2.
Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 4(19): 3544-3551, 2012 The need to overcome these definciencies, lead to Table 1: Platforms detailschanges in the design concepts. Strutural reliability Platform Installation name Location Depth (m) year No. of legsanalysis was applied to evaluate the risks and A PM 61.00 2006 4uncertainities associated with the safety of structure. In B SK 72.40 2003 4this analysis, the safety of the structures is defined in C SB 42.80 2007 6mathematical terms, in which the uncertain variability of PM: Peninsular Malaysia; SB: Sabah; SK: Sarawakthe load and resistance are assumed to be independent andrepresented by their respective probability density analysis adopted in this study is based on the component-functions. The mathematical expression is based on the reliability as defined by Bomel (2003).purpose for which the structure is designed. The conditionbeyond which the structure fails to meet its intended MATERIALS AND METHODSdesign purpose, is called limit state, e.g. ultimate strengthlimit state, fatigue limit state, etc. For a certain limit state, The research study was carried out on the fixeda mathematical function can be developed and offshore platforms fabricated during the period of 2005-subsequently the safety perfomance can be evaluated in 2010 and installed in the Malaysian offshore operationalterms of its probability of failure or reliabity index. This waters. This section presents and discusses the criteria forprocess is termed reliabilty-based design or Load and selection of the platforms, the determination of the loadResistance Factor Design (LRFD). The generalised safety and resistance statistical parameters and the methodscriterion for the LRFD takes the following format (ISO adopted for the reliability evaluation and determination of19902, 2007): the environmental load factor. Rn/(R $ (D D+(LL+(ww (2) Selection of the platform: Data was collected from three platforms, of which one was selected for this study. Thewhere, (R is the partial resistance factor, that cater to the selection was based on the availability of completeuncertainties associated with the resistance and varies metocean parameters and the completeness of thewith the mode of failure being evaluated e.g., axial, platform model, such that it better represents the actualbending, shear and so on. (D,(L and (w are the partial structure as installed.dead, live and environmental load factors respectively.The partial environmental load factor, in particular, is Operating regions: Malaysia is divided by South Chinavery crucial as it depends mainly on the local conditions Sea into two namely Peninsular Malaysia and Borneoat the location in which the structure is installed. The Island consisting of Sabah and Sarawak states. It wasselection of the partial factors is done through calibration thought necessary that one platform from each regionmethods and determined such that optimum level of should be selected and Table 1 shows the details of thesafety is achieved, at an acceptable cost (Nowak et al., platforms. Their depth varies from 42 to 73 m. They were1986, 2000). Depending on the function of the structure, designed as per API RP2A-WSD 21st edition (currentdifferent levels of safety maybe recommended. For edition). The number of legs in platforms in Malaysiaexample for unmanned and manned fixed steel offshore varies from three to eight but the most typical is four. Instructures, the ISO recommends an annual probability of general, it can be assumed that listed platforms arefailure at range of about 10!3 and 10!5, respectively (ISO representative of the vast other installed structures in the19902, 2007). Alternatively, the partial factors can be Malaysian waters.evaluated so that the safety is at the same level as that of Table 2: Members selected for calibrationexisting structures that were designed as per API RP2A- Diameter Wall Length SlendernessWSD. (D) thickness(T) (L) K factor % D/T During the course of the development of the API 1650 25.0 9344 1.0 0.23 66.00RP2A LRFD and later the ISO 19902 code for design of 1630 15.0 17500 1.0 0.43 108.70fixed steel offshore structures, Moses et al. (1987, 1988, 660 12.7 15370 0.7 0.65 51.97 711 15.0 11000 0.7 0.43 47.402000) carried extensive calibrations works, for the Gulf of 610 12.7 11800 0.7 0.54 48.03Mexico. Similarly, Bomel (2003) conducted studies that 660 19.0 11940 0.7 0.51 34.74covered the North Sea conditions requirements. In Asia, 406 12.7 12000 0.7 0.83 31.97Duan et al. (2006a, 2006b) carried out the recalibration 508 12.7 12400 0.7 0.68 40.00 610 12.7 47400 0.7 2.18 48.03works for selected platforms located at the Chinas Bohai 610 25.0 7000 0.7 0.32 24.40Sea. The objective of this research is to evaluate the 559 25.0 8450 0.7 0.42 22.36reliability index of tubular members of selected existing 559 15 5100 0.7 0.26 37.27jacket platforms in Malaysia, for both API RP2A-WSD 547 19 7200 0.7 0.37 28.79and ISO (LRFD) methods and subsequently determine a 610 25 7900 0.7 0.36 24.40 610 12.7 9790 0.7 0.45 48.03suitable environmental load factor. The method of 3545
3.
Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 4(19): 3544-3551, 2012Table 3: Statistical properties of the resistance Malaysia (Idrus et al., 2011a, b) ISO 19902 -------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------Parameter MC COV Distribution MC COV DistributionDiameter 1.001 0.002 Normal 1.000 0.0025 NormalThickness 1.024 0.016 Normal 1.000 0.015~0.050 NormalYield strength 1.193 0.035 Lognormal 1.1193 0.050 NormalTensile strength 1.183 0.033 Normal NA NA NAYoung’s modulus NA NA NA 1.000 0.050 NormalIdrus et al. (2011a)Availability of SACS models: Most of the fixed steel Table 4: Gravity (dead & live) loads statistical parameters, ISO19902offshore platforms installed in Malaysia were designed Load type Bias COV Dead load of structure G1 1.0 0.06using the Structural Analysis Computer Software (SACS). Dead load of fixed facilities G2 1.0 0.06The modeling and design of platforms is conducted by the Long-term live load Q1 1.0 0.10engineering consultants and transferred to owner for Short term live load Q2 1.0 0.10archiving. The SACS models made available for theresearch must be as per design, that is API RP2A-WSD members. Thickness of tubular members were obtainedand as per in-place structure. This is to ensure that the based direct measurement of tubular members availableloads modeled should resemble to the actual loads on the at site and dimensional drawings i.e. data record availablestructure. The loads obtained from the SACS model with the company. Diameter was obtained based onanalysis consist of dead load, live load and environmental drawings only. Material strength uncertainty was based onload. test reports available with the fabricator. Details on the Based on the above two points, platform A was statistical analysis of resistance parameters are presentedselected for the conduct of this research, because it and discussed by Idrus et al. (2011a). The Table 3 showscontained all the data required, to ensure that the results the stochastic parameters obtained, which were found toobtained were reliable. be similar to those suggested in the ISO 19902, that is due to the fact that the quality standard in fabrication of steelSelection of members: The method followed here is worldwide are uniform.based on ISO 19902, which is explained in Bomel (2003).Members are selected from primary members based on Load statistical parameters: The loads acting on a fixedmaximum force effects, which include Leg members, offshore jacket platform consist of:Vertical Diagonal members and Horizontal members atthe periphery. These members are subjected to maximum Dead load: This load consists of mainly of the self-actions from dead, live and environmental load effects. weight part of gravity load. ISO categorizes the dead loadTable 2 shows representative members which are selected into two classes (API, 2005; ISO, 2007).for finding the target reliability index. They were selectedbased on the slenderness (k*L/r) and Diameter to :C Permanent load action: G1 includes self-weight ofThickness (D/T) ratios where r is radius of gyration. The structure and associated or mounted equipment onk values used were recommended in ISO 19902 (2007). the structure. C Permanent load action: G2 represents the self-Resistance statistical parameters: Resistance of the weight of equipment and other objects that remainjacket platforms tubular members is modeled based on the constant for long periods, but which can change fromvariations of the resistance parameters, as shown in the one mode of operation to another or during a mode ofEq. (3). The major sources of uncertainty can be divided operation.into three groups namely Geometry/Fabrication, Materialand Model Uncertainties: The gravity load is treated as normal random variable that is because they are not subject to excessive R = f(D, T, Fy, E, Xm, …et) (3) variability. The statistical parameters are taken from ISO code and shown in Table 4.where, D diameter and T, thickness make up the geometryuncertainty. Fy , yield strength and E, Youngs modulus Live load: This load comprises of the operating load andconstitute the material uncertainty and Xm is the model the equipment mounted on the structure for short termuncertainty. loading. Like the dead load is divided in two parts: The statistical data for resistance was based onmaterial test report and field measurements at one of the C Variable action: Q1, which is made up of weight ofleading fabrication yards in Malaysia. Field data collected consumable supplies and fluids in pipes, tanks andinclude the geometry (diameter and thickness) of stores; weight of transportable vessels and containers 3546
4.
Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 4(19): 3544-3551, 2012Table 5: Statistical parameters of metocean data Weibull parameters Statistical parameters -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------Parameter Distribution Scale Shape Mean Std. DevSig. wave height Weibull 4.46 8.83 4.22 0.57Peak period Dependent of the significant wave heightCurrent speed Weibull 0.84 2.73 0.75 0.30Wind speed Weibull 19.90 4.96 15.51 3.59Idrus et al. (2011b) used for delivering supplies; weight of personnel and Table 6: ISO target reliability API RP2AWSD ISO (( = 1.35) their personal effects and weight of scaffolding and ----------------------- ----------------------- temporary access systems. Load effect Pf $ Pf $C Variable action: Q2, represent the short duration Compression and bending 2.40E-4 3.49 5.8E-5 3.84 action, such as, lifting of drill string, lifting by Tension and bending (brace) 1.39E-4 3.64 5.8E-5 3.85 All 2.6E-4 3.50 5.9E-5 3.85 cranes, machine operations, vessel mooring and Bomel (2003) helicopters. In design practice, the designers are interested in the The live load is assumed to be normally distributed characteristic values of load, defined at the maximum loadand its statistical parameters are presented in Table 4. The effect generated by the peak significant wave height andbias represents the mean value of the ratio of the associated peak wave period, of a 50 or 100 year returnmeasured to nominal value. COV is the coefficient of period 3 h storm and the 10 min storm wind (Tarp-variance of the ratio. Johansen, 2005). The wave, current and wind are location based. The metocean (wave, current and wind) data usedEnvironmental parameters statistics: The in this research was collected from several points withinenvironmental load action makes up most of the load the areas of interest in the Malaysian offshore operationseffect on the structure. It results from the action of the and parameters were statistically analyzed and presentedwave, current and wind. The prediction of the by Idrus et al. (2011b). The metocean data were assumedenvironmental load action on the offshore jacket requires to be of Weibull distribution and their properties area proper understanding of the irregular and uncertain shown in Table 5.behaviour of the hydrodynamic effect of the wave, currentand wind on the structure. Various theories have been Environmental load modeling: Given the large numberdeveloped to assist the designers predict the wave and of members and complexity of the offshore jacketcurrent characteristics, namely the wave height, wave platform, structural analysis programs i.e., SACS is usedperiod, wave velocity and acceleration. These theories are to evaluate the force on each member of the structure atbased on studying the water particle kinematics associated certain environmental load parameters. The output loadswith the oceanic conditions and assuming at acceptable on the members dependent on the wave, current and windlevel that the waves are regular. Among all, the most input parameters and the size and location of the membercommon theories are the Linear (Airy) and Stokes wave on the structure. To execute the reliability analysis, loadstheories. The Airy wave theory is preferred because it is acting in the members must be represented with their statistical properties, which are mean, coefficient ofsimple and provides the basis for other theories variance and distribution type. Since, the variability of the(Chakrabarti, 1987). In cases were regular wave theories load depends on the variability of the primary inputcannot be applied, i.e. highly irregular sea states, the (wave, current and wind), the response surface methodenergy spectra are sought to describe the wave was applied to find an expression that relates the inputcharacteristics. The most common spectrum is the Pierson variables and the load on each member. According toand Moskowitz (P-M) wave spectrum (Chakrabarti, Tarp-Johansen (2005) in drag-dominated structures, the1987). hydrodynamic response model is quadratic, given that the The environmental load effect on the structure is wave height is raised to the second power. Therefore, theevaluated using the Morison’s Equation. This equation expression takes the following form:allows the designer to calculate the force per unit lengthacting on the submerged member. This force is due to the W = a+bH2Max+cHMax+dVc2+eVc+fVw2+gVw (4)wave interaction of the wave kinematics at the certainelevation, from the seabed. The main input parameters in where, the coefficients a, b, c, d, e, f and g depend on thethe equation are velocity to evaluate the drag force and structural element location and these values could bethe acceleration to evaluate the inertia force. Detailed different for each element. Equation (4) indicates that theexplanations on the application of the Morison’s equation load variability can be directly evaluated from theare given in Chakrabarti (1987). variability of the basic input parameters. 3547
5.
Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 4(19): 3544-3551, 2012Table 7: Leg members reliability index values FailureGroup d l w mode Pf $L3B 0.19 0.01 0.80 T+B 4.00x10-4 3.35L3F 0.11 0.06 0.82 C+B 1.99x10-4 3.54L4E 0.20 0.07 0.73 T+B 1.99x10-4 3.54LG2 0.18 0.01 0.81 T+B 4.28x10-4 3.33LG3 0.20 0.05 0.75 T+B 9.36x10-5 3.74LG4 0.12 0.07 0.82 C+B 2.62x10-4 3.47LG7 0.21 0.09 0.70 C 1.30x10-3 3.02Average 3.98x10-4 3.44Table 8: Vertical brace members reliability index values FailureGroup d l w mode Pf $VA3 0.22 0.09 0.69 T+B 2.46x10!4 3.49VA6 0.17 0.09 0.74 C+B 3.80x10!3 2.67VB2 0.02 0.00 0.98 C+B 9.96x10!4 3.09VB4 0.13 0.01 0.85 C+B 1.72x10!2 2.12 Fig. 1: Reliability index definitionVB8 0.08 0.06 0.85 C+B 1.04x10!2 2.31VD4 0.19 0.09 0.72 T+B 9.90x10!3 2.33VE2 0.17 0.07 0.76 C+B 1.73x10!3 4.14 failures less than 10!5. Based on the previous study, suchVF2 0.20 0.08 0.72 T+B 7.80x10!6 4.32 as Moses, it was found that the offshore probability ofVF9 0.28 0.14 0.58 T+B 1.30x10!5 4.21 failure, is within the 10-5 limit and therefore it is practicalAverage 4.23x10!3 3.26 to apply the MCS method (Moses et al., 2000)Table 9: Horizontal brace members reliability index values The MCS method uses the predefined probability Failure distributions to generate random samples of the basicGroup d l w mode Pf $ variables, which are then used to evaluate the limit stateHA8 0.45 0.09 0.46 C+B 1.90x10!3 2.90HA9 0.05 0.06 0.89 T+B 4.92x10!4 3.29 equation. This process is repeated for a certain N times,HB1 0.25 0.10 0.65 T+B 4.65x10!5 3.91 for instance 5,000,000. The probability of failure isHG1 0.18 0.05 0.77 T+B 8.25x10!4 3.15 evaluated by finding the ratio of number of failed samplesHL3 0.26 0.17 0.57 T+B 2.24x10!4 3.51HL5 0.12 0.10 0.78 C 5.29x10!4 3.27 to the total number of simulations. If the limit stateHL6 0.14 0.02 0.84 C 2.30x10!3 2.83 function is defined as:HM4 0.18 0.04 0.78 T+B 3.46x10!4 3.39Average 8.51x10!4 3.26 G(R, Q) = R-Q (5)Load proportion: The original SACS models were The failure occurs when g(R,Q)<0. Thus, probabilitydesigned as per API RP2A-WSD, in which the of failure Pf can be expressed as:characteristic values of loads (gravity and environmental)were combined. However, in this study, these loads Pf = P{g(R,Q)<0} ( 6)needed to be separated and their effect on the structureevaluated individually. The contribution of each of the Probability of failure is also represented by reliabilityloads is shown in Table 7 to 9, in form of ratios. Theseratios are based on the characteristic environmental loads index, $ using the function g(R,Q) as follow:i.e., 100 year values for wind, wave and current. Theenvironmental load accounts for the most of the loading $ = L-1(Pf) (7)on the members, than the both the gravity loadscombined. These results concur with the earlier studies by where, L is the standard normal distribution function. TheMoses et al. (1987, 1988, 2000) and Bomel (2003). geometrical representation of $ and Pf are shown in Fig. 1.Reliability analysis: The reliability analysis in offshorestructures is used to determine the probability of failure or Limit state equations: Basic reliability analysis evaluatesthe reliability index of the structure. Different methods the structural failure by determining if the limit statecan be applied for the computation. The most used function, also known as performance function ismethods of reliability analyses are Monte Carlo exceeded. The performance function indicates the marginSimulation (MCS) and FORM/SORM. The choice of of safety between resistance and the load of structuresthese methods is based on the computational ability, data (Galambos, 1981; Choi et al., 2007).availability and the level of accuracy desired. For In this research, the limits state equations are basedinstance, the MCS is simple and easy to be applied, on the formulations provided on the API RP2A-WSD andcompared to others methods, however it requires long ISO19902 codes of design. The evaluation of thecomputational time and is less accurate for probability of following equation was performed in MATLAB. 3548
6.
Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 4(19): 3544-3551, 2012C Axial tension and bending: 4.00 ISO 19902 APIRP2A-WSD S Sb, yi 2 Sb, zi 2 3.75 Gi 1 ti (8) Reliability index 3.50 Rti Rbi 3.25C Axial compression and bending: 3.00 2.75 S Sb, yi 2 Sb, zi 2 Gi 1 ci (9) 2.50 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 Rci Rbi Environmental load factor Fig. 2: Environmental load factor for axial tension and bendingC Axial pure compression: 3.50 ISO 19902 Gi = Rci!Sci (10) APIRP2A-WSD 3.25 Reliability indexTarget reliability index: The determination of theenvironmental load factor requires that an acceptable level 3.00of safety or target reliability be established. In thisresearch, the target reliability index is based on thereliability of the structures as it was installed. For each 2.75failure mode (axial, bending,...), the target reliability isevaluated for the structure designed as per API RP2A- 2.50WSD. The values established for the calibration of ISO 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 Environmental load factor19902 for the North Sea are shown in Table 6 (Bomel,2003). Fig. 3: Environmental load factor for axial compression and bending RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Environmental load factor: The environmental loadReliability index: The API RP2A-WSD reliability index factors are evaluated for each critical failure mode, byevaluated for different type of members respectively, leg, plotting the curves of the target reliability index, asvertical brace and horizontal bracing members, is shown calculated for API RP2A-WSD standard and the reliability indices evaluated for different environmentalin Table 7, 8 and 9, respectively. For each member, the load factors as per ISO 19902 standards. Theload proportions are as per SACS output of the applied environmental load factor is selected at the point ofstresses. The reliability index was obtained under the intersection of the two curves. That is the point where thecritical failure condition. In the tables, it can be observed ISO 19902 (to be adopted) gives the same safety index asthat the load proportions for environmental load is in most the API RP2A-WSD standard in practice.of the cases higher that 70% of the total load on themember. This indicates that the structures are exposed to C Axial tension and bending: The target reliabilityhigh environmental loads. index as calculated for API RP2A-WSD, for As this study is based on the actual stress results of members under the combined effect of axial andobtained from the SACS model, of the selected bending load, was used to obtain the correspondingrepresentative members, no weightage or member environmental load factors, which was found to beoccurrence factors were used, thus all member are 1.60 as shown in the in Fig. 2.considered to be of equal importance. The average C Axial compression and bending: In this case, anreliability index for leg members is found to be 3.44, API RP2A-WSD target reliability index of 3.04 waswhich is relatively higher than 3.26 for vertical and achieved for members under combined axialhorizontal brace members. compression and bending and the equivalent These results are comparable to those obtained in the environmental load factor is 1.44 as shown in Fig. 3.Bomel (2003) report, as shown in Table 6 and they arewithin the acceptable level of the probability of failure for C Axial compression: For members under the effect ofa manned fixed offshore steel structure. pure compression effect the API RP2A-WSD target 3549
7.
Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 4(19): 3544-3551, 2012 3.75 NOMENCLATURE ISO 19902 APIRP2A-WSD 3.50 FORM : First Order Reliability Method Reliability index SORM : Second Order Reliability Method 3.25 W : Load on the member Hmax : Maximum wave height 3.00 Vc : Current Speed 2.75 Vw : Wind Speed Gi : Limit state function 2.50 Rbi : Bending design resistance as per ISO 19902 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 Environmental load factor Rci : Compression design resistance as per ISO 19902Fig. 4: Environmental load factor for axial pure compression Rti : Tension design resistance as per ISO 19902 Sb,ji : Y-axis bending load effect as API RP2A reliability index computed was 3.03 similar to the WSD/ ISO 19902 member under combined compression and bending Sb,fi : Z-axis bending load effect as API RP2A effect. The environmental load factor was 1.4, as WSD/ ISO 19902 illustrated in Fig. 4. Sci : Compression load effect as API RP2A WSD/ ISO 19902 The values of environmental load factor of 1.44, 1.45 Sti : Tension load effect as API RP2A WSD/ ISOand 1.60 for this particular platform are extremely high, 19902compared to the