1 Api RP 17N Workshop: Executive Summary of Meeting

1 S T API RP 17N WORKSHOP
Report Prepared by J E Strutt
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF MEETING

1. The workshop comprised around 40 people invited from the subsea industry in the
following business categories.
a. Operators (BP, Marathon, Chevron-Texaco, Conoco-Phillips, Kerr McGee,…

b. Engineering Contractors (HKBR, Technip, Aker )
c. Manufacturers (FMC, ABB, Cameron, )
d. Reliability experts/consultants (Jardine, BMT, DnV, )
e. Other industries (Boeing and NASA)
2. Initial presentations were made by John Allen and Don Wells on the background to
the workshop and its purpose. The key messages were:
a. Deepstar sponsorship of reliability

b. The need for the subsea community to act as a whole in reliability
c. The need to solicit views widely and gain “buy in” from the community
d. The need to obtain feedback and concerns from participants in order to plan
the forward strategy for the RP
e. Gain consensus in order for the API to be adopted by the community
3. John Strutt gave an overview of the BP subsea reliability strategy and outlined key
concepts proposed as an API RP 17N straw man for consideration by the subsea
community.
4. The workshop invited comment and discussion from the floor on the implementation
of reliability practices in development projects.
Broadly, the approach in the workshop was to discuss each life-cycle phase in turn
and to invite comment and input on key tasks and issues to be addressed as
illustrated below:
Life cycle Phases addressed: Key Reliability Processes:
1. Feasibility and Concept Design 1. Definition of reliability

2. Front End Engineering Design 2. Design to achieve reliability
3. Detail Design 3. Reliability assurance
4. Manufacture 4. Verification and validation
5. Installation and Commissioning 5. Risk and Reliability Analysis
6. Operation 6. Reliability performance tracking
Map 7. Reliability & Qualification testing
On to
8. Project risk management
9. Supply chain management
Other Issues addressed 10. Management of change
Long term investments in reliability 11. Organisational learning
Organisational issues 12. Education and training
13. Research and Development
5. A broad ranging discussion followed during the day. The key points and inputs from
the floor are appended with this summary.
6. At the end of the main discussion Eric Waguespack provided a summary of the
reliability plans proposed for the Deepstar project and how these might interface with
the API RP. This included the management and feedback of data.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF KEY CONCERNS AND THE WAY FORWARD
1. The meeting enabled company representatives to comment on the proposed

approach presented at the workshop.
2. Many useful comments and suggestions were made and these have influenced the
thinking of the organising committee.
3. There was no direct opposition to the general idea of an API recommended practice
in reliability. There were, however, strong views concerning the approach that should
be taken and the contracting implications that could follow the publication of the RP.
4. There was general support for a recommended practice based on the concept of a
targeted reliability strategy for large, high risk field development projects and product
development projects. “What gets defined and measured gets done!”
5. Particular concerns were raised about the degree of up front effort implied by the
targeted reliability approach, which some regarded as maybe inappropriate for small
low budget fast track projects. The committee has accepted the point made and will
address this in the framework which is now being prepared. One approach would be
to include optional procedures corresponding to different types/categories of project.
6. The next stage, after taking on board all the comments and views of the subsea
community, will be to develop a framework and content for the API RP.
Key Points Covered by the Workshop
General Points
• The industry is where it is today because Operators have not asked for reliability
• Differing Operators Contracting strategy with suppliers influences reliability
strategy
• Difficult for suppliers to implement different reliability strategies for different
customers
• Designers must maintain a “systems” focus (the big picture as well as the
details)
• 6 Sigma and Q1 supports but does not guarantee reliability
• Title of API should reflect risk basis for the Reliability strategy
• There are broadly two categories of reliability strategy
o Targeted reliability paradigm (specific reliability goal defined and design
to achieve)
o Revealed reliability paradigm (no specific goal but analysis to check
reliability)
• Reliability effort must add value to customers and contractors (seen to add value
up front)
• Operators want a suppliers to achieve level 4 capability (reliability influences
design)
• Suppliers should aspire to Level 5 capability (adaptive organisation to sustain
reliability)
• Need better and more efficient use of “design for reliability” tools
• Need to include the use of redundancy in the RP.
• Need to understand and record “how” failures occur (not just what failed and
when) i.e. root cause analysis (RCA)
• We need to improve accelerated testing methods
• Need staff to be competent in reliability technology
• Need to anticipate future reliability needs
Feasibility Concept and FEED
• Need to address big projects as well as small

