derive from previous step into the
second order polynomial approximate limit state.
2.2) Run and analysis by mathematic software package.
2.3) Consider and collect the results of each set of random variables
2.4) Calculate probability of failure
3.2.4 Comparison of result
Both results from the actual and approximate limit state method are compared to each other
case by case. The different of their results in percentage will be expressed. This procedure
is very importance to complete the main objective of the study.
3.3 Reduction of computational efforts
The computational effort can be further reduced by applying these adaptive schemes as
following,
3.3.1 Incomplete second order polynomial limit state
This adaptive procedure is a consideration of dominant variable analysis based on

sensitivity analysis with second order polynomial without mixed-term. Only some
dominant mixed-terms are considered instead of all mixed-term. This adaptive scheme
yields an incomplete second order polynomial limit state.
3.3.2 Reduction of basic variables
In this procedure, the number of basic variables is reduced. Instead of all variables, only
some dominant variables based on a sensitivity analysis result are considered to evaluate
probability of failure.
30

Gather related data
Goodness-of-Fit test
Distribution Model
Generate random variables
(Monte Carlo simulation)
Analysis procedure
(SACS 5.2 or Approximate limit-state equation)
SACS 5.2 Approximate limit-state equation
(Actual method) (Approximate method)
Calculate probability of failure Calculate probability of failure
Compare Results
Figure 3.3: Evaluation of probability of failure
31

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Introduction
According to the methodology in chapter 3, each procedure is applied to the typical four-
leg jacket platform. Second order polynomial limit-states are evaluated based on responses
of actual structural platform. The random variables of both second order polynomial limit
states and actual limit states are generated by using Monte Carlo simulation. Finally,
results from these second order polynomial limit-states are compared with actual limit
states for analysis purpose.
4.2 Distribution functions of related variables
Due to limitation of time, cost and access of actual statistical data, the distribution
functions of related variables aren’t analyzed directly by using goodness-of-fit test
procedure, but they are assumed based on reliable source as following,
Table 4.1: Distribution model of each random variable
Variable Distribution model Remark

Reverse Weibull
Wind speed [1]
( Type III- Largest )
Gumbel
Significant wave height [2]
( Type I- Largest )
Weibull
Current speed [3]
(Type III - Smallest)
Yield strength of structural steel Log normal [4]
Young’s modulus of structural steel Normal [4]
Properties of soil foundation Normal [4]
Remarks
[1] Based on Wind speed for structural analysis and design in Thailand.
(Wimuttasoongwiriya & Jirawachdej)
[2] Based on Dynamic response of offshore minimum structures in the southern of the
Gulf of Thailand, master thesis 2009 of Asian Institute of Technology by Songkiat
Hansanti. (Hansanti, 2009)
[3] Based Ocean Surface Current Analyses-Real Time - OSCAR data and
reconstructed OSCAR – ROSCAR data that include Gulf stream, Kuroshio,
Brazilian currents, Somali currents, California currents, and Peru currents since 1
January 1992 to 31 December 2007 (Chu)
[4] Based on suggestion from Dr. Winai Ouypornprasert
32

4.3 Case study
A conventional four-leg fixed offshore platform in the Gulf of Thailand is selected to be a

case study. This section consists of seven main topics as following,
1) General information of the platform

2) Related data properties analysis procedure
3) Sensitivity analysis procedure
4) Approximate limit state analysis procedure
5) Random variable simulation procedure
6) Probability of failure analysis procedure
7) Result comparison
Only some important results of each procedure are presented in this chapter.
Explanations of any important results are provided for understanding in each procedure.
The other details are shown in appendix sections.
4.3.1 General information of the platform
This platform is a conventional four-leg steel platform with apparent batter 1:8 in both
transverse and longitudinal axis. The fixed work point of this jacket is set at EL (+) 23’-
0”. The horizontal bracing of jacket are at EL (+) 15’-0”, EL (-) 54’-0”, EL (-) 140’-0”,
and at mud-line level.
The spacing between grid lines is 40’-0” for grid row A and B and 50’-0” for grid row 1
and 2 as shown in Figure 4.1.
Platform
North
1 2
Y
(0, 0, 0)
Z X
Figure 4.1: Coordinate system for structural computer model
33

A B
MAIN DECK EL (+) 83’‐6”
2
1
CELLAR DECK EL (+) 53’‐6”
EL (+) 15’‐0”
EL (‐) 54’‐0”
EL (‐) 140’‐0”
EL (‐) 226’‐0”
Figure 4.2: Isometric view of the platform model
34

Table 4.2: General design parameters for platform model
Parameter Detail
Water depth (ft) 226
Operating storm Extreme storm
Design water depth (ft) Min Max Min Max
228.00 230.90 228.00 231.20
Wave Wave height = 21.30 ft Wave height = 43.60 ft
Period = 6.80 s Period = 9.20 s
1.01 at 0 ft 3.58 at 0 ft
Current (ft/s) 1.01 at 26 ft 2.99 at 26 ft
1.01 at 82 ft 2.46 at 82 ft
1.01 at 171 ft 1.94 at 171 ft
1.01 at mudline 0.51 at mudline
MH = 2.50
MWL = 2.50
Marine growth (in) EL (-) 65’ 0” = 4.60
EL (-) 168’ 0” = 1.80
Mudline = 1.80
Wind (mph) Operating storm Extreme storm
33’ above LAT(1-hr mean)
22.2 53.5
Design average interval 1min
0.65 for above MHW
Drag coefficient (Cd)
1.05 for below MHW
1.6 for above MHW
Inertia coefficient (Cm)
1.2 for below MHW
Wave kinematics factor
1.00 0.88
Damping 2% of critical damping
Topside pay load (kips) 9250
Foundation Non-linear elastic foundation
P-Δ effect Included
Design code API RP2A-WSD 21st Ed.
35

4.3.2 Related data properties analysis procedure
The properties of random variables for this case study are summarized in the Table 4.3.
The statistical properties, i.e. distribution function, mean, and standard deviation, aren’t
analyzed directly by using goodness-of-fit test procedure, but they are referred from
reliable source due to limitation of the access to the actual statistical data.
Table 4.3: Summary of related variable properties for operation case
Variable Definition Distribution function Mean SD

Reverse Weibull
X1 (mph) Wind speed 8.02 4.25
Significant wave Gumbel
X2 (ft) 3.18 1.71
height ( Type I- Largest )
Weibull
X3 (knot) Current speed 0.33 0.22
Yield strength of
X4 (ksi) Lognormal 41.891 4.189
structural steel A35
Yield strength of
Yield strength of
Young’s modulus of
X7 (ksi) Normal 31.6x103 1.58x103
structural steel
Properties of s
X8 (unitless) Normal 1 0.2
oil foundation
Remarks
[1] Mean and SD value of wind speed in mph unit are converted from 3.587 and 1.899
m/s, respectively.
[2] Mean and SD value of significant wave height in ft unit are converted from 0.97
and 0.52 m, respectively
[3] Mean and SD value of current speed in knot unit are converted from 0.169 and
0.113 m/s, respectively
[4] Due to imperfection from manufacture or influence of time, mean value of yield
strength and Young’s modulus of structural steel variable are calculated based on
reliability at 95 percentile.
[5] Properties of foundation soil are composed of three main parameters, i.e.
a relationship between skin friction force and vertical displacement (T-Z),
a relationship between bearing force and vertical displacement (Q-Z), and
a relationship between lateral force and lateral displacement (P-Y). This factor is
increased or decreased as same proportion among T-Z, Q-Z, and P-Y.
36

Table 4.4 : Summary of related variable properties for extreme case
Variable Definition Distribution function Mean SD

Reverse Weibull
X1 (mph) Wind speed 34.10 3.74
Significant wave Gumbel
X2 (ft) 12.1 3.03
height ( Type I- Largest )
Weibull
X3 (knot) Current speed 0.90 0.23
Yield strength of
Yield strength of
Yield strength of
Young’s modulus of
X7 (ksi) Normal 31.6x103 1.58x103
structural steel
Properties of
X8 (unitless) Normal 1 0.2
soil foundation
Remarks
[1] Mean and SD value of wind speed in mph unit are converted from 29.632 and
3.253 knot, respectively.
[2] Mean and SD value of significant wave height in ft unit are converted from 3.7 and
0.925 knot, respectively
[3] Mean and SD value of current speed in knot unit are converted from 3.8 and 0.95
m/s, respectively
[4] Due to imperfection from manufacture or influence of time, mean value of all yield
strength and Young’s modulus of structural steel variable are calculated based on
reliability at 95 percentile.
[5] properties of soil foundation term is composed of three main parameters,
a relationship between skin friction force and vertical displacement (T-Z),
a relationship between bearing force and vertical displacement (Q-Z), and
a relationship between lateral force and lateral displacement (P-Y). This factor is
increased or decreased as same proportion among T-Z, Q-Z, and P-Y.
37

4.3.3 Sensitivity analysis procedure
A sensitivity analysis of each related variable can be considered after non mixed term
procedure is evaluated. This sensitivity analysis is used to specify dominant variables of
the limit states. The sensitivity analysis of serviceability, member element, and pile
element limit state are summarized and tabulated as following,
1) Limit-state of Serviceability
Table 4.5: Sensitivity analysis summary of serviceability limit state
Left bound Right bound

Variable
( yL= [xL-mean]/Sd ) ( yR=[xR-mean]/Sd )
X1 -80 31.657*
X2 -80 44.091*
X3 -80 72.136*
X7 -19.051* 20
X8** -3.761* 20
Note * points on the actual failure surface

** the dominant variable
2) Limit state of structural member element
Table 4.6: Sensitivity analysis summary of member element limit state

Variable
X1 -80 22.433*
X2 -80 18.799*
X3 -80 32.444*
X4 -6.778* 10
X5** -5.963* 10
X6 -7.980* 10

38

3) Limit state of structural pile element
Table 4.7: Sensitivity analysis summary of pile element limit state

Variable
X1 -80 41.016*
X2 -80 30.33*
X3 -80 75.111*
X5 -8.167* 10
X6 -8.130* 10
X8** -3.710* 10

According to the results, properties of foundation soil are a key variable for both
serviceability and pile element limit state since the value of their reduced variable are the
lowest, i.e. -3.761 and -3.710 respectively. For member element limit state, the most
dominant variable is the yield strength of structural steel A36. However, all related random
variables still are considered in evaluation of approximate limit state procedure for
completeness of the study.
39

4.3.4 Approximate limit state analysis procedure
In this procedure, the analysis software package, i.e. SACS 5.2, is used as analysis tool to
evaluate lower or upper bound value of each variable. These results are considered for
evaluation of second order polynomial limit states. The summary of second order
polynomial limit states of the platform are expressed as Equation 4.1 to Equation 4.3
1) Limit-state of Serviceability
2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 Equation4.1
where
= 0.95 = -0.022 = -0.014

= -6.937x10-3 = 0.026 = 0.213
= -2.687x10-4 = 2.598x10-4 = 8.627x10-5
= 8.627x10-5 = 0.022 = -1.73x10-4
= -3.307x10-5 = -1.804x10-4 = -1.551x10-3
= -8.647x10-5 = -6.532x10-6 = -6.734x10-4
= -1.256x10-3 = 3.903x10-3 = -0.011
where
X1 = Wind speed variable
X2 = Significant wave height variable
X3 = Current speed variable
X7 = Young’s modulus of structural steel
and X8 = Properties of foundation soil
Full analysis procedures are expressed in the computer code for evaluation of
approximate limit states section, Appendix A
40

g(x)
Figure 4.3: Response surface of deflection limit state between Y1 and Y2
g(x)
41

g(x)
Y1


g(x)
Y1
42

g(x)

g(x)
Y2

43

g(x)
Y2

g(x)
Y3
44

g(x)
Y3

45

2) Member element limit state
2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 Equation4.2
where
= 0.422 = -0.015 = -0.018

= -9.503x10-4 = 0.04 = 0.047
= 0.032 = -1.736x10-4 = 4.045x10-4
= 2.63x10-4 = -1.132x10-3 = -1.298x10-3
= -9.166x10-4 = -2.189x10-4 = -1.408x10-4
= -1.393x10-3 = -1.547x10-3 = -1.112x10-3
= -1.08x10-4 = -7.354x10-4 = -8.229x10-4
= -6.155x10-4 = -3.30x10-3 = 4.995x10-3
= 3.674x10-3 = -4.001 x10-3 = 4.001 x10-3
= -2.557x10-3
where
X4 = Structural steel with yield strength 35ksi variable
and X6 = Structural steel with yield strength 50ksi variable
46

g(x)
Figure 4.13: Response surface of member limit state between Y1 and Y2
g(x)
47

g(x)
Y1
g(x)
Y1
48

g(x)
Y1

g(x)
49

g(x)
Y2

g(x)
Y2
50

g(x)
Y2

g(x)
Y3
51

g(x)
Y3

g(x)
Y3
52

g(x)
Y4

g(x)
Y4

53

g(x)
Y6
54

3) Pile element limit state
2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 Equation4.3
where
= 0.8185 = -0.013 = -0.02

= -5.654x10-3 = 0.055 = 0.056
= 0.161 = -1.647x10-4 = 2.021x10-4
= 7.412x10-5 = -4.909x10-4 = -6.84x10-4
= -1.286x10-3 = -2.477x10-4 = -5.403x10-5
= -7.79x10-4 = -1.494x10-3 = -1.84x10-3
= -6.981x10-5 = -2.307x10-4 = -1.991x10-4
= -4.928x10-4 = -5.541x10-3 = 6.176x10-3
= 0.01 = -5.556 x10-3 = 9.795x10-3
= -0.016
where
and X8 = Properties of soil foundation
55

g(x)
Figure 4.28: Response surface of pile limit state between Y1 and Y2

g(x)
56

g(x)
Y1


g(x)
Y1
57

g(x)
Y1

g(x)
58

g(x)
Y2

g(x)
Y2
59

g(x)
Y2

g(x)
Y3
60

g(x)
Y3

g(x)
Y3
61

g(x)
Y6


g(x)
Y8

62

g(x)
Y8

63

4.3.5 Random variable simulation procedure
Each random variable is simulated independently from each other by using Monte Carlo
simulation method. Parameters of each random variable simulation procedure are
presented in the tables as following,
1) Wind speed
Table 4.8: Parameters of wind speed

Tail length Shape Location Scale
Distribution
Case Mean SD. parameter parameter parameter parameter
function
(c) (γ) (μ) (σ)
Reverse Operation 8.02 4.25 24.22 17.79
-0.23 4.31
Weibull Extreme 34.10 3.74 48.37 15.67
2) Wave height
Table 4.9: Parameters of wave height

Distribution Mode parameter Scale parameter
Case Mean SD.
function (u) (α)
Operation 3.18 1.71 2.41 0.75
Gumbel
Extreme 12.10 3.03 10.74 0.42
3) Current speed
Table 4.10: Parameters of current speed

Distribution Scale parameter Shape parameter
Case Mean SD.
function (λ) (k)
Operation 0.33 0.22 0.37 1.53
Weibull
Extreme 0.90 0.23 0.99 4.54
4) Yield strength of structural steel A35
Table 4.11: Parameters of yield strength of steel 35 ksi

Distribution
Mean SD. Mean log parameter (λ) SD log Parameter (ζ)
function
Lognormal 41.9 4.19 3.72 0.15
64

5) Yield strength of structural steel 36 ksi

Distribution Mean log parameter SD log Parameter
Mean SD.
function (λ) (ζ)
Lognormal 43.10 4.31 3.76 0.10
6) Yield strength of structural steel 50 ksi

Distribution Mean log parameter SD log Parameter
Mean SD.
function (λ) (ζ)
Normal 59.90 5.99 4.09 0.10
7) Young’s modulus of structural steel

Table 4.14: Parameters of Young’s modulus of steel
Distribution function Mean SD.
Normal 31.60 1.58
8) Properties of soil foundation.

