Currently, a Dynamic Position (DP) System is commonly used for offshore operations. However, DP failures may generate environmental and economic losses; thus, this paper presents the Reliability, Availability and Maintainability (RAM) analysis for two different generations of DP system (DP2 and DP3) used in drilling operations. In addition to the RAM analysis, the approach proposed herein considers the uncertainties present in the equipment failure data and provides more information about criticality equipment ratings and probability density functions (pdf) of the repair times. The reliability analysis shows that, for 3 months of operation, the total failure probability of the DP2 system is 1.52% whereas this probability for the DP3 system is only 0.16%. The results reveal that the bus-bar is the most critical equipment of the DP2 system, whereas the wind sensor represents the priority equipment in the DP3 system. Using 90% confidence level, each DP configuration was evaluated for a 1-year operation, finding a reliability mean equal to 70.39% and 86.77% for the DP2 system and the DP3 system, respectively. The DP2 system asymptotic availability tends to present a constant value of 99.98% whereas for the DP3 system, it tends to be 99.99%. Finally, the maintainability analysis allows concluding that the mean time for system repair is expected to be 3.6 h. This paper presents a logical pathway for analysts, operators, and reliability engineers of the oil and gas industry.
BekkerJ.Portable dynamic positioning system with self-contained electric thrusters. United States Patent2005, pp.3–5.
2.
LehmkösterJ.Oil and gas from the sea. Hamburg, Germany: maribus gGmbH, 2014.
3.
IMO. SC/Circ. 645 - Guidelines for vessels with Dynamic Positioning Systems. Int J Mar Coast Law1994; 3: 235–245.
4.
RodriguezCEP. Redes Bayesianas No gerenciamento E mensuração de riscos operacionais. São Paulo - Brazil: University of São Paulo, 2012, p.270.
5.
WangJ.Maritime risk assessment and its current status. Qual Reliab Eng Int2006; 22: 3–19.
6.
BarabadiATobias GudmestadOBarabadyJ.RAMS data collection under arctic conditions. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2015; 135: 92–99.
7.
De SanctisIPaciarottiCDi GiovineO. Integration between RCM and RAM: a case study. Int J Qual Reliab Manag2016; 33: 852–880.
8.
LundteigenMARausandMUtneIB.Integrating RAMS engineering and management with the safety life cycle of IEC 61508. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2009; 94: 1894–1903.
9.
HauffKS. Analysis of loss of position incidents for dynamically operated vessels. Oslo, Norway: NTNU – Department of Marine Technology, 2014.
10.
NaseriMBarabadyJ.On RAM performance of production facilities operating under the Barents sea harsh environmental conditions. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag2016; 7: 273–298.
EbrahimiA.Effect analysis of RAMS parameter in design & operation of DP system in floating offshore structure. Royal Institute of Technology, 2010.
13.
FerreiraD.Confiabilidade de sistemas de geração de energia em sondas de posicionamento dinâmico por simulação Monte Carlo. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: UFRJ, 2016.
14.
RasoulzadehV. Risk assessment of diesel engine failure in a dynamic positioning system. Stavanger, Norway: Univ Stavanger, 2015.
15.
ABS. Guide for dynamic positioning systems. Houston, USA: American Bureau of Shipping, 2013.
16.
DNV. Dynamic positioning systems. Oslo, Norway: Det Norske Veritas As, 2013.
17.
MTS. Description of the DP System: DP vessel design philosophy guidelines part 2. Washington, DC: Marine Technology Society, 2012.
18.
CoastE.The role of an electric switchboard in power flow. New Jersey: East Coast Power Systems, 2012.
19.
RappiniSPallaoroAHeringerM.Fundamentos de posicionamento dinâmico. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: PETROBRAS, 2003.
20.
LLC GIO. DP system introduction. Louisiana, USA: CONVERTEAM, 2009.
21.
ClavijoMVMartinsMRSchlederA. Reliability analysis of dynamic positioning system. In: Progress in maritime technology and engineering - Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Maritime Technology and Engineering, MARTECH 2018, Lisbon, Portugal, pp.265–272. CRC Press.
22.
KaranC.What are offshore vessels? In: Progress in maritime technology and engineering - Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Maritime Technology and Engineering, MARTECH 2018, Lisbon, Portugal, 2017.