• Need to address impact of variation in configuration, system flexibility,
component design, operating envelope
• Develop Specification (to be included in contract) for system reliability and key
processes to assure reliability over all subsequent phases including installation
and operation. This needs to include how equipment will be used in practice. This
should focus on target setting. This is a handover from user to supplier phase.
• The Operator should decide on the management of the reliability process (not the
recommended practice)
• Reliability definition at feasibility stage may differ from that later (e.g. vary degree
of detail)
• Need to address R&M in concept selection
• Seek lessons learnt from other projects to inform design decision making
• Need to address the resource requirements for the various stages
• Organisation needs reliability specialist/champion but whole team must speak the
language. This has implications for education and training.
• One potential problem: FEED engineer specifies details (possibly unnecessary
changes) that the supplier must live with and this can be a source of unreliability.
• Need to front load reliability effort during the project design life cycle.
Detail Design
• Need to address details of the specific components at this stage.

• Need a balanced approach to reliability effort between subsea and topside
hardware
o No point in having ultra reliable subsea if topside availability is poor
o Base decision on relative balance of risk
• Need good quality field data to support reliability of design
• In detail design options for design change are much reduced.
o Focus shifts more to verifying reliability rather than specifying reliability
• Need to understand what reliability level is needed for specific components in the
system to ensure that overall system reliability requirements are met.
• Once specific hardware is selected supply chain management becomes critical
o Ensure team work between the supplier and the user
o Ensure supplier understands the requirements
o Work together to achieve required level of R&M
o Develop a supply chain reliability control manual
• For field proven hardware, focus on what has changed.
o No need to implement a complete analysis
• Deal with errors that can occur in the field (including human factors)
Manufacturing Phase
• Reliability tasks tend to focus on inspection, testing and quality control

o Inspection and testing should be informed by design FMECA and Process
FMECA
o Perform design and Process FMECA at an earlier stage of the design life
cycle
• Stress screening techniques can be applied to some components to weed out
weaknesses
• Reliability Assurance: collate evidence up to and including manufacture
o Provides evidence that the system will meet customer reliability
expectations
o Reliability Demonstration Document should be updated through product
life
o Quality standards for procurement materials controls etc.
• Integration and testing to be carried out at this stage
o Subsystem integration and testing , factory acceptance test (FAT),
o Pre-installation, site integration test (SIT)
Installation and commissioning
• I&C is a reliability critical phase, installation procedures can damage

equipment
• Readiness reviews can support reliability management tasks
o Readiness reviews are run like a HAZOP
o Capture lessons learnt
• Project risk management (PRM) and Change management are key
processes
o Implement PRM and Change management in advance of installation.
• Project risk management at I&C stage focuses on reactive procedures
o Contingency management
o Crisis and Emergency risk management
• Integration of equipment/system design with the installation process
(handover from manufacturer to installer needs procedures and vendor-
installer pre-alignment)
Operational Phase
• Focus on reliability data collection and failure analysis

• Standardisation of databases would add value
• Use RCM or other risk based maintenance planning to inform maintenance
activities
• Manufacturers and Operators should collaborate on how to capture
data/information
• Include on line methods and tools to support diagnostics and failure analysis
to improve maintenance and reliability growth.
ANNEX 1
COLLATED COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR
Note: the notes below have been compiled from written comments made and memory of
the meeting. Every effort has been made to reflect accurately what was said. However,
inevitably what is written below is an interpretation and we apologise if the intent of any
contributors has been changed in the summaries.
FROM THE OPERATORS:

Operator A has invested substantially in developing its subsea reliability strategy,
building largely on process capability and learning the lessons of failure. Cranfield
University was brought in to support the work. Operator A recognises that its reliability
strategy cannot work in isolation from the strategy of the rest of the subsea community.
Operator B recognised loss of revenue from failure. Teams have been established to
develop reliability programmes. Reliability data from the North Sea sector is being used
to compare equipment. Operator B is supporting Deep-Star in this reliability program.
The Operator B approach for the last few years has focused organizational issues.
Operator C currently has no large projects such as those being developed by operator
A. Most are small subsea tie backs. The Operator C strategy is to take small
evolutionary steps, to stick with field proven equipment and incrementally improve
reliability in service. Concern was expressed that the API RP should not just focus on
the big project scenario and should accommodate small “repeat” projects.
Operator D has a number of subsea projects. While it was felt that they generally do a
good job in subsea, they also recognised the scale of the problem and how little is
known about reliability and reliability performance. They have now established a
reliability database.
Operator E recognised the difference between field development projects and product
development projects. It is more difficult to assess reliability in new product
developments (lack of data?). Subsea processing, for example, is new. How can
reliability be achieved and assured. Operator E is looking for guidance on how to
address reliability in product and field development projects, especially for deepwater
applications.
GENERAL QUESTIONS, ANSWERS AND DISCUSSIONS

1 What is 6 Sigma and how does it relate to reliability and the RP?
Response: Six Sigma is a process oriented management system, which builds on TQM
and other best practice management principles. It has the broad aim of improving
business performance and a number of Subsea Suppliers have implemented “6 Sigma”
in their business strategy. It has some goals in common with the reliability strategy, but it
is not seen as an alternative to a reliability strategy. A six sigma programme can be used
to strengthen the key processes of a reliability strategy.
2 How will System Redundancy be addressed in the RP?
Responses: Redundancy is one of many reliability improvement strategies which can be

adopted at the design stage and is often the key means of achieving reliability in fast
track projects.
It must be understood that redundancy only works when there is independence between
the parallel system elements. Thus, it is necessary to ensure that if redundancy is used
to achieve reliability, it is not compromised by common cause failure mechanisms in
which all elements fail at or near the same time.
3 Which of the 13 Key processes is the most critical to include in the RP?
Responses: Arguably, design to achieve and improve reliability is the most critical
process for the Supplier to add value to the customer. The Operator, on the other hand,
must be most capable in defining reliability requirements (asking for what he wants) and
driving / incentivising the key processes used by the suppliers to achieve reliability. None
of the processes stand alone. You have to look at each process as part of an integrated
management system. However, it is accepted that some of the processes are likely to be
covered in more detail than others depending on the type of project.
FEASIBILITY CONCEPT & FEED DISCUSSION
4 Will the RP address Small Low Cost projects? Some Operators who traditionally
deal with relatively small, low budget projects implement them with little or no feasibility,
concept or FEED effort. Projects move swiftly from design to manufacture “when we
implement a front end design stage, we may have an order within a week. There isn’t a
large front end endeavour. We try to keep the systems as simple as possible, and stay
with the same product line. We try to do good qualification testing, SIT testing, and limit
the number of #1 products”. The API RP should address this style of project as well as
the large complex projects.
Response 1: Even small projects should include a feasibility stage if the operator is
implementing a standard design process; it’s a question of how much effort is needed at
each stage and this must vary with project scope. It was agreed that sometimes
developments will quickly jump to manufacture, but even here it is likely that the
customer would need some assurances on reliability.
Response 2: There is no conflict between the two scales of project. If a standard design
approach is adopted the project would run through the first few phases quickly.
Response 3: No two projects have identical environmental conditions, water depths,