Table 4.15: Parameters of soil properties
Distribution function Mean SD.

Normal 1.00 0.20
65

4.3.6 Probability of failure analysis procedure
Probability of failure is calculated by two methods, i.e. actual limit state and second order
polynomial limit state method. However, due to time constraint, only pile limit state is
calculated for conventional method. Each result is expressed as following,
1) Approximate limit state method
In this procedure, the probability of failure is calculated directly from complete second
order polynomial limit state by using mathematic software package, i.e. Mathcad software.
Summary probability of failure are calculated and tabulated as following,
Table 4.16: Summary result of each approximate limit state
Deflection Member element Pile element

limit state limit state limit state
Probability of failure 6.508x10-4 4.417x10-6 1.644x10-4
Standard error 6.354x10-6 1.169x10-6 1.19x10-6
Percent standard error 0.98 25.3 0.72
Percent success rate 22.8 3.5 44.9
Usage time (days) 7-10 7-10 7-10
Fully calculation of failure probability is presented in Appendix C.
2) Conventional method
In the conventional method, the probability of failure is evaluated from the actual limit
states. However, due to time constraint, only the result of pile element limit state is
considered and tabulated in this study.
Table 4.17: Summary result of actual limit state
Pile element limit state

Probability of failure 1.594x10-4
Standard error 3.878x10-5
Percent standard error 24.3
Percent success rate 43.2
Usage time (days) 45-60
66

4.3.7 Result Comparison
In this section, probability of failure between second order polynomial limit state and
actual limit state are compared to each other. Furthermore, to reduce computational efforts,
results from incomplete second order polynomial limit states, and results from complete
second order polynomial limit state considering only some influence variables are studied
also.
1) Comparison of actual and complete second order polynomial limit state
The result between actual and second order polynomial limit state of pile element are
compared as following table,
Table 4.18: Comparison of actual and approximate pile element limit state
Complete 2nd-order
Pile element Actual
polynomial approximate Δ%
limit state limit state
limit state
Probability of failure 1.594x10-4 1.644x10-4 3.14%
Standard error 3.878x10-5 1.19x10-6
Percent standard error 24.3 0.72
Percent success rate 43.2 44.9
Usage time (days) 45-60 7-10
According to the results of pile limit states, a rough estimate of failure probability of actual
limit state is 1.594x10-4. This result is evaluated from only 1024 simulations due to time
constraint. For approximate limit states, probability of failure is evaluated from numerous
simulations, i.e. up to 1,000,000 simulations, which yield accurate results. From the study
of pile limit state, the value of failure probability from a complete second order polynomial
limit state is 1.644x10-4. Although the results from both methods are very close to each
other, time requirement for the proposed can be reduced considerably, i.e. from 45-60 days
to only 7-10 days. Therefore, this complete second order polynomial limit state is very
effective and can be applied with high confidence.
2) Comparison of important mixed-term effects
The computational effort can be further reduced by applying adaptive scheme to determine
an incomplete second order polynomial without significant loss of accuracy. This adaptive
procedure is a consideration of dominant variable analysis based on sensitivity analysis
with second order polynomial without mixed term. This adaptive scheme yields an
incomplete second order polynomial limit. The results from incomplete second order
polynomial limit state of pile element are tabulated as following,
67

Table 4.19: Mixed-term contribution to failure probability
No Mix-term factor Pf (non+ mix term) %ΔPfcomplete

-4
0 - 2.570x10 61.2
1* X6X8 2.069x10-4 29.8
2 X6X8+ X5X8 1.672x10-4 4.9
3 Complete 1.594x10-4 0
Remark : if X5X8 is selected instead of X6X8, value of Pf (non+ mix term) is 2.076x10-4
*
According to the Table 4.19, incomplete second order polynomial limit state without any
mixed-term give a poor estimate result, i.e. 2.570x10-4, when comparing with complete
second order polynomial limit state. Adding only single mixed-term of first-second
dominant variables, i.e. X6X8, gives more accuracy, but it isn’t enough. The result is
satisfied, i.e. 1.672x10-4 when both mixed-term of first-second and first-third dominant
variable, i.e. X6X8 and X5X8, is included. An estimated discrepancy of accuracy between
these two methods is only 4.9%.
3) Comparison of complete second order polynomial approximate limit state

between all and only some dominant variables
To decrease complexity of the analysis, reduction in the number of basic variables can be
obtained by consideration only some dominant variables based on a sensitivity analysis. In
this section, a complete second order polynomial limit state which focuses on some
dominant variables, i.e. X5, X6, and X8 is evaluated and compared for analytical purpose.
Table 4.20: Comparison of complete second order polynomial approximate

pile element limit state of all variables and only x5, x6, and x8 variable
Complete 2nd-order polynomial approximate

Pile element limit state
Δ%
limit state Consider x5, x6, and
Consider all variable
x8 variable
According to the result, the good result, i.e. 1.601x10-4, can still be obtained from
complete second order polynomial limit state considering only first three dominant
variables, i.e. properties of soil foundation, yield strength of pile steel 50ksi and 36ksi
respectively. An estimated discrepancy of accuracy is only 4.9% when comparing with
complete second order limit state considering all variables. Therefore, the second order
polynomial approximate limit state of first three dominant variables is effective and can be
used instead of considering all variables.
68

4) Comparison of complete second order polynomial approximate limit state
between all and only most dominant variable
After complete in previous section, a failure probability of complete second order

polynomial approximate limit state of only most dominant variable, i.e. x8, is evaluated
also. The comparison of result is tabulated as following,

Table 4.21 : Comparison of complete second order polynomial approximate

pile element limit state of all variables and only x8variable
Complete 2nd polynomial approximate limit state

Pile element
Δ%
limit state Consider only x8
Consider all variable
variable

Remark : The probability of failure by using analytical method is 1.036x10-4
For complete second order polynomial limit state considering the single most dominant
variable, its result, i.e. 1.079x10-4, is much lower than previous result. Therefore, this limit
state isn’t be suggested since its result is un-conservative.
69

Table 4.22: Comparison of pile element limit state summary
Consider Consider Consider

X1 X2 X3 X5 X6and X8 X5 X6 and X8 only X8
Pile limit state
Actual Approximate Δ* Approximate Δ** Approximate
Δ**
limit state limit state limit state limit state
Probability of failure
1.594x10-4 1.644x10-4 3.14% 1.601x10-4 2.62% 1.079x10-4 34.4%
Standard error
3.878x10-5 1.19x10-6 5.562x10-6 2.189x10-7
70
Percent standard error
24.3 0.72 3.48 0.20
Percent success rate

43.2 44.9 44.9 43.5
Usage time (days)

45-60 7-10 5-7 3-5
*
Δ difference in result when comparing with result from actual limit state
**Δ difference in result when comparing with result from complete second order polynomial approximate limit state of all variables
**
The first , second , and third dominant variable is X8, X6 and X5, respectively
5) Comparison of complete second order polynomial approximate limit state and
first order second moment method
Results from first order second moment approximate method, which is a well-known
approximate method, is evaluated and compared with the complete second order
polynomial limit state. The comparison of result is tabulated as following,
Table 4.23: Comparison of complete second order polynomial approximate

limit state and first order second moment method
Probability of failure
Limit state Complete second order First order second moment
polynomial approximate limit state approximate method
Δ%
Deflection
6.508x10-4 5.068x10-4 22.1
limit state
Member element
4.417x10-6 1.151x10-6 73.9
limit state
Pile element
1.644x10-4 1.106x10-4 32.7
limit state
According to Table 4.23, for deflection limit state, results between these two method are
different significantly, i.e. 6.508x10-4 and 5.068x10-4 for complete and FOSM method. For
member element and pile element limit state, their results from complete second order
polynomial limit state are much different from first order second moment method because
these limit states are very complex. Therefore, approximate result from linear analysis, i.e.
FOSM, may not accurate enough.
In conclusion, the value of failure probability from this method is always much lower than
those of the complete second order polynomial limit state. Therefore, first order second
moment method is not suggested since its result is not conservative
71

CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION AND RECOMENDATION
5.1 Conclusions
Since structural reliability analysis based on the actual limit states is very complex leading
to time and cost consuming, approximate limit states are used for overcoming these
limitations. This study has presented numerical procedures for safety and reliability
analysis of conventional four-leg fixed offshore platform. One case study of four-leg fixed
offshore platform in the Gulf of Thailand is included in this study to demonstrate how to
apply safety and reliability analysis with an offshore structure and compare results between
those from approximate limit states and those from actual limit states.
In the study, The number of basic variable is 8 variables, i.e. wind speed, wave height,
current speed, yield strength of steel 35 ksi, yield strength of steel 36 ksi, yield strength of
steel 50 ksi, Young’s modulus of steel, and properties of soil foundation . These limit states
are calculated and presented in second order polynomial by using results from the
proposed procedure. Finally, probability of failure is evaluated by numerical procedures by
using complete second order polynomial as an approximate limit states.
According to the study of pile limit states, a rough estimate of failure probability of actual
limit state is 1.594x10-4. This result is evaluated from 1024 simulations due to time
constraint. For approximate limit states, probability of failure is evaluated from numerous
simulations, i.e. up to 1,000,000 simulations, which yield accurate results. From the study
of pile limit state, the value of failure probability from a complete second order polynomial
limit state is 1.644x10-4. Although the results from both methods are very close to each
other, time requirement for the proposed can be reduced considerably, i.e. from 45-60 days
to only 7-10 days. Therefore, this complete second order polynomial limit state is very
effective and can be applied with high confidence.
However, the computational effort can be further reduced by applying adaptive scheme to
determine an incomplete second order polynomial without significant loss of accuracy.
This adaptive procedure is a consideration of dominant variable analysis based on
sensitivity analysis with second order polynomial without mixed term. This adaptive
scheme yields an incomplete second order polynomial limit state. The results of an
incomplete second order polynomial limit state from adding only first two dominant
mixed-terms, i.e. X6X8 and X5X8, is 1.672x10-4, which is very close to those of complete
second order polynomial limit state. An estimated discrepancy of accuracy between these
two methods is only 4.9%.
To decrease complexity of the analysis, reduction in the number of basic variables can be
obtained by consideration only some dominant variables based on a sensitivity analysis.
The good result, i.e. 1.601x10-4, can still be obtained from complete second order
polynomial limit state considering only first three dominant variables, i.e. properties of soil
foundation, yield strength of pile steel 50ksi and 36ksi respectively. For complete second
order polynomial limit state considering the single most dominant variable, its result, i.e.
1.079x10-4, is much lower than previous result.
72

According to result from a previous procedure, the result from a consideration of first three
dominant variables, i.e. 1.601x10-4, is lower than the result from a consideration all
variables, i.e. 1.644x10-4. Therefore, although a reduction in variables can be reduced a
complexity of evaluation, the result is not conservative.
The result from first order second moment method, FOSM, also includes in the study. The
value of failure probability from this method is always much lower than those of the
complete second order polynomial limit state. Therefore, the first order second moment
method is, again, not conservative.
In conclusions, the complete second order polynomial limit state can be used to obtain
good estimates of failure probability. This method can be a promising optional choice to
calculate safety and reliability of fixed offshore platform. The time requirement of this
method is reduced considerably comparing with that of actual limit state method.
Moreover, the adaptive scheme of incomplete second order polynomial limit state can be
used for effort reduction and still give reasonable results.
5.2 Recommendations
Probability of failure in the case study is calculated from limitation of time, cost,
and historical data. Therefore, to get more accurate result, the following recommendations
are considered.
1. Environmental data gathering at actual location is required. Since each location

has a different environmental profile, using data from actual location is a key to get more
accurate result.
2. Both reliable source and sufficient historical data are necessary to obtain more
accurate result. Since this methodology is based on historical data, unreliable and
insufficient historical data are a main factor of an error.
3. Goodness-of-Fit test procedure is required to get the most appropriate
distribution function since environmental and steel properties in each location can be
varied time by time.
4. Soil properties variable should be separated independently to 3 variables, T-Z,
Q-Z, and P-Y to get more accurate result.
5. The value of a non actual point of reduce variable boundary should greater than
value of an actual point to prevent the wrong design point analysis.
5.3 Recommendations for further study
1. This study should be extended by separating soil properties to 3 independent

variable, T-Z, Q-Z, and P-Y.
2. This study can be extended by including an effect of seismic wave and fatigue.
73

BIBILOGRAPHY
A.Stacey, & J. S. (2007). Safety factor requirements for the offshore industry. Engineering
Failure Anakysis , 442-458.
American National Standard. (1972). American National Standard A58.1-1972. New York:
Am Nat Standards Inst.,.
American Petroleum Institute. (2009, Septemper 21). Retrieved October 15, 2009, from
http://www.api.org/aboutapi/
American Petroleum Institute. (2000). Recommended Practice for Planing, Designing and
Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms-Working Stress Design. Washington:
American Petroleum Institute.
Anderson, E. C. (1999). Monte Carlo Methods and Importance Sampling. In E. C.

Anderson, Lecture Notes for Stat 578C Statistical Genetics (pp. 1-8).
Chakrabati, S. (2005). Handbook of Offshore Engineering Volume I. Oxford: Elsevier Ltd.
Charulukhana, S. (1991). Characteristics of wave and shoreline change at Songkhla.

Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University.
Christensen, P. T., & J.Baker, M. (1982). Structural Reliability Theory and Its
Applications. Berlin: Rainbow-Bridge Book Co., Ltd.
Chu, P. C. Statistical Characteristics of the Global Ocean Surface Circulations From

Satellite Altimetry. California: Naval Postgraduate School.
Chumnummanee, A., & Photapirom, T. Wind Hydrology of Southern part of Thailand.
DEPARTMENT OF MINERAL FUELS. (n.d.). Retrieved October 15, 2009, from

http://www2.dmf.go.th/petro_focus/exploration.history.asp
DET NORSKE VERITAS. (2007). Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C205:

Environmental conditions and environmental laods.
E.Simiu, & N.A.Heckert. (1996). Extreme Wind Distribution Tail: A "Peaks over
Threshold" Approach. Structural Engineering , 539-547.
Green, J., & Stigebrandt, A. (2003). Statistical models and distributions of current
velocities with application to the prediction of extreme events. Estuarine, Coastal
and Shelf Science 58 , 601-609.
H.Dawson, T. (1983). Offshore structural engineering. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
H.S Ang, A., & H.Tang, W. (1975). Probability Concepts In Engineering Planing And
Design VolumeI -Basic Principle. Canada: John Wiley & Sins, Inc.
74

Hansanti, S. (2009). DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF OFFSHORE MINIMUM
STRUCTURES IN THE SOUTHERN GULF OF THAILAND. (Masters
dissertation on No. ST ...,Asian Institute of Technology, 2009) . Bangkok: Asian
Institute of Technology.
H-S.Ang, A., & H.Tang, W. (1984). Probability Concepts in Engineering Planing and
Design Volume II. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Inman, D. J., Farrar, C. R., Lopes, V., & Steffen, V. (2005). Damage Prognosis. England:
John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Mavron, V. C., & Philips, T. N. (2007). Elements of Mathematics for Economics and
Finance. Springer London.
Moan, T. (2009). Development of accidental collapse limit state criteria for offshore
structures. Structural Safety , 124-135.
Mori, N., Liu, P., & Yasuda, T. (2002). Analysis of freak waves measurements in the sea
of Japan. Ocean Engineering 29 , 1399-1414.
Ouypornprasert, W. (2009). Course Material of Structural Safety and Reliability of Fixed

Offshore Platform. Bangkok.
Ouypornprasert, W. (2009, November). How to assume structural steel properties properly.

(S. Charoenpornpanich, Interviewer)
R.Y.Rubinstein. (1981). Simulation and the Monte Carlo Method. John Wiley & Sons.
Sharp, V. (1979). Statistic for the social sciences. Littele Brown & Co (T).
Stansell, P. (2005). Distributions of extreme wave, crest and trough heights measured in
the North sea. Ocean Engineering 32 , 1015-1036.
Taylor, B. (2005, April 12). Retrieved Octoberr 16, 2009, from

economics.fundamentalfinance.com:
http://economics.fundamentalfinance.com/bootstrap.php
von Mises, R. (1964). Mathematical Theory of Probability and Statistics. New York:
Academic Press.
Wimuttasoongviriya, A., & Jirawacharadej, M. Wind speed for structural analysis and
design in Thailand.
Wimuttasoongwiriya, A., & Jirawachdej, M. Wind speed for structural analysis and design
in Thailand.
Wittwer, J. (2004, June 1). Monte Carlo Simulation Basics. Retrieved October 16, 2009,
fromVertex42: http://vertex42.com/ExcelArticles/mc/MonteCarloSimulation.html
75

APPENDIXES
76

APPENDIX A: COMPUTER CODE FOR EVALUATION OF
APPROXIMATE LIMIT STATES
77

1. Serviceability limit state
78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

2. Member element limit state
86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

3. Pile element limit state
98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

APPENDIX B: COMPUTER CODE FOR EVALUATION OF DESIGN
POINTOF VARIABLES
110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

APPENDIX C: COMPUTER CODE FOR EVALUATION OF
FAILURE PROBABILITY FROM APPROXIMATE LIMIT STATES
132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

4. Pile element limit state with dominant variables (x5 x6 and x8)
168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

5. Pile element limit state with only dominant variable (x8)
176

177

178

179

180

181

182

APPENDIX D: COMPUTER CODE FOR EVALUATION
OF FAILURE PROBABILITY FROM ACTUAL PILE ELEMENT
LIMIT STATES
183

1. Variable simulation reference and result
No. X1 X2 X3 X5 X6 X8 g (x) Result

1 28.6 13.3 0.918 45.3 60.4 0.294 0.777 Safe
2 30.5 14.2 0.932 39 64.7 0.203 - Fail
3 29.7 10.1 0.791 51.1 58.6 0.212 - Fail
4 34.5 13.2 0.589 41.8 47.2 0.143 - Fail
5 32.3 8.5 0.644 39.2 70.8 0.293 0.747 Safe
6 33.7 12.9 0.761 38 59.7 0.501 0.752 Safe
7 31.9 11.7 1.176 43.3 58.4 0.596 0.792 Safe
8 33.6 10.7 0.937 46.6 62.7 0.007 - Fail
9 27.6 9.3 1.171 47.2 76.6 0.063 - Fail
10 30.1 13 1.202 44.2 53.4 0.213 - Fail
11 29.3 10 1.030 40.6 59.4 0.357 0.76 Safe
12 32.7 9 1.113 47.1 60.5 0.180 - Fail
13 33.1 11.2 0.849 39.6 74.2 0.329 0.747 Safe
14 30.9 20.9 0.747 50.2 49.6 0.549 0.763 Safe
15 41.1 10.9 0.535 36.9 58.9 0.192 - Fail
16 31.8 20.5 0.471 43.7 59.4 0.352 0.763 Safe
17 37.6 9.9 0.783 50 64.2 0.028 - Fail
18 29.6 14.6 0.829 38.1 58.4 0.303 0.734 Safe
19 33.9 12 0.974 35 56.5 0.095 - Fail
20 37.2 10.2 0.972 36.9 49.6 0.474 0.74 Safe
21 31 11.7 0.779 36.4 58.1 0.346 0.729 Safe
22 36.5 10 0.796 41.5 61.4 0.340 0.758 Safe
23 30.5 10.1 1.049 40.6 53.6 0.048 - Fail
24 38.5 10.8 1.025 42.1 58.7 0.295 0.754 Safe
25 30.3 9.6 1.144 36.2 58.7 0.421 0.737 Safe
26 40 12.5 0.788 38.7 67.8 0.129 - Fail
27 36.9 12.5 0.924 40.8 68.6 0.441 0.759 Safe
28 31.7 13.7 0.722 46.4 56.7 0.479 0.796 Safe
29 34.7 9.9 0.947 42.7 68.3 0.426 0.774 Safe
30 37.4 11.9 0.937 46.9 71.2 0.320 0.781 Safe
31 34.7 7.3 0.906 45.4 67.4 0.156 - Fail
32 46.8 10 1.418 40 67.4 0.325 0.731 Safe
33 34.1 12.3 1.061 47.8 47.7 0.646 0.766 Safe
34 39.1 13.5 0.916 38.8 51.2 0.157 - Fail
35 37.9 9.8 0.949 41 73.1 0.332 0.753 Safe
36 34.9 13 0.804 42.1 61.9 0.191 - Fail
37 36.9 12.1 0.711 48.7 59.7 0.047 - Fail
38 34.4 10.6 0.788 52.2 61.7 0.795 0.823 Safe
39 38.9 8.6 0.589 35.8 59 0.090 - Fail
40 35.5 14.2 0.925 47.1 59.8 0.193 - Fail
41 40 11.1 0.902 38.6 59.4 0.331 0.733 Safe
42 33.8 8.3 0.810 43.4 54.4 0.246 -0.84 Fail
43 31.4 12.6 1.147 47.5 59.2 0.451 0.797 Safe
44 36.4 14.2 1.134 43.9 60.6 0.247 -1.249 Fail
45 33.6 16.8 0.755 42.2 67.2 0.389 0.76 Safe
46 35 12.1 1.446 41.6 54.2 0.269 0.165 Safe
47 39.1 11.3 1.118 41.8 56.3 0.029 - Fail
48 34.9 9.3 0.662 46.9 59.7 0.304 0.786 Safe
49 38.8 14.7 0.958 43.5 61.3 0.157 - Fail
50 28.6 10.2 1.025 42.1 54.2 0.304 0.764 Safe
184

51 32.2 20.7 0.750 53.8 53 0.493 0.776 Safe
52 35.5 12.5 0.899 41.1 58.8 0.468 0.765 Safe
53 35.3 11.9 0.586 47.2 69.1 0.222 - Fail
54 38.6 10.8 1.013 39.6 60.5 0.295 0.739 Safe
55 30 10.1 1.232 34.7 68.6 0.276 0.71 Safe
56 32.2 10.4 0.836 45.2 64.4 0.402 0.787 Safe
57 38.1 19 0.702 39.5 60.6 0.345 0.731 Safe
58 37.7 11.1 0.918 40.1 56.8 0.318 0.745 Safe
59 34.1 11.3 1.002 38.4 60.8 0.360 0.74 Safe
60 34.5 13.5 0.970 38.5 58.5 0.268 0.266 Safe
61 33.1 11.5 1.023 44.2 65.6 0.462 0.784 Safe
62 33.8 13.7 1.011 40.9 75.2 0.456 0.762 Safe
63 33.9 20.7 1.210 46.6 63.3 0.443 0.776 Safe
64 30.2 11.9 0.949 37.3 71.9 0.247 -0.909 Fail
65 31.4 9 0.630 42.9 57.2 0.298 0.77 Safe
66 38.5 18.5 1.042 43.7 67.5 0.308 0.753 Safe
67 32.7 15.3 0.976 45.5 61.6 0.348 0.776 Safe
68 37 10.7 1.056 45.9 55.2 0.600 0.801 Safe
69 34.6 7.5 1.105 42.3 70.2 0.053 - Fail
70 30.5 20 1.081 41.3 60.6 0.127 - Fail
71 35.6 10 1.037 41.9 53.2 0.379 0.764 Safe
72 29 16.1 0.474 50.7 60.1 0.361 0.804 Safe
73 34.7 13 0.846 44.8 61.9 0.482 0.786 Safe
74 28.9 13.8 1.032 43.9 59.4 0.158 - Fail
75 33.6 11.4 0.656 41.8 64.5 0.376 0.765 Safe
76 32.7 9.4 0.532 37.5 62.9 0.033 - Fail
77 31.4 17.6 0.805 35.2 58.6 0.266 0.068 Safe
78 34.4 9.7 0.824 39.8 56.8 0.381 0.754 Safe
79 34.5 10.5 0.838 44.2 61.6 0.203 - Fail
80 37.5 9.2 1.295 43 53.8 0.510 0.779 Safe
81 34.1 16 0.568 40.4 66 0.445 0.757 Safe
82 29.9 13.1 0.757 38.8 55.5 0.175 - Fail
83 39.5 14.9 0.873 46.8 66.9 0.557 0.794 Safe
84 33.9 11.6 0.864 33.6 60.2 0.039 - Fail
85 37.7 13.2 0.554 36 54.3 0.067 - Fail
86 32.2 11.3 0.985 37.9 63 0.050 - Fail
87 28.7 10.2 0.636 39.3 63 0.471 0.766 Safe
88 35.3 11.3 1.254 39 59.5 0.336 0.739 Safe
89 35.2 9.3 0.797 43.5 57.3 0.246 -0.867 Fail
90 37.7 16.6 0.679 50.5 64.3 0.276 0.391 Safe
91 37.2 10.4 0.935 38.4 55.9 0.497 0.753 Safe
92 28.7 14.7 1.517 38.9 73.9 0.336 0.737 Safe
93 35 11 0.857 45.6 60.6 0.371 0.783 Safe
94 37.1 16.8 0.747 51.2 68.9 0.509 0.809 Safe
95 37 13.5 1.107 43.4 46.8 0.120 - Fail
96 34.1 18.4 0.514 44 56.8 0.493 0.778 Safe
97 30 20 0.695 44.7 58.7 0.212 - Fail
98 36.6 10.6 1.188 48.2 53 0.110 - Fail
99 30.6 10.5 1.212 34.2 56.6 0.464 0.724 Safe
100 33.5 12.3 1.361 49.2 64.3 0.435 0.8 Safe
185

101 32.6 12.1 0.980 43.8 65.8 0.072 - Fail
102 39.9 11.9 0.809 40.1 65.9 0.503 0.759 Safe
103 38.4 11.2 1.110 46 48.6 0.274 0.292 Safe
104 41.2 17.1 1.154 48.7 49.2 0.385 0.751 Safe
105 30.3 8.7 0.954 48.3 55.6 0.180 - Fail
106 37.1 10.6 1.129 40.6 55 0.376 0.753 Safe
107 43.7 14.1 0.996 38.8 64.2 0.301 0.723 Safe
108 39.2 8.2 1.026 45.3 59.2 0.243 -1.21 Fail
109 32.7 13.3 0.946 45.2 53 0.041 - Fail
110 41.2 10.1 0.811 38 52.6 0.442 0.74 Safe
111 35 22.1 1.081 43.8 56.3 0.337 0.752 Safe
112 34.5 10.8 0.675 38.9 76 0.289 0.74 Safe
113 35.6 11.7 1.137 40.8 52.4 0.097 - Fail
114 27.2 10.9 1.106 37.8 57.5 0.109 - Fail
115 31.7 11.1 1.057 39.1 46.6 0.372 0.748 Safe
116 32.9 8.6 0.537 39.3 51.9 0.441 0.762 Safe
117 33.9 10.3 1.157 47.2 53.6 0.114 - Fail
118 43.2 19.6 0.679 42.5 65.4 0.219 - Fail
119 36.5 13.5 1.030 35.8 61.1 0.254 -0.719 Fail
120 37.6 18.7 0.958 44.6 62.3 0.278 0.264 Safe
121 35 11.2 0.983 43.3 58.5 0.332 0.767 Safe
122 31.6 12.1 0.962 40.9 61.6 0.071 - Fail
123 33.3 8.7 0.801 41.9 59.4 0.218 - Fail
124 42.7 14.5 0.978 47.7 55.9 0.050 - Fail
125 36.9 8.7 0.937 45.9 60.7 0.161 - Fail
126 36.8 10.2 0.687 46.5 63.2 0.505 0.798 Safe
127 34.7 11.2 0.974 45.6 65 0.152 - Fail
128 36.7 17.7 0.931 42 53.4 0.270 -0.054 Fail
129 30.7 10.4 1.089 44.4 52.2 0.306 0.775 Safe
130 35 9.4 0.815 53.6 57.4 0.212 - Fail
131 31.2 10.7 0.950 50.8 69.9 0.185 - Fail
132 36.9 6.9 1.025 39.6 64.3 0.093 - Fail
133 33.5 11.1 1.169 43.9 70 0.594 0.794 Safe
134 30.7 11.2 0.936 46 59.3 0.625 0.81 Safe
135 31.9 13.9 0.831 38.1 60.9 0.268 0.353 Safe
136 40.2 9.8 1.158 38.9 62.4 0.764 0.778 Safe
137 29.2 9.3 1.000 40.1 66.6 0.106 - Fail
138 35.3 9.3 0.878 38.9 67 0.114 - Fail
139 32.6 15.3 0.999 47.9 54.6 0.055 - Fail
140 30.2 7.1 1.080 40.3 53.5 0.364 0.762 Safe
141 34.4 22.5 0.973 43.8 66.6 0.222 - Fail
142 41.8 13.3 0.871 43.1 69.7 0.197 - Fail
143 31.6 8.4 1.038 45.6 58.3 0.439 0.794 Safe
144 31.9 9.9 0.921 44.5 60.1 0.353 0.779 Safe
145 42.2 9.6 0.472 48.6 58.7 0.090 - Fail
146 27.5 14.3 1.139 41.9 61 0.268 0.344 Safe
147 34.2 8.8 0.890 38.5 69.1 0.126 - Fail
148 37.1 11 1.032 36.2 55.4 0.373 0.722 Safe
149 36.8 12.3 0.931 42.4 61.2 0.076 - Fail
150 31.5 13.8 0.934 59.1 53.9 0.243 -1.356 Fail
186