23.
Siemens. SIPLINK – reliable and economical. Erlangen, Germany: Siemens, 2010.
24.
KabirS.An overview of fault tree analysis and its application in model based dependability analysis. Expert Syst Appl2017; 77: 114–135.
25.
TavernaD.Desenvolvimento de ferramenta computacional para avaliação da disponibilidade de sistemas de engenharia. Univ São Paulo2017; 1: 21–34.
26.
AlkaliB.Evaluation of generalised proportional intensities models with application to the maintenance of gas turbines. Qual Reliab Eng Int2012; 28: 577–584.
27.
ClavijoMVMartinsM. Application of reliability, availability and maintainability analysis to dynamic positioning systems used in offshore operations. São Paulo, Brazil: University of São Paulo, 2020.
28.
PETROBRAS. Pre-Salt. São Paulo: PETROBRAS, 2018.
29.
ModarresMKaminskiyMKrivtsovV.Basic reliability mathematics: review of probability and statistics. In: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group (eds.) Reliability engineering and risk analysis. New York, NY: CRC Press, 2009, pp.15–70.
30.
BalchenJJenssenNMathisenE, et al. A dynamic positioning system based on Kalman filtering and optimal control. Model Identif Control1980; 1: 135–163.
31.
OREDA. Offshore reliability data handbook. 6th ed.Oslo: OREDA, 2015.
32.
IEEE. Design of reliable industrial and commercial power systems. IEEE Standard 493-2007. New York: IEEE, 2007.
33.
NSWC. Handbook of reliability prediction procedures for mechanical equipment. New York: NSWC, 2011.
34.
VenkatesanRVedachalamNSundarR, et al. Assessment of the reliability of the Indian tsunami buoy system. Underw Technol2015; 32: 255–270.
35.
EPRI. A review of the reliability of electric distribution system components, California: EPRI, 2001.
36.
PortinaleLCodettaD.Modeling and analysis of dependable systems: a probabilistic graphical model perspective. London: World Scientific Publishing, 2015.
37.
YazdiM.Footprint of knowledge acquisition improvement in failure diagnosis analysis. Qual Reliab Eng Int2019; 35: 405–422.
38.
SiSCaiZSunS, et al. Integrated importance measures of multi-state systems under uncertainty. Comput Ind Eng2010; 59: 921–928.
39.
Makajić-NikolićDVujoševićMPavlovićP.Importance measures in reliability and maintenance. Serbia: University of Belgrade, Faculty of Organizational Sciences, 2018, pp.7–16.
40.
Van Der BorstM. An overview of PSA importance measures. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2001; 72: 241–245.
41.
AmrutkarKPKamaljaKK.An overview of various importance measures of reliability system. Int J Math Eng Manag Sci2017; 2: 150–171.
42.
AzarkhailMModarresM.A study of implications of using importance measures in risk-informed decisions. In: SpitzerCSchmockerUDangVN. (eds) Probab Saf Assess Manag. London: Springer, 2004.
43.
FerreiraALapaC. Análise de confiabilidade do sistema de refrigeração de componentes de ANGRA I considerando as incertezas na avaliação das árvores de falhas por um modelo fuzzy. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Institute of Nuclear Engineering - Rio Janeiro, 2009.
44.
ZioE. The Monte Carlo simulation method for system reliability and risk analysis. London: Springer, 2013.
45.
ConnARDelerisLAHoskingJRM, et al. A simulation model for improving the maintenance of high cost systems, with application to an offshore oil installation. Qual Reliab Eng Int2010; 26: 733–748.
46.
LewisEE.Introduction to reliability engineering. New York; NY: Wiley, 1996.
47.
NASA. Fault tree handbook with aerospace applications. NASA Handb2002; XXXIII: 218.
48.
BirnbaumZ.On the importance of different components in a multicomponent system. New York; NY: Academic Press, 1969.
TuranOLazakisIJudahS, et al. Investigating the reliability and criticality of the maintenance characteristics of a diving support vessel. Qual Reliab Eng Int2011; 27: 931–946.
51.
SouzaVClavijoMSchlederA, et al. Monte Carlo simulation to consider uncertainty in the reliability analysis of dynamic positioning systems. In: Proceedings of the 29th European safety and reliability conference, Esrel, 2019, pp.2446–2453. Hannover, Germany: European Safety and Reliability Conference (ESREL).
