Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Reliability and Availability Assessment of Seabed Storage Tanks Using
Reliability and Availability Assessment of Seabed Storage Tanks Using
Ocean Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng
art ic l e i nf o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 19 January 2015
Received in revised form
22 February 2016
Accepted 21 April 2016
Available online 7 May 2016
This study proposes the concept of subsea production systems with a seabed storage tank to provide an
alternative to conventional oating facilities and performs the reliability, maintainability and availability
study for the seabed storage tank. The reliability assessment of the seabed storage tank performs a fourstep procedure. A four-step procedure is to dene the system boundary, collect the reliability data,
construct a fault tree and estimate the reliability. The failure and repair data are obtained from the
component of the lowest level of the seabed storage tank because the seabed storage tank is a new
system unknown reliability data. Reliability of the seabed storage tank is estimated with a consideration
of critical events. The total failure frequency of the SST is estimated approximately 2.27 10 4/hour. The
maintainability analysis is estimated in accordance with MIL-HDBK 472 Procedure V. The elements of
repair time is obtained from the subsea JIP 2000 and RAM study of eld data. Active repair time from
OREDA 2009 is regarded as the repair/replace of repair time elements. The total repair time is mainly
effected by the preparation time of repair time elements. The system availability for the seabed storage
tank under normal operation is calculated as approximately 91.8%.
& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Seabed storage tank
New subsea production system
Reliability
Availability
Maintainability
1. Introduction
Offshore installations for oil and gas production have gradually
moved from shallow water to deeper water and ultra-deep water
(Sandrea and Sandrea, 2007). Although the oil and gas production
from offshore installations has appeared at since 2002, there has
been a gradual decrease in shallow water (0400 m) production
Abbreviations: AIR, abnormal instrument reading; AU, accumulator unit; BOP,
blowout preventer; BP, booster pump; CS,, coarse strainer; DSV, dive support
vessel; ELP, external leakage process; ELU, external leakage utility; FMECA, failure
mode, effects, and criticality analysis; FPSO, oating production storage and offloading; FS, ow sensor; Ft, lter; FTA, fault tree analysis; HCU, hydraulic coupling
unit; HLS, hydrocarbon leak sensor; hr, hours; HPFC, high pressure uid carrier; HS,
hydro-cyclone/skimmer; IGF, induced gas oatation; ISCU, inlet seawater cleaning
unit; MAROS, maintainability, availability, reliability and operability simulation;
MTTF, mean time to failure, hrs; MTTR, mean time to repair, hrs; OREDA, offshore
reliability data; OSCU, outlet seawater cleaning unit; PD, parameter deviation;
PSCU, power/signal coupler unit; PSU, power supply unit; PTS, pressure and temperature sensor; PU, piping unit; r, repair time, hrs; R(t), reliability; RAM, reliability,
availability and maintainability; RBD, reliability block diagrams; SBP, subsea
booster pump; SCM, subsea control module; SD, structural deciency; SDS, sand
detection sensor; SEU, subsea electronic unit; SM, subsea manifold; SR, subsea riser; SS, subsea separator; SSBU, seabed storage ballast unit; SST, seabed storage
tank; SSTM, seabed storage tank module; SSTU, seabed storage tank unit; SU,
sensor unit; TLPs, tension leg platforms; t, operation time, hrs; UF, ultra-ltration;
VD, vacuum de-aerator; , failure rate, failures per 106 h
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: djchang@kaist.edu (D. Chang).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2016.04.021
0029-8018/& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
and a rapid increase in deepwater (4001500 m) and ultra-deepwater ( 41500 m) production. Shallow-water production accounted for almost all of offshore oil and gas production until the
1990s. Deepwater and ultra-deep-water oil and gas production
have displayed a remarkable increase over the last 15 years (Addison et al., 2010), and both deepwater and ultra-deepwater production are expected to be major contributors in the upcoming
decades.
A major economic factor in offshore oil and gas production is
the feasibility of handling and transporting of hydrocarbons to
market. Generally, the hydrocarbons produced in offshore elds
must be transported to onshore facilities for subsequent processing and distribution. In the case of shallow-water production, the
produced hydrocarbons can be feasibly transported to shore
through a pipeline system on the ocean oor or seabed. A pipeline
system is typically preferred because it permits continuous ow to
shore regardless of weather or other adverse conditions. However,
this system may result in expensive installation costs and tariffs
(Ageh et al., 2010).