151 28.8 12.4 0.802 37.6 78.3 0.307 0.735 Safe
152 33.4 11.5 1.156 40.2 65.1 0.422 0.757 Safe
153 34 10.2 0.812 44.1 59.8 0.068 - Fail
154 28.4 9.3 0.547 50.9 53 0.156 - Fail
155 32.1 13 0.660 46.9 62 0.109 - Fail
156 31.1 14.2 1.062 41.3 46.9 0.473 0.752 Safe
157 36 9.1 0.767 44 59.9 0.221 - Fail
158 34.8 8.8 1.010 44.7 51.9 0.270 0.745 Safe
159 30.6 11 0.709 43.9 56.9 0.446 0.786 Safe
160 37.1 9.7 0.956 47.8 54.2 0.399 0.794 Safe
161 35.3 7.5 0.993 48.7 59.6 0.201 - Fail
162 35.4 15.2 0.680 46.3 65 0.324 0.778 Safe
163 29.7 11 0.446 46.1 62.4 0.244 -0.6 Fail
164 28.8 11.6 0.738 40.9 58.7 0.278 0.756 Safe
165 29.4 8.6 0.999 40.4 83.7 0.167 - Fail
166 37.7 16.9 0.948 41 61 0.265 -0.092 Fail
167 40.3 13.2 1.145 44.2 70.5 0.292 0.76 Safe
168 36.7 10.7 0.899 53.6 64.2 0.556 0.828 Safe
169 40 12.5 0.663 40.7 64.8 0.136 - Fail
170 25.9 12.4 0.798 40.9 58 0.324 0.76 Safe
171 31.4 18.2 1.145 43.1 50.6 0.357 0.759 Safe
172 39.4 13.2 0.999 40.5 59.1 0.226 - Fail
173 36.5 14.3 0.932 38.7 58.3 0.111 - Fail
174 29.7 11.7 0.866 43.7 59.5 0.452 0.784 Safe
175 31.7 12.1 0.912 42 62.1 0.269 0.444 Safe
176 32.1 15.1 1.009 37.6 58.4 0.242 -1.892 Fail
177 33.6 7.3 0.647 47.8 75.5 0.153 - Fail
178 27.3 16.4 1.011 44.7 58.1 0.317 0.772 Safe
179 39.1 12.4 0.801 41 61.7 0.068 - Fail
180 32.4 14.2 1.089 40.5 58.1 0.307 0.746 Safe
181 33 8.8 1.235 42.3 61.3 0.210 - Fail
182 32 12.7 0.850 47.5 56.2 0.461 0.799 Safe
183 32.9 16.1 0.751 40.5 62.8 0.249 -1.016 Fail
184 32.9 10.6 0.708 37.6 57.5 0.614 0.766 Safe
185 32.2 10.4 0.563 41.4 48.7 0.068 - Fail
186 42.7 13.3 0.711 42.7 63 0.201 - Fail
187 32.9 11 1.260 43 52.8 0.543 0.785 Safe
188 30.5 10.2 0.781 43.6 70.1 0.335 0.775 Safe
189 30.7 11.8 1.007 46.9 59 0.236 - Fail
190 34 10.7 0.423 39.3 55.5 0.523 0.767 Safe
191 35.5 13.2 0.995 37.2 59.4 0.148 - Fail
192 37 8.3 0.911 44.7 58.1 0.189 - Fail
193 32.5 11.5 0.788 39.6 48.9 0.528 0.768 Safe
194 30.4 13.9 1.030 42.8 59.9 0.198 - Fail
195 36.2 9.4 1.114 44.5 65.6 0.210 - Fail
196 32.9 12.9 1.171 39.5 63.6 0.361 0.745 Safe
197 31.1 6.6 0.898 39 53.9 0.057 - Fail
198 32.6 14.1 0.916 45.6 61.1 0.184 - Fail
199 40.1 10.9 1.222 43 66.9 0.426 0.767 Safe
200 39 8.3 0.822 50.3 61.6 0.389 0.803 Safe
187

201 36.1 12.4 0.970 46.3 56.2 0.339 0.78 Safe
202 41 9.1 0.662 49 60.5 0.246 1.011 Safe
203 30.9 8.8 1.012 39.9 74.8 0.610 0.782 Safe
204 29.1 9.1 0.917 39.6 65.8 0.208 - Fail
205 30.5 15.6 0.982 43.6 50.5 0.158 - Fail
206 32.4 10.1 0.872 39.2 65.2 0.285 0.744 Safe
207 30.9 16.8 1.420 48.6 64 0.101 - Fail
208 34.1 11.3 0.654 39.4 57.2 0.135 - Fail
209 29.4 11 0.775 36.3 55.3 0.335 0.729 Safe
210 27 15.2 0.952 50 49.3 0.156 - Fail
211 33.4 11.6 0.964 50.8 54.6 0.084 - Fail
212 41.6 11.6 0.780 47.5 50.3 0.088 - Fail
213 32.1 10.6 1.394 50.3 54.5 0.340 0.785 Safe
214 27.2 15.1 0.560 43.1 61.5 0.357 0.771 Safe
215 36.5 11.2 0.668 46.1 59.6 0.785 0.819 Safe
216 34.8 12.1 1.516 42.1 53.3 0.229 - Fail
217 38.5 12.1 0.812 52.8 50.5 0.087 - Fail
218 36.1 9.9 0.772 43.9 71.2 0.492 0.786 Safe
219 33.6 14.4 0.660 45.4 61 0.621 0.802 Safe
220 34.1 10.6 0.994 44.8 49.5 0.225 - Fail
221 32.2 10.8 0.932 37.4 53.5 0.488 0.75 Safe
222 32.5 8.2 1.213 43.5 49.2 0.101 - Fail
223 29.7 14.3 0.962 44.6 65.5 0.403 0.78 Safe
224 30.9 17.4 1.314 46.9 57.6 0.369 0.78 Safe
225 37.3 15 0.916 47.1 44.7 0.332 0.732 Safe
226 27.5 9.6 0.871 45.6 59.1 0.242 - Fail
227 36.8 14.7 1.129 47.9 61.2 0.346 0.783 Safe
228 34.1 12.3 1.196 45.2 48.9 0.150 - Fail
229 31.9 9.8 1.139 46.3 54.1 0.311 0.784 Safe
230 33.9 7.5 1.198 43.2 61.4 0.047 - Fail
231 37.6 18.6 1.102 41.5 61.9 0.008 - Fail
232 35.7 9 1.174 44 56.9 0.521 0.788 Safe
233 36 15.1 0.956 37.6 49.9 0.015 - Fail
234 38.2 11.9 0.555 44.5 53.4 0.436 0.78 Safe
235 34.7 12.5 0.848 35.8 61.1 0.483 0.734 Safe
236 33 10.6 0.821 46.9 60.8 0.148 - Fail
237 37.2 11.8 0.727 37.2 57.1 0.404 0.734 Safe
238 31.7 9.4 0.567 42.1 54.2 0.259 0.164 Safe
239 41.3 9.8 1.122 46.2 63.4 0.210 - Fail
240 32.5 12.1 1.195 38.5 53.4 0.181 - Fail
241 30.4 12.7 0.619 51.5 55.2 0.745 0.803 Safe
242 33.3 8.3 0.997 46.1 51.5 0.134 - Fail
243 37.5 14.3 0.943 45.2 59.4 0.320 0.77 Safe
244 33.4 12.8 0.750 44.3 67.2 0.272 0.763 Safe
245 36.9 8.8 0.966 42 52.6 0.129 - Fail
246 35 17.5 1.081 44.4 63.9 0.191 - Fail
247 36 9.3 1.031 55.3 60.5 0.187 - Fail
248 36.1 14.2 1.020 49.3 58.8 0.400 0.795 Safe
249 29.9 13.7 1.126 44.6 52.8 0.380 0.777 Safe
250 33.6 13.2 0.756 40.6 62.5 0.230 - Fail
188

251 30.3 12.3 0.753 39.3 52.9 0.376 0.751 Safe
252 31.1 12.2 1.058 49.2 57.9 0.438 0.805 Safe
253 32.8 15.8 1.083 46.2 76.3 0.187 - Fail
254 34.3 9.5 1.086 47.6 57.4 0.486 0.802 Safe
255 34.6 11.5 0.964 40.1 58.8 0.351 0.75 Safe
256 39.7 14.8 0.696 40.6 65.5 0.412 0.75 Safe
257 38.1 10.1 1.110 48.1 50.1 0.308 0.764 Safe
258 38.2 12.3 1.048 44 62.8 0.330 0.765 Safe
259 42.7 12 0.980 45.5 55.2 0.425 0.776 Safe
260 36.9 10.3 0.709 43.6 53 0.719 0.79 Safe
261 37.4 9.6 1.160 43.6 58.3 0.295 0.764 Safe
262 29.1 9.2 1.087 42 60.3 0.281 0.763 Safe
263 35.1 9.3 0.876 47.5 55.7 0.153 - Fail
264 33.6 10.3 1.148 36.7 50.9 0.535 0.749 Safe
265 36.3 9.3 0.550 41.1 75.2 0.087 - Fail
266 34.2 10.2 0.762 54.2 57.6 0.256 0.008 Safe
267 34.3 11.9 0.868 42 61.7 0.141 - Fail
268 43.4 11 1.334 43.1 54.8 0.139 - Fail
269 31 9.4 0.867 46.4 58.5 0.468 0.8 Safe
270 35.9 8.8 1.097 45.1 70.6 0.115 - Fail
271 30.8 12.6 0.696 35 61.3 0.302 0.713 Safe
272 33.2 16 0.890 42.4 62 0.175 - Fail
273 30.9 15.3 0.850 46.6 57.4 0.424 0.79 Safe
274 33.2 9.9 1.107 48.2 51.1 0.089 - Fail
275 37 11.1 1.010 43 54.4 0.181 - Fail
276 33.7 6.6 1.034 48.8 55.6 0.138 - Fail
277 35.5 15.7 0.950 40.5 60.3 0.242 -1.905 Fail
278 28.4 9.2 0.927 50.7 61.4 0.435 0.816 Safe
279 41.5 19.6 0.741 37 72.5 0.096 - Fail
280 33.7 9.2 0.881 46.8 59.6 0.318 0.787 Safe
281 36.4 12.3 0.888 35.5 64.5 0.693 0.753 Safe
282 32.3 9.8 1.045 38.6 50.2 0.201 - Fail
283 34.9 8.8 0.997 39.9 61.1 0.354 0.752 Safe
284 31.6 13.9 0.517 44.9 54.7 0.396 0.782 Safe
285 38.5 10.8 0.747 42.8 62.1 0.209 - Fail
286 37.6 7.1 1.032 37.8 54.8 0.348 0.736 Safe
287 31.3 6.3 0.905 39.1 66.2 0.117 - Fail
288 30.8 18.3 1.041 39.9 65.8 0.308 0.737 Safe
289 31.9 8.9 0.967 37.4 57 0.036 - Fail
290 36.5 10.3 0.708 44.9 56.2 0.336 0.776 Safe
291 40.1 8.5 0.839 36.6 60.7 0.485 0.738 Safe
292 31.6 11.4 0.578 40.6 61.1 0.199 - Fail
293 24.3 14.3 0.816 36.7 55.7 0.092 - Fail
294 31.6 13.6 0.922 39.6 57 0.249 -0.79 Fail
295 31.1 9.3 1.046 42.3 52.3 0.300 0.764 Safe
296 35.2 10.8 1.169 45.8 65.8 0.536 0.796 Safe
297 40.6 9.3 0.778 39.1 67.1 0.579 0.764 Safe
298 31.8 15.8 1.034 37.1 56.4 0.227 - Fail
299 30.2 12 0.508 42.1 57.1 0.186 - Fail
300 33.6 14.3 0.906 38.7 65 0.231 - Fail
189

