You are on page 1of 147

HS E

He a lth & S a fe ty
Exe c utive
Compone nt-base d calibration of North We st Europe an
a nne x e nviro nme nta l lo a d fa c to rs fo r the IS O
fixe d s te e l o ffs ho re s truc ture s c o d e 1 9 9 0 2
Pre p a re d b y BOMEL Ltd
On b e h a lf o f a Jo in t In d u s t ry Pro je ct in wh ich t h e
He a lt h a n d Sa fe t y Exe cu t ive wa s a p a rt icip a n t (2003)
RESEARCH REPORT 088
HS E
He a lth & S a fe ty
Exe c utive
Compone nt-base d calibration of North We st Europe an
a nne x e nviro nme nta l lo a d fa c to rs fo r the IS O
fixe d s te e l o ffs ho re s truc ture s c o d e 1 9 9 0 2
BOMEL Limit e d
Le d ge r Ho u s e
Fo re s t Gre e n Ro a d
Fifie ld
Ma id e n h e a d
Be rks hire
SL6 2NR
This report presents results of the classical component-based approach used in the Joint Industry
Project(JIP)toderiveextremeenvironmentalloadfactorsforaNorthWestEuropeanAnnextotheISO
fixedsteeloffshorestructuresCode19902.
The ISO 19902 Code introduces new provisions and changes in design practice; these changes,
together with a new understanding of the NW Europe environment, meant that it was necessary to
review the levels of safety and economy of structures that may be achieved by the use of the new
CodeforthedesignofNWEuropeanfixedoffshoresteelstructures.ThemainobjectiveofthisJIPwas
to calibrate the load factors for the NW European environment, although other load and resistance
factorswereassessedalso.
The project was developed in collaboration with a broad industry grouping of consultants, oil
companiesandregulatorsfromacrossEurope;BOMELledtheJIPloadfactorcalibrationphase.The
JIPinvolvedcalibrationusingbothasystem-basedapproachandacomponent-basedapproach.The
classicalcomponent-basedcalibrationisdescribedinthisreport..
ThisreportandtheworkitdescribeswerefundedinpartbytheHealthandSafetyExecutive(HSE)as
oneoftheJIPsponsors.Itscontents,includinganyopinionsand/orconclusionsexpressed,arethose
oftheauthorsandtheJIPSteeringCommitteealoneanddonotnecessarilyreflectHSEpolicy.
HS E BOOKS
Crown copyright 2003
First published 2003
ISBN0717622150
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced,storedinaretrievalsystem,ortransmittedin
any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior
writtenpermissionofthecopyrightowner.
Applicationsforreproductionshouldbemadeinwritingto:
LicensingDivision,HerMajesty'sStationeryOffice,
StClementsHouse,2-16Colegate,NorwichNR31BQ
orbye-mailtohmsolicensing@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk
ii
CONTENTS
Page No
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iiv
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 BACKGROUND 1
1.2 SCOPE OF WORK 1
2. METHODOLOGY FOR COMPONENT-BASED APPROACH TO CALIBRATION 3
2.1 SUMMARY 3
2.2 BACKGROUND OF CLASSICAL COMPONENT-BASED APPROACH 3
2.3 METHODOLOGY FOR CLASSICAL COMPONENT-BASED APPROACH 4
3. CALIBRATION POINT DATA AND WEIGHTING FACTORS 9
3.1 SUMMARY 9
3.2 CALIBRATION POINT DATA 9
3.3 WEIGHTING FACTOR DATA 12
4. PROBABILISTIC MODELLING 21
4.1 SUMMARY 21
4.2 FAILURE FUNCTION 21
4.3 PROBABILISTIC MODELLING 23
5. RELIABILITY ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR TYPICAL INDIVIDUAL COMPONENTS 29
5.1 SUMMARY 29
5.2 AXIAL TENSION 30
5.3 AXIAL COMPRESSION 32
5.4 BENDING 34
5.5 COMBINED TENSION & BENDING 37
5.6 COMBINED COMPRESSION & BENDING 39
5.7 COMBINED TENSION, BENDING & HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE 40
5.8 COMBINED COMPRESSION, BENDING & HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE 42
5.9 VARIATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL LOAD FACTOR 44
5.10 VARIATION OF COLUMN SLENDERNESS PARAMETER 45
5.11 VARIATION OF D/T RATIO 45
5.12 VARIATION OF BENDING AMPLIFICATION FACTOR, CM 45
5.13 VARIATION OF BENDING TO AXIAL STRESS RATIO 48
6. CALIBRATION POINT RESULTS 49
6.1 SUMMARY 49
6.2 BRACE MEMBERS 49
6.3 LEG MEMBERS 53
iii
7. HISTORICAL ASSESSMENT AND TARGET ASSESSMENT 57
7.1 HISTORICAL ASSESSMENT 57
7.2 TARGET ASSESSMENT 59
8. SENSITIVITY STUDIES 67
8.1 SUMMARY 67
8.2 WEIGHTING FACTORS 67
8.3 20-YEAR RELIABILITIES 69
8.4 TRUNCATION OF DESIGN LOAD UNCERTAINTY DISTRIBUTION 70
8.5 OPPOSING LOAD CONDITION 71
9. TUBULAR JOINTS 77
9.1 SUMMARY 77
9.2 CALIBRATION POINT DATA 77
9.3 WEIGHTING FACTOR DATA 79
9.4 PROBABILISTIC MODELLING 81
9.5 RELIABILITY ANALYSIS FOR TYPICAL JOINTS 81
9.6 CALIBRATION POINT RESULTS 95
9.7 TARGET ASSESSMENT 99
10. FOUNDATIONS 101
10.1 SUMMARY 101
10.2 CALIBRATION POINT DATA 101
10.3 PROBABILISTIC MODELLING 103
10.4 RELIABILITY ANALYSIS FOR TYPICAL INDIVIDUAL PILES 106
10.5 CALIBRATION POINT RESULTS 114
10.6 NORMALISED PILE CAPACITY 115
10.7 TARGET ASSESSMENT 117
11. EFFECT OF REDUCTION OF PERMANENT AND VARIABLE PARTIAL LOAD FACTORS 119
11.1 SUMMARY 119
11.2 MEMBERS 119
11.3 JOINTS 120
11.4 FOUNDATIONS 120
11.5 DISCUSSION 121
12. EFFECT OF INCREASE IN ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN LOAD UNCERTAINTY 123
12.1 SUMMARY 123
12.2 ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN LOAD UNCERTAINTY MODELLING 123
12.3 RESULTS 124
12.4 DISCUSSION 127
iv
13. CONCLUSIONS 129
14. GLOSSARY 131
15. REFERENCES 133
v
vi
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
This report presents results of the classical component-based approach for the Joint Industry Project (JIP) to
derive extreme environmental load factors for a North West European Annex to the ISO fixed steel offshore
structures Code 19902.
The ISO 19902 Code introduces new provisions and changes in design practice; these changes, together
with a new understanding of the NW Europe environment, mean that it is necessary to review the levels of
safety and economy of structures that may be achieved by the use of the new Code for the design of NW
European fixed offshore steel structures. The main objective of this JIP is to calibrate the load factors for the
NW European environment, although other load and resistance factors are assessed also.
The project has been developed in collaboration with a broad industry grouping of consultants, oil companies
and regulators from across Europe; BOMEL led the JIP load factor calibration phase. The JIP involved
calibration using both a system-based approach [1] and a component-based approach. The classical
component-based calibration is described in this report.
First-order reliability analyses have been undertaken using a database of tubular components with
representative geometries, bending-to-axial stress ratios, dead-to-live load ratios, environment-to-gravity
load ratios, etc.; the results have been weighted to reflect their frequency of occurrence in North Sea fixed
steel structures. The reliability analysis has been undertaken using environmental load modelling derived to
be representative of NW European waters. Unless noted otherwise, an annual reference period has been
used; thus annual probabilities of failure have been evaluated.
Weighted average failure probabilities have also been evaluated for the components designed to be fully
utilised to 20
th
(21
st
) Edition RP2A-WSD [2], 1
st
Edition RP2A-LRFD [3], together with earlier Editions of
RP2A-WSD (as applied in typical North Sea practice), in order to provide a context for the reliability
modelling, and to assist in the assessment of target reliability(s).
Weighted average failure probabilities have been evaluated for the components designed to be fully utilised
to the ISO code formulations using an extreme storm environmental load factor of 1.35; the analyses have
also been repeated for a range of environmental load factors. (The partial resistance factors have been
taken from the Code.) All work in this report has been based on the Committee Draft of the ISO Code dated
June 2001 [4].
A range of sensitivity studies have also been undertaken, including analysis with increased environmental
design loading uncertainty (using a CoV of 25%).
vii
RESULTS SUMMARY
A target has not been recommended in this report. However, the results show that if the target were to be
based on the weighted average probabilities inherent in 20
th
(21
st
) Edition API RP2A-WSD, an environmental
load factor of 1.25 with the new ISO provisions will on average achieve similar reliability levels.
In addition to the above reliability analyses, detailed reliability analyses have been undertaken for different
load effects (axial Compression, Compression & Bending, etc) for selected components. Results are also
presented to show the trends with reliability for environment-to-gravity load ratio for a number of other
effects, including:
the influence of the operating and still water conditions
different environmental load factors
20-year reference period (as opposed to an annual reference period)
member slenderness
moment amplification factor, Cm.
The only unexpected result was that analysis for the Cm factor showed that reliability for tubular members
governed by axial compression and bending is sensitive to the value of this term; in some design cases
selection of the most appropriate value of the Cm factor is a matter of judgement. It is recommended that
this is considered further by the ISO members panel.
Sensitivity studies have also been undertaken to investigate the effect of the weighting factors, and
truncation of the distribution for design load uncertainty. These sensitivity studies have confirmed the
robustness of the calibration approach.
Analysis to investigate the Opposing Load Condition has been undertaken. This condition rarely governs
member design, but in cases where it does, designs to ISO with an environmental load factor of 1.25 or
more would generally achieve a higher and more consistent level of reliability than those to RP2A-WSD.
Reliability analyses have been undertaken for tubular joints to assess the appropriateness of the resistance
factors. Reliabilities for all joint types and the single load effects analysed were shown to be reasonably
consistent for designs to the ISO Code, suggesting that the published resistance factors are appropriate.
However, no reliability analysis has been undertaken to assess the appropriateness of the load effect
interaction equation in the ISO Code, which has been changed from API RP2A. On the basis of the joint
calibration results, an environmental load factor of 1.25 would raise average reliability levels for joint designs
to the ISO code above the API RP2A-WSD 20
th
(21
st
) Edition values.
Some illustrative reliability-based analyses were undertaken for the axial capacity of piled foundations. The
results indicate that because of the very large uncertainties associated with the prediction of pile behaviour,
there is little effect on reliability for piles in compression from reducing the extreme environmental load factor
from 1.35 to 1.25. For piles governed by tension, a 1.25 environmental load factor leads to a similar (but
viii
greater) level of safety than achieved by RP2A-WSD; a 1.35 factor leads to a significant increase in safety
level (and hence required pile length) compared to RP2A-WSD.
Finally, a study to assess the implications of increased environmental design loading uncertainty was
undertaken; the CoV was increased from 16.5% to 25% to reflect concerns of some Participants. The
results of this study lead to an order of magnitude increase in evaluated failure probability. These results
cannot be reconciled with the base case results, and this makes the selection of a target reliability very
difficult, particularly if cost-benefit considerations are used. (Cost-benefit considerations may be used to
define targets for different Exposure Levels and for reassessment). Consequently, a consensus could not be
achieved on a suitable value of target reliability.
CONCLUSI ONS
The results suggest that adoption of a 1.35 factor on quasi-static extreme environmental loading with other
ISO 19902 partial factors and provisions would result in structures being designed which deliver reliability
levels for extreme weather at least consistent with traditional practice in all NW European regions.
For design use with NW European offshore structures, it is proposed by the Participants of the JIP to retain
the existing value of environmental load factor at 1.35. However, there should be an option to derive
structure-specific partial load factors using detailed analysis; this analysis should use site-specific
environmental data and take into consideration the specific form of the structure.
No change is suggested in the present values in the ISO Code of the partial resistance factors for tubular
members and joints, and the gravity load factors and load factors for the still water, operating and opposing
loads condition.
ix
x
1. I NTRODUCTI ON
1.1 BACKGROUND
The Joint Industry Project (JIP) concerns the derivation of environmental load factors for a North
West European Annex to the ISO fixed steel offshore structures Code 19902. With the new
provisions and changes in design practice introduced into the ISO 19902 Code, together with a
new understanding of the NW Europe environment, it is necessary to review the levels of safety
and economy of structures that may be achieved by the use of the new Code for the design of NW
European fixed offshore steel structures.
The project has been developed in collaboration with a broad industry grouping of consultants, oil
companies and regulators from across Europe. This JIP phase is led by BOMEL.
The JIP is using calibration approaches based on both system and component methods. By
following both approaches it is believed that concerns with each of the system and component-
based methods can be addressed and enough information generated to be able to make an
informed judgement on the value(s) of the extreme environmental load factor(s).
This report is concerned with the classical component-based method for safety factor calibration.
The purpose of this report is to present results for the calibration analysis.
1.2 SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of work was as follows:
Assemble database of components representing the practical range of application of the
Code these are termed calibration points, and assess weighting factors to reflect their
frequency of occurrence in NW European waters.
Assess the uncertainty of all of the variables influencing component failure and model
them using probability distribution functions
Perform reliability analysis to assess the probability of failure for each calibration point
(component), and calculate the weighted average probability of failure.
Repeat the reliability analysis for a range of environmental load factors.
Repeat reliability analyses for a range of design Codes to assess historic changes in
inherent reliability levels.
Target assessment, e.g. based on generic Cost Benefit Analysis.
1
Sensitivity analyses.
Prepare report.
For brevity, throughout this report, the term Code is used to refer to the ISO and API design
documents. A new 21
st
Edition of RP2A-WSD has recently been published; the changes between
the 20
th
and 21
st
Editions do not affect the analysis work undertaken for this report.
2
2. METHODOLOGY FOR COMPONENT-BASED
APPROACH TO CALI BRATI ON
2.1 SUMMARY
This section discusses the basis and the methodology of the component-based approach to the
calibration of the environmental load factor.
2.2 BACKGROUND OF CLASSICAL COMPONENT-BASED APPROACH
Probabilistic methods have been employed in the calibration of the factors of safety in Codes of
Practice, in particular limit state Codes, for around 30 years.
Typically, where a limit state format Code has been developed to replace a traditional working
stress design Code, the objective of the calibration has been to derive safety factors for the limit
state Code, which achieve designs with similar reliabilities to those inherent in designs to the
working stress Code. Most often they have been employed at the component or structural
element level.
Where a limit state Code is introduced as a direct replacement to an existing working stress Code
the choice of the target reliability is relatively straightforward, provided that the existing Code is
considered to produce designs with acceptable reliability and economy. The target reliability is
then derived as follows.
1. The objective of the calibration is defined. This may involve evaluating targets for a
number of groups of different component types under different loading modes these
are referred to as the calibration classes.
2. A set of structural components is selected to reflect the range of components covered
by the Code. The designs are then usually weighted to reflect their frequency of usage.
3. The components are designed to be fully utilised to the existing working stress design
(WSD) Code.
4. The probability of failure of each design is evaluated using structural reliability methods.
5. The target reliability for each calibration class is then evaluated as the weighted average
of the failure probabilities. Alternative definitions are sometimes used, including
weighted average reliability indices, lower bound reliability index, or more complex
functions.
3
This basic process was followed for the calibration of the safety factors for steel design in the UK
limit state bridge Code BS 5400 from the old allowable stress Code BS 153. The target failure
probability was determined as the weighted average failure probability for selected component
types designed to BS 153; some component types (notably stiffened compression flanges) were
not included in the target assessment because they had not been shown to behave satisfactorily
in service [5]. The evaluated target of 0.63 10
-6
was then used to calibrate safety factors for all
component types in the new Code using a mathematical optimisation procedure.
The advantage of this type of calibration is that the target probability can readily be considered as
notional because the calibration is undertaken on a like-for-like basis. Indeed, when this type of
calibration was originally undertaken, mean value reliability methods were considered adequate.
Unfortunately, it is not always possible or desirable to calibrate back to an existing Code or design
practice. In such situations, the target reliability must be selected using alternative methods.
Judgement is often necessary in selecting the target, and it is strongly advisable that the
evaluated failure probabilities are obtained using the best available data, knowledge and
methodology.
2.3 METHODOLOGY FOR CLASSICAL COMPONENT-BASED
APPROACH
2.3.1 Definition of Structure Class
The Class of Structure for the calibration has been defined as offshore, fixed, steel, space frame
(jacket and tower) sub-structures in intermediate to deep waters. It is assumed that the
environmental loading on the structures is dominated by drag loading; the load factors derived on
this basis are likely to be conservative for (the small number of) structures dominated by inertia
loading. It is also assumed that the structures are not significantly affected by dynamic response
under environmental loading, and no attempt has been made within this report to consider the
affect or influence of the additional partial factor on dynamic response.
Mono-towers, including caissons and tripods, have not been explicitly considered in the
calibration; because of their reduced levels of structural redundancy these require particular
consideration.
The calibration reported in this document has been undertaken on a component basis. The
principal components employed in the calibration assessment of the environmental load factor are
tubular brace members and legs only primary structural diagonal and horizontal braces are
considered.
Reliability analyses have also been undertaken for tubular joints to assess the consistency of the
reliability achieved by the resistance factors in the ISO Code.
4
A brief investigation has also been undertaken to consider the effects of the load factors on the
reliability of piled foundations.
2.3.2 Goal of the Code
Typically, some reliability, utility, cost benefit or other targets are set in some form prior to the
calibration of partial factors. As discussed above, it is not uncommon to use a weighted average
reliability derived from the old Code as a target for the new one.
In the present study, the activity of goal selection has been delayed. However, reliabilities based
on API RP2A-WSD 20
th
(21
st
) Edition and all previous Editions have been evaluated, along with
values based on RP2A-LRFD. The aim is to present a historic basis of reliabilities evaluated using
the probabilistic modelling applied in this project. The target values suggested by Efthymiou et al
[6] for members that carry significant extreme environmental load have also been considered for
illustrative purposes.
2.3.3 Code Format
The format is the form of the equations used for the integrity checks in the ISO Code. They have
already been specified and follow load and resistance factor design or LRFD. The scope of the
present study is restricted to the factor on extreme environmental load. The values for other
factors are taken as given by the existing ISO draft.
2.3.4 Calibration Points and Importance Weighting
In order to carry out a component-based calibration, it is necessary to identify some calibration