For deepwater and ultra-deepwater production, pipeline
transportation is typically not practical due to the great distance
from shore. In these cases, ship-based transportation via shuttle
tankers is broadly used to transport the oil and gas to onshore
facilities. Shuttle tankers are specially designed vessels that contain liquid hydrocarbon storage facilities. The operations of shuttle
tankers are largely dependent on surface conditions, i.e., wind,
for manned space vehicle with extended on-orbit stay time. DuJulio and Leet (1988) presented space station synergetic RAM-logistics analysis. This study emphasized to analyze the maintenance
activities and processes that were accomplished on-orbit within
the known design and support constraints of the space station.
Rosin et al. (1999) performed the availability analysis of airport
runway. Sandberg and Stromberg (1992) described how the terms
system effectiveness from a logistics perspective and life cycle cost
effectiveness were designed into the Gripen combat aircraft.
Willard (2001) discussed the RAM cost control on air Trafc.
Cockerill (1990) studied RAM analysis of a turbine-generator system. Prince and Haire (1991) investigated some Markov models to
evaluate the impact of maintenance system availability on the
overall plant. Kumar et al. (1992) presented some results from an
analytic study of reliability and availability of the crystallization
system in sugar plants. Hajeeh and Chaudhuri (2000) worked on
reliability and availability assessment of reverse osmosis. This research work assessed the performance of the reverse osmosis
plants in Arabian Gulf region by analyzing its failure behavior and
down time patterns. Barabady (2005) studied reliability and
maintainability analysis of crushing plants. In this study crushing
plants were divided into seven subsystems for each of which reliability analysis was done using failures data. Martorell et al.
(2004) discussed the roll of technical specication and maintenance activities at nuclear power plants, aiming to increase RAM
of safety-related equipment, which in turn must yield to an improved level of plant safety.
RAM analysis of subsea systems have been studied for a few
years. Duell et al. (2001) identied a number of key processes and
tools needed to support British Petroleum's deepwater reliability
vision and dene tasks necessary to move the vision forward.
Robert and Laing (2002) studied methods available to increase the
understanding of reliability, including understanding the causes
and frequency of failure, through data acquired from led experience and accelerated testing. Brandt and Eriksen (2001) demonstrated how RAM analysis can be used to quantify the costs
associated with well interventions and subsea repairs. Brandt
(2003) proposed a methodology for systematic evaluation of the
system, applying risk and reliability techniques in combination
with verication and qualication procedures, to identify technical
uncertainties and successfully manage these risks and uncertainties. Holand (2001) collected the blowout preventer (BOP)
reliability data and analyzed to reveal BOP reliability problems.
2. System description
The new subsea production system with the SST consists of a
wellhead/X-mas tree, subsea manifold (SM), subsea separator (SS),
SST, subsea booster pump (SBP), subsea riser (SR), umbilical,
oater and high-pressure uid carrier (HPFC). Fig. 1 provides a
schematic of the new subsea production system with the SST. New
subsea production system with the SST is located in an oil-dominant eld. The produced well uids in the reservoir are commingled to the SM and then ow into the SS which is gravity based
3-phase separator. The well uids consist of crude oil, gas, water
and various contaminants. The SS separates gas, oil and sand/
water. Separated gas and water from the SS are re-injected in the
reservoir to increase pressure of well reservoir that has been depleted by production. Also, re-injection helps to decrease unwanted waste, such as aring. Most of the sand in produced water
from separator is removed by a sand cyclone and discharged into
the sea.
Fig. 2 illustrates the hierarchical structure of the SST. The SST
can be broken down into the seabed storage tank module (SSTM)
and the subsea control module (SCM). The SSTM consists of several components, i.e., the seabed storage tank unit (SSTU), seabed
storage ballast unit (SSBU), inlet seawater cleaning unit (ISCU),
outlet seawater cleaning unit (OSCU), piping unit (PU) and sensor
unit (SU). The SCM is composed of the subsea electronic unit
(SEU), accumulator unit (AU), hydraulic coupling unit (HCU),
power supply unit (PSU) and power/signal coupler unit (PSCU).
Fig. 3(a)(d) indicates the breakdown of the ISCU, OSCU, PU and
SU, respectively, and these units consist of several components.