301 29.3 13 0.934 40.6 58.3 0.142 - Fail
302 39.3 11.6 0.785 40.9 65.9 0.250 -0.884 Fail
303 41.1 25.6 0.641 42.7 71.3 0.069 - Fail
304 36.5 10.6 0.846 36.4 55.6 0.576 0.749 Safe
305 26.6 16.7 0.875 47.1 53.2 0.379 0.789 Safe
306 36.6 17.1 0.620 43.2 60.8 0.290 0.756 Safe
307 29.3 13.8 0.755 40 63.9 0.521 0.769 Safe
308 29.8 8.7 0.625 38.8 51.1 0.333 0.75 Safe
309 36 10.4 0.886 39.8 55.3 0.105 - Fail
310 41.6 11.1 0.685 47.5 53.1 0.378 0.786 Safe
311 29 10.1 0.653 44.3 61.4 0.092 - Fail
312 41.6 12.5 0.542 48.4 59.1 0.350 0.787 Safe
313 30.7 9.6 0.874 40.2 69.2 0.209 - Fail
314 32 16.6 0.482 39.7 58.5 0.421 0.752 Safe
315 34.8 11.7 0.646 45.3 56.8 0.362 0.781 Safe
316 29.7 9.5 1.361 44.3 68.8 0.520 0.793 Safe
317 30.9 13.7 1.009 42.8 58.9 0.237 -1.722 Fail
318 33.4 10.3 1.027 45.1 55.8 0.517 0.795 Safe
319 29.5 11.5 1.043 41.6 52.9 0.173 - Fail
320 30.3 12 0.863 45.2 55.9 0.183 - Fail
321 32.1 10.6 0.870 41.1 67.5 0.164 - Fail
322 30.1 8.7 1.048 38.9 61.6 0.800 0.794 Safe
323 34.6 10.2 0.706 41.7 61.6 0.460 0.773 Safe
324 32.2 11.2 1.210 41.2 61.2 0.342 0.757 Safe
325 33.1 12 0.660 38.5 71.4 0.132 - Fail
326 30.7 18.7 0.932 48.7 55.4 0.310 0.785 Safe
327 34.2 9.7 0.641 41.5 62.2 0.382 0.765 Safe
328 38.8 10.2 0.258 40.9 60.1 0.517 0.772 Safe
329 36.5 13.6 0.404 40.6 63.1 0.236 - Fail
330 32.2 9.1 1.086 47.7 62.4 0.186 - Fail
331 34.5 13.1 0.827 41.9 49.1 0.419 0.766 Safe
332 35.5 11 0.736 37.8 62.7 0.371 0.738 Safe
333 35.5 13.9 1.141 49.3 51.6 0.234 - Fail
334 33.4 14.8 1.060 42.6 70.3 0.064 - Fail
335 40 12.6 0.813 35 56 0.063 - Fail
336 32.5 13.2 1.010 52.1 53.8 0.184 - Fail
337 34.4 14 1.007 41.3 46.5 0.433 0.761 Safe
338 30.3 15.7 1.316 41.9 70.8 0.608 0.78 Safe
339 36.9 11.1 0.540 42.1 66.2 0.343 0.761 Safe
340 28.3 11.1 0.884 40 65.2 0.639 0.785 Safe
341 29.9 8.6 1.109 48 76.8 0.443 0.805 Safe
342 33.8 11.8 1.055 38 62.4 0.195 - Fail
343 36.1 15.6 0.887 39.2 50.6 0.250 -1.254 Fail
344 32.3 14.3 0.822 35.5 58.9 0.159 - Fail
345 37.6 13.6 1.051 39.8 52.7 0.060 - Fail
346 31.7 11.9 1.017 40.8 61.7 0.312 0.753 Safe
347 32.2 12.9 0.771 35.4 69.3 0.040 - Fail
348 30.4 14.3 0.746 36.7 59.5 0.376 0.731 Safe
349 34.1 12.5 0.541 38.1 50.8 0.255 -0.272 Fail
350 27.7 8.5 0.475 46.1 69.5 0.239 -0.616 Fail
190

351 30.6 11.9 1.238 40.7 69.7 0.284 0.75 Safe
352 29.6 11.9 0.939 37.8 62.1 0.199 - Fail
353 27.7 11.4 0.901 41.9 58.8 0.275 0.762 Safe
354 40.3 14.9 0.680 53.3 61.9 0.534 0.818 Safe
355 35.5 15.5 0.986 51.8 56.2 0.231 - Fail
356 39.5 11.8 0.902 51.6 51.3 0.190 - Fail
357 34.5 13.9 0.510 43 56.4 0.827 0.808 Safe
358 35.3 12.4 1.180 42.1 56.8 0.021 - Fail
359 36.8 10.1 1.313 35.8 48.2 0.073 - Fail
360 36.6 16.7 0.952 42.9 47.8 0.017 - Fail
361 34.2 10.6 1.092 45.2 49.8 0.333 0.765 Safe
362 29.5 10.4 0.337 41.2 58 0.382 0.769 Safe
363 30.6 12.4 1.155 42 56.6 0.091 - Fail
364 36.1 10.4 0.881 43.3 60.3 0.088 - Fail
365 38.3 14.7 0.937 41.5 65 0.257 -0.36 Fail
366 26.6 10.7 0.985 44.5 69.7 0.314 0.779 Safe
367 39.9 12.9 0.891 51.6 57.6 0.208 - Fail
368 31.4 11.6 0.635 54 61.2 0.567 0.817 Safe
369 30.2 12.5 1.145 42 55.5 0.019 - Fail
370 34.5 10.3 0.479 46.1 62.2 0.336 0.785 Safe
371 32.8 9.5 1.335 39.8 72.4 0.599 0.775 Safe
372 40.3 10.2 0.702 43.9 50.8 0.173 - Fail
373 29.5 16.2 0.826 43.9 60.4 0.036 - Fail
374 33.5 11.6 1.045 42 60.5 0.119 - Fail
375 34.3 9.2 0.639 49.9 50 0.091 - Fail
376 37.1 12.3 0.661 40 59 0.299 0.743 Safe
377 34.8 9.9 1.203 42.5 59.2 0.099 - Fail
378 30.9 9.4 1.027 48.8 59.2 0.585 0.819 Safe
379 39.6 13.8 0.782 44.8 58.2 0.401 0.773 Safe
380 36.7 15.6 1.102 37.1 53.5 0.391 0.723 Safe
381 42 12.3 0.597 41.5 54.7 0.137 - Fail
382 32.9 7.7 0.306 43.2 58.1 0.283 0.771 Safe
383 33.8 12.9 0.744 47.8 54.9 0.441 0.798 Safe
384 41.3 13.6 1.151 40.1 68.6 0.264 0.053 Safe
385 36.7 12.9 0.983 43.8 57.5 0.112 - Fail
386 32.5 12.5 0.994 37.9 58.5 0.275 0.729 Safe
387 29.3 12.3 0.997 38.7 66.5 0.213 - Fail
388 36.4 11.3 0.829 45.7 53.4 0.109 - Fail
389 32.5 9.3 0.969 39.9 63.9 0.204 - Fail
390 27 11.3 0.611 45.3 51.8 0.100 - Fail
391 35.6 13.3 1.112 30.2 50.1 0.400 0.667 Safe
392 35.1 16.6 0.676 37.1 58.8 0.177 - Fail
393 31.1 12 1.296 43.9 57.6 0.315 0.769 Safe
394 38.4 9.3 0.761 40.9 63.4 0.444 0.763 Safe
395 33.9 11.4 1.064 42.2 58.6 0.128 - Fail
396 33.7 7.7 1.029 43.6 60.2 0.263 0.324 Safe
397 33.9 16.7 0.768 43.9 52.6 0.233 - Fail
398 31.3 9.1 0.928 45.6 57.6 0.268 0.779 Safe
399 42.5 12.9 0.774 46.7 66.4 0.078 - Fail
400 35.5 14.4 0.737 43.7 55.2 0.241 -1.747 Fail
191

401 29.3 10.9 0.992 40.7 58.2 0.200 - Fail
402 34.8 12.9 0.811 39.8 59.3 0.701 0.782 Safe
403 28.5 12 0.852 44.7 57.6 0.476 0.792 Safe
404 34.6 16.9 1.132 35.8 54.2 0.378 0.7111 Safe
405 37.9 13.1 0.929 46.4 54.4 0.170 - Fail
406 35.1 10.1 0.922 48.5 60 0.211 - Fail
407 38.7 10.4 0.954 39.3 58.5 0.434 0.75 Safe
408 29.6 10.7 0.956 40.7 58.1 0.160 - Fail
409 38.1 11 1.076 38.7 54.5 0.019 - Fail
410 29.1 12.4 1.107 37.3 54.7 0.137 - Fail
411 35.6 10.5 0.652 44.2 60 0.176 - Fail
412 32.5 10.1 0.906 39.6 58.4 0.165 - Fail
413 30.3 14.7 0.709 47.3 59.7 0.588 0.809 Safe
414 30.3 11.8 1.083 46.5 56.6 0.309 0.784 Safe
415 38.2 12.1 0.714 38.7 53.4 0.526 0.755 Safe
416 36 12.5 0.589 38.8 55 0.244 -1.274 Fail
417 30 15.3 1.253 37.1 58.5 0.076 - Fail
418 29.6 14.6 0.555 39 59 0.099 - Fail
419 31.2 13.5 1.283 43.6 56.8 0.111 - Fail
420 38.8 8.9 0.685 47.6 72.6 0.397 0.793 Safe
421 35.7 10.8 1.111 48.5 47.7 0.054 - Fail
422 38 11.3 0.386 45.4 62 0.019 - Fail
423 33.1 9.4 0.785 44.5 60.2 0.249 -0.441 Fail
424 36.4 14.6 1.257 41.7 50.8 0.411 0.756 Safe
425 29.6 11.2 1.201 46.6 60.6 0.284 0.783 Safe
426 35.6 13.4 0.651 40.3 54.5 0.293 0.745 Safe
427 35.8 9 0.979 45.1 58.9 0.605 0.802 Safe
428 34.5 12.4 0.576 44.7 56.6 0.349 0.776 Safe
429 28.6 9.7 1.282 45.8 66 0.410 0.791 Safe
430 41.2 10.7 0.696 43.2 56.9 0.396 0.767 Safe
431 31.8 21.3 0.875 39.3 60.3 0.402 0.735 Safe
432 33.4 10.1 0.846 40.6 65.2 0.364 0.758 Safe
433 38.6 8.3 0.852 43.8 68.6 0.298 0.767 Safe
434 35.1 11 0.724 42.2 62.9 0.713 0.798 Safe
435 30.4 18.1 0.904 44.1 53.8 0.430 0.773 Safe
436 35.5 10.1 0.436 43.7 58.5 0.020 - Fail
437 28.7 17.1 1.120 47.3 55.8 0.389 0.787 Safe
438 38.2 7.8 0.468 39.1 55.6 0.433 0.755 Safe
439 39 12.4 0.757 42.4 59.7 0.375 0.761 Safe
440 37.4 16.1 0.753 43.6 59.2 0.332 0.761 Safe
441 34.4 9.9 1.017 47.3 62.7 0.299 0.786 Safe
442 31.7 12.9 0.965 55 66.8 0.109 - Fail
443 38 10.9 0.594 39.1 56.6 0.078 - Fail
444 38.5 11.1 0.973 43.9 67.2 0.366 0.769 Safe
445 34.2 9.1 0.861 42 51.4 0.380 0.768 Safe
446 35.2 8.5 0.693 40.9 65.7 0.373 0.761 Safe
447 32.4 9.5 0.969 39.9 54 0.424 0.76 Safe
448 35.4 12.1 0.956 52.9 58.5 0.234 - Fail
449 36.8 7.6 0.758 40.6 67.9 0.473 0.768 Safe
450 30.1 9.9 0.822 38 62 0.022 - Fail
192

451 32.5 9.8 0.607 44.9 58.1 0.510 0.796 Safe
452 32.5 12.9 0.999 47 63.6 0.591 0.807 Safe
453 36 8.5 0.354 44.8 65.7 0.255 0.151 Safe
454 30.3 11.1 1.320 37.7 74.8 0.087 - Fail
455 30.8 10.2 1.259 44.9 63 0.026 - Fail
456 32 12.7 1.147 43.9 54.6 0.056 - Fail
457 38.6 9.8 0.971 42.4 61.5 0.504 0.776 Safe
458 31.6 10.7 1.243 45.7 54.8 0.121 - Fail
459 38.8 10.8 0.896 39.2 52.1 0.238 -2.049 Fail
460 29.6 12.9 0.860 41.1 70.6 0.207 - Fail
461 36.6 10.1 0.907 38.3 52.4 0.167 - Fail
462 33.5 15.2 0.820 43.9 50.6 0.331 0.767 Safe
463 32.2 13.3 0.797 43.2 62.8 0.686 0.8 Safe
464 34.8 12.9 1.319 41.5 48.6 0.203 - Fail
465 33.9 11.4 0.716 46.4 72.4 0.157 - Fail
466 30.9 11.2 0.961 44.2 65 0.205 - Fail
467 39.2 8.9 1.027 47.6 64.4 0.264 0.234 Safe
468 37.5 11.2 0.947 41.1 59.7 0.268 0.283 Safe
469 36.1 8.4 1.176 41.5 62.8 0.299 0.755 Safe
470 27.1 15.7 0.309 43.4 64.4 0.481 0.785 Safe
471 34.8 10.6 0.750 43.8 57.6 0.293 0.769 Safe
472 29.6 9 0.655 40.7 52.8 0.309 0.759 Safe
473 33.4 10.2 0.739 40.9 53.1 0.434 0.767 Safe
474 35.7 8.6 1.147 45.1 62.2 0.074 - Fail
475 34.3 12.5 0.982 47.2 57.7 0.403 0.791 Safe
476 33.6 13.5 0.921 40.3 60.8 0.680 0.782 Safe
477 34.8 12 1.139 38.4 67.5 0.433 0.745 Safe
478 35.6 22.9 1.312 39 56.9 0.279 -0.117 Fail
479 38.8 15.3 0.665 40.5 51.4 0.288 0.74 Safe
480 27.2 14.9 1.002 45.5 63.8 0.317 0.778 Safe
481 27.7 7.6 0.859 45.4 69.5 0.211 - Fail
482 33.3 10.1 0.937 42 62.5 0.220 - Fail
483 36.3 13 0.511 48.1 68.8 0.123 - Fail
484 32.5 9.8 1.094 46.5 64 0.287 0.783 Safe
485 34 13.1 0.833 46.7 57.5 0.356 0.785 Safe
486 32.7 10.7 0.807 42.1 65.5 0.500 0.78 Safe
487 38.4 15.3 0.843 42.3 51.2 0.538 0.771 Safe
488 39.8 9.7 0.619 45 51.3 0.329 0.774 Safe
489 34.4 11.8 0.911 44.6 47.3 0.085 - Fail
490 30 11.2 0.651 39.5 58 0.116 - Fail
491 34.6 7.6 0.968 51 58.4 0.456 0.804 Safe
492 34 13.2 1.043 39.9 58.2 0.528 0.764 Safe
493 33 11.9 0.903 36.6 72.2 0.389 0.731 Safe
494 36.2 9.4 0.891 44.8 64.5 0.587 0.799 Safe
495 29.2 19.5 1.205 39.7 59.3 0.335 0.735 Safe
496 34.7 13.4 1.067 38.3 54.3 0.308 0.731 Safe
497 27.3 9.8 0.773 50.3 59.3 0.311 0.806 Safe
498 34.9 12.7 1.153 38.7 57.9 0.060 - Fail
499 36.2 10.4 0.690 42.3 49.9 0.424 0.771 Safe
500 39.9 10.3 0.797 48.3 62.6 0.346 0.789 Safe
193