points for the study. These have been chosen to reflect the most frequently found member types,
ratios of dead load to live or environmental load. Greater weighting in the calibration exercise has
been given to the more frequently found member types. Moreover, since the present study is
restricted to the environmental load factor, emphasis has gone to the structural elements that are
most likely to fail under environmental load. This significantly reduces the number of member
types to be considered. They have been selected on the basis of experience and the design
requirements of the element. In practice for new structures designed to the ISO Code, joints
should be stronger than members and do not need to be considered in the calibration for the
environmental load factor. However, some reliability analysis has been undertaken to assess the
appropriateness of the joint strength resistance factors. Analyses have also been undertaken to
consider the effect of the load factor on the reliability of piled foundations.
2.3.5 Measure of Fit
Usually, when all of the safety factors in a Code are calibrated it is necessary to measure the
departure of the Code from the goal that has been set. Academic books suggest that this may be
made in economic terms, and this may be attractive, particularly if the target(s) used account for
cost/benefit analysis. At the moment, the mean square deviation of the reliability index from the
target value has been used. Given the restricted nature of the project, in only defining the
environmental load factor, this is considered adequate. In all cases, care should be taken over
5
outliers, particularly on the low reliability side. Since the cost of failure is always subject itself to
some uncertainty, it is better to err to the conservative.
2.3.6 Element Design
The present (and previous) Code(s) are used to design structural members that are considered to
be important calibration points.
2.3.7 Limit States
For the reliability analysis it is necessary to be able to predict failure of each calibration point
component. Failure functions (or limit state functions) are defined for each limit state for each
member. In this analysis they are based on the functions given in the draft ISO Code (without
partial factors). The uncertainty in the failure load or resistance predicted from the ISO Code
formulations is included by using a set of model uncertainties. Model uncertainties have been
derived from databases of large and full scale tests for this project by MSL [7].
2.3.8 Statistical Properties of Basic Variables
Probability distributions are assigned to each element of the set of basic variables {xi} on both the
load and resistance side. Well-developed, robust methods of generating load statistics should be
used with adequate input from oceanographers and probabilistic wave load experts. The
environmental load modelling has been derived for this project by Tromans & Vanderschuren [8].
2.3.9 Estimate Reliability of Members Designed to Old Codes
The first-order reliability method (FORM) has been used (checks were also undertaken using
second-order analysis methods). Reliability estimates have been evaluated for different member
types designed using a number of earlier Editions of design Codes for a range of conditions (e.g. a
range of ratios of live to dead load, and gravity to environmental load). The aim is to help in
selecting a target reliability to calibrate the new Code to, and to obtain a feel for how reliability has
evolved over time. This will often show that old practices have given very different (though
probably high) levels of reliability and will put the present developments into context.
2.3.10 Estimate Partial Factors for New Code
Further FORM studies have been undertaken for the calibration points designed to the ISO Code
with different trial partial safety factors. Through an iterative process it is possible to converge on
partial factors that provide a level of reliability that is reasonably uniform and close to the target.
Since the present study is limited to producing the environmental load factor, it is possible to make
this step by plotting a graph.
2.3.11 Engineering Judgement and Sensitivity Studies
The final step is a subjective review of the results. The FORM study indicates which basic
variables play the main role in determining reliability. It is wise to investigate the effects of credible
changes in their distributions. It is desirable to make a quick review of consequences for structural
elements that were not treated as main calibration points, but are influenced by environmental
6
load. Undoubtedly, the Code will be used to design structures which are covered by the standard
only to the extent that the provisions are applicable.
A number of sensitivity studies have been undertaken, and are reported in Section 8.
7
8
3. CALI BRATI ON POI NT DATA AND WEI GHTI NG
FACTORS
3.1 SUMMARY
This section discusses the selection of the calibration point data and weighting factors to reflect
the occurrence of designs in practice.
A statistical survey was carried out for the AME calibration of the draft LRFD for North Sea
application [9] to determine the relative frequency of occurrence of the various geometric
configurations and load effects for tubular joints, braces and legs of North Sea jackets. The
weighting factors derived in Reference 9 were modified using engineering judgement to reflect
current practice.
3.2 CALIBRATION POINT DATA
3.2.1 Geometry
Representative geometries for diagonal and horizontal tubulars have been selected and are
shown in Table 3.1; Table 3.2 shows representative geometries for leg members. The geometries
have been selected to reflect a range of slendernesses and D/T ratios.
Unbraced length given in the table below is face-to-face length. It has been assumed for the
purpose of this study that the node-to-node length (required for ISO determination of slenderness
ratio) is 5% greater than the face-to-face length.
G1 G2 G3 G4
1400 700 1400 1600
Thickness, T (mm) 50 25 45 40
9720 8000 28740 41750
0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
0.19 0.32 0.57 0.72
D/T 28 28 31.1 40
Cm 0.4 0.85 0.85 0.6
Yield Stress, Fy (N/mm
2
) 340 345 340 340
Youngs Modulus, E (N/mm
2
) 207000 207000 207000 207000
Diameter, D (mm)
Unbraced length, L (mm)
Effective Length Factor, K
Column slenderness parameter,
Table 3.1 Geometry of Tubular Brace Members
9
G1 G2(a) G2(b) G3
2300 3300 3300 2000
Thickness, T (mm) 50 50 60 60
Unbraced length, L (mm) 9750 33270 33270 36330
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
0.17 0.40 0.39 0.72
D/T 46 66 55 33.33
Cm 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Yield Stress, Fy (N/mm
2
) 340 340 340 340
Youngs Modulus, E (N/mm
2
) 207000 207000 207000 207000
Diameter, D (mm)
Effective Length Factor, K
Column slenderness parameter,
Table 3.2 Geometry of Leg Members
3.2.2 Load Effects
The load effects studied were as follows:
Axial Compression and Bending C+B
Axial Tension and Bending T+B
Axial Tension, Bending and Hydrostatic Pressure T+B+H
Axial Compression, Bending and Hydrostatic Pressure C+B+H
3.2.3 Load Combinations
The combinations of stress ratios considered for tubular braces and legs are listed in Table 3.3.
The combinations of dead to live load ratio considered are listed in Table 3.4.
The effect of platform location is reflected in the frequencies of usage with the Central North Sea
(CNS) jackets experiencing less extreme environmental loading than the platforms in the Northern
sector of the North Sea (NNS). Higher weighting has been assigned to the higher We/G ratios for
elements located near the seabed to account for the larger environmental loading experienced by
tubulars near the seabed. Conversely, the frequencies for lower We/G ratios for tubulars located in
the splash zone are higher reflecting the increased relative contribution of gravity loading.
1 0
Combined Stress Ratios
Compression:Bending
Compression:Bending:(Hydrostatic*)
Range of Equally Weighted Stress Ratios for the Combined Load Effects Considered
for Extreme Loading Condition
We:G D:L
0.3
1.0
3.5
11.5
Low - 0.25:0.75
Medium - 0.50:0.50
High - 0.75:0.25
Tension:Bending
Low - 0.33:0.67
Medium - 0.67:0.33
High - 0.9:0.1
Low - 0.33:0.67
Medium - 0.40:0.60
High - 0.50:0.50
Tension:Bending:(Hydrostatic*)
Low - 0.33:0.67
Medium - 0.50:0.50
High - 0.66:0.34
*hydrostatic component input as proportion of axial+bending stress proportion dependent on whether NNS/CNS and leg/brace see
Low - 0.5:0.5
Medium - 0.7:0.3
High - 0.9:0.1
Low - 0.6:0.4
Medium - 0.7:0.3
High - 0.9:0.1
Low - 0.6:0.4
Medium - 0.8:0.2
High - 0.9:0.1
Low - 0.7:0.3
Medium - 0.8:0.2
High - 0.9:0.1
section 3.2.4
Table 3.3
Table 3.4 Range of Equally Weighted Gravity Load Ratios for Each Environmental-to-Gravity
Load Ratio for the Extreme Loading Condition
1 1
3.2.4 Hydrostatic Pressure
The hydrostatic load component was input as a proportion of the axial+bending stress; the
proportion being dependent on the member D/t ratio and whether the case was for NNS or CNS.
The proportions were identical for T+B+H and C+B+H cases and were calculated as follows;
D/ t hfact
phydro (3.1)
28
where phydro is the proportion of the axial+bending stress and hfact varies with We/G ratio as follows:
hfact
We/G ratio
NNS CNS
0.3 0.006 0.006
1.0 0.015 0.015
3.5 0.03 0.02
11.5 0.06 0.04
Table 3.5 Factors used in calculation of proportion of hydrostatic pressure
Values of hfact were chosen to give realistic water depths for splash zone, mid-depth zone and
seabed appropriate to NNS or CNS platforms. Using this approach the actual water depths vary
slightly with design load for each of the codes.
3.3 WEIGHTING FACTOR DATA
The weighting factors used for the reliability analysis are presented in Figure 3.1 to Figure 3.7 in
the form of weighting trees.
As shown in Figure 3.1, fixed steel platforms are distributed throughout the North Sea with the
majority being located in the Southern North Sea. Southern North Sea (SNS) platforms were
excluded from the calibration for two reasons. Firstly, because most SNS platforms are not
considered representative of modern design due to their age, and secondly because the majority
of components for recent SNS jacket structures have been designed for installation and fatigue
loads. The frequencies of occurrence assigned to NNS and CNS structural components were
normalised to account for the exclusion of SNS platforms.
Most Central North Sea platforms are located in the 50-75m water depth range. Northern North
Sea platforms are approximately evenly distributed over the 100-175m depth range [9].
1 2
NORTH SEA
MEMBERS
Figure 3.2, 3.3
LEGS
Figure 3.6
JOINTS
Figure 9.1
NNS
0.12 (0.29)*
MEMBERS
Figure 3.4, 3.5
LEGS
Figure 3.7
JOINTS
Figure 9.1
CNS
0.27 (0.71)*
SNS
0.61
* Normalised values
Figure 3.1 Key to Weighting Trees for Fixed Steel Platforms in the North Sea
1 3
NNS
HORIZONTALS
0.7
S
0.30
G2
0.46
L
0.20
0.3
0.20
G3
0.28
G4
0.21
M
0.30
H
0.50
1.0
0.25
3.5
0.25
12
0.30
C+B
0.60
T+B
0.30
T+B+H
0.05
C+B+H
0.05
G1
0.05
M
0.52
G2
0.46
L
0.20
0.3
0.10
G3
0.19
G4
0.33
M
0.30
H
0.50
1.0
0.20
3.5
0.35
12
0.35
C+B
0.60
T+B
0.20
T+B+H
0.05
C+B+H
0.15
G1
0.02
B
0.18
G2
0.25
L
0.20
0.3
0.05
G3
0.31
G4
0.42
M
0.30
H
0.50
1.0
0.10
3.5
0.40
12
0.45
C+B
0.32
T+B
0.08
T+B+H
0.12
C+B+H
0.48
G1
0.02
L
0.33
M
0.33
H
0.33
L
0.33
M
0.33
H
0.33
L
0.33
M
0.33
H
0.33
ELEMENT
TOPOLOGY
WATER DEPTH
RANGE
DESIGN
GROUP
G1: <0.25
G2: 0.26 - 0.5
G3: 0.51 - 0.75
G4: >0.75
LOAD
EFFECTS
STRESS RATIO
COMBINATIONS
LOAD
COMBINATIONS
We/G
DEAD TO LIVE
LOAD RATIOS
Figure 3.2 Tree Diagram for Horizontal Tubular Braces Extreme Loading Condition NNS
1 4
NNS
HORIZONTALS
0.7
S
0.30
G2
0.46
L
0.20
0.3
0.20
G3
0.28
G4
0.21
M
0.30
H
0.50
1.0
0.25
3.5
0.25
12
0.30
C+B
0.60
T+B
0.30
T+B+H
0.05
C+B+H
0.05
G1
0.05
M
0.52
G2
0.46
L
0.20
0.3
0.10
G3
0.19
G4
0.33
M
0.30
H
0.50
1.0
0.20
3.5
0.35
12
0.35
C+B
0.60
T+B
0.20
T+B+H
0.05
C+B+H
0.15
G1
0.02
B
0.18
G2
0.25
L
0.20
0.3
0.05
G3
0.31
G4
0.42
M
0.30
H
0.50
1.0
0.10
3.5
0.40
12
0.45
C+B
0.32
T+B
0.08
T+B+H
0.12
C+B+H
0.48
G1
0.02
L
0.33
M
0.33
H
0.33
L
0.33
M
0.33
H
0.33
L
0.33
M
0.33
H
0.33
ELEMENT
TOPOLOGY
WATER DEPTH
RANGE
DESIGN
GROUP
G1: <0.25
G2: 0.26 - 0.5
G3: 0.51 - 0.75
G4: >0.75
LOAD
EFFECTS
STRESS RATIO
COMBINATIONS
LOAD
COMBINATIONS
We/G
DEAD TO LIVE
LOAD RATIOS
Figure 3.3 Tree Diagram for Diagonal Tubular Braces Extreme Loading Condition NNS
1 5
CNS
HORIZONTALS
0.59
S
0.51
G2
0.50
L
0.20
0.3
0.20
G3
0.14
G4
0.11
M
0.30
H
0.50
1.0
0.30
3.5
0.30
12
0.20
C+B
0.67
T+B
0.33
T+B+H
0.00
C+B+H
0.00
G1
0.25
M
0.32
G2
0.55
L
0.20
0.3
0.15
G3
0.12
G4
0.13
M
0.30
H
0.50
1.0
0.25
3.5
0.35
12
0.25
C+B
0.60
T+B
0.20
T+B+H
0.05
C+B+H
0.15
G1
0.20
B
0.17
G2
0.33
L
0.20
0.3
0.10
G3
0.34
G4
0.22
M
0.30
H
0.50
1.0
0.15
3.5
0.45
12
0.30
C+B
0.64
T+B
0.16
T+B+H
0.05
C+B+H
0.15
G1
0.11
L
0.33
M
0.33
H
0.33
L
0.33
M
0.33
H
0.33
L
0.33
M
0.33
H
0.33
ELEMENT
TOPOLOGY
WATER DEPTH
RANGE
DESIGN
GROUP
G1: <0.25
G2: 0.26 - 0.5
G3: 0.51 - 0.75
G4: >0.75
LOAD
EFFECTS
STRESS RATIO
COMBINATIONS
LOAD
COMBINATIONS
We/G
DEAD TO LIVE
LOAD RATIOS
Figure 3.4 Tree Diagram for Horizontal Tubular Braces Extreme Loading Condition CNS
1 6
CNS
DIAGONALS
0.41
S
0.33
G2
0.34
L
0.20
0.3
0.20
G3
0.15
G4
0.25
M
0.30
H
0.50
1.0
0.30
3.5
0.30
12
0.20
C+B
0.67
T+B
0.33
T+B+H
0.00
C+B+H
0.00
G1
0.26
M
0.39
G2
0.26
L
0.20
0.3
0.15
G3
0.24
G4
0.25
M
0.30
H
0.50
1.0
0.25
3.5
0.35
12
0.25
C+B
0.60
T+B
0.20
T+B+H
0.05
C+B+H
0.15
G1
0.25
B
0.28
G2
0.54
L
0.20
0.3
0.10
G3
0.14
G4
0.12
M
0.30
H
0.50
1.0
0.15
3.5
0.45
12
0.30
C+B
0.64
T+B
0.16
T+B+H
0.05
C+B+H
0.15
G1
0.20
L
0.33
M
0.33
H
0.33
L
0.33
M
0.33
H
0.33
L
0.33
M
0.33
H
0.33
ELEMENT
TOPOLOGY
WATER DEPTH
RANGE
DESIGN
GROUP
G1: <0.25
G2: 0.26 - 0.5
G3: 0.51 - 0.75
G4: >0.75
LOAD
EFFECTS
STRESS RATIO
COMBINATIONS
LOAD
COMBINATIONS
We/G
DEAD TO LIVE
LOAD RATIOS
Figure 3.5 Tree Diagram for Diagonal Tubular Braces Extreme Loading Condition CNS
1 7
ELEMENT
TOPOLOGY
NNS
LEGS
0.29
M
0.70
G2
0.54
G1
0.36
C+B
local
1.00
G3
0.10
G4
0.00
G2a
D/T > 60
0.50
G2b
D/T < 60
0.50
C+B
o/all
0.95
T+B
0.00
T+B+H
0.00
C+B+H
0.05
S
0.12
G2b
0.50
L
0.20
0.3
0.20
G3
0.50
G4
0.00
M
0.30
H
0.50
1.0
0.30
3.5
0.30
12
0.20
L
0.33
M
0.33
H
0.33
C+B
o/all
1.00
T+B
0.00
T+B+H
0.00
C+B+H
0.00
G1
0.00
L
0.20
0.3
0.20
M
0.30
H
0.50
1.0
0.25
3.5
0.35
12
0.25
L
0.33
M
0.33
H
0.33
B
0.18
G2
1.00
G1
0.00
C+B
local
1.00
G3
0.00
G4
0.00
G2a
D/T > 60
0.40
G2b
D/T < 60
0.60
C+B
o/all
0.90
T+B
0.00
T+B+H
0.00
C+B+H
0.10
L
0.20
0.3
0.10
M
0.30
H
0.50
1.0
0.15
3.5
0.45
12
0.30
L
0.33
M
0.33
H
0.33
WATER DEPTH
RANGE
DESIGN
GROUP
G1: <0.25
G2: 0.26 - 0.5
G3: 0.51 - 0.75
G4: >0.75
LOAD
EFFECTS
STRESS RATIO
COMBINATIONS
LOAD
COMBINATIONS
We/G
DEAD TO LIVE
LOAD RATIOS
Figure 3.6 Tree Diagram for Leg Members Extreme Loading Condition NNS
1 8
ELEMENT
TOPOLOGY
CNS
LEGS
0.71
M
0.50
G2
0.84
G1
0.16
C+B
local
1.00
G3
0.00
G4
0.00
G2a
D/T > 60
0.50
G2b
D/T < 60
0.50
C+B
o/all
0.95
T+B
0.00
T+B+H
0.00
C+B+H
0.05
S
0.16
G2b
0.67
L
0.20
0.3
0.20
G3
0.00
G4
0.00
M
0.30
H
0.50
1.0
0.30
3.5
0.30
12
0.20
L
0.33
M
0.33
H
0.33
C+B
o/all
1.00
T+B
0.00
T+B+H
0.00
C+B+H
0.00
G1
0.33
L
0.20
0.3
0.20
M
0.30
H
0.50
1.0
0.25
3.5
0.35
12
0.25
L
0.33
M
0.33
H
0.33
B
0.34
G2
0.85
G1
0.15
C+B
local
1.00
G3
0.00
G4
0.00
G2a
D/T > 60
0.40
G2b
D/T < 60
0.60
C+B
o/all
0.90
T+B
0.00
T+B+H
0.00
C+B+H
0.10
L
0.20
0.3
0.10
M
0.30
H
0.50
1.0
0.15
3.5
0.45
12
0.30
L
0.33
M
0.33
H
0.33
WATER DEPTH
RANGE
DESIGN
GROUP
G1: <0.25
G2: 0.26 - 0.5
G3: 0.51 - 0.75
G4: >0.75
LOAD
EFFECTS
STRESS RATIO
COMBINATIONS
LOAD
COMBINATIONS
We/G
DEAD TO LIVE
LOAD RATIOS
Figure 3.7 Tree Diagram for Leg Members Extreme Loading Condition CNS
1 9
2 0
4. PROBABI LI STI C MODELLI NG
4.1 SUMMARY
This section outlines the definition of the failure function used in the reliability analysis, and
describes the probabilistic modelling of the basic variables.
4.2 FAILURE FUNCTION
In structural reliability analysis, a failure function is used to define the failure event. At its simplest,
the failure function is:
Z Resistance Load (4.1)
In the reliability analysis for safety factor calibration in this project:
The loading term is based on the load level on a component to cause a utilisation ratio
of unity to a particular design code, i.e. it is based on the strength formulations for the
particular code and it includes the safety factors, or load and resistance partial safety
factors, for the code.
The resistance term should be based on the best model available for predicting the
strength of a component. For the reliability analysis in this project, the ISO formulations
(without safety factors) have been used.
The loading term can be considered to represent the factored design load to a particular design
code, and thus Eqn (4.1) gives the safety margin between the ultimate strength of the component
and the factored design load. By using the same model to define the ultimate strength of the
components, failure probabilities can be directly compared for different design codes.
In reality Eqn (4.1) is more complex, since both the resistance and loading terms include a number
of uncertainties. The uncertainties are defined for the basic variables influencing the failure event.
The failure function given by Eqn (4.1) can be expressed in notational form as:
(
y
Z X , F , t R
m
etc , ) (dD + lL + wW / X ) R
des
(4.2)
w
where R(t, Fy, Xm, etc) is the uncertain resistance of the component evaluated using the ISO
formulations without safety factors, and is a function of the uncertain geometric and
material parameters, and the model uncertainty associated with the particular ISO
formulation
2 1
Rdes is the design resistance (or maximum load to give a utilisation of unity) for the
nominal component to the appropriate Code, and is a function of the load and
resistance partial factors (or safety factors in WSD), the nominal geometric and material
parameters and the proportions of unfactored gravity and environmental load (d, l, and
w)
d, l and w are the proportions of unfactored dead, live and environmental load in the
component (Note: d+l+w = 1.0)
D, L and W are the random variables for the uncertainty in dead, live and environmental
loading
and Xw is the model uncertainty in the evaluation of the environmental design loading
Egn (4.2) may be used for single load effects (axial tension, bending, etc.). For interaction effects,
the failure function in the reliability analysis can also be considered as follows. The uncertain axial
force in a component may be expressed as:
(dD + lL + wW / X ) R
( p . Area )
X
F
w des
axial
(4.3)
m
the uncertain bending moment may be expressed as:
w des
M
(dD + lL + wW / X ) R
( p . ulus mod Section
bending
) (4.4)
X
m
R
etc. where paxial and pbending are deterministic pre-defined proportions of axial and bending stress.
Thus, the deterministic axial force to give full utilisation to the design Code, WSD say, is
des
. ( p . Area ) .
axial
The safety margin in the reliability analysis is evaluated by deriving the uncertain stresses, fa. fb,
etc, from the forces and moments, F and M, etc, and substituting into the particular ISO strength
formulations (without safety factors). In the evaluation of the safety margin, random variables for
diameter and thickness are used to evaluate the stresses from the above forces, and for yield
stress, effective length, etc.
An assumption of this approach is that the ratio of axial to bending stress remains constant. This
is an artifice of calibration analysis methodology, which is considered acceptable because of the
averaging process undertaken over the component database.
2 2
4.3 PROBABILISTIC MODELLING
Probability distributions have been assigned to both loading and resistance terms. All basic
variables have been assumed to be independently distributed, i.e. uncorrelated.
The modelling of the uncertainty in gravity and environmental loading is the same as that adopted
in the component-based calibration approach [1].
Xm Resistance model uncertainty LN [see Table 4.1]
The resistance uncertainty parameters, i.e. mean bias and coefficient of variation (CoV), for the
various strength formulations are as given in the ISO code and are presented in Table 4.1.
Lognormal distributions have been assumed for all of the resistance model uncertainties. For the
interaction equations, the basic variable for model uncertainty has been applied to the load terms
in a manner consistent with its derivation.
Design Equation Bias St Dev
AXIAL TENSION 1.000 0.0000
column buckling 1.057 0.0433
AXIAL COMPRESSION
local buckling 1.065 0.0724
BENDING 1.109 0.0943
HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE 1.142 0.1416
TENSION AND BENDING 1.109 0.0943
column buckling 1.029 0.0844
COMPRESSION AND BENDING
local buckling 1.246 0.0835
TENSION, BENDING AND HYDROSTATIC 1.075 0.1054
column buckling 1.197 0.1089
COMPRESSION, BENDING AND HYDROSTATIC
local buckling 1.199 0.1607
Table 4.1 Resistance Modelling Uncertainties
W Annual environmental loading Tromans[A=0.327, B=0.146]
The probability distribution for environmental loading is based on recommendations by Tromans &
Vanderschuren [8]. The annual probability of exceedence of extreme load, normalised on its 100-
year value, is
L
*
A
`