configurations, platforms, etc. Change and differences can add complexity to the
process. Even when a standard system is to be procured, they still may differ
somewhere in the detail and standard components can fail. The need to address
reliability is important in projects of all sizes. Managing the impact of changes would be
important in this case.
5 Concerns about the degree of reliability effort in feasibility and concept design
Response: If you are procuring a well established and field proven product, the level of
effort in upfront analysis should be less. The supplier should provide evidence of
reliability performance to the customer. In many situations it is the manufacturer that will
put in the effort, not the operator. It is the manufacturer in the end that delivers reliability
and value to the operator.
6 Concern about RP flexibility: Whatever is documented in the API RP it must be

flexible and allow variation between major projects and small subsea tiebacks to enable
Operators to decide what approach to adopt given a particular situation.
Response: We need to be flexible in this document for both larger and small projects.
The RP must recognize the criticality of different components. Some failures may not
affect the system as much as others. A risk based approach needs to be adopted. We
should provide cost effective methods to help decide on the optimum solution whether at
system configuration level or at product level.
7 How much data is needed in the design stage and where do you get it from?
Response: At the feasibility and concept stage the project may have many different
options to consider. A more qualitative approach is demanded at this stage because
details are sparse but it must be systems oriented. You should perform qualitative
systems assessments to identify systems cut sets for the different options and identify
critical items. If you have operated similar fields before you could use standard modules
building on prior experience. The next project focuses on those aspects of the project
that have changed. Defining design changes and assessing their impact is important.
8 Where is the Subsea boundary and how do we deal with interfaces?
Response: The boundary is likely to be everything below the surface, including the
risers, pipeline, and umbilicals in the water column, pipelines, flow-lines and trees and
other hardware on the sea bed. It is still undecided how far to extend into “down hole”,
drilling and topsides. The down hole, drilling and topsides communities will comment
before finally deciding. Interfaces can be a problem, it often the place where unreliability
problems are realised. These must be addressed if reliability is to be assessed.
Comment: Question 7 suggests approaching the reliability issue from a product

perspective. However, if we follow this route it will take the RP into a prescriptive regime
and we do not really feel this is the right path to take. The RP should focus on the
processes that deliver the reliable product. It is a goal oriented approach.
9 What needs to be done during Feasibility Concept and FEED?
Responses: Typically it will be important to understand what level of reliability or