environmental load factor of 1.35suggested in the ISO 19902 for extreme conditions. ACKNOWLEDGMENTNoting, that the ISO 19902 values were calibrated basedon the storm conditions that are harsher than Malaysian The authors thank Universiti Teknologi PETRONASwaters, the results were unexpected. This difference and for supporting this project.contradiction could be a result of the possible errors inmodeling the uncertainty of the environmental design REFERENCESload. Noting that environmental load modeling wasconducted based on the metocean data obtained from the API., 2005. Recommended Practice for Planning, Designdesign reports, instead of the hindcast or recorded data. In and Constructing Fixed Offshore Structures-Workingaddition, the structure was not redesigned when Stress Design. 21st Edn., API Publishing Services,evaluating the reliability index for ISO19902. Thus, Washington.considering that structural dimension are as per API Bomel, L., 2003. Component-based Calibration of theRP2A-WSD and that they are generally overdesigned, the North West European Annex Environmental Loadcorresponding environmental load factor for ISO19902 is Factors for the ISO Fixed Steel Offshore Structureslikely to be high. Code 19902. Health and Safety Executive. Chakrabarti, S.K., 1987. Hydrodynamics of Offshore CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK Structrures. WIT Press, ISBN: 9780905451664. Choi, S.K., R. Grandhi and R.A. Canfield, 2007. Structural reliability analysis of jacket platform has Reliability-based Structural Design. Springer.been undertaken. Reliability indices of existing structures, Duan, Z.D., D.C. Zhou and J.P. Ou, 2006a. Calibration ofdesigned as per API RP2A-WSD were evaluated and LRFD Format for Steel Jacket Platforms in Chinafound to be 3.26 for brace members and 3.44 for leg Offshore Area(1)-Statistical Parameters of Loads andmembers. These results agree with the values that are Resistances. China Ocean Engineering, pp: 1-14.rationally accepted for the manned offshore structure. Duan, Z.D., D.C. Zhou and J.P. Ou, 2006b. Calibration of The environmental load factors obtained were on the LRFD Format for Steel Jacket Platforms in Chinarange of 1.44-1.60, which are higher than the expected Offshore Area(2)-Load, Resistance and Load1.30-1.35, as mentioned in the literature for 100 year Combination Factors. China Ocean Engineering, pp:loading situations and platforms structural life of 30 years. 199-212.This research provides basis for future calibration works FHWA, 2001. Load and Resistance Factor Designof fixed steel offshore platforms in Malaysia. It is (LRFD) for Highway Bridge Substructure. Nationalrecommended that future studies increase the calibration Highway Institute, U.S. Department ofpoints and proper evaluation of the statistical parameters Transportation. Federal Highway Administration,of environmental loading. Washington. 3550
8.
Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 4(19): 3544-3551, 2012Galambos, T.V., 1981. Load and resistance factor design. Moses, F. and R.D. Larrabee, 1988. Calibration of the National Engineering Conference, AISC. draft RP2A-LRFD for fixed platforms. 20th OffshoreIdrus, A.B., N.S. Potty, M.F. Hamid, N.J. Cossa and Technology Conference OTC, Houston, pp: 171-180. Z. Nizamani, 2011a. Resistance Parameters Statistics Nowak, A.S. and M.M. Szerszen, 2000. Structural for Jacket Platforms in Offshore Malaysia. reliability as applied to highway bridges. Prog. International Offshore and Polar Engineering Struct. Eng. Material, 2: 218-224. Conference Maui, ISOPE, Hawai, pp: 226-232.Idrus, A.B., N.S. Potty, M.F. Hamid, Z. Nizamani and Nowak, A.S. and R. Taylor, 1986. Reliability based N.J. Cossa, 2011b. Selection of Environmental design criteria for timber bridges in Ontario. Can. J. Parameters for Offshore Jacket Platform Design in Civil Eng., 13(1): 1-7. Malaysia. International Conference on Steel and Tarp-Johansen, N.J., 2005. Partial Safety factors and Aluminum Structures Research Publishers, Kuching, characteristics values for combined extreme wind and pp: 383-387. wave load effects. J. Solar Energy Eng.,ISO 19902, 2007. Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries- 127: 242-252. Fixed Steel Offshore Structures. 1st Edn., ISO, Geneva.Moses, F., 1987. Application of Reliability to Formulation of Fixed Offshore Design Codes. Marine Structural Reliability Symposium, pp: 15-30.Moses, F. and S. Bernard, 2000. Calibration Issues in Development of ISO Standards for Fixed Steel Offshore Structures. International Symposium and Exhibition of Offshore Mechanics and Artic Engineering. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Lisbon, 122: 52-56. 3551
Be the first to comment