Q(L
*
) exp

'

|


'
(4.5)


.
B
,


2 3
where L
*
= L/L100, A = 0.327 and B = 0.146.
The cumulative probability distribution is given by:
(
|
L
*
L
*

A
`

L F
*
) 1Q( ) 1exp
'


'
(4.6)


. ,

This is an exponential distribution, which is only valid for L


*
A. The mean of the distribution is
A + B = 0.473, and standard deviation is B = 0.146; the coefficient of variation (CoV) is thus 0.31.
A distribution based on annual exceedence has been used, and thus annual probabilities of failure
have been evaluated.
In some cases reliability analyses have been undertaken for a 20-year reference period; thus 20-
year probabilities of failure have been evaluated. 20-years was assumed to be representative of
platform design lives in the API TAC-22 work [10], and the AME calibration of the draft LRFD for
North Sea application [9].
The distribution for 20-year maxima was defined using Order statistics as:
20
* *
( F
L
20 ( L ) { L F ) (4.7)
1
This distribution has a mean of 0.852, and standard deviation of 0.184; the CoV is thus 0.216.
These distributions are for structures dominated by drag loading. When used in reliability analysis
for a component, it is assumed that the environmental loading effects on the component are
proportional to the global environmental load (base shear or base overturning moment) on the
structure. Thus dynamic effects, vortex shedding considerations, and member wave slam and
slap are ignored.
Xw Design load uncertainty Truncated N[1.09, 0.18, truncated at 1.5]
The environmental design load arising from the ISO Code and standard practices is estimated to
be subject to a 9% conservative bias and a CoV of 16.5% relative to the true 100 year value. The
uncertainty is modelled by a normal distribution truncated at 1.5 standard deviations, as
suggested by Tromans [8]. The truncation is introduced because it is considered that any values
beyond the truncation limit will be filtered out during the course of the design process.
Uncertainty and bias in the environmental design load arise from two main sources:
the application of the wave force recipe
the environmental design criteria themselves.
The interpretation of questionnaires undertaken by Tromans & Vanderschuren of oceanographers
[8] is that there is a CoV of 15 % on design wave load arising from uncertainty in extrapolation of
metocean data, and a conservative bias of 9 % from the wave force recipe. The uncertainty in the
2 4
L
load arising from the recipe is a matter of application details; study by Digre et al [11] suggests
that it can be represented by a CoV of 7 %.
D Dead load N[1.0, 0.06]
In the preliminary stages of a design process conservative contingency factors are often applied to
weight estimates to reflect the uncertainty in topsides equipment weight and layout, etc. As the
design process proceeds, the contingency factors are progressively reduced.
The uncertainty in the dead load component in members participating in the failure mode is
proportional to dead loading on the structure. Uncertainty in dead loading includes rolling
tolerances, fabrication aids, paint and fire protection, approximations in weight take-off, marine
growth, etc.; also included within the definition of dead load is buoyancy. Based on calibration
work undertaken for the North Sea adaptation of the Draft LRFD Code in 1990 [9] the uncertainty
in dead loading has been modelled by a normal distribution with a bias of 1.0 and a CoV of 0.06.
This modelling was assumed to cover all permanent load on the structure; for the ISO Code, it was
assumed to encompass both categories of permanent load (action) (i.e. G1 and G2).
Live load N[1.0, 0.10]
Uncertainty in live loading arises from variation in fluid volumes and densities, drill pipe volumes,
drill rig position, load distribution, etc. Based on calibration work undertaken for the North Sea
adaptation of the Draft LRFD Code in 1990 [9] the uncertainty in live loading has been modelled
by a normal distribution with a bias of 1.0 and a CoV of 0.10.
For the ISO Code, live load is categorised as variable load (action) (i.e. Q1). Short duration loads
(actions) (i.e. Q2 in ISO) only affect the operating and still water design conditions; the influence of
this type of loading on primary jacket member design is usually small; it has been neglected in
analysis for the operating condition.
H Hydrostatic load N[1.0, 0.06]
The uncertainty in hydrostatic loading arises from salinity, platform settlement, tidal variation,
storm surge etc. Based on calibration work undertaken for the North Sea adaptation of the Draft
LRFD Code in 1990 [9], a normal distribution with a bias of 1.0 and CoV of 0.06 was adopted; this
is conservative. Hydrostatic pressure was assumed to be independent of wave height (although
extreme hydrostatic pressure is influence by crest height, this is a secondary effect for the
purposes of this analysis).
XD Diameter N[1.0, 0.0025]
Based on calibration work undertaken for the North Sea adaptation of the Draft LRFD Code in
1990 [9], member diameter was assumed to have a bias of 1.0 and CoV of 0.0025.
2 5
XT Thickness N[1.0, 0.004+0.25/T]
Based on calibration work undertaken for the North Sea adaptation of the Draft LRFD Code in
1990 [9], member thickness was found to have a bias of 1.0 and a standard deviation of
0.004+0.25/T (in mm).
XL Length N[1.0, 0.0025]
Based on calibration work undertaken for the North Sea adaptation of the Draft LRFD Code in
1990 [9], unbraced length was assumed to have a bias of 1.0 and CoV of 0.0025.
XF Yield stress LN[1.1266, 0.0572]
As for the North Sea adaptation of the Draft LRFD Code in 1990 [9], the distribution of yield stress
was modelled with a lognormal distribution. The nominal design value was taken as the 1%
fractile, and a standard deviation was assumed to be independent of the nominal value and a
value of 20 N/mm
2
was used. The parameters given above are for steel with a nominal design
stress of 350 N/mm
2
, and correspond to a CoV of 5%.
XE Youngs Modulus N[1.0, 0.05]
Based on calibration work undertaken for the North Sea adaptation of the Draft LRFD Code in
1990 [9], no bias was found for Youngs Modulus CoV was taken as 0.05 (this is a typical value
widely used for structural reliability analysis). A normal distribution was found to adequately fit
available data.
XK Effective length factor N[see Table 4.2]
Effective length factors for tubular columns have been examined in some detail by Hu and Lai [12]
and Earl and Teer [13]. The first of these considered most types of braces and piled legs while the
second examined braces only. The analyses in both references give similar results where
comparisons are possible.
For tubular bracing members (diagonals and horizontals) random modelling parameters were
evaluated by combining these results. Since no results were available for un-piled legs the
modelling parameters used were based on judgement. This basic variable represents the
uncertainty in effective length factor, and is a multiplier on the ISO K-factor (i.e. 0.7 for braces and
1.0 for legs). A normal distribution function was assumed.
2 6
The assigned probability distributions are summarised in Table 4.2.
Distribution Mean Bias Standard
Deviation
Other
parameter
Source of
data
Resistance model Xm Lognormal ISO 19902
uncertainty
Load model
uncertainty
Xw Truncated
normal
0.18 t1.5
Environmental load W Annual A = 0.327 B = 0.146
Dead Load D Normal 1.0 0.06
Live Load L Normal 1.0 0.10
Hydrostatic load H Normal 1.0 0.06
Diameter XD Normal 1.0 0.0025
Thickness XT Normal 1.0 0.004+0.25/T
Length XL Normal 1.0 0.0025
Yield stress XF Lognormal 1.1266 0.0572
Youngs Modulus XE Normal 1.0 0.05
Effective length
factor (braces)
XK Normal 0.875 0.097
Effective length XK Normal 1.1 0.0935
factor (legs)
Basic Variables
See Table 4.1
1.09 Reference 8
Reference 8
Reference 9
Reference 9
Reference 9
Reference 9
Reference 9
Reference 9
Reference 9
Reference 9
Reference 9
Reference 9
Table 4.2 Summary of Probabilistic Modelling
2 7
2 8
5. RELI ABI LI TY ANALYSI S RESULTS FOR TYPI CAL
I NDI VI DUAL COMPONENTS
5.1 SUMMARY
In order to investigate aspects of component reliability for the different load effects and design
formulations for tubular members, first-order reliability analyses were undertaken for single
components using a spreadsheet macro. Ranges of parameters were evaluated, whilst all other
input parameters were kept constant. Unless noted otherwise, all analyses for the extreme storm
condition to the ISO Code have been undertaken with the published partial factors, i.e. values of
1.1 on the gravity loads and 1.35 on extreme environmental load. The factored load for the
extreme storm condition, Fd, in the notation used in this report, is given by:
D 1 . 1 + L 1 . 1 + W (5.1) F
d w
where w is the extreme environmental load factor for the region. (The quasi-static dynamic
load factor and dynamic response have been ignored).
Using ISO practice, the minimum design strength of a member (for a member dominated by axial
compression for instance) is given by:
R
ISO
F
d
( D 1 . 1 + L 1 . 1 + W ) (5.2)
w

R
where R = resistance factor for the component and load type. R = 1.05 for tubular members
under axial tension, 1.18 for axial compression, 1.05 for bending and 1.25 for hoop
buckling
For comparison, results are also evaluated for designs based on RP2A-WSD 20
th
(21
st
) Edition
and RP2A-LRFD (with API recommended load and resistance factors).
This type of analysis, using a single typical member, was undertaken to investigate the effects of
axial-to-bending stress ratio, column slenderness ratio, D/t ratio, Cm (bending amplification factor),
etc.
All evaluated reliabilities are annual unless noted otherwise. All results are for the extreme storm
condition unless noted otherwise. For most cases, the curvature of the failure surface was
investigated at the -point using second-order reliability analysis, but this had very little effect on
the failure probability. Thus, first-order reliability was considered adequate for the present
purposes.
2 9
The typical member used as the base case for this study was as follows:
Parameter Value
Geometry )
Dead:live load ratio 1:1
Hydrostatic load proportion (where 0.066
used)*
W
1.35
Brace G3 (see Table 3.1
Environmental load factor,
*hydrostatic component input as proportion of axial+bending stress
Table 5.1 Base Case for Study of Effect of Different Parameters
5.2 AXIAL TENSION
Member designs governed by axial tension alone rarely, if ever, occur in offshore structures.
However, it is instructive to consider how the reliability varies between Codes and for different
environmental-to-gravity load ratios because the failure function, or strength formulation, is simple.
The basic form of the formulation, without safety factors, is identical between API RP2A and ISO,
and so the differences in reliability are purely due to the different effects of the partial safety
factors.
The results for a typical member geometry are shown in Figure 5.1; partial factors are based on
the published values.
Since the formulation for ISO and RP2A-LRFD is identical, and since (with an environmental factor
of 1.35) the load and resistance factors are the same, there is no difference between the
reliabilities achieved for designs to the two Codes. However, it can be seen that at high
environment-to-gravity load ratios the reliability for both Codes is higher than that achieved by
RP2A-WSD designs.
The curves for the partial factor Codes are less steep than the curve for WSD. However, even
more consistency in reliability may be achieved by the ISO Code if the gravity load factor for the
extreme condition were to be reduced; this is illustrated in Section 11 along with some of the other
consequences.
3 0
Reliability Index versus W
e
/G behaviour for member axial
tension
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0

ISO
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

API LRFD
API WSD
0.1 1 10 100
Extreme Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, W
e
/G
Figure 5.1 Axial Tension - Effect of Variation in Environment-to-Gravity Load Ratio
Typical results from the first-order reliability analysis for the ISO Code for an environment-to-
gravity load ratio of 1.0 are shown in Table 5.2. The reliability index for this case is 3.900.
The results show that the reliability is most sensitive to the environmental load and load model
uncertainty. The results are not very sensitive to the geometry parameters.

(x
*
values)
Sensitivity coefficient
(
Model uncertainty Xm 1.000 0.000
Load model uncertainty Xw 0.906 0.334
Yield stress XF 1.080 0.206
Thickness XT 0.999 0.037
Outer Diameter XD 0.999
Environmental load W 1.590
return period storm
Dead Load D 1.010
Live Load L 1.029
Basic Variables -point values
-factors)
0.011
-0.915
equivalent to 6,000-year
-0.044
-0.073
Table 5.2 Reliability Analysis Basic Variable -point Values and Sensitivities Axial Tension
3 1
5.3 AXIAL COMPRESSION
The results for a typical member geometry are shown in Figure 5.2; partial factors are based on
the published values. The strength formulations for RP2A-LRFD and ISO are similar, and again
reliabilities achieved by the two Codes (with w = 1.35) are similar. However, reliabilities for RP2A-
WSD designs are again lower at high environment-to-gravity load ratios.
Reliability index versus W
e
/G behaviour for member axial
compression
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,


ISO
API LRFD
API WSD
0.1 1 10 100
Environme nt/Gravity Load Ratio, W
e
/G
Figure 5.2 Axial Compression - Effect of Variation in Environment-to-Gravity Load Ratio
Typical results from the first-order reliability analysis for the ISO Code for an environment-to-
gravity load ratio of 1.0 are shown in Table 5.3. The reliability index for this case is 4.589.
The results show that the reliability is most sensitive to the environmental load and load model
uncertainty. The very high equivalent return period for the environmental load shows the very
extreme nature of an event likely to cause failure of such a compression member. (Note: any step
change in environmental loading due to wave-in-deck loading is not considered here).
3 2

(x
*
values)
Sensitivity coefficient
(
Model uncertainty
(column buckling)
Load model uncertainty
Effective length factor
(multiplier on K)
Youngs Modulus
Length
Yield stress
Outer Diameter
Environmental load
Dead Load
Live Load
Xm 1.023 0.163
Xw 0.908 0.354
XK 0.909
XE 0.996 0.018
XL 1.000
XF 1.078 0.183
XT 0.998 0.037
XD 0.999 0.012
W 1.984
return period storm
D 1.010
L 1.029
Basic Variables -point values
-factors)
Thickness
-0.076
-0.002
-0.895
equivalent to 85,000-year
-0.037
-0.062
Table 5.3 Reliability Analysis Basic Variable -point Values and Sensitivities Axial Compression
3 3
5.4 BENDING
The results for a typical member geometry are shown in Figure 5.3; partial factors are based on
the published values.
Reliability index versus W
e
/G behaviour for member
bending
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,


ISO
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
API LRFD
API WSD
0.1 1 10 100
Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, W
e
/G
Figure 5.3 Bending - Effect of Variation in Environment-to-Gravity Load Ratio
Typical results from the first-order reliability analysis for the ISO Code for an environment-to-
gravity load ratio of 1.0 are shown in Table 5.4. The reliability index for this case is 4.017.

(x
*
values)
Sensitivity coefficient
(
Model uncertainty Xm 0.988 0.327
Load model uncertainty Xw 0.907 0.316
Youngs Modulus XE 0.994 0.028
XF 1.087 0.167
Thickness XT 0.998 0.040
Outer Diameter XD 0.999 0.019
Environmental load W 1.542
return period storm
Dead Load D 1.010
Live Load L 1.029
Basic Variables -point values
-factors)
Yield stress
-0.869
equivalent to 4,000-year
-0.042
-0.071
Table 5.4 Reliability Analysis Basic Variable -point Values and Sensitivities Bending
3 4
The results show that the reliability is again most sensitive to the environmental load and model
uncertainty.
5.4.1 Effect of Operating Condition
The results at low environment-to-gravity load ratios are for component designs that are very likely
in practice to be governed by the operating or still water conditions. The operating design
condition is chosen by the Operator and in the North Sea is often based on storms with a return
period of between 1-month and 1-year; in other regions of the world 1- to 5-year return period
storms are used. Typically, the global base shear is around half of that for the 100-year load; for
the purposes of this assessment, member environmental load is considered proportional to base
shear.
For the Operating Condition, the factored load to the ISO Code, in the notation used in this report,
is given by:
F
d
D 3 . 1 + L 5 . 1 + 9 . 0
w
W
o
(5.3)
where Wo is the operating load (zero for the Still Water condition)
and w is the extreme environmental load factor for the region, taken as 1.35 in this
subsection.
Strictly, the live load component should include short duration loads imposed on the structure from
operations (defined as Q2 loads in ISO); this has been neglected here.
Typical results for a component governed by bending are shown in Figure 5.4. The reliability
achieved for RP2A-WSD is significantly higher than ISO and RP2A-LRFD; this is largely because
of the one-third increase in allowable stress in the WSD Code. For ISO and LRFD, the component
design in the figure is governed by the operating condition for extreme environmentalto-gravity
load ratios of around 0.4 and less.
3 5
Reliability Index versus W
e
/G behaviour for member bending
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,


8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
ISO
ISO
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Extreme
Extreme Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, W
e
/G
Operating
API LRFD
API WSD
API LRFD
API WSD
Figure 5.4 Comparison of Reliabilities for Extreme and Operating Conditions at Low
Environment-to-Gravity Load Ratios
The effect of different operating to extreme environmental load ratios is illustrated in Figure 5.5 for
the ISO Code, where reliabilities for ratios from 0.7 to the still water condition are shown. Even the
still water condition eliminates the sharp reduction in reliability that occurs for the extreme
condition at We/G ratios less than 0.4 for this case.
3 6
Reliability Index versus W
e
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
e
/G

Condition
Wo=0.7We
Wo=0.5We
Wo=0.3We
Still Water
/G behaviour for member
bending
Extreme Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, W
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

Extreme
Figure 5.5 Comparison of Reliabilities for Extreme, Operating and Still Water Conditions at Low
Environment-to-Gravity Load Ratios
5.5 COMBINED TENSION & BENDING
The format of the interaction equation in ISO and RP2A-WSD is based on a linear-form of
equation, whereas in RP2A-LRFD it is based on a cosine-form. The difference is significant at
intermediate ratios of tension-to-bending stress.
The results for a typical member geometry are shown in Figure 5.6; partial factors are based on
the published values. The reliabilities achieved by RP2A-LRFD are less than those for ISO at all
values of environment-to-gravity load ratio. Coincidentally in this case, the reliabilities achieved by
RP2A-WSD and LRFD are similar at high We/G ratios. The ratio of tension to bending stress used
was 0.67:0.33.
3 7
Reliability index versus W
e
/G behaviour for member combined
tension and bending
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,


ISO
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
API LRFD
API WSD
0.1 1 10 100
Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, W
e
/G
Figure 5.6 Combined Tension and Bending - Effect of Variation in Environment-to-Gravity Load
Ratio
Typical results from the first-order reliability analysis for the ISO Code for an environment-to-
gravity load ratio of 1.0 are shown in Table 5.5. The reliability index for this case is 4.056. The
results show that the reliability is most sensitive to the environmental load and model uncertainty.
The curvature of the failure surface was investigated at the -point using second-order reliability
analysis, but this had very little effect on the failure probability.