availability is acceptable to you and you should decide what R&M goals to set. Early
planning and deciding what tasks should be performed is important as well as deciding
decision making criteria such as return on investment, HSE etc.
A major issue will be the extent to which numerical reliability targets are issued as formal
requirements or simply as objectives.
Planning should be done early and updated as the project moves forward. It is important
to think about how much time it could take to do certain things and how to allocate time
on key reliability activities.
Most of the systems reliability analysis work should be front loaded into the FEED stage.
So that more effort can be put on identifying and understanding the detailed failure paths
at component level when the project moves into detail design phase.
Another issue is how reliability is organised. Who does what at which stage? Who has
the responsibility for reliability achievement and who is this handed over to at the
different stages of the life cycle, what is handed over, and what is applied during the
hand over? The reliability engineer must be part of the design team but the whole team
needs to speak the language. This is an issue to be addressed by the API committee
DETAIL DESIGN PHASE DISCUSSION
10 What gets done in Detail design?
Response: In detail design you are looking at the specific components that are gong to
be used in the system and how they will be used in the system. By this stage the R&M
issues are largely defined so options to change things are reduced. However, as long
as manufacture has not started there are still issues that can be addressed and some
changes may be possible to incorporate reliability improvement ideas. At this stage
more thought is put into installation, commissioning and start up. R&M analyses should
be updated with the latest available data to forecast the likely field performance.
Comment: In detailed design, the ability to address reliability in EPC contracts is limited.
Contractor do what they think is appropriate. There is rarely an up-front reliability goal for
the total subsea architecture. There are various approaches you can take. The subsea
system that is super reliable is probably a waste of money. Somewhere in the process
you have to take the larger view. For example there is probably more down time arising
from topside initiated events than from subsea failures.
11 What is important about the definition of reliability requirements?
Effectively you are asking what changed from last time, same manufacture, same
equipment, will this work? How do you deal with a project that has 75% of all the
equipment which is brand new. Are there any details that we should write down? You
create a robust structure with flexibility.
Interfaces in the oilfield must be considered in the models. Sometimes these are not well
addressed. You may or may not consider all of them at the same time.
12 Reliability is a team work effort between the supplier and the user
The supplier can not supply unless he knows how the product is to be used, and what
environment it is to be used in. The requirements have to accommodate loads,
temperature and pressure; whatever it may be. These details should be in the
specification really but they are sometimes not addressed until detail design when
hardware is finally specified. Effort must be put in to address all details between the
manufacturers and the customer.
We should have a reliability manual like a QA manual. The manual would set out the
overall plan for the company regarding reliability management. This could be
engineering intensive, include a check list, then move to the QC plan, and when it gets
to specific components have check points. Structured level should begin at the highest
level. The manual would have to be part of the engineering design.
NASA has a separate reliability manual and a QA manual for each project. NASA is
seeking approval to share this approach with API.
In some organisations the subsea resources are limited; two engineers and a few
contractors. When we are stretching the steps on a new project, we focus on what we
need to do to meet the new requirement. The reviews of designs and anything done on
paper does not go in the same order of magnitude as you would have with a previously
proven design. Deal with errors in the field, and all that goes on.
MANUFACTURE AND TEST PHASE DISCUSSION
13 What gets done in Manufacturing Phase?
The focus shifts in manufacture to delivering the reliability intent, i.e. manufacturing
hardware that meets reliability requirements, which will normally require some form of
validation and verification by testing. Typically this will include factory acceptance tests
(FAT) and System/site integration tests (SIT). These are however, not the same as
Reliability tests such as key life tests (KLT) or highly accelerated life testing (HALT),
which would aim to simulate or accelerate the proposed equipment operating
environment and should be performed earlier in the design life cycle, i.e. where there is
still sufficient time to influence the product design. These tests tend to be more
appropriate to product development projects rather than fast track field development
projects.
For certain types of equipment (e.g. electronic equipment) Environmental Stress

Screening (ESS) and highly accelerated stress screening (HASS) may be performed
during the manufacture phase of the project. These types of tests are different in nature
from the tests mentioned above and have the objective of weeding out weak
components such that what is delivered to the customers are only the components that
have passed the tests. In this sense it is more than a test, it is a manufacturing process
as well. This is one way of removing early life failures.
14 How do we define the level of surveillance and inspection during manufacture?

During Manufacture it is important to ensure that the manufacturing process is able to
deliver the Design reliability intent. It is important to ensure that any manufacturing
errors that could lead to defects, incorrect material or part insertions and faults etc. in the
product are trapped and removed. One approach to this would be to understand the
various failure modes of the process, i.e. a process FMECA which should be performed
in advance of manufacture. This would identify the consequences of failure and what
can be tolerated. Specific inspection and surveillance actions could be created and
implemented during the manufacturing process. This is very much in line with
conventional quality control in manufacture but the QC task list is driven by the risk
analysis. Specific individuals should be made responsible for specification, procedure
and guidelines. This could be covered by the latest quality standard and will be
discussed with ISO.
15 Reliability Planning in the manufacturing stage