2.1. Seabed storage tank module
The SSTM is an assembly of several units. The function of the
SSTM is to store the well uid until it is transported to the HPLC.
Fig. 4 shows a schematic of the SSTM and the SSTM units are divided into SSTU, SSBU, ISCU, OSCU, PU and SU.
The produced oil from the SS ows through the feed PU and is
stored in the SSTU. A tiny amount of gas (dissolved gas) is released
from the oil due to the pressure difference between the SS and the
SST and accumulates in the SSTU. The layers of oil and gas are
separated due to a difference of oil and gas density.
The average density of seawater is greater than that of oil;
consequently, the well uid may be separated into oil layer and
seawater layer. When the SSTU is gradually lled with gas and oil,
the seawater from the storage space leaves the SSTU.
The ISCU and OSCU remove the deposits, impurities, and hydrocarbons that follow the ow of seawater. The cleaning system
should include the functions of ltering and disposal of the ltered
materials.
Oil stored in the oil storage space is exported by the oil product
PU to the SBPU. A small amount of gas is released due to the
pressure difference between the SS and SSTU. As the inventory is
cooled by the surrounding seawater at a lower temperature, this
gas dissolves into the oil layer. If gas accumulates in the SST, it is
re-injected into the well reservoir.
outow piping that control the inow and outow of gas, oil and
seawater into the SST. The PU is composed of the connector, sealine, safety joint and pipe spool.
2.1.6. Sensor unit
The SU is divided into a pressure and temperature sensor (PTS),
ow sensor (FS), hydrocarbon leak sensor (HLS) and sand detection sensor (SDS), as shown in Fig. 3(c).
2.2. Subsea control module
The SCM is composed of the SEU, AU, HCU, PSU and PSCU, as
illustrated in Fig. 2. The typical subsea control module receives
communication signals and electrical power from the topside
control equipment and these modules use the signals to control
the subsea system.
3. Modeling of RAM
3.1. Reliability
Reliability is dened as the ability of an item to perform a required function under the given environmental and operational
conditions for a stated period of time (International Standards
Organization, 1986). The most common methods of reliability
analysis include reliability block diagrams (RBD), fault tree analysis
(FTA), and failure mode effects and criticality analysis (FMECA)
(Bai and Bai, 2010; Quilici et al., 1998; Wabnitz and Netherland,
2001). This study uses FTA, which is a widely used systematic and
deductive method for dening and determining all possible reasons that could cause a top event to occur (Carter and Powell,
2006; Duell et al., 2001; Skeels et al., 2003). This method originated in the aerospace industry and was adapted by the nuclear
power plant industry to qualify and quantify the hazards and risks
involved in nuclear power generation. The reliability of a system
may be viewed as a measure of its quality and performance.
Mathematically, reliability (R(t)) and Unreliability (F(t))is expressed as follows for a system with a constant failure rate:
R (t )=et
(1)
F (t )=1 et
(2)
The active repair time denotes the real time required to repair or
replace the equipment. Due to the lack of reliability data for the
ISCU and OSCU for the SST, the constant failure rate and active
repair time are inversely obtained from the component of the
lowest level of the systems. Next, the reliability data for the
components are obtained from the relevant topside systems. The
reliability data of the SSTU are estimated from the casing string
obtained from OREDA because the cemented structure has a similar function for protection of the aquifers. The reliability data for
the remainder of the subsea units are obtained from a subsea
section of the OREDA.
where is the constant failure rate in failures per 106 h and t is the
time period. The reliability assessment procedure for SST is composed of the four steps shown in Fig. 7.
3.1.1. Step 1: Denition of the system boundary
The rst step involves denition of the system boundary and
the critical event. The system boundary analysis is divided into
subsystems of module, unit and component. Figs. 2 and 3 indicate
the system breakdown of the SST. A critical event is dened by
considering what type of critical event occurs and where it occurs.
The critical event to be analyzed is commonly referred to as the
top event for the fault tree.
3.1.2. Step 2: Collection of the reliability data
The second step involves collection of reliability data from
generic reliability data sources. In this step, the reliability and
maintainability analyses require several types of input data such as
constant failure data and active repair time, which provide information related to how often units and components fail. The
information on the constant failure rate of the critical failures and
the active repair time for the units and components is collected
from OREDA (2009). Table 1 presents the constant failure rate and
active repair time for the units and components. The constant
failure rate is a mean value and may be constant or time-varying.