(x
*
values)
Sensitivity coefficient
(
Model uncertainty Xm 0.987 0.326
Load model uncertainty Xw 0.906 0.314
Youngs Modulus XE 0.998 0.008
Yield stress XF 1.083 0.188
Thickness XT 0.999 0.037
Outer Diameter XD 0.999
Environmental load W 1.555
return period storm
Dead Load D 1.010
Live Load L 1.029
Basic Variables -point values
-factors)
0.010
-0.867
equivalent to 4,500-year
-0.042
-0.071
Table 5.5 Reliability Analysis Basic Variable -point Values and Sensitivities Combined Tension
and Bending
3 8
5.6 COMBINED COMPRESSION & BENDING
The formulations for Compression & Bending are probably the most important formulations for
member design. The results for a typical member geometry are shown in Figure 5.7; partial
factors are based on the published values. The ratio of compression to bending stress used was
0.25:0.75.
Reliability index versus W
e
/G behaviour for member
combined compression and bending
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,


ISO
API LRFD
API WSD
0.1 1 10 100
Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, We/G
Figure 5.7 Combined Compression and Bending - Effect of Variation in Environment-to-Gravity
Load Ratio
Typical results from the first-order reliability analysis for the ISO Code for an environment-to-
gravity load ratio of 1.0 are shown in Table 5.6. The reliability index for this case is 3.991.
The results show that the reliability is most sensitive to the environmental load, model uncertainty
and load model uncertainty.
3 9
Sensitivity coefficient
(x
*
values)

(
Model uncertainty Xm 0.925 0.316
(column buckling)
Xw 0.909 0.318
Effective length factor XK 0.904
(multiplier on K)
Youngs Modulus XE 0.993 0.035
Length XL 1.000
Yield stress XF 1.089 0.161
Thickness XT 0.998 0.040
Outer Diameter XD 0.999
Environmental load W 1.537
return period storm
Dead Load D 1.010
Live Load L 1.029
Basic Variables -point values
-factors)
Load model uncertainty
-0.075
-0.002
0.011
-0.870
equivalent to 4,000-year
-0.043
-0.072
Table 5.6 Reliability Analysis Basic Variable -point Values and Sensitivities Combined
Compression and Bending
5.7 COMBINED TENSION, BENDING & HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE
The results for a typical member geometry are shown in Figure 5.8; partial factors are based on
the published values. The ratio of tension to bending stress used was 0.66:0.34.
Typical results from the first-order reliability analysis for the ISO Code for an environment-to-
gravity load ratio of 1.0 are shown in Table 5.7. The reliability index for this case is 3.876.
The results show that the reliability is most sensitive to the environmental load and model
uncertainty.
4 0
Reliability index versus W
e
/G behaviour for member combined
tension, bending & hydrostatic pressure


6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
ISO
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

API LRFD
API WSD
0.1 1 10 100
Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, W
e
/G
Figure 5.8 Combined Tension, Bending and Hydrostatic Pressure - Effect of Variation in
Environment-to-Gravity Load Ratio

(x
*
values)
Sensitivity coefficient
(
Model uncertainty
Load model uncertainty
Hydrostatic load
uncertainty
Youngs Modulus
Yield stress
Thickness
Outer Diameter
Environmental load
Dead Load
Live Load
Xm 0.929 0.374
Xw 0.915
H 1.000
XE 0.997 0.014
XF 1.086 0.180
XT 0.999 0.040
XD 0.999 0.009
W 1.438
return period storm
D 1.010
L 1.029
Basic Variables -point values
-factors)
0.311
-0.001
-0.850
equivalent to 2,000-year
-0.044
-0.074
Table 5.7 Reliability Analysis Basic Variable -point Values and Sensitivities Combined
Tension, Bending and Hydrostatic Pressure
4 1
5.8 COMBINED COMPRESSION, BENDING & HYDROSTATIC
PRESSURE
The results for a typical member geometry are shown in Figure 5.9; partial factors are based on
the published values. The ratio of compression to bending stress used was 0.33:0.67.
Reliability index versus W
e
/G behaviour for member
combined compression, bending & hydrostatic pressure
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,


ISO
API LRFD
API WSD
0.1 1 10 100
Env ironment/Grav ity Load Ratio, We/G
Figure 5.9 Combined Compression, Bending and Hydrostatic Pressure - Effect of Variation in
Environment-to-Gravity Load Ratio
Typical results from the first-order reliability analysis for the ISO Code for an environment-to-
gravity load ratio of 1.0 are shown in Table 5.8. The reliability index for this case is 4.223.
The results show that the reliability is most sensitive to the environmental load and model
uncertainty.
4 2

(x
*
values)
Sensitivity coefficient
(
Model uncertainty (local
buckling)
Load model uncertainty
Hydrostatic load
uncertainty
Youngs Modulus
Yield stress
Thickness
Outer Diameter
Environmental load
Dead Load
Live Load
Xm
Xw 0.913
H 1.003
XE 0.996
XF 1.085
XT 0.998
XD 0.999
W 1.473
return period storm
D 1.010
L 1.028
0.497
0.291
0.020
0.170
0.040
0.007
Basic Variables -point values
-factors)
0.899
equivalent to 2,500-year
-0.011
-0.795
-0.041
-0.068
Table 5.8 Reliability analysis basic variable -point values and sensitivities combined
compression, bending and hydrostatic pressure
4 3
5.9 VARIATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL LOAD FACTOR
For illustration, the effect of different environmental load factors was investigated for a typical
member in combined compression and bending for design to the ISO code. The results are
shown in Figure 5.10. The results show that there is not a great deal of variation in reliability index
for environmental load factors in the range 1.2 to 1.4. The ratio of compression to bending stress
used was 0.25:0.75.
Effect of environmental load factor on reliability index
versus W
e
/G behaviour
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,


1.2
1.25
1.3
1.35
1.4
W
0.1 1 10 100
Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, W
e
/G
Figure 5.10 Combined Compression and Bending - Effect of Variation in Environment-to-Gravity
Load Ratio for Different Environmental Load Factors
4 4
5.10 VARIATION OF COLUMN SLENDERNESS PARAMETER
The effect of different column slenderness parameters was investigated for a typical member in
combined compression and bending for design to the ISO code. The results are shown in Figure
5.11. The results show that there is only a small variation in reliability index over a wide range of
column slenderness parameter values of 0.2 to 1.13.
The ratio of compression to bending stress used was 0.25:0.75.
Effect of W
e
/G ratio on reliability index versus column
slenderness parameter
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0


1
2
5
25
W
e
/G ratio
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Column Slenderness Parameter,
Figure 5.11 Combined Compression and Bending - Effect of Variation in Column Slenderness
Parameter for Different Environment-to-Gravity Load Ratios
5.11 VARIATION OF D/T RATIO
Investigation showed that reliability results were not sensitive to variation of D/T ratio.
5.12 VARIATION OF BENDING AMPLIFICATION FACTOR, C
m
For tubular members subject to combined axial compression & bending the design must satisfy
two equations in the Codes. One is a local check for 'plasticity' or yielding (it should be applied at
sections along the length of the member); the other is a stability check for the member which
accounts for the moment amplification due to the action of the axial force on the out-of-straight
member. The form of the stability checking equation is:
4 5


0 . 1
F
f
' F / f 1
C
F
f
b
b
E a
m
a
a

+ (5.3)
where fa, fb, Fa and Fb are the acting and allowable axial and bending stresses respectively,
F'e is related to the Euler buckling stress for the member
Cm is the moment amplification factor.
A similar stability check is also used for members subject to combined compression, bending and
hydrostatic pressure.
The results of reliability analyses for a typical member geometry (brace G4 see Table 3.1) are
shown in Figure 5.12 for Cm values of 0.4 and 0.85. The ratio of compression to bending stress
used was 0.33:0.67.
For this component the governing API RP2A -WSD 20
th
(21
st
) Edition design equation for
compression, bending and hydrostatic pressure is independent of Cm. For the API RP2A-LRFD
design equation there is a large variation in reliability index with Cm value. For the ISO design
equation the variation is not as great.
Reliability index versus W
e
/G behaviour for member
combined compression, bending & hydrostatic pressure
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.1 1 10 100
Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, W
e
/G
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

ISO -
Cm=0.85
API LRFD
- Cm=0.85
API WSD -
Cm=0.85
ISO -
Cm=0.4
API LRFD
- Cm=0.4
API WSD -
Cm=0.4

Figure 5.12 Combined Compression, Bending and Hydrostatic Pressure - Effect of Variation in
Environment-to-Gravity Load Ratio for Different Cm Values
This variation in reliability with Cm value was found to have a significant effect on the reliability
analysis results. In the Codes, the Cm factor is evaluated from one of three cases specified in a
table (see Table 5.9 below) which is similar in all three Codes (WSD, LRFD and ISO). However,
for main diagonals and horizontals there is a choice, depending on whether or not the member
4 6


has transverse load; in practice most members have some transverse load from self weight,
and/or local wind or wave action. Thus, in some cases the most appropriate value is a matter of
judgement.
Structural element Cm (see definition below)
Superstructure Legs
Braced
Portal (un-braced)

(a)
(a)
Jacket Legs & Piling
Grouted Composite Section
Ungrouted Jacket Legs
Ungrouted Piling Between Shim Points

(c)
(c)
(b)
Jacket Braces
Primary Diagonals & Horizontals
K-braces
Longer segment length of X-braces

(b) or (c)
(c)
(c)
Secondary Horizontals (c)
Table 5.9 Moment reduction factors (Cm) for ISO member strength checking
Cm values for the three cases defined in the table above are as follows:
a) 0.85
b) for members with no transverse loading,
Cm = 0.6 - 0.4M1/M2
where M1/M2 is the ratio of smaller to larger moments at the ends of that portion of the
member unbraced in the plane of bending under consideration. M1/M2 is positive when the
member is bent in reverse curvature, negative when bent in single curvature.
c) for members with transverse loading,
Cm = 1.0 - 0.4fc/Fe, or 0.85, whichever is less,
and Fe = Fey or Fez as appropriate
The above definition for Cm occurs in RP2A-WSD, RP2A-LRFD and ISO. However, because in
the LRFD and ISO Codes Cm is evaluated using factored member forces and stresses, the values
of Cm evaluated for a particular component may vary (if the load factors are different) and may
vary from WSD.
4 7


5.13 VARIATION OF BENDING TO AXIAL STRESS RATIO
The variation of reliability index with bending to axial stress ratio for a typical member geometry
subject to combined axial compression and bending and designed to the ISO code is shown in
Figure 5.13. The results show that the bending to axial stress ratio does not have a significant
effect on the reliability index.
Effect of W
e
/G ratio on reliability index versus bending to
compressive stress ratio
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Ratio bending to compressive stress
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

0.3
0.5
1
2
5
10
W
e
/G
ratio

Figure 5.13 Combined Compression and Bending - Effect of Variation in Bending to Compressive
Stress Ratio for Different Environment-to-Gravity Load Ratios

4 8


6. CALI BRATI ON POI NT RESULTS
6.1 SUMMARY
In this section reliability analysis results are presented for all of the calibration points in the
database.
The calibration exercise was carried out using a comprehensive suite of software developed and
assembled for reliability based code calibration. The software performs a first order second
moment reliability analysis. Independent checks were carried out using a purpose-written first
order reliability analysis spreadsheet.
6.2 BRACE MEMBERS
Graphs of results for all calibration points for brace members (Northern North Sea) are presented
below in Figures 6.1 to 6.5 for ISO with W=1.35, and Figure 6.6 for API RP2A - WSD. The graphs
show that the widest range of reliability values is obtained for compression and bending cases.
The general trend in reliability with We/G ratio is less marked for ISO (see Figure 6.1 to Figure 6.5)
than for RP2A-WSD (see Figure 6.6), and for many load effects the reliabilities for ISO are
reasonably consistent over a wide range of We/G ratios.
Table 6.1 shows the average probabilities of failure and equivalent reliabilities for each load effect
for API RP2A WSD and ISO. It can be seen that equivalent reliabilities for all load effects
combined are close to the values for compression and bending alone.
API - WSD ISO (w = 1.35)
Load Effect
Pf
Equivalent
Pf
Equivalent

Compression & Bending 1.063E-04 3.704 3.569E-05 3.972
Tension & Bending 1.386E-04 3.636 5.804E-05 3.854
Tension, Bending & Hydrostatic 5.868E-05 3.852 9.970E-05 3.720
Compression, Bending & Hydrostatic 7.289E-05 3.798 2.153E-05 4.090
All 1.074E-04 3.701 4.131E-05 3.937
Table 6.1 Weighted Average Pf and Equivalent for each Load Effect Brace Members
4 9


Reliability index of calibration points vs W
e
/G for brace
members in extreme loading condition (ISO NNS

w
=1.35)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.1 1 10 100
W
e
/G ratio
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

Tension &
Bending
Tension &
Bending &
Hydro
Compression
& Bending &
Hydro
Compression
& Bending

Figure 6.1 Reliability Index of Calibration Points Against Extreme Environmental/Gravity Load
Ratios Brace Members ISO

Reliability index of calibration points vs W
e
/G for
members in extreme loading condition (ISO NNS

w
=1.35)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.1 1 10 100
W
e
/G ratio
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

Compres
sion &
Bending

Figure 6.2 Reliability Index of Calibration Points Against Extreme Environmental/Gravity Load
Ratios Brace Members ISO Combined Compression and Bending
5 0


Reliability index of calibration points vs W
e
/G for
members in extreme loading condition (ISO NNS

w
=1.35)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.1 1 10 100
W
e
/G ratio
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

Tension &
Bending

Figure 6.3 Reliability Index of Calibration Points Against Extreme Environmental/Gravity Load
Ratios Brace Members ISO Combined Tension and Bending

Reliability index of calibration points vs W
e
/G for
members in extreme loading condition (ISO NNS

w
=1.35)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.1 1 10 100
W
e
/G ratio
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

Tension &
Bending &
Hydro

Figure 6.4 Reliability Index of Calibration Points Against Extreme Environmental/Gravity Load
Ratios Brace Members ISO Combined Tension, Bending and Hydrostatic
5 1


Reliability index of calibration points vs W
e
/G for
members in extreme loading condition (ISO NNS

w
=1.35)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.1 1 10 100
W
e
/G ratio
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

Compression
& Bending &
Hydro

Figure 6.5 Reliability Index of Calibration Points Against Extreme Environmental/Gravity Load
Ratios Brace Members ISO Combined Compression, Bending and Hydrostatic

Reliability index of calibration points vs W
e
/G for members in
extreme loading condition (API-WSD 17-20 NNS)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.1 1 10 100
W
e
/G ratio
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

Tension &
Bending
Tension &
Bending &
Hydro
Compression
& Bending &
Hydro
Compression
& Bending

Figure 6.6 Reliability Index of Calibration Points Against Extreme Environmental/Gravity Load
Ratios Brace Members API WSD 17-20
th
(21
st
) Edition
5 2


6.3 LEG MEMBERS
Graphs of results for all calibration points for leg members (Northern North Sea) are presented
below in Figures 6.7 to 6.9 for ISO, and Figure 6.10 for API RP2A - WSD. The graphs show that
again the widest range of reliability values is obtained for compression and bending cases.
The general trend with We/G ratio is less marked for ISO (see Figure 6.7 to Figure 6.9) than for
RP2A-WSD (see Figure 6.10), and for many load effects the reliabilities for ISO are reasonably
consistent over a wide range of We/G ratios.
Table 6.2 shows the average probabilities of failure and equivalent reliabilities for each load effect
for API RP2A WSD and ISO. It can be seen that equivalent reliabilities for both load effects
combined are close to the values for compression and bending alone.
API - WSD ISO (w = 1.35)
Load Effect
Pf
Equivalent
Pf
Equivalent

Compression & Bending 2.403E-04 3.492 5.829E-05 3.844
Compression, Bending & Hydrostatic 7.756E-05 3.783 1.417E-05 4.186
All 2.362E-04 3.496 5.927E-05 3.849
Table 6.2 Weighted Average Pf and Equivalent for each Load Effect Leg Members

5 3


Reliability index of calibration points vs W
e
/G for legs in
extreme loading condition (ISO NNS&CNS
w
=1.35)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.1 1 10 100
W
e
/G ratio
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

Compression
& Bending &
Hydro
Compression
& Bending

Figure 6.7 Reliability index of calibration points against extreme environmental/gravity load ratios
leg members ISO

Reliability index of calibration points vs W
e
/G for legs in
extreme loading condition (ISO NNS&CNS
w
=1.35)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.1 1 10 100
W
e
/G ratio
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

Compress
ion &
Bending

Figure 6.8 Reliability Index of Calibration Points Against Extreme Environmental/Gravity Load
Ratios Leg Members ISO Combined Compression and Bending
5 4


Reliability index of calibration points vs W
e
/G for legs in
extreme loading condition (ISO NNS&CNS
w
=1.35)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.1 1 10 100
W
e
/G ratio
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

Compression
& Bending &
Hydro

Figure 6.9 Reliability Index of Calibration Points Against Extreme Environmental/Gravity Load
Ratios Leg Members ISO Combined Compression, Bending and Hydrostatic
Reliability index of calibration points vs W
e
/G for legs in
extreme loading condition (API - WSD 17-20 NNS&CNS)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.1 1 10 100
W
e
/G ratio
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

b
Compression
& Bending &
Hydro
Compression
& Bending

Figure 6.10 Reliability Index of Calibration Points Against Extreme Environmental/Gravity Load
Ratios Leg Members API-WSD 17-20
th
(21
st
) Edition
5 5
























































5 6


7. HI STORI CAL ASSESSMENT AND TARGET
ASSESSMENT
7.1 HISTORICAL ASSESSMENT
In order to assess the reliability levels and as an aid to judge an acceptable level of reliability, the
analysis has been undertaken to reflect the historic changes in design practice. In the historic
assessment both the changes in design resistance based on the publication date of the various
Codes, and the changes in design loading as applied in the North Sea have been considered.
The changes in design loading are more difficult to assess and have been based on a
questionnaire by Tromans [8] (see Figure 7.1).
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
'70 '74 '78 '82 '86 '90 '94 '98
Year
Design storm load
North Sea
Gulf of Mexico
True 100 year load

Figure 7.1 History of Changes in Design Loading
Weighting factors, as discussed in Section 3, were applied to each of the calibration points using a
purpose written spreadsheet. Weighting factors were applied to the probability for each calibration
point. The average equivalent reliability was then calculated from the sum of weighted
probabilities. This weighting exercise was repeated for each set of probability results, which were
run for each change in design resistance or design loading. The resulting variation of average
reliability with time is shown in Figure 7.2 and Figure 7.3 for brace and leg members respectively.
The average reliability to the ISO code for an environmental load factor of 1.35 is shown for
comparison. For both braces and legs this is higher than the API RP2A WSD or RP2A LRFD
5 7


average reliabilities for current design loading showing there is scope for reducing the
environmental load factor to less than 1.35. Selection of an environmental load factor is discussed
further in Section 7.2.
Variation of Reliability with time - North Sea Brace Members
0
1
2
3
4
5
1970 1980 1990 2000
Year
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
ISO 1.35
API - LRFD
API - WSD

Figure 7.2 Historical Variation of Reliability Brace Members

Variation of Reliability with time - North Sea Legs
0
1
2
3
4
5
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
ISO 1.35
API - LRFD
API - WSD

Figure 7.3 Historical Variation of Reliability Leg Members
5 8


7.2 TARGET ASSESSMENT
7.2.1 Selection of Environmental Load Factor
The effect on reliability of varying the environmental load factor for brace and leg members is
shown in the Figures below. By comparison with the target reliabilities calculated to API RP2A
WSD and LRFD from Figure 7.2 and Figure 7.3 and the target recommended by Efthymiou [6], a
range of environmental load factors may be suggested for further discussion. It should be noted
that Efthymiou's target was derived for system reliability; it is conservative to use this value for
component reliability.
The weighted probabilities and equivalent reliabilities represented in Figure 7.4 to Figure 7.6 are
given in Table 7.1.
Comparison of Figure 7.4 and Figure 7.5 shows that the overall weighted reliability based on all
four types of load effects is not too different from compression and bending alone.
Variation of weighted reliability with environmental
load factor - ISO brace members
4.014
3.701
0
1
2
3
4
5
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
Environmental load factor
W
e
i
g
h
t
e
d

r
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

bracce
members
(NNS&CNS)
Target
Reliability
(Ef thmyiou)
Target
Reliability
(API - LRFD)
Target
Reliability
(API - WSD)

Figure 7.4 Variation of Weighted Reliability With Environmental Load Factor ISO Brace
Members
5 9


Variation of weighted reliability with environmental
load factor - ISO brace members (compression &
bending )
4.014
3.704
0
1
2
3
4
5
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
Environmental load factor
W
e
i
g
h
t
e
d

r
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

bracce
members
(NNS&CNS)
Target
Reliability
(Ef thmyiou)
Target
Reliability
(API - LRFD)
Target
Reliability
(API - WSD)

Figure 7.5 Variation of Weighted Reliability With Environmental Load Factor ISO Brace
Members Combined Compression and Bending Only

Variation of weighted reliability with environmental
load factor - ISO leg members
4.014
3.781
3.496
0
1
2
3
4
5
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
Environmental load factor
W
e
i
g
h
t
e
d

r
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

leg
members
(NNS &
CNS)
Target
Reliability
(Ef thmyiou)
Target
Reliability
(API - LRFD)
Target
Reliability
(API - WSD)

Figure 7.6 Variation of Weighted Reliability With Environmental Load Factor ISO Leg Members
6 0


brace members
brace members
(compression &
bending only)
leg members
Code
Pf
Equivalent