501 30.8 12.4 1.012 42.7 57.5 0.012 - Fail
502 35.5 8.8 0.624 43.3 58.4 0.202 - Fail
503 33.7 15.2 1.081 45.9 54.4 0.646 0.802 Safe
504 30.9 19.5 1.275 39 76.2 0.322 0.727 Safe
505 27.6 10.6 0.744 36.7 67.9 0.339 0.735 Safe
506 32.6 12.4 1.351 39.4 63 0.246 -1.302 Fail
507 33.1 13.7 1.095 45 48.8 0.392 0.759 Safe
508 36.5 8 0.956 38.2 60.5 0.381 0.743 Safe
509 35.7 19.2 0.937 35.8 49.7 0.513 0.721 Safe
510 26.2 9.7 1.131 40.1 60.1 0.385 0.762 Safe
511 35.8 10.7 0.876 40.8 63.4 0.141 - Fail
512 38.4 18.9 1.230 41.7 69.9 0.539 0.758 Safe
513 35.4 11.7 0.826 39.4 58.7 0.371 0.747 Safe
514 32.7 11.5 0.808 39.6 66.7 0.310 0.746 Safe
515 41.3 14.8 0.706 42.5 73.7 0.328 0.752 Safe
516 29.2 10.9 1.058 47.1 67.2 0.069 - Fail
517 39.5 11.6 1.384 47.2 50.7 0.035 - Fail
518 41.8 11.9 0.606 37.5 59.3 0.479 0.738 Safe
519 36.6 11.4 0.530 39.6 57.1 0.515 0.764 Safe
520 34 7.1 1.337 49.6 69.4 0.465 0.81 Safe
521 33.4 8.7 1.242 41.1 60.5 0.371 0.761 Safe
522 30.9 10.8 1.307 48.2 61.2 0.352 0.793 Safe
523 38.1 12.1 0.820 48.1 61.1 0.088 - Fail
524 34.7 12.2 1.100 39.8 52.8 0.015 - Fail
525 39.3 9.1 1.345 41.1 73.6 0.244 -1.458 Fail
526 31.3 10.6 1.339 42.3 61.6 0.425 0.772 Safe
527 39.4 11.8 0.893 39.3 62.9 0.074 - Fail
528 35.4 12.8 0.974 41.9 69.2 0.073 - Fail
529 35.4 8.2 0.764 47.3 68.8 0.194 - Fail
530 34.5 8.1 0.921 46.4 55.8 0.167 - Fail
531 35.3 9.4 1.032 51.1 71.5 0.467 0.814 Safe
532 36 12.2 0.603 48.6 59.4 0.291 0.79 Safe
533 32.6 13 0.501 45.4 57.6 0.206 - Fail
534 35.7 9.1 1.473 39.9 63.9 0.295 0.743 Safe
535 35.3 11.3 1.079 41.6 55 0.279 0.752 Safe
536 35.2 19.4 0.613 54.4 67.1 0.459 0.815 Safe
537 40 14.8 1.350 49.3 61.5 0.146 - Fail
538 36.4 9.5 1.304 49.2 64.1 0.061 - Fail
539 28.4 13.6 1.431 36 60.9 0.239 -2.189 Fail
540 36.6 11.1 0.680 40 71.6 0.699 0.784 Safe
541 34.5 9.1 1.188 47 61.5 0.367 0.789 Safe
542 36.1 16.2 0.509 42.6 71.6 0.635 0.786 Safe
543 34.7 12.9 1.248 44.9 62 0.319 0.771 Safe
544 35.4 10.3 1.018 45.7 65.3 0.357 0.782 Safe
545 33.5 10.6 0.929 42.8 58 0.003 - Fail
546 37.2 14.3 0.857 42.2 73.3 0.224 - Fail
547 34.2 12.3 1.129 45.7 61.5 0.225 - Fail
548 34.5 10.2 1.180 40.9 59.5 0.266 0.303 Safe
549 33.1 12 0.840 45.4 62.5 0.315 0.778 Safe
550 36.8 11.1 1.118 42.4 58.4 0.175 - Fail
194

551 34.7 14.7 0.451 43.3 56.4 0.239 -1.685 Fail
552 38.3 15.2 1.222 43.1 70.1 0.508 0.77 Safe
553 34 10.9 1.053 44 65.3 0.472 0.784 Safe
554 31.1 11 0.878 38.8 59.9 0.208 - Fail
555 37.9 10.4 1.057 44.9 56 0.105 - Fail
556 35 9.2 0.461 34.7 64.1 0.422 0.725 Safe
557 30.5 11.4 1.137 46.3 60.5 0.127 - Fail
558 35.8 15.4 0.914 50.3 69.9 0.139 - Fail
559 27.4 10.3 0.897 39.6 50.5 0.337 0.754 Safe
560 31.7 12.1 0.533 46.2 53.4 0.490 0.788 Safe
561 32 13.4 0.351 40.1 58.5 0.352 0.753 Safe
562 38.4 13.4 0.919 38.1 59.4 0.129 - Fail
563 35.1 7.8 0.786 40.2 48.3 0.329 0.754 Safe
564 33.6 8.2 1.272 41 48.1 0.330 0.757 Safe
565 29.6 10.8 1.147 40.2 64.9 0.473 0.767 Safe
566 40.7 8.6 0.557 44.3 61.8 0.201 - Fail
567 31.4 11.9 1.039 47.4 50.4 0.300 0.767 Safe
568 35.1 12.7 1.072 44.9 51.1 0.107 - Fail
569 35.6 12.7 1.142 32.1 55.7 0.158 - Fail
570 40.1 9.8 1.257 39.8 50.6 0.079 - Fail
571 28.8 8.1 0.945 33.6 60.6 0.184 - Fail
572 32.1 9.3 0.898 42.9 61 0.371 0.773 Safe
573 29.3 8.5 0.817 41.5 54.6 0.067 - Fail
574 34.1 17.2 0.562 51.9 56.3 0.628 0.801 Safe
575 32.8 10.1 0.831 50.3 53.9 0.204 - Fail
576 31 14.3 0.736 42 64.6 0.276 0.756 Safe
577 30.8 14.3 1.231 43.2 54 0.330 0.764 Safe
578 28.9 17 0.494 39.6 65.6 0.278 0.741 Safe
579 35 9.3 0.867 48.5 56.7 0.570 0.801 Safe
580 31.9 10.8 1.088 42.4 65.2 0.137 - Fail
581 39.8 9.7 1.136 43.8 57.3 0.546 0.784 Safe
582 29.2 9.2 0.693 46.3 61.5 0.347 0.791 Safe
583 29.8 13.1 0.383 40 54.8 0.405 0.76 Safe
584 33 14.4 0.822 47.1 66.6 0.212 - Fail
585 34.4 12.7 0.550 45.7 52.5 0.751 0.791 Safe
586 35.1 21.6 1.300 39.3 51.5 0.269 -0.516 Fail
587 26.6 14.1 0.850 42 58.9 0.374 0.767 Safe
588 35.2 12.8 0.844 43.2 54.2 0.202 - Fail
589 38.2 11.9 0.897 36.6 61.4 0.294 0.717 Safe
590 41.6 13.3 1.007 42.2 57.9 0.000 - Fail
591 27.7 11.9 1.359 41.2 53.6 0.201 - Fail
592 39.3 16.1 1.148 40.3 48.9 0.139 - Fail
593 32.9 16.4 1.302 39.9 75.5 0.356 0.74 Safe
594 30.1 11.8 1.058 41 54.1 0.426 0.766 Safe
595 25.7 8.5 0.807 48 55.3 0.453 0.796 Safe
596 42.6 8 0.840 42.4 66.5 0.323 0.757 Safe
597 36.4 11 0.852 41.6 65.4 0.067 - Fail
598 40.9 11.5 1.220 41.6 69.8 0.449 0.759 Safe
599 36.7 14.4 0.751 43.2 70.7 0.260 0.122 Safe
600 34 9.5 0.705 41.7 58.7 0.324 0.762 Safe
195

601 33.4 11.3 0.676 44.8 58.6 0.313 0.776 Safe
602 39.8 11.5 0.980 34.3 66.3 0.348 0.7 Safe
603 40.6 9.9 0.946 36.6 63.6 0.008 - Fail
604 27.8 18.5 0.860 46.1 62.4 0.315 0.776 Safe
605 32.7 12.4 0.991 43.2 59.7 0.350 0.768 Safe
606 28 10.1 0.939 38.9 62 0.850 0.798 Safe
607 30.4 11.9 0.821 44.6 62.4 0.214 - Fail
608 30.4 8.1 0.756 45.8 63.1 0.138 - Fail
609 40.3 12.1 0.922 40.2 57.2 0.606 0.769 Safe
610 31.1 17.5 1.099 38.8 60 0.489 0.747 Safe
611 32.3 9.2 0.568 44.9 59.1 0.380 0.786 Safe
612 30.5 9 0.660 48.3 60.1 0.519 0.814 Safe
613 31.5 13.4 0.736 44.8 62.5 0.206 - Fail
614 38.3 14.9 1.049 40.3 64.4 0.003 - Fail
615 31.4 11.4 1.241 39.6 58.9 0.256 -0.061 Fail
616 32.3 9.1 0.956 49.5 67.1 0.341 0.801 Safe
617 37.2 11.4 0.830 36.7 60.7 0.562 0.748 Safe
618 35.1 12 0.890 42.9 56 0.066 - Fail
619 40.5 10.9 1.197 44.6 60 0.332 0.767 Safe
620 33 10 1.228 42.4 56.5 0.459 0.775 Safe
621 41.6 10 0.716 49.2 53.1 0.020 - Fail
622 30.6 15.2 0.888 42.5 61.7 0.525 0.779 Safe
623 27.4 7.2 1.199 48.5 51.6 0.297 0.776 Safe
624 38.1 13 0.873 44.3 57.1 0.351 0.769 Safe
625 32.3 9.8 0.865 42.5 58 0.059 - Fail
626 34.5 14.9 0.943 47.8 56.5 0.724 0.804 Safe
627 33.1 13.5 1.018 35.3 54.2 0.354 0.714 Safe
628 35 10.7 0.869 37.3 64 0.414 0.739 Safe
629 35 15 0.651 45.5 54.5 0.280 0.771 Safe
630 34.4 20.5 0.923 40.3 53.5 0.379 0.739 Safe
631 38.4 8.4 0.892 45.7 65.7 0.225 - Fail
632 31.7 11.9 0.530 45 64.7 0.138 - Fail
633 36.4 13.6 0.956 44.9 54.9 0.052 - Fail
634 33.3 8.9 0.933 44.8 56.2 0.320 0.778 Safe
635 32.8 11.2 0.695 41.2 52.9 0.345 0.76 Safe
636 34.5 7.3 0.840 44.4 60.1 0.427 0.786 Safe
637 30.7 11.4 0.981 42.4 59.2 0.359 0.768 Safe
638 32 10.8 0.672 36.6 68.6 0.375 0.734 Safe
639 33.5 10.6 0.643 41.9 62.9 0.300 0.76 Safe
640 38.5 12.7 0.566 45.4 65.9 0.529 0.791 Safe
641 37.8 17.9 0.979 45.6 52.4 0.151 - Fail
642 24.5 10.7 1.008 40.3 52.6 0.247 -0.631 Fail
643 34.7 15.4 1.056 43.3 58.9 0.190 - Fail
644 33 16.7 0.986 44.5 61.8 0.611 0.791 Safe
645 33 10.1 0.986 47.5 52 0.521 0.783 Safe
646 36.4 10.2 0.889 36.9 64.7 0.431 0.737 Safe
647 31.8 20 1.139 37.4 59 0.163 - Fail
648 32.1 10.8 0.875 44.7 51.3 0.031 - Fail
649 38.5 19.6 1.029 33 58.9 0.035 - Fail
650 40.4 9.9 1.016 54.6 53.9 0.249 -1.054 Fail
196

651 42.2 10.1 0.838 38.7 62.8 0.620 0.762 Safe
652 43.3 12 1.208 48.3 57 0.439 0.788 Safe
653 35 14.2 0.915 42.1 70.7 0.490 0.771 Safe
654 33.7 13.1 0.791 43.4 59.9 0.463 0.779 Safe
655 30.1 16 1.070 39.4 62.1 0.029 - Fail
656 36.7 9.9 0.643 44.4 65.9 0.107 - Fail
657 30.6 16.9 1.325 38.7 53.6 0.474 0.745 Safe
658 34.2 9.4 1.154 39.2 58.2 0.374 0.748 Safe
659 32.3 11.2 0.741 44.8 58.6 0.210 - Fail
660 35 14.2 1.008 38.5 64.6 0.124 - Fail
661 39.8 9.3 0.815 55.5 44.5 0.757 0.749 Safe
662 35.5 10.3 0.960 50.1 67.2 0.317 0.798 Safe
663 28.5 14.9 1.028 47.6 69.4 0.209 - Fail
664 30.8 13.8 0.677 47.8 70.2 0.398 0.796 Safe
665 38.7 16.5 1.430 41.2 84.9 0.697 0.773 Safe
666 34.6 9.1 0.768 43.5 67.9 0.223 - Fail
667 28.2 10.4 0.904 51.8 61 0.004 - Fail
668 37.2 22.5 1.020 42.5 66.9 0.172 - Fail
669 32.8 9 0.601 48.1 64.9 0.106 - Fail
670 34 9.1 0.956 39.4 55.1 0.269 0.736 Safe
671 29.6 21.7 1.434 42.7 58.3 0.320 0.746 Safe
672 35.4 12.3 0.946 53.4 61.1 0.040 - Fail
673 37.4 10.4 0.826 35.9 53 0.362 0.721 Safe
674 31 10.1 0.748 43.1 59.8 0.496 0.787 Safe
675 33.3 16.4 1.334 41.4 60.3 0.317 0.746 Safe
676 34.2 10.8 0.806 46.1 55.9 0.120 - Fail
677 31.6 11.9 0.947 43.9 53 0.284 0.769 Safe
678 38.8 13.6 1.253 45 65.5 0.230 - Fail
679 30.9 8.9 1.047 48.8 61.7 0.487 0.811 Safe
680 41.6 11 0.706 43.7 57.5 0.814 0.805 Safe
681 29 7.3 0.586 45.4 67.4 0.298 0.786 Safe
682 31.9 13 0.868 48.5 69.5 0.550 0.811 Safe
683 36.1 12.6 0.510 44.4 56.3 0.566 0.793 Safe
684 33.7 9.3 0.543 45.5 61.2 0.187 - Fail
685 39.4 12.2 1.002 39.2 61.7 0.140 - Fail
686 34 14.8 0.954 40 60.5 0.173 - Fail
687 33 11.3 1.254 35.4 67.3 0.424 0.725 Safe
688 37 12.2 1.610 48.1 65 0.231 - Fail
689 32.3 14.5 0.898 46 57.1 0.549 0.797 Safe
690 41.2 11.7 1.134 48.7 59.4 0.150 - Fail
691 39.2 13.9 1.102 49.5 62 0.071 - Fail
692 39.9 11.8 0.542 43.5 58 0.420 0.772 Safe
693 30.7 11.5 0.997 40.9 56.5 0.505 0.773 Safe
694 33.7 10 0.913 47.8 58.3 0.608 0.815 Safe
695 36.4 8.9 1.015 44.6 62.2 0.542 0.793 Safe
696 39.5 13.2 0.880 39.4 74.2 0.312 0.735 Safe
697 33 20.9 0.654 38 60.4 0.300 0.721 Safe
698 44.3 11.2 0.798 42.5 68 0.257 -0.387 Fail
699 34.7 11.2 0.894 53.9 55.3 0.286 0.787 Safe
700 35.5 14.2 0.759 41.4 62.2 0.496 0.768 Safe
197