Table 1
Failure and repair data for the SST.
Module
Unit
Component
Reference
0.35
288
Coarse strainer
87.66
13
Filter
Vacuum de-aerator
0.09
30.21
2
28
Booster pump
51.29
35
Hydro-cyclone/skimmer
6.15
1.7
10.69
2.1
Filter
Booster pump
0.09
51.29
2
12
Pressure, temperature
sensor
Flow Sensor
Hydrocarbon Leak sensor
Sand detection Sensor
0.49
4.63
22.2
3.3
13.36
0.64
4.76
4.93
0.15
0.03
0.07
0.19
16.2
2
1
6.5
12
14
4
19.8
0.28
0.76
7.3
15.4
Facility
3.3. Availability
Availability is dened as the ability of an item (under the
combined aspects of reliability, maintainability and maintenance
support) to perform its required function at a stated instant of
time or over a stated period of time (British Standards Institution,
1991). This measure takes into account the system reliability and
maintainability. The average availability denotes the mean proportion of time that the item is functioning and is dened as follows:
A av =
MTTF
MTTF+MTTR
(3)
MTTR=
i = 1 i ri
n
i = 1 i
(4)
The constant failure rate and active repair time are obtained
from historical reliability data sources such as OREDA (2009).
The constant failure rate and active repair time of the unknown
Table 2
Basic formula of FTA.
Gate Formula
Description
AND P(A)*P(B)
OR
subsea components for the SST are obtained from corresponding topside components from OREDA (2009).
The critical failures of the SST are considered under normal
operation.
The lifecycle of the SST is assumed to be ten years.
Corrective maintenance for critical failures is considered.
The repair time of the modules, units and components are
calculated using MIL-HDBK-472 Procedure V.
The elements of the repair time are obtained from the subsea JIP
10
tree for the ELP, which means that the produced uids leak to the
environment and the production rate is decreased. This critical
failure can occur in the SSTU, ISCU, OSCU and PU. The ELU, whose
fault tree shown in Fig. 11, corresponds to the leakage of lubrication and seal oils for the booster pump, lter, AU, HCU, etc. Fig. 12
illustrates the fault tree for the PD, which means that the CS, VD
and IGF exceed the tolerances of the monitored parameter. The SD
in Fig. 13 indicates the fault tree.
The fault tree analysis is performed to estimate the probability
of ve critical events by using Eq. (2), which lead to the reliability
of SST. Table 3 indicates the constant failure rate for basic events in
ve critical events.
Fig. 14 presents the reliability of the top events for the SST and
the reliabilities of the top events are calculated as described in Eq.
(1). The time-dependent reliability calculations are carried out for
operation time up to 87,600 h. The long operation time of 87,600 h
is chosen to observe the differing time-varying reliability behavior
between critical events. It must be noted that the reliability of
critical events with time decreases without any maintenance actions. As shown in Fig. 14, the reliability of the SST is indicated as
the product of the reliability of the top events for the SST. All of the
reliabilities of the top events steadily decrease with passage of
time. After 10,000 h, the reliabilities of the AIR, ELP, ELU, PD and
SD are approximately 0.67, 0.4, 0.64, 0.77 and 0.83, respectively,
which means that the reliability of the SD exhibits the highest
value of all critical failures. The reliability of SST is approximately
0.1 after 10,000 h. For AIR and EPU, the reliabilities have similar
values for the operation time of the SST.
Table 3
Constant failure rate for basic event.
Critical failures (Top events)
Table 4
Mobilization time of repair sources.
Basic event
11
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
SSTU
CS
VD
PTS
FS
HLS
SDS
IGF
SEU
AU
PSU
PSCU
SSTU
VD
BP
Ft
HS
IGF
BP
Ft
PU
SSTU
VD
BP
Ft
IGF
BP
Ft
AU
SSTU
CS
VD
IGF
SSTU
VD
BP
IGF
BP
Resources
Description
Rig
Subsea
DSV/Weld
Cable-lay Vessel
Mobilization times
(days)
replacement
control
module 7
replacement
Pipeline and connector repair
Sensor unit repair
Hyperbaric weld operations for
10
connector and pipeline repair.