Pf
Equivalent

Pf
Equivalent

APIWSD 20
th
1.074E-04 3.701 1.063E-04 3.704 2.362E-04 3.496
w-1.2 1.243E-04 3.664 1.093E-04 3.697 1.753E-04 3.575
w-1.25 8.588E-05 3.757 7.509E-05 3.791 1.218E-04 3.669
w-1.3 5.949E-05 3.848 5.171E-05 3.882 8.488E-05 3.760
w-1.35 4.131E-05 3.937 3.569E-05 3.972 5.927E-05 3.849
w-1.4 2.874E-05 4.023 2.468E-05 4.059 4.149E-05 3.936
ISO
w-1.45 2.004E-05 4.107 1.711E-05 4.143 2.912E-05 4.020
Table 7.1 Weighted Average Pf and Equivalent for Different Environmental Load Factors
On the basis of the results above, an environmental load factor of 1.25 would give reliability levels
for the ISO code slightly above the API RP2A - WSD 20
th
(21
st
) Edition values for both braces and
legs. The effect of selecting an environmental load factor of 1.25 is investigated in the following
sections.
7.2.2 Typical Member
The effect of reducing the environmental load factor from 1.35 to 1.25 is shown in the graphs
below (Figure 7.7 to Figure 7.10) for a typical member, as investigated in Section 5. The reliability
values are compared with the API RP2A - WSD 20
th
(21
st
) Edition values. In all cases except
combined tension, bending and hydrostatic pressure, the ISO code reliability with environmental
load factor of 1.25 is close to the API-WSD 17-20
th
(21
st
) Edition values for We/G values greater
than 2.0.
6 1


Reliability index versus W
e
/G behaviour for member
combined tension and bending
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.1 1 10 100
Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, W
e
/G
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

ISO -
1.35
ISO -
1.25
API
WSD

Figure 7.7 ISO Code Reliability - Effect of Reducing Environmental Load Factor From 1.35 to
1.25 for Typical Member for Combined Tension and Bending

Reliability index versus W
e
/G behaviour for member
combined compression and bending
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.1 1 10 100
Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, W
e
/G
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

ISO -
1.35
ISO -
1.25
API WSD

Figure 7.8 ISO Code Reliability - Effect of Reducing Environmental Load Factor From 1.35 to
1.25 for Typical Member for Combined Compression and Bending

6 2


Reliability index versus W
e
/G behaviour for member
combined tension, bending & hydrostatic pressure
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.1 1 10 100
Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, W
e
/G
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,
ISO -
1.35
ISO -
1.25
API
WSD

Figure 7.9 ISO Code Reliability - Effect of Reducing Environmental Load Factor From 1.35 to
1.25 for Typical Member for Combined Tension, Bending and Hydrostatic Pressure

Reliability index versus W
e
/G behaviour for member
combined compression, bending & hydrostatic pressure
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.1 1 10 100
Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, W
e
/G
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

ISO -
1.35
ISO -
1.25
API
WSD

Figure 7.10 ISO Code Reliability - Effect of Reducing Environmental Load Factor From 1.35 to
1.25 for Typical Member for Combined Compression, Bending and Hydrostatic Pressure
6 3


7.2.3 Calibration Points
The effect of reducing the environmental load factor from 1.35 to 1.25 for the individual calibration
points is shown in the graphs below for braces and legs. The results in Table 7.1 show that on an
average basis the reliability achieved for ISO designs with a load factor of 1.25 exceeds the
reliability inherent in RP2A-WSD, it can be seen that the reliabilities evaluated for a significant
number of individual calibration points falls below the API RP2A-WSD 20
th
(21
st
) Edition 'target'
reliability. Many of these points receive low weighting factors in the calibration, indicating that they
do not occur all that frequently in practice.
It is worth noting that, from comparison with Figure 6.6 and Figure 6.10, the calibration point with
the lowest reliability evaluated for the ISO Code with W=1.25 exceeds the minimum reliability
evaluated for all of the corresponding designs to RP2A-WSD. Whilst the calibration point
database has been selected to be representative of the range of North Sea components and
designs, it is not exhaustive. Thus, some of these outlying points may need to be investigated in
more detail once the value of the load factor is chosen.
6 4



Reliability index of calibration points vs W
e
/G for brace
members in extreme loading condition (ISO NNS

w
=1.25)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.1 1 10 100
W
e
/G ratio
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

Tension &
Bending
Tension &
Bending &
Hydro
Compression
& Bending &
Hydro
Compression
& Bending
Target
(Efthmyiou)
Target API -
LRFD
Target API -
WSD

Figure 7.11 Reliability Index of Calibration Points Against Extreme Environmental/Gravity Load
Ratios Brace Members ISO W=1.25
Reliability index of calibration points vs W
e
/G for brace
members in extreme loading condition (ISO NNS

w
=1.35)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.1 1 10 100
W
e
/G ratio
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

Tension &
Bending
Tension &
Bending &
Hydro
Compression
& Bending &
Hydro
Compression
& Bending
Target
(Efthmyiou)
Target API -
LRFD
Target API -
WSD

Figure 7.12 Reliability Index of Calibration Points Against Extreme Environmental/gravity Load
Ratios Brace Members ISO W=1.35
6 5


Reliability index of calibration points vs W
e
/G for legs in
extreme loading condition (ISO NNS&CNS
w
=1.25)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
0.1 1 10 100
W
e
/G ratio
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

Compression
& Bending &
Hydro
Compression
& Bending
Target
(Efthmyiou)
Target API -
LRFD
Target API -
WSD

Figure 7.13 Reliability Index of Calibration Points Against Extreme environmental/Gravity Load
Ratios Leg Members ISO W=1.25
Reliability index of calibration points vs W
e
/G for legs in
extreme loading condition (ISO NNS&CNS
w
=1.35)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.1 1 10 100
W
e
/G ratio
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

Compression
& Bending &
Hydro
Compression
& Bending
Target
(Efthmyiou)
Target API -
LRFD
Target API -
WSD

Figure 7.14 Reliability Index of Calibration Points Against Extreme Environmental/Gravity Load
Ratios Leg Members ISO W=1.35

6 6


8. SENSI TI VI TY STUDI ES
8.1 SUMMARY
A number of sensitivity studies have been carried out, the results of which are presented in this
section. The aim of the studies is to establish the robustness of the calibration process.
8.2 WEIGHTING FACTORS
The weighting factors assigned to the calibration points are somewhat subjective. The sensitivity
to the chosen weighting factors was investigated by comparing average weighted reliabilities with
average unweighted (or equally weighted) reliabilities. The results are shown in the tables below.
The results show a change of less than 2% for equivalent reliability between weighted and
unweighted values. However, the unweighted results would suggest that a load factor of closer to
1.30 may be more appropriate for brace members if the target were to be based solely on
unweighted RP2A-WSD designs. This is because the tension & bending and tension, bending &
hydrostatic results have a far greater influence in the unweighted calibration analysis. The
unweighted case is not very representative or realistic, but nevertheless the study shows that the
weighting factors do not have a very significant influence on the value of the partial factor.
Weighted
Unweighted
(or equally weighted)
Code
Pf
Equivalent

Pf
Equivalent

APIWSD 20
th
1.074E-04 3.701 7.670E-05 3.786
w-1.2 1.243E-04 3.664 1.362E-04 3.640
w-1.25 8.588E-05 3.757 9.543E-05 3.731
w-1.3 5.949E-05 3.848 6.705E-05 3.819
w-1.35 4.131E-05 3.937 4.722E-05 3.904
w-1.4 2.874E-05 4.023 3.334E-05 3.988
ISO
w-1.45 2.004E-05 4.107 2.360E-05 4.069
Table 8.1 Comparison of Weighted and Unweighted Average Pf and Equivalent for Different
Environmental Load Factors for Brace Members

6 7


Weighted
Unweighted
(or equally weighted)
Code
Pf
Equivalent

Pf
Equivalent

APIWSD 20
th
1.063E-04 3.704 7.592E-05 3.788
w-1.2 1.093E-04 3.697 8.771E-05 3.752
w-1.25 7.509E-05 3.791 6.031E-05 3.845
w-1.3 5.171E-05 3.882 4.159E-05 3.935
w-1.35 3.569E-05 3.972 2.874E-05 4.023
w-1.4 2.468E-05 4.059 1.991E-05 4.109
ISO
w-1.45 1.711E-05 4.143 1.382E-05 4.192
Table 8.2 Comparison of Weighted and Unweighted Average Pf and Equivalent for Different
Environmental Load Factors for Brace Members (Compression and Bending Only)

Weighted
Unweighted
(or equally weighted)
Code
Pf
Equivalent

Pf
Equivalent

APIWSD 20
th
2.362E-04 3.496 2.777E-04 3.453
w-1.2 1.753E-04 3.575 1.529E-04 3.610
w-1.25 1.218E-04 3.669 1.072E-04 3.702
w-1.3 8.488E-05 3.760 7.527E-05 3.790
w-1.35 5.927E-05 3.849 5.301E-05 3.876
w-1.4 4.149E-05 3.936 3.743E-05 3.960
ISO
w-1.45 2.912E-05 4.020 2.650E-05 4.042
Table 8.3 Comparison of Weighted and Unweighted Average Pf and Equivalent for Different
Environmental Load Factors for Leg Members
6 8


8.3 20-YEAR RELIABILITIES
In the TAC-22 [10] and AME [9] work to calibrate the Draft LRFD, a 20-year reference period was
used for the distribution of environmental load, see Eqn (4.7). 20-year reliability results for a
typical member for combined compression and bending (with W=1.35 where required) are
presented in Figure 8.1. Also shown is a curve for the corresponding reliability results for a 1-year
reference period for ISO. Clearly, the reliability levels are less for a 20-year exposure period. The
higher mean of the environmental load variable for a 20-year reference period means that this
variable has a more significant influence on the 20-year reliabilities than annual reliabilities,
particularly at high We/G ratios; this is more marked in terms of probability than reliability index.
Since the CoV for the 20-year distribution is less than the annual distribution, and since the
environmental load factor reflects the uncertainty in the variable, it is likely that the value of the
partial factor evaluated on a like-for-like basis using a 20-year distribution would be marginally less
than if evaluated by using a 1-year distribution. Unless the target is based solely on the inherent
reliability evaluated for RP2A-WSD, it is more difficult to define an appropriate target for a 20-year
reference period.
Reliability index versus W
e
/G behaviour for member
combined compression and bending
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.1 1 10 100
Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, W
e
/G
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

ISO - 1
year
ISO - 20
year
API WSD
- 20 year
API LRFD
- 20 year

Figure 8.1 20-year Reliabilities for Combined Compression and Bending
The calibration exercise was repeated for brace members using a 20-year reference period for the
distribution of environmental load. The analysis was undertaken assuming that the uncertainty in
all of the other variables is unchanged over a 20-year period, i.e. the modelling was based on
Table 4.2. The reliability was undertaken for failure modes arising from the extreme storm hazard
only. No allowance was included for contributions to the overall failure probability from fatigue,
6 9


accidental loading, etc; tt should be noted that over the lifetime of a structure these effects could
become important.
The results are presented in Figure 8.2 together with the API RP2A - LRFD and WSD 20
th
(21
st
)
Edition target reliabilities. It can be seen that, as with the 1-year reference period, an
environmental load factor of 1.25 would give reliability levels for the ISO code slightly above the
API RP2A - WSD 20
th
(21
st
) Edition values. Hence, the calibration method is not sensitive to the
chosen reference period for the distribution of environmental load.
Variation of weighted reliability with environmental
load factor - ISO brace members
2.880
0
1
2
3
4
5
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
Environmental load factor
W
e
i
g
h
t
e
d

r
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

Brace
members
(NNS&CNS)
Target
Reliability
(API - LRFD)
Target
Reliability
(API - WSD)

Figure 8.2 Variation of Weighted Reliability with Environmental Load Factor for 20-year
Reference Period ISO Brace Members
8.4 TRUNCATION OF DESIGN LOAD UNCERTAINTY DISTRIBUTION
In the calibration analysis, the design load uncertainty was represented by a normal distribution
truncated at 1.5 standard deviations, as suggested by Tromans [8]. The sensitivity to the effect
of this truncation was investigated by repeating the calibration exercise for brace members with a
normal distribution with no truncation assumed for the design load uncertainty. The results are
presented in Figure 8.3 together with the API RP2A - LRFD and WSD 20
th
(21
st
) Edition target
reliabilities. It can be seen that, as with the truncated distribution, an environmental load factor of
1.25 would give reliability levels for the ISO code slightly above the API RP2A - WSD 20
th
(21
st
)
Edition values. Hence the calibration method is not sensitive to the chosen truncation for the
distribution of design load uncertainty.
7 0


Variation of weighted reliability with environmental
load factor - ISO brace members
3.549
0
1
2
3
4
5
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
Environmental load factor
W
e
i
g
h
t
e
d

r
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

Brace
members
(NNS&CNS)
Target
Reliability
(API - LRFD)
Target
Reliability
(API - WSD)

Figure 8.3 Variation of Weighted Reliability With Environmental Load Factor for design load
uncertainty with no truncation ISO Brace Members
8.5 OPPOSING LOAD CONDITION
The ISO Code (and RP2A-LRFD) includes a design check for components where the internal
forces due to gravity loads oppose the internal forces due to environmental loads caused by wind,
wave and current. The partial load factors applied to the gravity loads are reduced for this
condition. The ISO factored design load for this condition, in the notation used in this report, is
given by:
W L 8 . 0 D 9 . 0 F
W d
+ + = (8.1)
This load condition is often considered to be one of the benefits of the LRFD approach. The CoV
of the uncertainty in the overall loading for the non-opposing loads case (i.e. the usual additive
load case) and the opposing loads case may be approximated by:

W L D
2
W
2 2
L
2 2
D
2
w l d
w l d
+ +
+ +

W L D
2
W
2 2
L
2 2
D
2
w l d
w l d
+
+ +
(8.2)
Clearly, uncertainty in the loading, i.e. CoV, is much greater for the opposing loads case, and is a
maximum (infinite) for this case when the mean gravity and environmental loads are equal.
7 1


The most famous illustration of the importance of this case is the Ferrybridge cooling towers,
which failed because tension reinforcement to resist uplift had not been used in areas of the
towers where the gravity loading was slightly larger than the effects of the design wind loading.
The towers failed because of an underestimate in the wind loading.
For the ISO and API Codes, graphs of variation of reliability with We/G ratio for a typical tubular
member for the opposing load condition are presented in Figure 8.4 to Figure 8.10 for the various
load effects. The results are shown for W=1.35 and W=1.25 for ISO. In each case the reliability
to ISO or API RP2A-LRFD is fairly constant with We/G ratio. The reliabilities to API RP2A-WSD
are less than to ISO and API RP2A-LRFD, except for the single case of tension, bending and
hydrostatic pressure for W=1.25 for ISO, where the reliability is marginally less than to API RP2A-
WSD. Thus, the reliability of designs to ISO and LRFD Codes is improved for members governed
by this condition.
The large variation in reliability with We/G ratio that occurs for designs to WSD is due to the WSD
format which effectively applies the same safety factor to both gravity and environmental load.
ISO and RP2A-LRFD achieve a consistent reliability across a wide range of We/G ratios.
The reliability levels achieved for the ISO Code for the opposing load condition are similar to the
reliability levels achieved for the non-opposing load condition discussed in Section 5. For example
compare Figure 8.5 for the opposing load condition for a typical member under axial compression
with Figure 5.2; a reliability index of around 4.0 is shown in both figures.
Reliability Index versus W
e
/G behaviour for member axial
tension
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.1 1 10 100
Extreme Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, W
e
/G
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

ISO -
1.35
ISO -
1.25
API
LRFD
API
WSD


Figure 8.4 Axial Tension - Effect of Variation in Environment-to-Gravity Load Ratio Opposing
Load Condition

7 2


Reliability index versus W
e
/G behaviour for member axial
compression
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.1 1 10 100
Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, W
e
/G
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

ISO -
1.35
ISO -
1.25
API
LRFD
API
WSD

Figure 8.5 Axial Compression - Effect of Variation in Environment-to-Gravity Load Ratio
Opposing Load Condition

Reliability index versus W
e
/G behaviour for member
bending
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.1 1 10 100
Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, W
e
/G
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

ISO -
1.35
ISO -
1.25
API
LRFD
API
WSD

Figure 8.6 Bending - Effect of Variation in Environment-to-Gravity Load Ratio Opposing Load
Condition
7 3


Reliability index versus W
e
/G behaviour for member
combined tension and bending
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.1 1 10 100
Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, W
e
/G
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

ISO -
1.35
ISO -
1.25
API
LRFD
API
WSD

Figure 8.7 Tension and Bending - Effect of Variation in Environment-to-Gravity Load Ratio
Opposing Load Condition

Reliability index versus W
e
/G behaviour for member
combined compression and bending
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.1 1 10 100
Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, W
e
/G
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

ISO -
1.35
ISO -
1.25
API
LRFD
API
WSD

Figure 8.8 Compression and Bending - Effect of Variation in Environment-to-Gravity Load Ratio
Opposing Load Condition
7 4


Reliability index versus W
e
/G behaviour for member
combined compression, bending & hydrostatic pressure
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.1 1 10 100
Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, W
e
/G
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

ISO -
1.35
ISO -
1.25
API
LRFD
API
WSD

Figure 8.9 Compression, Bending and Hydrostatic Pressure - Effect of Variation in Environment-
to-Gravity Load Ratio Opposing Load Condition

Reliability index versus W
e
/G behaviour for member
combined tension, bending & hydrostatic pressure
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.1 1 10 100
Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, W
e
/G
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

ISO -
1.35
ISO -
1.25
API
LRFD
API
WSD

Figure 8.10 Tension, Bending and Hydrostatic Pressure - Effect of Variation in Environment-to-
Gravity Load Ratio Opposing Load Condition

7 5
























































7 6


9. TUBULAR J OI NTS
9.1 SUMMARY
Reliability analysis for tubular joints has been undertaken to assess the effect of different
environmental partial load factors, and to consider the appropriateness of the partial resistance
factors.
In this Section reliability analyses have only been undertaken for individual load effects (e.g. axial
tension, in-plane bending, etc.). This is because model uncertainty data are not available to
assess the uncertainty associated with the interaction of load effects for tubular joints. There are
significant differences in the form of the interaction equations between RP2A-WSD, RP2A-LRFD
and ISO 19902, which will be reflected in differences in reliability levels between the various
Codes. It is recognised that this aspect has not been addressed in the studies undertaken here.
9.2 CALIBRATION POINT DATA
9.2.1 Geometry
Representative geometries for joints have been selected and are shown in Table 9.1 to Table 9.3.

G1 G2 G3 G4
Chord Diameter, D (mm) 3500 800 1000 1500
Chord Thickness, T (mm) 75 30 25 40
Brace Diameter, d (mm) 1400 500 700 1400
Brace Thickness, t (mm) 30 12 25 38
=d/D 0.400 0.630 0.700 0.930
=D/2T 23.330 13.330 20.000 18.750
Gap, g (mm) 50 50 50 50
Brace/Chord Angle, (deg) 33.79 48.72 63.82 41.76
Table 9.1 Geometry of K Joints
7 7



G1 G2 G3 G4
Chord Diameter, D (mm) 3500 800 1000 1500
Chord Thickness, T (mm) 55 30 25 40
Brace Diameter, d (mm) 1000 500 700 1400
Brace Thickness, t (mm) 16 12 25 38
=d/D 0.290 0.630 0.700 0.930
=D/2T 31.820 13.330 20.000 18.750
Brace/Chord Angle, (deg) 87.07 48.72 63.82 41.76
Table 9.2 Geometry of Y & T Joints

G1 G2 G3 G4
Chord Diameter, D (mm) 3500 2300 1000 800
Chord Thickness, T (mm) 55 65 25 20
Brace Diameter, d (mm) 1000 1000 700 700
Brace Thickness, t (mm) 16 25 25 12
=d/D 0.290 0.480 0.700 0.880
=D/2T 31.820 17.690 20.000 20.000
Brace/Chord Angle, (deg) 87.07 90.00 63.82 90.00
Table 9.3 Geometry of X Joints
9.2.2 Load Effects
The load effects studied for each joint type (Y-, X- and non-overlapped K-joints) were as follows:
Axial Compression
Axial Tension
In-plane Bending
Out-of-Plane Bending
7 8


9.2.3 Load Combinations
The combinations of dead to live load ratio considered are the same as for members as listed in
Table 3.4.
9.3 WEIGHTING FACTOR DATA
The weighting factors used for the reliability analysis are presented in Figure 9.1 in the form of a
weighting tree.