701 36.5 12.3 0.804 38.1 60.1 0.320 0.732 Safe
702 35.5 10.1 0.687 44 59.2 0.110 - Fail
703 39.2 16.2 0.934 44.4 58.1 0.083 - Fail
704 34.1 17.3 0.854 41 52.2 0.492 0.761 Safe
705 31.1 10.9 0.990 48.1 56.1 0.511 0.799 Safe
706 27.4 8.8 0.982 45.4 53.5 0.359 0.788 Safe
707 29 15.1 1.062 46.4 61.5 0.665 0.81 Safe
708 31.3 8.3 0.873 34.6 55 0.033 - Fail
709 28.9 9.9 1.128 45.1 60.3 0.293 0.779 Safe
710 37.6 8.8 0.907 47.2 65 0.643 0.813 Safe
711 27.1 8.1 0.629 37.5 63.3 0.648 0.778 Safe
712 28.6 8.6 1.027 42.7 69.6 0.328 0.772 Safe
713 34.1 11.1 0.430 39.9 67.5 0.662 0.784 Safe
714 37.2 11.5 1.291 42.9 66.5 0.034 - Fail
715 32.2 12.1 0.985 46.3 74.8 0.197 - Fail
716 31.7 8.8 0.877 41.7 55.5 0.402 0.771 Safe
717 29.7 14.2 1.388 41.4 59.6 0.302 0.751 Safe
718 35.2 8.1 0.999 38.5 65.9 0.600 0.769 Safe
719 41.2 12.6 0.461 43.1 63.5 0.283 0.756 Safe
720 32.5 12.7 1.114 41 64.9 0.243 -1.394 Fail
721 32.2 10.1 1.151 54.3 66.2 0.343 0.817 Safe
722 26.5 14.9 0.679 38 57.8 0.313 0.737 Safe
723 38.7 11.5 1.223 36.9 63.7 0.172 - Fail
724 31.4 14.5 0.744 40.2 62.1 0.621 0.778 Safe
725 37.5 12.7 0.866 42.1 66.7 0.372 0.759 Safe
726 31.1 8.2 0.820 38.3 68.8 0.240 -1.08 Fail
727 36.7 13 0.603 41.3 67 0.194 - Fail
728 39.3 11.2 1.015 45.8 66.6 0.226 - Fail
729 29.3 13 1.135 40.7 63 0.482 0.768 Safe
730 36.9 11.5 0.274 38 57.8 0.109 - Fail
731 34.6 16.4 0.693 41.1 51 0.440 0.759 Safe
732 31.2 14 0.691 45.3 56.1 0.495 0.792 Safe
733 35 10 0.614 43.7 65.9 0.219 - Fail
734 35.6 12 0.780 40.8 60.7 0.135 - Fail
735 31.2 11.8 0.983 32.3 68 0.241 - Fail
736 29.8 9.5 0.482 49.9 63 0.430 0.813 Safe
737 32.1 7.8 0.826 44.8 59 0.332 0.782 Safe
738 38 8.6 0.629 39.5 58.8 0.499 0.763 Safe
739 37.7 10.7 0.674 44.6 50.5 0.124 - Fail
740 38 12 0.392 46.6 51.2 0.133 - Fail
741 30.8 11.6 0.936 50 71.2 0.400 0.806 Safe
742 28.8 9.1 0.913 46.1 57 0.383 0.793 Safe
743 31.7 9.4 0.726 45 66 0.398 0.787 Safe
744 27.3 10.5 0.735 40 59.2 0.356 0.759 Safe
745 30.2 11.3 0.904 43.9 59.5 0.561 0.795 Safe
746 30.5 17.4 0.695 44.1 61.6 0.799 0.808 Safe
747 34.7 7.7 1.191 44.7 50.2 0.233 - Fail
748 43.4 11.4 1.142 39.2 57.2 0.001 - Fail
749 29.9 9.7 1.011 43.4 65.1 0.131 - Fail
750 33.3 15.4 0.786 48.3 56.3 0.738 0.804 Safe
198

751 33.5 10.7 0.780 32.9 60.2 0.252 -0.462 Fail
752 42 14.7 0.675 47 74.7 0.468 0.786 Safe
753 28.5 9.1 0.883 48 58.5 0.200 - Fail
754 36.1 14 0.888 42.2 55.8 0.537 0.775 Safe
755 34.1 11.8 0.420 43.2 53.3 0.739 0.793 Safe
756 37.5 11.3 0.734 41.6 57.8 0.158 - Fail
757 29 10 1.309 44.6 56.1 0.418 0.786 Safe
758 34.6 14.2 1.071 40.2 66.2 0.368 0.747 Safe
759 32.4 11.1 0.427 50.7 53.2 0.286 0.784 Safe
760 27.2 11.6 0.772 46.1 50.5 0.017 - Fail
761 29.8 12.8 0.856 39.4 56.5 0.277 0.743 Safe
762 29.7 18 0.898 40.6 53.7 0.293 0.744 Safe
763 29.7 12.8 1.020 34.9 59.7 0.074 - Fail
764 36.6 13.9 0.288 43 53.9 0.045 - Fail
765 39.1 11.9 0.895 41.1 65 0.142 - Fail
766 37.6 9.5 1.120 36.8 55.1 0.558 0.748 Safe
767 32.1 10.6 0.827 51.1 55.3 0.562 0.797 Safe
768 35.2 10.5 0.839 47.1 67.6 0.123 - Fail
769 37.9 11.2 0.985 58.7 71.6 0.035 - Fail
770 36 13.5 1.385 41.1 61.5 0.368 0.75 Safe
771 38.9 10.4 1.055 43.2 56.5 0.178 - Fail
772 31.1 9.8 1.013 38.9 73.6 0.130 - Fail
773 27.5 9 0.874 42 61.4 0.482 0.784 Safe
774 34.4 14.8 0.702 41.7 58 0.173 - Fail
775 31.8 7 0.875 45.6 62.1 0.204 - Fail
776 31.4 11.9 0.993 49.3 58 0.484 0.809 Safe
777 28.1 15 0.790 49.9 58.8 0.370 0.802 Safe
778 34.3 22.6 0.892 50.8 57.8 0.317 0.786 Safe
779 35.1 11.4 0.897 39.2 72.4 0.176 - Fail
780 30.5 9.6 0.525 41.3 73.4 0.156 - Fail
781 37.9 12.1 0.471 49.9 54.2 0.451 0.787 Safe
782 36.4 9.9 1.061 39.4 75.6 0.096 - Fail
783 45 17.3 0.691 41 54.1 0.265 -0.473 Fail
784 34.6 7.6 0.974 41.1 74.9 0.331 0.759 Safe
785 32.4 14.4 0.455 40.8 57.7 0.263 0.176 Safe
786 29.8 8.6 0.957 39.3 60.2 0.436 0.762 Safe
787 33.1 8.1 1.010 39.7 59.7 0.390 0.757 Safe
788 42.4 11.7 0.896 44.3 55.2 0.437 0.773 Safe
789 35.2 9.3 0.610 44 68.1 0.455 0.785 Safe
790 32.9 7.6 0.892 37.8 55.2 0.555 0.764 Safe
791 30.6 12.3 0.361 34.7 58.1 0.235 - Fail
792 34 9.2 0.871 50.1 65.7 0.088 - Fail
793 36.8 11.3 1.233 45.9 44.8 0.054 - Fail
794 31.3 13.2 1.145 53.7 62.4 0.157 - Fail
795 30.2 8.1 1.225 55.4 63.7 0.160 - Fail
796 38.8 10.8 1.014 42.4 63.5 0.447 0.768 Safe
797 31.1 11.4 0.615 42.8 68.7 0.874 0.816 Safe
798 32.8 13.2 1.049 39.1 56.1 0.523 0.76 Safe
799 32.9 11.9 0.741 40.3 70.6 0.304 0.749 Safe
800 32.8 9.7 0.726 37.8 61.5 0.124 - Fail
199

801 41.3 10.5 1.118 41.1 56.7 0.424 0.755 Safe
802 29.4 20.2 1.118 41 67.6 0.344 0.743 Safe
803 28.8 11.4 1.214 41.5 61.9 0.721 0.797 Safe
804 34.4 15 0.903 37.1 59.1 0.352 0.725 Safe
805 29.7 11.9 0.698 46.8 59.7 0.337 0.789 Safe
806 26.6 12.2 0.678 46.7 62.6 0.354 0.792 Safe
807 32.5 11.4 0.787 45.3 53.2 0.095 - Fail
808 33.9 12.9 0.645 41 45.9 0.079 - Fail
809 34.4 9.7 1.196 42.2 71.6 0.254 -0.091 Fail
810 37.4 8.9 0.634 37.3 56.3 0.375 0.736 Safe
811 35.6 16 0.904 52 55.9 0.157 - Fail
812 40.8 13.6 0.794 46.7 68.4 0.464 0.787 Safe
813 39.6 14.3 1.018 46.1 53.5 0.354 0.774 Safe
814 30 12.2 1.143 39.5 56 0.537 0.767 Safe
815 38.1 9.7 1.007 41.7 61.2 0.750 0.795 Safe
816 38.5 13 0.557 42.2 55 0.283 0.754 Safe
817 34.9 10.6 1.315 44.1 56.8 0.132 - Fail
818 34.6 12.1 1.086 44.7 67.9 0.145 - Fail
819 35.7 13.9 0.804 50.5 57.7 0.713 0.808 Safe
820 32.6 13.2 0.924 43.8 74.3 0.487 0.783 Safe
821 34.5 8.6 0.521 57.8 61.8 0.189 - Fail
822 33.5 15.8 1.017 40.9 55.3 0.093 - Fail
823 36.9 11.1 0.869 38.2 70.1 0.526 0.754 Safe
824 31.3 8.8 0.534 42 66.9 0.496 0.784 Safe
825 33.5 13.2 0.978 42.8 50.2 0.199 - Fail
826 32.6 14.6 0.807 44.1 59.9 0.326 0.769 Safe
827 33.9 12.2 1.182 47.6 56 0.231 - Fail
828 39.5 10.4 0.967 39.4 58 0.587 0.765 Safe
829 33.8 18.5 1.239 42.1 59.2 0.640 0.776 Safe
830 28.1 10.2 1.419 42.8 62.6 0.617 0.795 Safe
831 32.8 10.3 1.247 32.9 74.2 0.300 0.692 Safe
832 39.5 15.7 1.104 44.6 54.8 0.493 0.775 Safe
833 34.5 15.1 1.234 49.9 60.4 0.047 - Fail
834 34.2 10.1 0.967 40.3 54.2 0.121 - Fail
835 36.9 12.3 0.912 54.6 48.4 0.135 - Fail
836 30.7 13.9 1.100 45.3 53.1 0.374 0.779 Safe
837 41.3 14.6 1.008 41.3 53.8 0.148 - Fail
838 38.9 18 0.935 43.3 54.5 0.038 - Fail
839 32.6 9.8 0.873 48.2 64.7 0.448 0.804 Safe
840 32.8 12.9 0.842 32.6 57.9 0.535 0.716 Safe
841 37.1 10.2 0.658 46.6 53.9 0.576 0.789 Safe
842 27.2 11.1 0.700 46 59.5 0.025 - Fail
843 26.4 15.2 0.850 49 55.7 0.054 - Fail
844 32.7 10.8 1.060 36.2 61.8 0.201 - Fail
845 41.8 13.4 1.055 45.8 62.8 0.291 0.767 Safe
846 42.3 15.2 1.202 39.8 69.5 0.899 0.782 Safe
847 35.4 8.1 1.018 49.4 63.7 0.222 - Fail
848 39.1 17.1 1.171 45.9 52.2 0.054 - Fail
849 28.4 11.7 0.979 39.5 57.9 0.384 0.735 Safe
850 35.9 8.9 1.029 44.9 57.6 0.253 -0.351 Fail
200

851 33.3 9.4 1.266 37.2 54.7 0.624 0.762 Safe
852 39 9.6 0.525 42.3 56.3 0.087 - Fail
853 33.4 11.8 0.684 49.1 62 0.152 - Fail
854 29.5 7.7 0.959 51.6 56.3 0.267 0.793 Safe
855 41.7 15.4 1.041 52 56.7 0.191 - Fail
856 38.9 11.6 0.644 50.4 57.5 0.269 0.302 Safe
857 38.1 19.2 0.866 42.7 48.2 0.437 0.758 Safe
858 32.9 16 1.027 45 60.3 0.258 -0.308 Fail
859 34.1 7.3 0.885 40.2 56.5 0.461 0.768 Safe
860 38.5 12 0.864 39.7 58.8 0.353 0.743 Safe
861 27.8 20.5 0.820 51.7 61.1 0.311 0.798 Safe
862 41.3 9.9 0.847 45.5 65.3 0.429 0.782 Safe
863 32 10.2 0.779 47 80.5 0.490 0.803 Safe
864 29.7 11.2 0.444 40.8 60.2 0.377 0.764 Safe
865 37.7 9.2 0.902 46.2 60.3 0.353 0.783 Safe
866 35.1 16.2 1.077 48.3 66.2 0.638 0.809 Safe
867 36.9 9.9 0.892 35.7 62.1 0.356 0.719 Safe
868 33.9 6.1 1.072 47.2 59.3 0.110 - Fail
869 30.9 9.1 1.087 46.7 67.7 0.421 0.796 Safe
870 31.7 12.6 1.050 38.8 55.2 0.137 - Fail
871 32.2 13.9 1.290 43.5 65.5 0.198 - Fail
872 33.3 9.4 1.065 38 52.1 0.294 0.735 Safe
873 33.3 11.7 0.854 35.9 68.5 0.195 - Fail
874 31.2 11.8 1.100 45.1 62.8 0.083 - Fail
875 31.9 13.4 0.961 47.8 64.7 0.551 0.807 Safe
876 31.3 13.3 0.990 50.8 62 0.080 - Fail
877 36.3 22.5 0.493 46.7 64.5 0.525 0.785 Safe
878 39.4 14 0.622 39.3 60.5 0.309 0.735 Safe
879 32.2 9.5 0.157 38.5 68.2 0.183 - Fail
880 33 11.4 0.682 52.6 53.8 0.484 0.788 Safe
881 29.4 9 1.075 35.5 51.2 0.630 0.758 Safe
882 33.5 11 0.560 38 54.7 0.037 - Fail
883 34.6 13.4 0.879 47.2 63.5 0.041 - Fail
884 31.9 9.1 0.677 43.8 59.5 0.372 0.78 Safe
885 34.1 15.2 1.371 47.5 55.2 0.308 0.779 Safe
886 41.3 11.8 0.664 46.2 68.9 0.345 0.777 Safe
887 38.8 11.6 1.359 44.3 64.9 0.292 0.763 Safe
888 32.7 12.2 0.812 51.6 62.4 0.315 0.805 Safe
889 36.7 12.7 0.742 45.7 64.3 0.029 - Fail
890 36.2 9.5 1.156 49.2 66.5 0.209 - Fail
891 37.1 13 1.092 41.5 53.9 0.711 0.787 Safe
892 32.7 14.4 0.572 42.5 65.6 0.207 - Fail
893 35.9 13.1 0.897 44.9 61.3 0.510 0.788 Safe
894 35.7 12.2 1.056 42.2 68.1 0.149 - Fail
895 31.8 17.6 0.943 41.7 54.4 0.671 0.783 Safe
896 31.1 10.4 1.235 46.8 60.8 0.244 -0.884 Fail
897 39.4 8 1.050 49.3 65 0.385 0.798 Safe
898 30.2 8.4 0.700 62.6 60.5 0.581 0.816 Safe
899 30.5 8.7 0.975 44.8 58.6 0.216 - Fail
900 31.6 9.2 1.095 49.2 61.3 0.096 - Fail
201