Replacement of pipeline and
14
umbilical
failure and are ready to begin the repair tasks. The mobilization
time for different vessels depends on the availability of the vessels
and assumes that these vessels are immediately available. The rig
is used for repair and heavy work-over of the SST and replacement
of the seawater cleaning unit. The dive support vessel (DSV) is
used to replace the SCM, repair the PU and connector, and repair
the SU. The DSV/weld is applied to repair pipeline welding, and the
cable-lay vessel is to replace the pipeline and umbilical.
4.3.2. Repair time for SST
Table 5 shows the repair time of each unit for the SST. The
repair time is estimated in accordance with the MIL-HDBK-472
Procedure V. The maintenance times for the tasks are obtained
from the subsea JIP 2000 and eld data. It should be indicated that
the preparation time is the largest part of the elements of the
repair time. The preparation time of the SSTU is 356 h and occupies 51% of a total repair time while the repair/replacement time of
SSTU is 288 h (41%). However, the preparation time of the rest
units for the SST is 86% of the mean value and repair/replacement
time accounts for approximately 5.8% of the mean value. Consequently, the preparation time occupies the dominant part of the
total repair time due to the mobilization time of repair sources.
12
Table 5
Repair time of SST.
Procedure step
Fault isolation
Disassembly
Repair/replacement
Reassembly
Alignment
Checkout
Total
Mobilization
Positioning
Install guide-wires
Run the running tools
Release the pipeline /umbilical connection
Repair /replacement
Make up the pipeline/connection
Remove the running tools
Retrieve guidewires
Test
336
12
8
16
4
288
8
8
3
12
695
OSCU (Rig)
PU (DSV)
CS
VD
Ft
BP
HS
IGS
Ft
BP
336
12
8
8
2
13
5
4
3
5
396
336
12
8
8
2
2
5
4
3
3
383
336
12
8
8
2
28
5
4
3
6
412
336
12
8
8
2
35
5
4
3
8
421
336
12
8
8
2
1.7
5
4
3
5
384.7
336
12
8
8
2
2.1
5
4
3
6
386.1
336
12
8
8
2
2
5
4
3
3
383
336
12
8
8
2
12
5
4
3
8
398
168
6
8
6
4
22.2
5
4
3
12
238.2
SU (DSV)
SCM (DSV)
PTS
HLS
FS
SDS
SEU
AU
HCU
PSU
PSCU
MBPU
SCVU
168
6
8
2
4
3.3
4
1
2
2
200.3
168
6
8
2
4
2
4
1
2
2
199
168
6
8
2
4
16
4
1
2
4
215
168
6
8
2
4
1
4
1
2
8
204
168
6
8
2
4
6.5
4
1
2
2
203.5
168
6
8
2
4
12
4
1
2
4
211
168
6
8
2
6
14
4
2
2
4
216
168
6
8
2
4
4
4
1
2
2
201
168
6
8
2
4
19.8
4
1
2
8
222.8
168
6
8
2
6
7.3
4
2
2
4
209.3
168
6
8
2
3
15.4
4
2
2
4
214.4
Preparation
ISCU(Rig)
13
critical failure rate of the SST. The MTTR of the SST is approximately 391.3 h and is calculated using the weighted average
method in Eq. (4). The availability from MTTF and MTTR is 91.8%. It
means that an unavailability of the SST is 9.2% during the operation time of the SST. The down time of the SST is approximately
4900 h. Fig. 15 indicates the availability with the number of replications. The availability of the SST is calculated by a MAROS
version 8.04. It should be noted that the results reveal similar
values against the number of replications.
5. Conclusions
The concept of the SST in a subsea production system was
proposed and sequentially studied via RAM analysis. An important
step in the RAM analysis is the collection of appropriate data, and
collection of high-quality failure and repair data which is necessary for obtaining reliable and accurate results. In this study, due
to unknown reliability data for the SST, the failure and repair data
are obtained from the component of the lowest level of the systems. The reliability assessment for the SST was estimated using a
four-step procedure. A four-step procedure of reliability estimation
was presented to dene the system boundary, collect the reliability data, construct a fault tree and estimate the reliability. Reliability of the SST was estimated with a consideration of critical
events such as AIR, ELP, ELU, PD and SD under normal operations.
ELP failure is the highest probability in critical events.