7 9

CNS
0.71
K
0.26
G2
0.31
0.3
0.15
G3
0.29
G4
0.02
1.0
0.25
3.5
0.35
1.2
0.25
AT
0.20
AC
0.31
IPB
0.22
OPB
0.27
G1
0.38
JOINT
TYPE
LOAD
COMBINATIONS
We/G
LOAD
EFFECTS
A
0.33
B
0.33
C
0.33
Y
0.56
G2
0.35
0.3
0.15
G3
0.21
G4
0.15
1.0
0.25
3.5
0.35
1.2
0.25
AT
0.15
AC
0.22
IPB
0.41
OPB
0.22
G1
0.29
A
0.33
B
0.33
C
0.33
X
0.18
G2
0.22
0.3
0.15
G3
0.34
G4
0.29
1.0
0.25
3.5
0.35
1.2
0.25
AT
0.22
AC
0.50
IPB
0.18
OPB
0.10
G1
0.15
A
0.33
B
0.33
C
0.33
NNS
0.29
K
0.3
G2
0.42
0.3
0.10
G3
0.18
G4
0.08
1.0
0.20
3.5
0.35
1.2
0.35
AT
0.33
AC
0.47
IPB
0.08
OPB
0.12
G1
0.32
A
0.33
B
0.33
C
0.33
Y
0.52
G2
0.42
0.3
0.10
G3
0.18
G4
0.27
1.0
0.20
3.5
0.35
1.2
0.35
AT
0.05
AC
0.45
IPB
0.22
OPB
0.28
G1
0.13
A
0.33
B
0.33
C
0.33
X
0.18
G2
0.24
0.3
0.10
G3
0.22
G4
0.49
1.0
0.20
3.5
0.35
1.2
0.35
AT
0.16
AC
0.39
IPB
0.24
OPB
0.21
G1
0.05
A
0.33
B
0.33
C
0.33
JOINTS
GEOGRAPHIC
LOCATION
DESIGN
GROUP
B
G1 0.20-0.45
G2 0.46-0.65
G3 0.66-0.85
G4 >0.85
DEAD TO LIVE
LOAD RATIOS

Figure 9.1 Tree Diagram for Tubular Joints Extreme Loading Condition
8 0


9.4 PROBABILISTIC MODELLING
Probability distributions have been assigned to both loading and resistance terms. All basic
variables have been assumed to be independently distributed, i.e. uncorrelated.
Xm Resistance model uncertainty LN [see Table 9.4]
The resistance uncertainty parameters, i.e. mean bias and coefficient of variation (CoV), for the
various strength formulations are as given in the ISO code and are presented in Table 9.4.
Lognormal distributions have been assumed for all of the resistance model uncertainties.
K (gapped) Joint Y&T Joint X Joint

Mean
Standard
Deviation Mean
Standard
Deviation Mean
Standard
Deviation
Axial Tension 1.229 0.1745 1.708 0.4082 1.447 0.2720
Axial Compression 1.229 0.1745 1.265 0.1657 1.169 0.1075
In-Plane Bending 1.243 0.1305 1.213 0.1286 1.235 0.0926
Out-of-Plane Bending 1.217 0.1874 1.268 0.1496 1.139 0.0683
Table 9.4 Resistance Modelling Uncertainties
Annual environmental load, design load uncertainty, dead load, live load, chord diameter, brace
diameter, chord thickness, brace thickness and yield stress distributions were all the same as for
members, as described in Section 4.3.
9.5 RELIABILITY ANALYSIS FOR TYPICAL JOINTS
9.5.1 Summary
In order to investigate the effect of different values of partial factors on the different load effects
and design formulations for tubular joints, first-order reliability analyses were undertaken for single
components using a spreadsheet macro. Ranges of parameters were evaluated, whilst all other
input parameters were kept constant. The partial resistance factor for tubular joints is 1.05 in ISO.
For comparison, results were also evaluated for designs based on RP2A-WSD 20
th
(21
st
) Edition
and RP2A-LRFD (with API recommended load and resistance factors).
This type of analysis, using a single typical joint geometry, was undertaken to investigate the
effects of joint beta ratio, joint gamma ratio, Qf factor, etc. For these cases, an environment-to-
gravity load ratio of 1.0 was assumed.
All evaluated reliabilities are annual. All results are for the extreme storm condition.
8 1


The typical joint used as the base case for this study was as follows:
Parameter Value
Geometry G3 (see Table 9.1 to Table 9.3)
Dead:live load ratio 1:1
Qf factor 1.0
Environmental load factor, W 1.35
Table 9.5 Joint Base Case for Study of Effect of Different Parameters
Geometry 3 was chosen as all parameters were the same for each joint type.
9.5.2 Axial Tension
The results for a typical joint are shown in Figure 9.2 to Figure 9.4; partial factors are based on the
published values. It can be seen that, whilst the reliability to the ISO code remains fairly constant
at around 4.0 for all joint types, the API RP2A - LRFD and WSD values are lower than ISO for the
K-joint, higher than ISO for the Y-joint and about the same for the X-joint.

Rel i abi l i ty Index versus W
e
/G behavi our for K-j oi nt axi al tensi on
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.1 1 10 100
Extreme Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, W
e
/G
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

ISO
API LRFD
API WSD


Figure 9.2 K-Joint Axial Tension - Effect of Variation in Environment-to-Gravity Load Ratio
8 2


Rel i abi l i ty Index versus W
e
/G behavi our for Y-j oi nt axi al tensi on
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.1 1 10 100
Extreme Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, W
e
/G
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

ISO
API LRFD
API WSD


Figure 9.3 Y-Joint Axial Tension - Effect of Variation in Environment-to-Gravity Load Ratio

Rel i abi l i ty Index versus W
e
/G behavi our for X-j oi nt axi al tensi on
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.1 1 10 100
Extreme Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, W
e
/G
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

ISO
API LRFD
API WSD


Figure 9.4 X-Joint Axial Tension - Effect of Variation in Environment-to-Gravity Load Ratio
8 3


9.5.3 Axial Compression
The results for a typical joint are shown in Figure 9.5 and Figure 9.6; partial factors are based on
the published values. Axial compression values have not been plotted for the K-joint, as the
formulation is the same as for tension (see Figure 9.2).
As found for joints under axial tension, the reliability index for the ISO code remains fairly constant
at around 4.0 for all joint types.
Rel i abi l i ty Index versus W
e
/G behavi our for Y-j oi nt axi al
compressi on
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.1 1 10 100
Extreme Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, W
e
/G
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

ISO
API LRFD
API WSD


Figure 9.5 Y-Joint Axial Compression - Effect of Variation in Environment-to-Gravity Load Ratio

8 4


Rel i abi l i ty Index versus W
e
/G behavi our for X-j oi nt axi al
compressi on
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.1 1 10 100
Extreme Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, W
e
/G
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

ISO
API LRFD
API WSD


Figure 9.6 X-Joint Axial Compression - Effect of Variation in Environment-to-Gravity Load Ratio

9.5.4 In-Plane Bending
The results for a typical joint are shown in Figure 9.7 to Figure 9.9; partial factors are based on the
published values. For all codes and all joint types the reliabilities are above or only marginally
below 4.0.
Rel i abi l i ty Index versus W
e
/G behavi our for K-j oi nt i n-pl ane bendi ng
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.1 1 10 100
Extreme Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, W
e
/G
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

ISO
API LRFD
API WSD


Figure 9.7 K-Joint In-Plane Bending - Effect of Variation in Environment-to-Gravity Load Ratio
8 5


Rel i abi l i ty Index versus W
e
/G behavi our for Y-j oi nt i n-pl ane bendi ng
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.1 1 10 100
Extreme Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, W
e
/G
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

ISO
API LRFD
API WSD


Figure 9.8 Y-Joint In-Plane Bending - Effect of Variation in Environment-to-Gravity Load Ratio
Rel i abi l i ty Index versus W
e
/G behavi our for X-j oi nt i n-pl ane bendi ng
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.1 1 10 100
Extreme Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, W
e
/G
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

ISO
API LRFD
API WSD


Figure 9.9 X-Joint In-Plane Bending - Effect of Variation in Environment-to-Gravity Load Ratio

8 6


9.5.5 Out-of-Plane Bending
The results for a typical joint are shown in Figure 9.10 to Figure 9.12; partial factors are based on
the published values. Reliabilities for the ISO code are around 4.0 (slightly lower for the K-joint)
with the API RP2A LRFD and WSD values fairly close to the ISO values.
Rel i abi l i ty i ndex versus W
e
/G behavi our for K-j oi nt out-of-pl ane
bendi ng
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.1 1 10 100
Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, W
e
/G
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

ISO
API
LRFD
API
WSD

Figure 9.10 K-Joint Out-of-Plane Bending - Effect of Variation in Environment-to-Gravity Load
Ratio
8 7


Rel i abi l i ty i ndex versus W
e
/G behavi our for Y-j oi nt out-of-pl ane
bendi ng
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.1 1 10 100
Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, W
e
/G
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

ISO
API
LRFD
API
WSD

Figure 9.11 Y-Joint Out-of-Plane Bending - Effect of Variation in Environment-to-Gravity Load
Ratio
Rel i abi l i ty i ndex versus W
e
/G behavi our for j oi nt out-of-pl ane
bendi ng
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.1 1 10 100
Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, W
e
/G
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

ISO
API
LRFD
API
WSD

Figure 9.12 X-Joint Out-of-Plane Bending - Effect of Variation in Environment-to-Gravity Load
Ratio
8 8


9.5.6 Variation of Environmental Load Factor
For illustration, the effect of different environmental load factors was investigated for a typical K-
joint in axial tension for design to the ISO code. The results are shown in Figure 9.13. The results
show that there is not a great deal of variation in reliability index for environmental load factors in
the range 1.2 to 1.4.
Effect of environmental load factor on reliability index versus W
e
/G
behaviour
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.1 1 10 100
Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, W
e
/G
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

1.2
1.25
1.3
1.35
1.4

W

Figure 9.13 K-joint in Axial Tension - Effect of Variation in Environment-to-Gravity Load Ratio for
Different Environmental Load Factors

9.5.7 Variation of Joint Beta Ratio
Variation of joint beta ratio (d/D) was investigated by varying the brace diameter while keeping all
other parameters constant. The results for axial tension are shown in Figure 9.14 to Figure 9.16.
The graphs show that while reliability index remains constant at around 4.0 with variation in joint
beta ratio for the ISO code, there is a large variation for API RP2A LRFD and WSD due to the
differences in formulation.
8 9


Effect of joint ratio on Reliability Index - K-joint Balanced Axial
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Joi nt ratio
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

ISO
API LRFD
API WSD


Figure 9.14 Effect of Variation of Joint Beta Ratio on Reliability Index for K-joint subject to Axial
Tension

Effect of joint ratio on Reliability Index - Y-joint Axial Tension
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Joi nt ratio
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

ISO
API LRFD
API WSD


Figure 9.15 Effect of Variation of Joint Beta Ratio on Reliability Index for Y-joint subject to Axial
Tension
9 0


Effect of joint ratio on Reliability Index - X-joint Axial Tension
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Joi nt ratio
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

ISO
API LRFD
API WSD


Figure 9.16 Effect of Variation of Joint Beta Ratio on Reliability Index for X-joint subject to Axial
Tension

9.5.8 Variation of Joint Gamma Ratio
Variation of joint gamma ratio (D/2T) was investigated by varying the chord thickness while
keeping all other parameters constant. Typical results are shown in Figure 9.17 and Figure 9.18.
The graphs show that while reliability index remains reasonably constant at around 4.0 with
variation in joint gamma ratio for the ISO code, there is a variation for API RP2A LRFD and WSD
due to the differences in formulation.
9 1


Effect of joint ratio on Reliability Index
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Joi nt ratio
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

K-joint Ax ial
Tension
ISO
API LRFD
API WSD


Figure 9.17 Effect of Variation of Joint Gamma Ratio on Reliability Index for K-joint subject to
Axial Tension

Effect of j oi nt rati o on Rel i abi l i ty Index
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Joi nt ratio
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

X-joint Out-of-
Plane
Bending
ISO
API LRFD
API WSD


Figure 9.18 Effect of Variation of Joint Gamma Ratio on Reliability Index for X-joint subject to
Out-of-Plane Bending
9 2


9.5.9 Variation of Qf Factor
Variation of Qf factor was investigated by varying the unfactored chord stress while keeping all
other parameters constant. Typical results are shown in Figure 9.19 to Figure 9.21. The graphs
show that while reliability index remains fairly constant at around 4.0 with variation in chord stress
(or Qf factor) for the ISO code, there is a large variation for API RP2A LRFD and WSD due to the
differences in the formulation and definition of the Qf factor. The results show that when the chord
utilisation is high, i.e. when the Qf factor becomes more significant in joint design, the reliability
evaluated for joints designed to ISO is significantly greater than for designs to RP2A.
It should be noted that no additional model uncertainty has been included for the Qf term. The
resistance model uncertainty in Table 9.4 for the various load effects has been derived using the
results of large and full scale tests conducted, in the main, on joints without chord load, i.e. with
Qf = 1.0.
Some test data are available for chord effects, and statistics for selected load effects and joint
types are given in Table A.14.3-4, ISO 19902. These data suggest that bias and CoV for model
uncertainty do not change significantly, e.g. for T, Y joints under compression the bias and CoV for
joints including chord load effects is 1.338 and 0.151 compared with 1.265 and 0.131 without, and
for gapped K-joints under balanced axial load the bias and CoV for joints including chord load
effects is 1.295 and 0.136 compared with 1.229 and 0.142 without. These differences in model
uncertainty parameters will not materially affect the evaluated reliabilities.
Effect of W
e
/G ratio on reliability index versus chord stress
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0 50 100 150 200
Unfactored chord stress (N/mm
2
)
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

K-joint In-
Plane
Bending
ISO
API LRFD
API WSD


Figure 9.19 Effect of Variation of Qf Factor on Reliability Index for K-joint subject to In-Plane
Bending

9 3


Effect of W
e
/G ratio on reliability index versus chord stress
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0 50 100 150 200
Unfactored chord stress (N/mm
2
)
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

Y-joint Out-of-
Plane
Bending
ISO
API LRFD
API WSD


Figure 9.20 Effect of Variation of Qf Factor on Reliability Index for Y-joint subject to Out-of-Plane
Bending

Effect of W
e
/G ratio on reliability index versus chord stress
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0 50 100 150 200
Unfactored chord stress (N/mm
2
)
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

X-joint Ax ial
Compression
ISO
API LRFD
API WSD


Figure 9.21 Effect of Variation of Qf Factor on Reliability Index for X-joint subject to Axial
Compression
9 4


9.6 CALIBRATION POINT RESULTS
In this section reliability analysis results are presented for all of the calibration points in the
database. The calibration exercise was carried out using a purpose-written first order reliability
analysis spreadsheet.
Graphs of results for all calibration points for joints are presented below in Figure 9.22 to Figure
9.26 for ISO with W=1.35, and Figure 9.27 for API RP2A - WSD.
The general trend in reliability with We/G ratio is less marked for ISO than for RP2A-WSD, and for
many load effects the reliabilities for ISO are reasonably consistent at around 4.0 (for w=1.35)
over a wide range of We/G ratios. This is confirmed by the average reliability indices for each load
effect and each joint type given in Table 9.6 which are all around 4.0. This suggests that a partial
resistance factor of 1.05 for all load effect types for tubular joints is appropriate.

Rel i abi l i ty i ndex of calibration points vs W
e
/G for j oi nts i n extreme
l oadi ng condi tion (ISO
w
=1.35)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.1 1 10 100
W
e
/G ratio
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

Ax ial Tension
Ax ial
Compression
In-plane bending
Out-of-plane
bending

Figure 9.22 Reliability Index of Calibration Points Against Extreme Environmental/Gravity Load
Ratios All Joints ISO

9 5


Rel i abi l i ty i ndex of cal i brati on poi nts vs W
e
/G for j oi nts subj ect to
axi al tensi on i n extreme l oadi ng condi ti on (ISO
w
=1.35)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.1 1 10 100
W
e
/G ratio
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

K-joints
Y-joints
X-joints

Figure 9.23 Reliability Index of Calibration Points Against Extreme Environmental/Gravity Load
Ratios All Joints Axial Tension ISO

Rel i abi l i ty i ndex of cal i brati on poi nts vs W
e
/G for j oi nts subj ect to
axi al compressi on i n extreme l oadi ng condi ti on (ISO
w
=1.35)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.1 1 10 100
W
e
/G ratio
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

K-joints
Y-joints
X-joints

Figure 9.24 Reliability Index of Calibration Points Against Extreme Environmental/Gravity Load
Ratios All Joints Axial Compression ISO

9 6


Rel i abi l i ty i ndex of cal i brati on poi nts vs W
e
/G for joints subject to
i n-pl ane bendi ng i n extreme l oadi ng condi ti on (ISO
w
=1.35)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.1 1 10 100
W
e
/G ratio
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

K-joints
Y-joints
X-joints

Figure 9.25 Reliability Index of Calibration Points Against Extreme Environmental/Gravity Load
Ratios All Joints In-Plane Bending ISO

Rel i abi l i ty i ndex of cal i brati on poi nts vs W
e
/G for j oi nts subj ect to
out-of-pl ane bendi ng i n extreme l oadi ng condi ti on (ISO
w
=1.35)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.1 1 10 100
W
e
/G rati o
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

K-joints
Y-joints
X-joints

Figure 9.26 Reliability Index of Calibration Points Against Extreme Environmental/Gravity Load
Ratios All Joints Out-of-Plane Bending ISO

9 7


Rel i abi l i ty i ndex of calibration points vs W
e
/G for j oi nts i n extreme
l oadi ng condi tion (API WSD 17-20)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.1 1 10 100
W
e
/G ratio
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

Ax ial
Compression
In-plane bending
Out-of-plane
bending
Ax ial Tension

Figure 9.27 Reliability Index of Calibration Points Against Extreme Environmental/Gravity Load
Ratios All Joints API WSD 17-20
th
(21
st
) Edition

K-Joint Y-Joint X-Joint
Load Effect
Pf Pf Pf
Axial Tension 4.623E-05 3.910 1.847E-05 4.126 2.36299E-05 4.069
Axial Compression 4.623E-05 3.910 2.635E-05 4.043 3.51588E-05 3.975
In-Plane Bending 1.973E-05 4.111 2.707E-05 4.037 1.39708E-05 4.190
Out-of-Plane Bending 7.576E-05 3.789 1.965E-05 4.112 3.2749E-05 3.992
All 4.825E-05 3.899 2.413E-05 4.064 2.83447E-05 4.026
Table 9.6 Weighted Average Pf and Equivalent for each Load Effect and Joint Type (ISO
w=1.35)
9 8


9.7 TARGET ASSESSMENT
The effect on reliability of varying the environmental load factor for joints is shown in Figure 9.28
below. By comparison with the target reliabilities calculated to API RP2A WSD and LRFD and
the target recommended by Efthymiou [6] (for a structural system), a range of environmental load
factors may be suggested for further discussion. The weighted probabilities and equivalent
reliabilities represented in Figure 9.28 are given in Table 9.7. On the basis of the results, an
environmental load factor of 1.25 would give reliability levels for the ISO code above the API RP2A
- WSD 20
th
(21
st
) Edition values.
Variation of weighted reliability with environmental load factor -
ISO joints
4.014
3.415
0
1
2
3
4
5
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
Environmental load factor
W
e
i
g
h
t
e
d

R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

Joints
Target
Reliability
(Efthmy iou)
Target
Reliability (API
- LRFD)
Target
Reliability (API
- WSD)

Figure 9.28 Variation of Weighted Reliability With Environmental Load Factor ISO Joints
9 9



Joints
Code
Pf
Equivalent
APIWSD 20
th
3.191E-04 3.415
w-1.2 9.099E-05 3.743
w-1.25 6.355E-05 3.832
w-1.3 4.459E-05 3.918
w-1.35 3.143E-05 4.002
ISO
w-1.4 2.226E-05 4.083
Table 9.7 Weighted Average Pf and Equivalent for Different Environmental Load Factors