52.
ZioE.The future of risk assessment. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2018; 177: 176–190.
53.
MerleGRousselJMLesageJJ, et al. Quantitative analysis of dynamic fault trees based on the coupling of structure functions and Monte Carlo simulation. Qual Reliab Eng Int2016; 32: 7–18.
54.
IMO. Considerated test of the guidelines for formal safety assessment (FSA) for use in the IMO rule-marking process(MSC/Circ.1023 MEPC/ circ.392). Geneva, Switzerland: IMO, 2015.
55.
de AbreuDTMPMaturanaMCLópez DroguettEA, et al. Human reliability analysis of ship maneuvers in harbor areas. J Offshore Mech Arct Eng Asme2020; 142(6): 061704.
56.
MaturanaMCMartinsMR.Technique for early consideration of human reliability: applying a generic model in an oil tanker operation to study scenarios of collision. J Offshore Mech Arct Eng2019; 141: 510–607.
57.
MartinsMRMaturanaMC.Application of Bayesian belief networks to the human reliability analysis of an oil tanker operation focusing on collision accidents. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2013; 110: 89–109.
58.
MaturanaMSouzaVClavijoV, et al. MIL and MIRO diagrams for risk-based positioning of drilling rigs with dynamic positioning system. In: ASME 2020 39th international conference on ocean, offshore and arctic engineering, Virtual, Online, 3–7 August 2020, Volume 2A: Structures, Safety, and Reliability. DOI: 10.1115/OMAE2020-18834.
59.
MartiniH.Failure rates for programmable logic controllers. Reliab Eng Syst Saf1993; 39: 325–328.
60.
BalaSPanJDasD, et al. Lowering failure rates and improving serviceability in offshore wind conversion-collection systems. In: 2012 IEEE power electronics and machines in wind applications, Denver, CO, USA, 16–18July2012. New York, NY: IEEE. DOI: 10.1109/PEMWA.2012.6316362.
61.
OmokhafeTAmbafiJ.Reliability study of electric circuit breakers (a case study), Innovations in Science and Engineering, New York, 2011, pp.104–114.
62.
ChavanS.Reliability analysis of transformer less DC/DC converter in a photovoltaic system. Acta Electrotech2016; 57(5): 579–582.
63.
CarrollJMcDonaldAMcMillanD.Failure rate, repair time and unscheduled O&M cost analysis of offshore wind turbines. Wind Energy2016; 19: 1107–1119.
64.
GargKWeingarthLShahS.Dynamic positioning power plant system reliability and design. In: Petroleum and chemical industry conference europe electrical and instrumentation applications, Rome, Italy, 7–9 June 2011.
65.
INL. Review of maintenance and repair times for components in technological facilities. Idaho, USA: Idaho National Lab, 2012.
66.
SikosLKlemešJ.Reliability, availability and maintenance optimisation of heat exchanger networks. Appl Therm Eng2010; 30: 63–69.
67.
FlammJLuisiT.Reliability data collection and analysis. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 1992.
68.
IgbaJAlemzadehKHenningsenK, et al. Performance assessment of wind turbine gearboxes using in-service data: current approaches and future trends. Renew Sustain Energ Rev2015; 50: 144–159.
69.
AksuSAksuSTuranO.Reliability and availability of Pod propulsion systems. Qual Reliab Eng Int2006; 22: 41–58.
70.
ChangDRheeTNamK, et al. A study on availability and safety of new propulsion systems for LNG carriers. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2008; 93: 1877–1885.
71.
OREDA. Offshore reliability data handbook. 5th ed.Oslo: OREDA, 2009.
72.
KarpatiAZsigmondGVorosM, et al. Uninterruptible power supplies (UPS) for data center. In: 2012 IEEE 10th Jubilee International symposium on intelligent systems and informatics, Subotica, Serbia, 20–22 September 2012, pp.351–355. New York, NY: IEEE.
73.
TMEIC. Variable frequency drives - a comparison of VSI versus LCI systems introduction. Tokyo, Japan: Toshiba Mitsubishi-Electric Industrial Systems Corporation (TMEIC), 2013.