The repair time for SST was estimated with a reection of the
following elements: preparation, fault isolation, disassembly, repair/replacement, reassembly, alignment, check-out. The repair/
replacement time was from the active repair time in OREDA
(2009) and the time for the rest of the elements was obtained by
the subsea JIP 2000 and eld data. The preparation time is the
dominant element for the total repair time with 86% of the mean
value and repair/replacement time occupied approximately 5.8% of
the mean value. MTBF and MTTR of the SST were 4405 h and
391.3 h, respectively. Consequently, the availability of the SST was
approximately 91.8%.
Further study is recommended for a more detailed RAM assessment. The RAM analysis of the current study was constrained
by selected factors, which were taken into account as certain assumptions. The detailed RAM analysis should consider such additional factors as a system conguration, operation conditions,
equipment redundancy and preventive maintenance for the real
world.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by the Future Industry's Leading
Technology Development Program of MOTIE/KEIT. (10042430,
Development of 500 MPa URF & SIL 3 Manifold and Subsea System
Engineering for Deepsea Field).
References
Addison, F., Kennelley, K., Botros, F., 2010. Thunder horse and atlantis deepwater
frontier developments in the gulf of mexico: future challenges for deepwater
developments. In: Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference. OTC
20404, 36 May. Houston (TX).
Ageh, EA., Uzoh, OJ., Ituah, I., 2010. Production technology challenges in deepwater
subsea tie-back developments. In: Proceedings of the 34th Annual SPE International Conference and Exhibition. SPE 140620, 31 July7 August. Tinapam,
Nigeria.
Alhanati, FJS., Trevisan, F., 2012. Reliability Gaps in ESP technology for deepwater
applications. In: Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference. OTC
23341, 30 April3 May. Houston (TX).
Arild, Samuelsen, Kaare, Breivik, Ola, Ravndal, 2004. Seabed located storage. WO
2004037681 A1.
Ayyub, B.M., 2003. Risk Analysis in Engineering and Economics. CRC Press, Boca
Raton (FL).
Bai, Y., Bai, Q., 2010. Subsea Engineering Handbook. Gulf Professional Publishing,
Boston (MA).
Barabady, J., 2005. Reliability and maintainability analysis of crushing plants in
Jajarm bauxite mine of Iran. In: Proceedings of the Reliability and Maintainability Symposium. 2427 January. New York (NY).
Brandt, H., 2003. Reliability management of deepwater subsea eld developments.
In: Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference. OTC 15343, 5 May.
Houston (TX).
Brandt, H., Eriksen, R., 2001. RAM analysis for deepwater subsea developments. In:
Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference. OTC 13003, 30 April.
Houston (TX).
British Standards Institution, 1991. BS 4778: Glossary of Terms Used in Quality
Assurance Including Reliability and Maintainability Terms. British Standard
Institution, London.
Burns, G., Mc Kenna, K., Stafford, D., 1972. Offshore Underwater Storage Tank.
US3824942A.
Carlier, S., Garbellini, L., Altavilaa, A., 1996. Evaluation of reliability, availability,
maintainability and safety requirements for manned space vehicles on-orbit
stay time. Acta Astronaut. 38 (2), 115123.
Carter, M., Powell, K., 2006. Increasing reliability in subsea systems. E&P Magazine.
Hart Energy Publishing, Houston (TX).
Cockerill, A.W., 1990. RAM analysis helps cut turbine-generator systems costs.
Power Eng. 94 (7), 2729.
Dae Jun, Chang, Pal G., Bergan, 2014. Large Scale Subsea Storage Tank and Method
for Constructing and Installing the Same. WO2014061837 A1.
Duell, C., Fleming, R., Strutt, J., 2001. Implementing deepwater subsea reliability
strategy. In: Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference. OTC 12998, 30
April. Houston (TX).
DuJulio, ET., Leet, JH., 1988. Space station synergetic RAM logistic analysis. In:
Proceedings of the Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium. 2628
January. New York (NY).
14
Edwards, N., 1972. Storage Tank for Offshore storage of liquid and method of constructing and installing same. US 3777497A.
George, E Mott., 1968. Submerged Oil Storage Vessel and Oil Loading Facility for
Offshore Wells. US 3408971A.
Hajeeh, M., Chaudhuri, D., 2000. Reliability and availability assessment of reverse
osmosis. Desalition 130, 185192.
Holand, P., 2001. Reliability of deepwater subsea blowout preventers. Soc. Pet. Eng.