1 0 0


10. FOUNDATI ONS
10.1 SUMMARY
Reliability analysis for pile axial capacity has been undertaken to assess the effect of different
environmental partial load factors. The aim of the work here is to briefly investigate the effect of
the partial load factors on foundation reliability; it is not to undertake a rigorous analysis to assess
failure probabilities for piled foundations.
Pile axial capacity predictions for use in the reliability analysis have been undertaken using the
standard pile strength formulations for sand and clay soils in the main body of the ISO Code (the
alternative methods suggested in the Commentary have not been used). Model uncertainties for
shaft friction (and end bearing) in sand and clay soils have been assessed on the basis of large
scale tests, but it is worth noting that the uncertainties associated with the ISO pile strength
formulations are large. Better strength models are available (which fit the available test data more
closely), but these have not been used here as they need specialist geotechnical input. It is also
worth noting that, because the number of suitable test results is small and because the variability
in results is so large, the statistical modelling of model uncertainty is very dependent on the
selection and screening of the database. (The model uncertainty was based on 48 test results for
piles in sand and 43 test for piles in clay).
In reality, the ultimate axial strength of piles is also influenced by a number of factors which are not
reflected in static pile load tests. An attempt was made to allow for the following factors in the
analysis: load rate, cyclic loading, set-up or strength gain with time in cohesive soils, and
uncertainty in pile loading due to soil/structure interaction.
No structural reanalysis has been undertaken here, thus no explicit effect from the load
redistribution between piles as a result of non-linear soil/pile interaction has been evaluated.
10.2 CALIBRATION POINT DATA
A range of calibration points was chosen so that trends in reliability could be evaluated. However,
weighted average reliabilities were not calculated as they would not give meaningful results due to
the large range in reliabilities and the select (small) database analysed.
10.2.1 Soil Type
Four idealised soil profiles were selected as representative of North Sea soil conditions. These
are:
Normally consolidated (NC) clay c ranging from 5 kPa at the seabed to 175 kPa at a
depth of 100m
1 0 1


Firm overconsolidated (OC) clay c of 150kPa assumed constant with depth
Hard overconsolidated (OC) clay c of 300kPa assumed constant with depth
Dense sand of 35, Nq of 50, assumed constant with depth
For the purposes of this analysis a submerged soil density of 8 kN/m
3
was assumed. For the
assessment of capacity for sand soils, the K value was assumed to be 0.8 for compression and
0.7 for tension loading. It was assumed to be the same for both API and ISO foundation designs.
10.2.2 Geometry
For each soil type, three pile diameters were chosen in the range 48 (1.219m) to 108 (2.743m).
Typically larger pile diameters are used with weaker soil conditions and this was reflected in the
pile diameters chosen for the calibration data.
Pile penetrations were selected to give a range of aspect ratios, whilst encompassing the range of
actual pile penetrations in the central and northern North Sea regions. Pile penetrations varied
from 30m to 90m.
10.2.3 Load Effects
The load effects considered were:
Maximum compressive load for the extreme storm condition (pile plunging)
Maximum tensile load for the extreme storm condition, i.e. an opposing load condition
where gravity loads oppose environmental loads (pile pull-out).
10.2.4 Load Combinations
The combinations of gravity to environmental load and dead to live load ratio considered for both
compression and tension load cases are listed in Table 10.1.
1 0 2


We:G (compression) We:G (tension) D:L
5.0
4.0
0.5 -1.7
3.0
3.5
4.5
0.7 -2.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
1.0 -2.25
3.5
3.0
5.0
1.7 -3.0
4.5
4.5
3.5
3.0 -4.0
5.0
Table 10.1 Range of Gravity Load Ratios for Each Environmental-to-Gravity Load Ratio for the
Extreme Loading Condition

10.3 PROBABILISTIC MODELLING
It must be recognised that because of the uncertainties and unknowns involved, reliabilities
evaluated for axial pile failure are not comparable with those evaluated for tubular member failure,
or even tubular joint failure.
There are a number of uncertainties affecting pile resistance, including:
Model uncertainty
Soil parameter uncertainty
Load rate
Effects of repeated load, cyclic load
1 0 3


Group effects
Effects of scour or slotting
Method of pile installation
Time delay between pile installation and load application
Pile geometry
Soil parameter uncertainty has been assumed to be included in the analysis of load test results,
since the process of estimating and assigning soil conditions is part of the capacity prediction
model. However, the influence of load rate, cyclic loading, group effects, time delay, scour, etc.,
are additional effects which are not accounted for by static load tests. Scour or pile slotting do not
usually have a significant affect on axial capacity, and have been neglected. The influence of
group effects and pile geometry has not been considered.
Probability distributions have been assigned to both loading and resistance terms, and the failure
function in the reliability analysis was simply defined as the difference between ultimate capacity
and acting axial load. Because of the different behaviour of sand and clay soils, separate load and
resistance models were derived for each.
All basic variables have been assumed to be independently distributed, i.e. uncorrelated.
10.3.1 Probabilistic Modelling for Clays
The axial capacity of a piled foundation in clay soils depends on the shaft friction, the end bearing,
the set-up or effect of time since the pile was driven or last disturbed, and the cyclic nature of the
loading. The capacity prediction equation which has been assumed for piles in clay soil under
compression is as follows:
Capacity = (Friction Xfriction Xdelay + Bearing Xbearing) Xcyclic (10.1)
For piles in tension, end bearing is zero. The parameters for the various uncertainties in clay soil
are listed in Table 10.2 below. All variables are considered lognormally distributed.
1 0 4



Basic Variables Distribution Mean Bias Standard
Deviation
Source of data
Friction
NC clay
OC clay
Xfriction Lognormal
0.73
0.97

0.19
0.25

Reference 14
Reference 14
Bearing Xbearing Lognormal 0.91 0.43 Reference 14
Delay Xdelay Lognormal 1.0 0.07 Reference 15
Cyclic Xcyclic Lognormal 0.86 0.02 Reference 15
Table 10.2 Basic Variable Modelling for Clay Soils
10.3.2 Probabilistic Modelling for Sands
The capacity prediction equation which has been assumed for piles under compression in sand
soils is as follows:
Capacity = (Friction Xfriction Xrate + Bearing Xbearing) (10.2)
For piles in tension, end bearing was neglected. The parameters for the various uncertainties for
sands are listed in Table 10.3 below. All variables are considered lognormally distributed.
Basic Variables Distribution Mean Bias Standard
Deviation
Source of data
Friction Xfriction Lognormal 1.84 1.52 Reference 14
Bearing Xbearing Lognormal 2.19 1.86 Reference 14
Rate Xrate Lognormal 0.95 0.03 Reference 15
Table 10.3 Basic Variable Modelling for Sand Soils
Table 10.3 shows that the CoV for skin friction and end bearing using the API/ISO soils models is
over 0.80.
10.3.3 Probabilistic Modelling of Pile Loading
Annual environmental load, design load uncertainty, dead load, and live load distributions were
modelled the same as for tubular members, i.e. as described in Section 4.3.
An additional uncertainty due to soil/structure interaction was introduced. It has been modelled
with a bias of 1.0 and a CoV of 0.02; it has been assumed to be lognormally distributed.
1 0 5


10.3.3.1 Loading Uncertainty for Clay Soils
The load modelling equation that has been assumed for clay soils, including the load rate effect, is
as follows:

interact
Rate
w
X
X
1
X / wW lL D d Load

+ + = (10.3)
The load rate effect is assumed lognormally distributed with a mean bias of 1.53 and standard
deviation of 0.12.
10.3.3.2 Loading Uncertainty for Sands
The load modelling equation that has been assumed for sand soils is as follows:
Load = (dD + lL + wW/Xw) Xinteract (10.4)
10.4 RELIABILITY ANALYSIS FOR TYPICAL INDIVIDUAL PILES
10.4.1 Summary
In order to investigate the effect of different values of partial factors on the different load effects
and design formulations for pile capacity, first-order reliability analyses were undertaken for single
components using a spreadsheet macro. The variation of reliability with We/G ratio was evaluated.
For comparison, results were also evaluated for designs based on API RP2A-WSD 20
th
(21
st
)
Edition and RP2A-LRFD (with API recommended load and resistance factors).
All evaluated reliabilities are annual. All results are for the extreme storm condition.
10.4.2 Axial Compression
The results for a typical pile are shown in Figure 10.1 to Figure 10.4; partial load and resistance
factors are based on the published values (the partial resistance factor for the extreme condition is
1.25). Reliabilities for axial pile capacity calculated to ISO are similar to, or slightly higher than,
API RP2A-WSD 20
th
(21
st
) Edition values for all soil types.
The evaluated reliabilities are all very low, but it is the relative values and trends that are
important, not the absolute values.
Typical results from the first-order reliability analysis for the ISO Code for an environment-to-
gravity load ratio of 1.0 are shown in Table 10.4. The results show that the reliability is most
sensitive to the environmental load and shaft friction for clays and shaft friction and end bearing
for sands.
1 0 6


Rel i abi l i ty Index versus W
e
/G behavi our for pi l e i n axi al
compressi on
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.1 1 10
Extreme Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, W
e
/G
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

ISO
API LRFD
API WSD


Figure 10.1 Pile in Normally Consolidated Clay in Axial Compression - Effect of Variation in
Environment-to-Gravity Load Ratio

Rel i abi l i ty Index versus W
e
/G behavi our for pi l e i n axi al
compressi on
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.1 1 10
Extreme Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, W
e
/G
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

ISO
API LRFD
API WSD


Figure 10.2 Pile in Firm Overconsolidated Clay in Axial Compression - Effect of Variation in
Environment-to-Gravity Load Ratio

1 0 7


Rel i abi l i ty Index versus W
e
/G behavi our for pi l e i n axi al
compressi on
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.1 1 10
Extreme Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, W
e
/G
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

ISO
API LRFD
API WSD


Figure 10.3 Pile in Hard Overconsolidated Clay in Axial Compression - Effect of Variation in
Environment-to-Gravity Load Ratio

Rel i abi l i ty Index versus W
e
/G behavi our for pi l e i n axi al
compressi on
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.1 1 10
Extreme Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, W
e
/G
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

ISO
API LRFD
API WSD


Figure 10.4 Pile in Sand in Axial Compression - Effect of Variation in Environment-to-Gravity
Load Ratio
1 0 8


Basic Variables NC clay Firm OC clay Hard OC clay Sand
Shaft friction 0.839 0.824 0.801 0.471
End bearing 0.277 0.211 0.271 0.853
Load rate 0.073 0.081 0.083 0.020
Cyclic loading 0.091 0.087 0.087 -
Time delay 0.231 0.229 0.222 -
Soil/structure
interaction
-0.078 -0.075 -0.076 -0.036
Load model
uncertainty
0.135 0.153 0.157 0.083
Environmental load -0.323 -0.402 -0.413 -0.194
Dead Load -0.138 -0.124 -0.125 -0.058
Live Load -0.066 -0.059 -0.059 -0.027
Table 10.4 Reliability Analysis Basic Variable Sensitivity Coefficients (-factors)
Axial Compression
10.4.3 Axial Tension
For piles in axial tension, the opposing loads condition governs for the ISO and LRFD Codes. The
results for a typical pile are shown in Figure 10.5 to Figure 10.8; partial factors are based on the
published values. Reliabilities for axial pile capacity calculated to ISO are higher than API RP2A-
WSD 20
th
(21
st
) Edition values for all soil types, i.e. design to ISO is more reliable. This means
that designs to ISO for piles governed by axial tension will generally lead to a requirement for
longer pile lengths than designs to RP2A-WSD; this is most significant for piles in sand soils.
Typical results from the first-order reliability analysis for the ISO Code for an environment-to-
gravity load ratio of 2.25 are shown in Table 10.5. The results show that the reliability is most
sensitive to the environmental load, load model uncertainty and shaft friction for clays and sand.
1 0 9


Rel i abi l i ty Index versus W
e
/G behavi our for pi l es i n axi al tensi on
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
1 10
Extreme Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, W
e
/G
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

ISO
API LRFD
API WSD


Figure 10.5 Piles in Normally Consolidated Clay in Axial Tension -
Effect of Variation in Environment-to-Gravity Load Ratio

Rel i abi l i ty Index versus W
e
/G behavi our for pi l es i n axi al tensi on
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
1 10
Extreme Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, W
e
/G
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

ISO
API LRFD
API WSD


Figure 10.6 Piles in Firm Overconsolidated Clay in Axial Tension -
Effect of Variation in Environment-to-Gravity Load Ratio
1 1 0


Rel i abi l i ty Index versus W
e
/G behavi our for pi l es i n axi al tensi on
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
1 10
Extreme Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, W
e
/G
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

ISO
API LRFD
API WSD


Figure 10.7 Piles in Hard Overconsolidated Clay in Axial Tension -
Effect of Variation in Environment-to-Gravity Load Ratio

Rel i abi l i ty Index versus W
e
/G behavi our for pi l es i n axi al tensi on
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
1 10
Extreme Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, W
e
/G
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

ISO
API LRFD
API WSD


Figure 10.8 Piles in Sand in Axial Tension -
Effect of Variation in Environment-to-Gravity Load Ratio
1 1 1


Basic Variables NC clay Firm OC clay Hard OC clay Sand
Shaft friction 0.319 0.353 0.353 0.635
Load rate 0.180 0.183 0.183 0.029
Cyclic loading 0.029 0.033 0.033 -
Time delay 0.088 0.098 0.098 -
Soil/structure
interaction
-0.025 -0.028 -0.028 -0.018
Load model
uncertainty
0.319 0.311 0.311 0.265
Environmental load -0.867 -0.855 -0.855 -0.723
Dead Load 0.049 0.044 0.044 0.042
Live Load 0.023 0.021 0.021 0.020
Table 10.5 Reliability Analysis Basic Variable Sensitivity coefficients (-factors)
Axial Tension ISO

10.4.4 Variation of Environmental Load Factor
For illustration, the effect of different environmental load factors was investigated for a typical pile
in clay and sand in axial compression for design to the ISO code. The results are shown in Figure
10.9 and Figure 10.10. The results show that there is very little variation in reliability index for
environmental load factors in the range 1.2 to 1.4. A similar variation is obtained for the case of
piles in tension.
1 1 2


Effect of environmental load factor on reliability index versus W
e
/G
behaviour
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.1 1 10
Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, W
e
/G
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

1.2
1.25
1.3
1.35
1.4

W

Figure 10.9 Piles in Firm Overconsolidated Clay in Axial Compression -
Effect of Variation in Environment-to-Gravity Load Ratio for Different Environmental Load Factors

Effect of environmental load factor on reliability index versus W
e
/G
behaviour
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.1 1 10
Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, W
e
/G
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

1.2
1.25
1.3
1.35
1.4

W

Figure 10.10 Piles in sand in Axial Compression -
Effect of Variation in Environment-to-Gravity Load Ratio for Different Environmental Load Factors
1 1 3


10.5 CALIBRATION POINT RESULTS
In this section reliability analysis results are presented for all of the calibration points in the
database. The analysis was carried out using a purpose-written first order reliability analysis
spreadsheet.
Graphs of results for all calibration points for piles are presented below in Figure 10.11 and Figure
10.12 for ISO with W=1.35. The graphs show there is little spread in reliability for the different
calibration points for each soil type and We/G ratio. However, the difference in reliability between
soil types and between different environment-to-gravity load ratios is large, and is significantly
larger than the variation in reliability that may be introduced by varying the load factor, see Figures
10.9 and 10.10.

Rel i abi l i ty i ndex of cal i brati on poi nts vs W
e
/G for pi l es subj ect to
axi al compressi on i n extreme l oadi ng condi ti on (ISO
w
=1.35)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.1 1 10
W
e
/G ratio
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

NC Clay
Firm OC
Clay
Hard OC
Clay
Sand

Figure 10.11 Reliability Index of Calibration Points Against Extreme Environmental/Gravity Load
Ratios All Piles Axial Compression - ISO
1 1 4


Rel i abi l i ty i ndex of cal i brati on poi nts vs W
e
/G for pi l es subj ect to
axi al tensi on i n extreme l oadi ng condi ti on (ISO
w
=1.35)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.1 1 10
W
e
/G ratio
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

NC Clay
Firm OC
Clay
Hard OC
Clay
Sand

Figure 10.12 Reliability Index of Calibration Points Against Extreme Environmental/Gravity Load
Ratios All Piles Axial Tension ISO

10.6 NORMALISED PILE CAPACITY
A crude calibration analysis may be carried out by examining the variation in normalised pile
capacity with environmental to gravity load ratio for different extreme environmental load factors.
(Normalised load is maximum design load divided by G+We). The normalised pile capacity is
plotted in Figure 10.13 for API RP2A-WSD and Figure 10.14 for ISO for extreme, operating and
still water conditions for axial compression; the tension (or opposing loads) case is also shown for
the ISO Code in Figure 10.14.
For WSD, Figure 10.13 shows that the normalised pile capacity varies from 2.0 when there is no
environmental loading to 1.5 for piles governed by the extreme condition.
Figure 10.14 shows that for We/G ratios less than about 1.0, the operating condition governs. For
We/G ratios greater than about 1.0, i.e. the extreme condition, the normalised pile capacity to ISO
with w = 1.35 is greater than the equivalent API RP2A-WSD normalised capacity. This implies
that designs to ISO would be slightly more conservative, i.e. longer pile lengths, than to RP2A-
WSD. If an extreme load factor of 1.25 is used with ISO the normalised capacity is slightly greater
than RP2A-WSD for We/G ratios greater than 1.5. . For We/G ratios between 1 and 1.5 the
normalised pile capacity to ISO is marginally less than 1.5 for w of 1.25; the magnitude of the
reduction is not considered significant.
1 1 5


For piles under tension there is a significant difference in normalised capacity between w = 1.35
and 1.25 for the ISO Code. Figure 10.14 illustrates that for w = 1.35 the normalised capacity is
much higher than the equivalent RP2A-WSD normalised capacity. This means that in practice,
piles governed by tension would be designed for much more onerous criteria to ISO than those
designed to RP2A-WSD, resulting in longer pile lengths. With w = 1.25, the normalised capacity
is still greater than RP2A-WSD, but the difference is much less. Thus even with w = 1.25, piles
governed by tension are expected to be longer when designed to ISO than those designed to
RP2A-WSD. Tensile capacity is much more of a concern for piles founded in sand soils. Piles in
clay soils generally tend to be governed by compressive capacity; this is because the end bearing
capacity for piles in sand soils usually contributes much more to compressive pile capacity than it
does for piles in clay soils.

Variation of Normalised Pile Capacity with Environmental to Gravity
Load Ratio - WSD
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, W
e
/G
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
s
e
d

P
i
l
e

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
Ex treme
condition
Still water
Operating
(Wo=We/4)
Operating
(Wo=We/2)

Figure 10.13 Variation of Normalised Pile Capacity with Environmental to Gravity Load Ratio
API RP2A-WSD

1 1 6


Variation of Normalised Pile Capacity with Environmental to Gravity
Load Ratio - ISO
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, W
e
/G
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
s
e
d

P
i
l
e

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
Still water
Operating
(Wo=We/4)
Operating
(Wo=We/2)
Ex treme
condition
1.35
Ex treme
condition
1.25
Ex treme
Tension
1.35
Ex treme
Tension
1.25

Figure 10.14 Variation of Normalised Pile Capacity with Environmental to Gravity Load Ratio -
ISO
10.7 TARGET ASSESSMENT
The high uncertainties in pile axial capacity mean that a calibration analysis using weighted
average reliabilities and a target assessment would not give meaningful results.
Analysis of typical piles for axial compression shows that an extreme environmental load factor of
1.35 would give reliabilities similar to or higher than API RP2A-WSD. For axial tension, reliabilities
to ISO are greater than API RP2A-WSD for all We/G ratios.
The variation of reliability for pile axial capacity with extreme environmental load factor of 1.2 to
1.4 is small.
A crude calibration analysis based on normalised pile capacity for axial compression shows that
an extreme environmental load factor of 1.35 would give capacities higher than API RP2A-WSD.
An extreme environmental load factor of 1.25 would give capacities higher than API RP2A-WSD
for most We/G ratios and only marginally lower for ratios less than 1.5.