901 33.1 9 1.107 43.5 60.4 0.124 - Fail
902 31.7 13.5 1.222 41 67.4 0.127 - Fail
903 37.6 7.7 1.074 43 67 0.057 - Fail
904 27.9 11.7 0.661 41.5 71.7 0.075 - Fail
905 34.6 10 1.135 40 60.5 0.370 0.752 Safe
906 28.9 12.7 1.136 50.2 55.8 0.033 - Fail
907 35.8 12.8 0.790 38.8 56.5 0.136 - Fail
908 38.8 8.3 0.518 37 57.9 0.424 0.738 Safe
909 34.2 12.1 1.124 44.4 53.9 0.301 0.769 Safe
910 31.2 12.9 0.996 44.6 61.7 0.519 0.791 Safe
911 25.7 23.3 0.433 42.7 56.8 0.301 0.754 Safe
912 35.8 11.8 0.977 47.1 64.6 0.434 0.792 Safe
913 34.2 10 0.870 46.9 59.7 0.376 0.791 Safe
914 36.6 11.3 0.719 39.7 61.9 0.318 0.744 Safe
915 35.4 13.4 1.010 39.5 59.8 0.296 0.738 Safe
916 38.6 9.1 1.023 41.4 60.7 0.594 0.78 Safe
917 33.4 9.7 0.974 44.7 54.1 0.561 0.798 Safe
918 33.3 11.2 1.344 45.8 47.9 0.440 0.758 Safe
919 31.8 11.9 0.690 50.2 60.9 0.095 - Fail
920 34.3 6.7 0.809 45.2 67.1 0.377 0.787 Safe
921 37.7 17.5 1.060 39.8 60.7 0.416 0.74 Safe
922 31.8 11.9 0.799 45.1 65.4 0.013 - Fail
923 31.7 12 1.303 44.1 62.1 0.326 0.77 Safe
924 30.6 12.3 0.839 36.8 51.4 0.142 - Fail
925 38 11.3 0.965 49.6 61.8 0.241 -1.33 Fail
926 37 12.3 1.302 49.1 63 0.068 - Fail
927 37.4 10.4 0.924 37.7 65.3 0.530 0.751 Safe
928 33.8 12.3 0.587 45 53.7 0.562 0.798 Safe
929 28.1 15.8 0.568 46.2 50.5 0.265 0.133 Safe
930 34 12 0.537 40.2 63.8 0.687 0.786 Safe
931 40.9 9.5 0.516 40.7 52.7 0.260 -0.094 Fail
932 36.9 9.6 0.752 45.8 61 0.493 0.794 Safe
933 34.1 16.5 0.954 43.2 59.3 0.030 - Fail
934 40.2 11 0.574 49.3 59.4 0.437 0.8 Safe
935 29.7 10.2 0.804 42.2 81.5 0.159 - Fail
936 33.9 11.2 0.484 41.6 53.7 0.802 0.804 Safe
937 32.3 12.1 0.547 39.6 58.4 0.128 - Fail
938 43.1 11.9 0.522 41.8 63 0.384 0.755 Safe
939 37.5 12.3 0.649 46 59.5 0.046 - Fail
940 33.9 11.5 1.264 43.4 58.7 0.174 - Fail
941 36.7 12.8 1.139 38.3 59.4 0.127 - Fail
942 30.2 13.2 0.794 38 66.9 0.525 0.758 Safe
943 30 13.5 0.822 53.3 64.5 0.362 0.814 Safe
944 40.1 15.1 1.305 43.7 59.3 0.106 - Fail
945 32.1 12.8 1.203 44.1 53.5 0.224 - Fail
946 37.6 10.3 0.971 40.2 61.3 0.052 - Fail
947 33.4 9 0.655 39.5 52.9 0.108 - Fail
948 32 10.9 0.683 38.4 72.4 0.574 0.768 Safe
949 29.6 10.4 1.016 42 47.5 0.396 0.76 Safe
950 39.8 15.7 0.975 46.5 53.6 0.245 -1.818 Fail
202

951 30.3 11.5 1.001 40.8 56.1 0.559 0.779 Safe
952 34.6 10.7 0.944 44.7 61 0.240 -1.307 Fail
953 28.3 12.9 1.135 43 61.8 0.459 0.779 Safe
954 30.5 13.7 0.623 38.3 61.3 0.120 - Fail
955 36.9 15.4 0.602 37.8 56.5 0.186 - Fail
956 32.5 12.7 1.132 46.6 67.3 0.112 - Fail
957 29.4 9.5 0.827 42.1 63.4 0.479 0.782 Safe
958 38.3 7.8 0.884 35 58.8 0.100 - Fail
959 33.1 19.4 0.677 37.4 50.5 0.083 - Fail
960 33.7 11.8 0.734 39.5 65.4 0.709 0.784 Safe
961 42.4 20.3 1.079 50.8 51.6 0.285 0.097 Safe
962 33.4 12.4 1.059 49.3 53.2 0.208 - Fail
963 37.7 12.9 1.133 41.7 72.5 0.477 0.765 Safe
964 36.8 14.8 1.180 41.3 69.3 0.070 - Fail
965 29.6 11.6 1.097 43.2 63 0.051 - Fail
966 36.2 12.9 1.038 38 61.3 0.454 0.742 Safe
967 30.3 11.5 1.090 49.2 52.2 0.158 - Fail
968 35.3 14.2 0.656 51.7 50.7 0.601 0.778 Safe
969 35.5 13.7 0.629 42.7 58 0.651 0.791 Safe
970 31.5 14.5 0.768 38.3 60.6 0.185 - Fail
971 30.3 11.2 0.666 38.2 62.9 0.803 0.789 Safe
972 43 14.3 1.133 37.3 61.1 0.776 0.758 Safe
973 37.5 12.3 1.121 48.3 55.2 0.360 0.789 Safe
974 35.3 12.9 1.086 42.6 71.1 0.421 0.767 Safe
975 38.1 13.3 0.818 48.6 52.8 0.377 0.779 Safe
976 38.7 10.9 0.967 48.2 57.4 0.542 0.805 Safe
977 33.4 11.3 0.922 38.4 57.7 0.481 0.754 Safe
978 27.4 8.8 0.855 45.1 65 0.121 - Fail
979 34.2 9.2 1.154 42.4 52.8 0.226 - Fail
980 30.1 8.7 1.307 44.7 61.9 0.368 0.782 Safe
981 27.5 9.4 1.263 35.9 57.1 0.156 - Fail
982 38 7.9 1.180 39.5 67.9 0.676 0.779 Safe
983 31.2 15.6 0.420 42.1 58.6 0.511 0.778 Safe
984 30.8 11.5 0.447 45.9 67.2 0.296 0.783 Safe
985 28.4 14.2 1.124 42.4 52.1 0.392 0.767 Safe
986 38.8 13.7 0.917 51.2 72.2 0.452 - Safe
987 34.9 9.7 1.179 39.9 54.9 0.088 - Fail
988 33.9 20.2 0.663 41.9 54.5 0.263 -0.283 Fail
989 36 14.5 1.079 43.8 53.3 0.406 0.769 Safe
990 33.4 15.9 1.322 43.3 60.1 0.589 0.782 Safe
991 29.8 10.1 0.984 48.9 63.1 0.187 - Fail
992 32.9 7.7 0.729 46.2 53.5 0.151 - Fail
993 32.7 13.3 0.923 41.1 54.8 0.125 - Fail
994 32.2 11 1.038 40.6 53.7 0.538 0.774 Safe
995 34.5 14.2 0.832 47.7 54 0.278 0.752 Safe
996 31 13 0.940 49.6 61.8 0.272 0.789 Safe
997 35.3 15.6 0.492 37.2 58.4 0.220 - Fail
998 38.1 11.7 0.608 39.8 63 0.428 0.753 Safe
999 33.3 19.6 0.827 33.2 64.2 0.201 - Fail
1000 31.3 12.9 0.516 40.5 61.2 0.187 - Fail
203

1001 32.8 16 1.108 46.9 66.6 0.333 0.779 Safe
1002 29.5 7.4 0.486 50.1 62.7 0.111 - Fail
1003 28.5 15.8 1.045 44 51.6 0.082 - Fail
1004 34.1 10.1 0.912 47.6 62 0.221 - Fail
1005 36.7 9.6 1.213 44.8 58.6 0.519 0.79 Safe
1006 37 11.6 1.253 41.6 54.3 0.125 - Fail
1007 33.3 13 0.866 41.7 54.3 0.435 0.767 Safe
1008 35.5 12.2 0.868 42.1 69.2 0.384 0.763 Safe
1009 31 14.9 0.722 38.2 66.6 0.568 0.76 Safe
1010 38.7 10.4 0.957 36.3 54 0.472 0.733 Safe
1011 39.5 12 0.942 40.3 63 0.554 0.765 Safe
1012 27.9 12.2 1.201 39.9 60.6 0.632 0.781 Safe
1013 34.8 14.1 1.288 51.2 48.6 0.423 0.757 Safe
1014 35.3 11.2 0.794 42.8 58.3 0.567 0.787 Safe
1015 36.4 13.4 0.588 40.3 64 0.220 - Fail
1016 35.6 15.8 0.620 47.5 63.3 0.845 0.824 Safe
1017 29.6 13.1 0.728 38.8 61.2 0.421 0.753 Safe
1018 32.2 9.5 0.931 44 56.2 0.226 - Fail
1019 38.3 10.2 0.743 38.6 60 0.241 -1.641 Fail
1020 33.7 11.1 0.659 42.9 56.9 0.230 - Fail
1021 33.9 11.4 0.854 44.9 57.4 0.485 0.79 Safe
1022 40.3 11.4 1.219 49 58.5 0.174 - Fail
1023 37 9.9 0.916 44.9 49.4 0.403 0.765 Safe
1024 30.2 10.3 0.971 43.3 63.4 0.378 0.776 Safe
204

2. Probability of failure calculation
205

206

207

208

209

210

3

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

3

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

SAFETY AND RELIABILITY OF A FIXED OFFSHORE

PLATFORM IN THE GULF OF THAILAND

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Examination Committee: Dr. Gregory L.F. Chiu (Chirperson)

Scholarship Donor: RTG Fellowship

Asian Institute of Technology

Dr.Winai Ouypornprasert, author’s co-advisor, for his precious recommendation. Author is

Dr.Joko Harsono Widjaja, author’s professor at Offshore Technology and Management

Special thank to Mr.Washira Keaw-amatawong for any recommendation about SACS

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE

4 Results and Discussions 32

5 Conclusions and Recommendations 72

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE

Appendix C: Computer code for evaluation of failure probability

TABLE DESCRIPTION PAGE

2.1 Descriptive of significant wave height data 20

TABLE DESCRIPTION PAGE

4.21 Comparison of complete second order polynomial approximate

FIGURE DESCRIPTION PAGE

2.1 Structural resistance and load effect 7

FIGURE DESCRIPTION PAGE

4.22 Response surface of member limit state between Y3 and Y4 51

To acquire a safety and reliability analysis of a complex structural platform, many of

Studying behavior of fixed offshore platform model in varied environmental condition is

1.3 Objectives of the study

1. To present an optional reliability method in term of second order polynomial

1.4 Scope and limitation of the study

1. American Petroleum Institute

2.1 American Petroleum Institute

• To support and encourage trade in American petroleum product

2.1.1 Background of API recommended practice for fixed offshore platform

2.1.2 API recommended practice 2A –WSD

The latest edition of API recommended practice 2A –WSD is a twenty-first edition,

In general meaning, “structural reliability” means capacity of the structural system to

2.2.1 Probability density function

For time invariant domain, reliability of a structural system is considered based on

According to the definition, structural reliability, ps can be defined as:

From this concept, failure condition can be defined as following equation,

is a failure surface or limit state, 0 is defined safe state ,and 0 is

is the joint probability density function of a vector of random variable.

1 g is an indicator function of g define as

The fundamental definition of limit state in structural meaning is a term of structural

is a design value for action

2.1) Serviceability limit state

2.2) Ultimate limit state

2.3) Fatigue limit state

2.4) Accidental limit state

2.2.3 Techniques for reliability

Sensitivity analysis is a conventional technique for reducing basic variables without

Pf caan’t be knowwn yet; theerefore, can’t be an

Figurre 2.2: Senssitivity anaalysis in terrms of cond

Monnte Carlo simmulation is “the art of approximat

Figuree 2.3: The principle

The random variables is simulated by using relationship between a cumulative probability

3) Important sampling technique

Important sampling is one of variance reduction techniques to select an appropriate

N = the number of simulation

If 0, the optimal importance function is (R.Y.Rubinstein, 1981)

2.3 Goodness-of-Fit Test

2.3.1 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test

Fx (X = xn) is a cumulative probability of the simulation distribution at point X = xn

2.3.2 Chi-square Test

Chi-square test, which is an abbreviation of Pearson’s chi-square test, is a statistical