J. 16 (1), 1218.
Hong, E., Lee, I., Shin, H., Nam, S., Kong, J., 2009. Quantitative risk evaluation based
on event tree analysis technique: application to the design of shield TBM. Tunn.
Undergr. Space Technol. 24 (3), 269277.
International Standards Organization, 1986. ISO 8402: Quality Vocabulary. International Standards Organization, Geneva.
James, R. Mc.Caul, 2006. Growing Requirement for Floating Production Systems.
Maritime Reportter and Engineering News, April, New York (NY), pp. 2426
http://www.marinelink.com.
Kumar, D., Singh, J., Pandey, P.C., 1992. Availability of the crystallization system in
the sugar industry under common-cause failure. IEEE Trans. Reliab. 41 (1),
8591.
Martorell, S., Villanueva, J.F., Carlos, S., Nebot, Y., Sanchez, A., Pitarch, J.L., Serrandell,
2004. RAMS C informed decision-making with application of multi-objective
optimization of technical specications and maintenance using genetic algorithms. Reliab. Eng. Syst Safe. 87 (1), 6575.
Michael, Choi, Jack, Chan, David, Tuturea, 2002. Seabed Oil Storage and Tanker
Offtake System. US 20020141829 A1.
OREDA, 2009. Offshore Reliability Data Handbook, 5th ed. Det Norsk Veritas, DNV,
Hvik, Norway.
Pogonowski, Ivo, C, 1972. Underwater Liquid Storage Facility. US 3695047 A.
Prince, B.E., Haire, MJ., 1991. The inuence of maintenance system reliability and
maintainability characteristics on plant availability. In: Proceedings of the Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium. 2931 January. New York (NY).
Quilici, M., Roche, T., Fougere, P., Juda, D., 1998. Risk assessment of a BOP and
control system for 10,000 m water depth. In: Proceedings of the Offshore
Technology Conference. OTC 8791, 4 May. Houston (TX).
Reniers, G.L.L., Dullaert, W., Ale, B.J.M., Soudan, K., 2005. The use of current risk
analysis tools evaluated towards preventing external domino accidents. J Loss
Prev. Process Ind. 18 (3), 119126.
Robert, C., Laing, T., 2002. Achieving reliability improvement for subsea challenges.
In: Proceedings of the Society for Underwater Technology: Subsea Controls and
Data Acquisition. 1314 June. Paris (FR).
Rosin, A., Hecht, M., Handal, J., 1999. Analysis of airport-runway availability. In
Proceedings of the Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium. 1821
January. Washington (DC).
Sandberg, A., Stromberg, U., 1992. Gripen: with focus on availability performance
and life support cost over the product life cycle. J. Qual. Maint. Eng. 5 (4),
325334.
Sandrea, I., Sandrea, R., 2007. Global offshore oil-2: growth expected in global
offshore crude oil supplies. Oil Gas J. 105 (10), Retrieved from http://www.ogj.
com/articles/print/volume-105/issue-10/exploration-development/global-off
shore-oil-2-growth-expected-in-global-offshore-crude-oil-supply.html.
Skeels, HB., Taylor, M., Wabnitz, F., 2003. Subsea eld architecture selection based
on reliability considerations. In: Proceedings of the Deep Offshore Technology
Conference. Marseille (Fr).
Sunde, LT., 2003. Subsea process design guideline for reliability. In: Proceedings of
the Offshore Technology Conference. OTC 15171, 5 May. Houston (TX).
U. S. Department of Defense, 1966. MIL-HDBK-472: Military Standard Handbook,
Maintainability Prediction. Washington (DC): U. S. Department of Defense.
Valeriano, Banzoli, Giovanni, De Nora, Vincenzo, Di Tella, Domenico, Lalli, Gianfranco, Tempo. 1976. Underwater Stationary Tank for Storing Large Amounts of
Crude Oil. US 3943724 A.
Wabnitz, F., Netherland, H., 2001. Use of reliability engineering tools to enhance
subsea system reliability. In: Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference. OTC 12944, 30 April. Houston (TX).
Willard, PJ., 2001. Air trafc control RAMS costs. In: Proceedings of the Annual
Reliability and Maintainability Symposium. 2225 January. Philadelphia (PA).
Yuhua, D., Datao, Y., 2005. Estimation of failure probability of oil and gas transmission pipelines by fuzzy fault tree analysis. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 18 (2),
8388.