1 1 7
























































1 1 8


11. EFFECT OF REDUCTI ON OF PERMANENT AND
VARI ABLE PARTI AL LOAD FACTORS
11.1 SUMMARY
The effect of reducing the partial factor on permanent and variable loads from 1.1 to 1.0 has been
examined in an attempt to produce a more uniform reliability level, particularly at lower We/G
ratios.
11.2 MEMBERS
The effect of reducing the partial factor on permanent and variable loads from 1.1 to 1.0 for a
typical member is shown in Figure 11.1 for combined tension and bending. The graph of ISO -
1.35 (W=1.35) has a partial factor on permanent and variable loads of 1.1. For the graph ISO
1.35, gammaD = 1 the partial factor on permanent and variable loads is 1.0 (W=1.35). The effect
of reducing the partial factor on permanent and variable loads is to reduce the reliability for We/G
ratios less than about 3.0. For We/G ratios greater than 3.0, there is no significant change in
reliability. For We/G ratios less than 0.5 there is a significant reduction in reliability but the
operating condition will govern design for these We/G ratios, as shown by the graph ISO
operating. For We/G ratios in the range 0.5 to 3.0 there is a slight reduction in reliability giving a
much more uniform variation in reliability with We/G ratio.
Reliability index versus W
e
/G behaviour for member
combined tension and bending
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.1 1 10 100
Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, W
e
/G
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

ISO -
1.35
ISO -
oper-
ating
API
WSD
ISO-
1.35
gamma
D=1

Figure 11.1 Combined Tension and Bending - Effect of reduction of partial factor on permanent
and variable loads from 1.1 to 1.0
1 1 9


11.3 JOINTS
The effect of reducing the partial factor on permanent and variable loads from 1.1 to 1.0 for a
typical K-joint is shown in Figure 3.1 for axial tension. The graph of ISO - 1.35 (W=1.35) has a
partial factor on permanent and variable loads of 1.1. For the graph ISO 1.35, gammaD = 1 the
partial factor on permanent and variable loads is 1.0 (W=1.35). The effect of reducing the partial
factor on permanent and variable loads is to reduce the reliability for We/G ratios less than about
5.0. For We/G ratios greater than 5.0, there is no significant change in reliability. For We/G ratios
less than 0.5 there is a significant reduction in reliability but in most cases the operating condition
will govern design for these We/G ratios, as shown by the graph ISO operating. For We/G ratios
in the range 0.5 to 5.0 there is a slight reduction in reliability giving a much more uniform variation
in reliability with We/G ratio.
Rel i abi l i ty Index versus W
e
/G behavi our for j oi nt axi al tensi on
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.1 1 10 100
Extreme Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, W
e
/G
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

ISO - 1.35
ISO -
operating
API WSD
ISO -
1.35,
gammaD=
1


Figure 11.2 K-Joint Axial Tension - Effect of reduction of partial factor on permanent and variable
loads from 1.1 to 1.0

11.4 FOUNDATIONS
The effect of reducing the partial factor on permanent and variable loads from 1.1 to 1.0 for a
typical pile in firm overconsolidated clay is shown in Figure 11.3 for axial compression. The graph
of ISO - 1.35 (W=1.35) has a partial factor on permanent and variable loads of 1.1. For the
graph ISO gammaD = 1 the partial factor on permanent and variable loads is 1.0 (W=1.35).
The effect of reducing the partial factor on permanent and variable loads is to reduce the reliability
for all We/G ratios.
1 2 0


Rel i abi l i ty i ndex versus W
e
/G behavi our for pi l e compressi on
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.1 1 10
Environment/Gravity Load Ratio, W
e
/G
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

I
n
d
e
x
,

ISO - 1.35
ISO -
gammaD=
1
API WSD

Figure 11.3 Pile in Firm Overconsolidated clay - Effect of reduction of partial factor on permanent
and variable loads from 1.1 to 1.0
11.5 DISCUSSION
This study shows that in most cases, reducing the partial factor on permanent and variable loads
from 1.1 to 1.0 would produce a more uniform variation in reliability with We/G ratio. However
there may be certain cases where reliability would be significantly reduced for low We/G ratios if
the operating condition does not govern; some tubular joints in particular exhibit a fall in reliability
levels at low environment-to-gravity load ratios, see Section 9. Generally, the operating condition
will govern design at low We/G ratios, but there may be cases, for example in the splash zone,
where it does not. Therefore, any reduction in partial factor on permanent and variable loads
should be applied with caution.
It is considered that the overall benefits in achieving more uniform reliabilities across a wide range
of We/G ratios by reducing the gravity factor will be small, whereas for some components or load
effect types, particularly for low We/G ratios, it is possible that reliability may be significantly
reduced.

1 2 1
























































1 2 2


12. EFFECT OF I NCREASE I N ENVI RONMENTAL DESI GN
LOAD UNCERTAI NTY
12.1 SUMMARY
Some of the Participants were concerned about the level of uncertainty associated with the
definition of the environmental design loading. A study was undertaken to investigate the effect of
increasing the CoV of the environmental design load uncertainty from 16.5%, which was used in
all of the other analyses in this report and in the system-based calibration study [1], to 25%.
12.2 ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN LOAD UNCERTAINTY MODELLING
Xw Design Load Uncertainty N[1.0, 0.25]
In the previous analyses (except the sensitivity study reported in Section 8.4), the design load
arising from the ISO Code and standard practices was estimated to be subject to a 9%
conservative bias and a CoV of 16.5% relative to the true 100 year value; and the uncertainty
was modelled by a normal distribution truncated at 1.5 standard deviations.
Uncertainty and bias in the design load arise from two main sources:
the application of the wave force recipe
the environmental design criteria.
The accuracy of the environmental load recipe has been investigated in various research studies
including: Heideman & Weaver [16], Atkins in the Tern project [17], etc. For this JIP, Kvitrud [18]
has summarised the results of a number of full scale load measurement comparisons for different
North Sea structures, including: Ekofisk 2/4-A and 2/4-W, Valhall QP, Draupner, Gorm, Magnus
and Tern. A direct comparison of the results for the various studies is difficult because the studies
were undertaken by a number of engineers/analysts/companies, at different times using different
(sometimes un-stated) assumptions, and are reported in a variety of papers/reports. It is not even
always clear from the published information whether the comparisons are on a wave-by-wave or a
storm-by-storm basis. Kvitrud shows that there is considerable scatter in the bias and CoV
statistics for the various studies, but suggests that the COV is high for a given sea state or wave,
an average will be 25-30%.
It has also been suggested by ExxonMobil [19] that there is generally a lack of familiarity and
experience from operators and contractors in using the new environmental load recipe within the
ISO code, and this could lead to potential differences in interpretation and application. ExxonMobil
traditionally model uncertainty in the environmental design loading with a CoV of 20-30% in
reliability analysis.
1 2 3


In this study, a CoV of 25% has been considered. This has been assumed to be unbiased, and an
un-truncated normal distribution has been used. This modelling was chosen rather arbitrarily, and
is intended solely for the purposes of this study.
Whilst improved QA, better education or information could in principle reduce some of the
uncertainty in the definition of the design load, there is an additional source of uncertainty that
could be considered to affect the definition of the 100-year design load. This additional uncertainty
arises from the dataset itself that is used to derive the 100-year parameters. For any particular
site, the definition of the 100-year design parameters changes from year-to-year as a result of a
longer dataset, and changes to the hindcast model, e.g. NESS, NEXT, NEXTRA, etc. Whilst an
allowance for the uncertainty in statistical analysis or data-fitting has been included (e.g.
distribution type, fitting method, etc), this additional uncertainty in the dataset itself has not been
included. By its very nature, this uncertainty is very difficult if not impossible to quantify.
12.3 RESULTS
The reliability analyses for brace members and legs presented and discussed in Section 6 were
re-run with the above environmental design load uncertainty, and the results were weighted and
combined as discussed in Section 7. The results are shown in Figures 12.1 to 12.3, and are
summarised numerically in Table 12.1. The results can be compared with the previous results for
design load CoV of 16.5% presented in Figures 7.4 to 7.6 and Table 7.1.
Due to the very large environmental design load uncertainty, this variable has a significant
influence on the reliability for many of the calibration points. The first-order reliability analysis
procedure failed to converge for some of the calibration points, and converged to clearly
erroneous results for a small number of other calibration points. Ordinarily, the reliability analysis
would be investigated in greater depth and re-run for these calibration points. Given the nature of
this study, this was not done fully for the results presented in this Section. The affected calibration
points all had very low weighting factors and were simply eliminated from the cumulated totals.

1 2 4


Variation of weighted reliability with environmental
load factor - ISO brace members
4.014
2.844
0
1
2
3
4
5
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
Environmental load factor
W
e
i
g
h
t
e
d

r
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

brace
members
(NNS&CNS)
Target
Reliability
(Ef thmyiou)
Target
Reliability
(API - LRFD)
Target
Reliability
(API - WSD)

Figure 12.1 Variation of Weighted Reliability with Increased Design Load Uncertainty
ISO Brace Members
Variation of weighted reliability with environmental
load factor - ISO brace members (compression &
bending )
4.014
2.840
0
1
2
3
4
5
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
Environmental load factor
W
e
i
g
h
t
e
d

r
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

brace
members
(NNS&CNS)
Target
Reliability
(Ef thmyiou)
Target
Reliability
(API - LRFD)
Target
Reliability
(API - WSD)

Figure 12.2 Variation of Weighted Reliability with Increased Design Load Uncertainty
ISO Brace Members Combined Compression and Bending Only
1 2 5


Variation of weighted reliability with environmental
load factor - ISO leg members
4.014
2.871
2.711
0
1
2
3
4
5
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
Environmental load factor
W
e
i
g
h
t
e
d

r
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

leg
members
(NNS &
CNS)
Target
Reliability
(Ef thmyiou)
Target
Reliability
(API - LRFD)
Target
Reliability
(API - WSD)

Figure 12.3 Variation of Weighted Reliability with Increased Design Load Uncertainty
ISO Leg Members
brace members
brace members
(compression &
bending only)
leg members
Code
Pf
Equivalent

Pf
Equivalent

Pf
Equivalent

APIWSD 20
th
2.233E-03 2.844 2.256E-03 2.840 3.360E-03 2.711
w-1.1 3.403E-03 2.707 3.276E-03 2.719 4.178E-03 2.638
w-1.2 2.405E-03 2.820 2.309E-03 2.833 2.922E-03 2.757
w-1.25 2.035E-03 2.873 1.965E-03 2.884 2.500E-03 2.807
w-1.3 1.740E-03 2.922 1.687E-03 2.932 2.116E-03 2.861
ISO
w-1.35 1.504E-03 2.967 1.460E-03 2.976 1.824E-03 2.907
Table 12.1 Weighted Average Pf and Equivalent with Increased Design Load Uncertainty for
Different Environmental Load Factors
1 2 6


12.4 DISCUSSION
Solely on the basis of the results in Table 12.1, an environmental load factor of 1.25 would give
reliability levels for the ISO code slightly above the values evaluated on the same basis for API
RP2A - WSD 20
th
(21
st
) Edition for both braces and legs.
However, a target failure probability of around 0.002 per year is considered to be a very high
failure rate that is not compatible with actuarial rates of component failure experienced in practice.
Comparison of the results in Table 12.1 with those in Table 7.1 shows an order of magnitude
difference in annual failure probability. This difference arises as a result of changes in the
uncertainty modelling for the environmental design load. Given the nature of this uncertainty, it is
very difficult to quantify it, and the uncertainty modelling for this variable must be based largely on
judgement. This means that differences in evaluated reliability levels between models based on
16.5% CoV and models based on 25% CoV cannot easily be reconciled.

1 2 7
























































1 2 8


13. CONCLUSI ONS
A component-based calibration approach has been presented.
First-order reliability analyses have been undertaken for a range of representative components,
selected and weighted to reflect their frequency of occurrence in North Sea designs.
A target reliability level has not been recommended in this report. However, if the target were to
be chosen on the basis of average reliability inherent in 20
th
(21
st
) Edition RP2A-WSD, then these
results would suggest that an environmental load factor of 1.25 with the new ISO provisions will on
average achieve similar reliability levels.
A number of sensitivity studies have been undertaken, including the significance of the weighting
factors used to reflect the frequency of calibration point designs, investigation of the effect of the
reference period for the environmental load distribution and truncation of the design load
uncertainty distribution. The results of these studies have shown the calibration process to be
robust.
The variation in the value of the Cm factor was found to have a significant effect on the reliability
analysis results. In some design cases selection of the most appropriate value of the Cm factor is
a matter of judgement. It is recommended that this is considered further by the ISO members
panel.
Some analysis to investigate the Opposing Load Condition have been undertaken. This condition
rarely governs member design, but in cases where it does, designs to ISO with an environmental
load factor of 1.25 or more would generally achieve a higher and more consistent level of reliability
than those to RP2A-WSD.
Reliability analysis for tubular joints has also been undertaken. Examination of results for a typical
joint geometry show reliability levels to the ISO code to be reasonably consistent for different joint
types, load effects, joint beta ratios, joint gamma ratios and Qf factors. Hence the published
partial resistance factor values are appropriate. On the basis of the joint calibration results, an
environmental load factor of 1.25 would raise average reliability levels for joint designs to the ISO
code above the API RP2A-WSD 20
th
(21
st
) Edition values.
Some illustrative reliability-based analysis for the axial capacity of typical piled foundations for a
range of soil types has been undertaken. The results indicate that because of the very large
uncertainties associated with the prediction of pile behaviour, there is little effect on reliability for
piles in compression from reducing the extreme environmental load factor from 1.35 to 1.25. For
piles governed by tension, a 1.25 environmental load factor leads to a similar (but greater) level of
safety than achieved by RP2A-WSD; a 1.35 factor leads to a significant increase in safety level
(and hence required pile length) compared to RP2A-WSD.
1 2 9


Reliability analysis for typical members and joints shows that reducing the partial factor on
permanent and variable loads from 1.1 to 1.0 would produce a more uniform variation in reliability
with We/G ratio. However there may be certain cases where reliability would be significantly
reduced for low We/G ratios where the operating condition does not govern. Therefore a reduction
in partial factor on permanent and variable loads is not recommended.
Finally, a study to assess the implications of increased environmental design loading uncertainty
was undertaken; the CoV was increased from 16.5% to 25% to reflect concerns of some
Participants. The results of this study lead to an order of magnitude increase in evaluated failure
probability. These results cannot be reconciled with the base case results, and this makes the
selection of a target reliability very difficult, particularly if cost-benefit considerations are used.
(Cost-benefit considerations may be used to define targets for different Exposure Levels and for
reassessment).
Consequently, a consensus could not be achieved on a suitable value of target reliability.
The results suggest that adoption of a 1.35 factor on quasi-static extreme environmental loading
with other ISO 19902 partial factors and provisions would result in structures being designed
which deliver reliability levels for extreme weather at least consistent with traditional practice in all
NW European regions.
For design use with NW European offshore structures, it is proposed by the Participants of the JIP
to retain the existing value of environmental load factor at 1.35. However, there should be an
option to derive structure-specific partial load factors using detailed analysis; this analysis should
use site-specific environmental data and take into consideration the specific form of the structure.
No change is suggested in the present values in the ISO Code of the partial resistance factors for
tubular members and joints, and the gravity load factors and load factors for the still water,
operating and opposing loads condition.

1 3 0


14. GLOSSARY
Basic variable A set of variables entering the failure function equation to
define failure. They may include basic engineering
parameters, such as wall thickness, yield stress, etc., as
well as model uncertainty in the failure function itself.
Beta-point, -point, (design-point) The point on the failure surface that is closest to the
origin in U-space. It is also the point with maximum
probability density, and values of the basic variables at
this point represent the most probable values to cause
failure.
CoV (Coefficient of Variation) The ratio of standard deviation to mean value of a
variable.
Expected value, E[ ] The mean value of a variable. It is defined as the first
moment of the distribution function of a variable, and is
evaluated from the distribution function fX(x):
[ ] ( ) dx x f x X E
X


=
Failure function, Z The failure function in a reliability analysis is a
mathematical function used to predict the failure event for
a component, part of a structure, or a structural system.
The failure function is expressed in terms of the basic
variables, and is defined such that Z 0 corresponds to
failure.
Limit State design A design method in which requirements are defined for
structural performance or operation. Such requirements
may include Ultimate (ULS) and Serviceability (SLS) Limit
States. Limit States can be defined as a specified set of
states that separate a desired state from an undesirable
state which fails to meet the design requirements.
Model uncertainty The inherent uncertainty associated with the
mathematical models used to predict resistance (and
loading).
Probability of failure, Pf The probability of failure of an event is the probability that
the limit state criterion or failure function defining the
event will be exceeded in a specified reference period.
1 3 1


Probability density function, pdf The probability that a random variable X shall appear in
the interval [x, x+dx] is fX(x) dx, where fX(x) is the
probability density.
Reference period Reliabilities and probabilities of failure should be defined
in terms of a reference period, which may typically be one
year or the design life. Unless noted otherwise, a one
year reference period has been used in this report.
Reliability The probability that a component will fulfil its design
purposes. Defined as 1 Pf.
Reliability analysis There are a number of techniques to evaluate failure
probability, or reliability. These include: numerical
integration, iterative procedures to evaluate first- or
second-order estimates of Pf, Monte Carlo simulation and
a number of variance reduction techniques.
Reliability Index, A useful measure to compare Pfs. It is defined using the
standard normal distribution function ( ) ,

( )
f
1
P 1 =


Sensitivity coefficient, -factors The sensitivity coefficients reflect how sensitive the
reliability is to the basic variables. The term importance
factors is sometimes used; importance factors are
defined as the square of the -factors
Standard deviation, Sd[ ] The standard deviation is defined as the square root of
the Variance of a variable.
Standard normal space, U-space A space of independent normally distributed random
variables with zero mean and unit standard deviation.
Basic variable space is transformed into standard normal
space in some reliability analysis procedures.
Target A target probability is used to judge reliabilities. It may be
defined by using data from designs known to perform
satisfactorily, by expert judgement, by value analysis, or
taken from norms in standards.
Variance, Var[ ] The variance of a variable is defined as the second
central moment of the distribution function of a variable,
and is evaluated from the distribution function fX(x):
[ ]
( ) ( ) dx x f x X Var
X
2
X


=
where X is the mean or expected value.

1 3 2

15. REFERENCES

1 BOMEL Ltd. 'System-Based Calibration of North West European Annex Environmental Load
Factor to ISO Fixed Steel Offshore Structures Code 19902', Report No. C925\04\016R Rev A,
February 2002.
2 API RP2A Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore
Platforms, American Petroleum Institute, Washington DC, 20th Edition, August 1993.
3 API RP2A LRFD Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed
Offshore Platforms, American Petroleum Institute, Washington DC, 1st Edition, August 1 1993.
4 International Organization for Standardization. ISO 19902 Petroleum and Natural Gas
Industries Fixed Steel Offshore Industries. Committee Draft 19 June 2001.
5 Thoft-Christensen P & Baker M J. Structural reliability theory and its applications. Springer-
Verlag, Berlin, 1982.
6 Efthymiou M, van de Graaf, J W, Tromans, P S & Hines I M. Reliability based criteria for fixed
steel offshore platforms, Proc OMAE Conference, Florence, 1996.
7 MSL Ltd. Load factor calibration for ISO 13819, Regional Annex Component resistances.
Offshore Technology Report 2000/072, 2001.
8 Tromans P S & Vanderschuren L. Extreme environmental load statistics in UK waters. Report
for this JIP.
9 Advanced Mechanics & Engineering Ltd. API RP2A-LRFD - Its consequences for and adaptation
to North Sea Offshore Design Practice, May 1991.
10 Moses F. Final Reports for API PRAC 79-22 (1980), 80-22 (1981), 81-22 (1982), 82-22 (1983), 83-
22 (1985), 85 22 (1986), 87-22 (1987), prepared for American Petroleum Institute, Dallas.
11 Digre, K.A., Puskar, P.J., Aggarwal, R.K., Irick, J.T., Krieger, W.F., and Petrauskas, C.
Modifications to and applications of the guidelines for assessment of existing platforms contained
in section 17 of API RP 2A, OTC 7779, 27th Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 1995.
12 Hu K K & Lai D C . Effective length factor for restrained beam-column, Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol 112, No. 2, February 1986, 241-256.
13 Earl C P & Teer M J. A rational and economical approach to the calculation of K-factors, Offshore
Technology Conference, Paper OTC 6162, 1989.

1 3 3


14 Smith A K C, Turner R C & Mackenzie B. The implications of the load and resistance factor design
method for North Sea pile design, Offshore Site Investigation and Foundation Behaviour New
Frontiers International Conference, London, 1998.
15 Fugro Ltd. Joint Industry Study into the implications of the load and resistance factor design
approach for North Sea Structures, Report No. 45035-4 Issue 01, August 1996.
16 Heideman, J.C. and Weaver, T.O. Static wave force procedure for platform design, ASCE Civil
Engineering in the Oceans V, 1992.
17 Atkins Oil & Gas Engineering. Tern structural loading study, JIP Final Report, Report
G3356/RPT/010, London, 1994.
18 Kvitrud A. Bias and CoV from environmental loading on jacket structures. Draft report for this JIP
dated 22 April 2001
19 ExxonMobil. BOMEL ISO Extreme Environmental Load Factor Calibration JIP Comments. May
2002.

Printed and published by the Health and Safety Executive
C1.25 06/03
RR 0 8 8
3 0 . 0 0
9 78071 7 6221 53
ISBN 0-7176-2215-0
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
-
b
a
s
e
d

c
a
l
i
b
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

N
o
r
t
h

W
e
s
t

E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n

a
n
n
e
x

e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

l
o
a
d

f
a
c
t
o
r
s

f
o
r

t
h
e

I
S
O

f
i
x
e
d

s
t
e
e
l

o
f
f
s
h
o
r
e

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s

c
o
d
e

1
9
9
0
2
H
S
E

B
O
O
K
S