How you are going to analyse, qualify, test and plan for reliability in this phase. Which
failures have acceptable risk and which failures do not? The plan must address the risks
and the resources needed to assess and mange the risks in manufacturing stage.
Human error and human reliability is an issue. How do we handle this through
manufacturing stage? We are starting to agree that a reliability plan is something we
should all have, but the specific tasks to perform in the plan will be different for each
organization.
16 What are the key reliability issues and tasks during Manufacture?
The Manufacture of a system is not always in accordance with the design. Some of the
design process, especially during FEED and detail design, should address the issue of
design for manufacture because changes during manufacture need to be carefully
controlled.
We should seek to understand what is occurring in the manufacturing process that can
be fed back into the design teams. For instance the results of testing in manufacture
must be fed back to the design team.
In umbilical manufacture, you have to get the quality required. You need to know your
suppliers in order to get the end result. You have to understand what goes on in
manufacturing if the impact of manufacture on reliability is to be controlled.
Supply chain management has a high impact on this stage. How do you let the
suppliers, suppliers, suppliers know the process? It may work well for the first two tiers
but after that the process may weaken. We are all responsible to some extent for
ensuring that supply chain management is effective. This also needs to be addressed in
conjunction with the quality system
17 What can we put into a recommended practice that can assure reliability at
each stage?
This needs to be thought through. But if the idea of an R&M Case or a Reliability
Demonstration Document is accepted, this would be the place where the evidence for
reliability assurance is collated during the product life cycle. Depending on the nature of
the project, it could for example include information about; how reliability was used as
one of the concept selection criteria, procedures used for defining reliability or availability
requirements, outputs (and resulting decisions arising) from reliability and availability
analyses, results of Tests and QC activities in manufacture, Supply chain management
and change management controls etc.
INSTALLATION AND COMMISSIONING PHASE DISCUSSION
18 How do things tie together?

Installation and commissioning is a reliability critical phase. You can have vulnerable
equipment and limited control during lifting operations. You can cause damage and
sometimes you unaware of the damage caused and either result in an immediate delay
or in an early life failure. This is a particularly vulnerable stage as it tends to be a
handover from one group to another. Early involvement may be a key (consider in FEED
period if the Installation contractor is on board at this stage.)
19 What sort of analytical procedures do you think should be planted in this

phase?
Readiness reviews are critical in these stages of the projects. What are those?
Readiness reviews are a pre review of the installation process it includes technical and
organisational issues, both internal and across companies. It is treated as a HAZOP and
you try and capture the lessons learnt from the analysis. Similar things apply to subsea,
like the installation of the vessel.
20 Is it realistic to set numerical targets for reliability processes?
Response: It may not be realistic to set numerical targets. But it makes a lot of sense to
define procedures and processes to address at this stage. For example: Project risk
management and management of change are key process at this stage. But project risk
management changes in nature to a more responsive/reactive mode i.e. crisis
management, emergency management or contingency planning which address the
potential consequences in high risk scenarios that are often present during installation
and commissioning. The criteria often depend on vessel size.
OPERATION AND DATA COLLECTION PHASE DISCUSSION
21 What gets done at this stage?
Response: During operation, attention shifts away from “design/manufacture for

reliability” to maintaining hardware and sustaining equipment reliability. Designers need
to understand how equipment will be used (and abused) in service in order to design in
reliability durability and robustness. Operators on the other hand need to understand the
designers intent and designed in operating limits if he is not to operate outside the
design envelope.
At this stage there is a step change of responsibility for the system. In successful
projects operational staff get involved a lot earlier inputting to the design team.
In operations we need to collect data on failures and turn this into information and then
into knowledge. Failure analysis, especially root cause analysis, should be performed
and fed back to designers for review and capture of lessons learnt. There should be
consistency in gathering information for failures.
We need to consider and standardise databases. We need agreements on what to

collect and how to collect it. Manufacturers should team up with our operators to decide
how best to capture data and information on failure for future projects to help manage
business.
One activity area that most agree is critical to the success of reliability analysis is data.
There are a number of related issues including diagnosis of equipment to identify the
failure mode and may be even the failure causes. Condition monitoring and inspection
using intelligent ROVs and special intervention tooling may be relevant here. A second
issue is communication of information (what to do with the data). If data and failure
information is to have any useful purpose, it must be fed back to the designers and
manufacturers of equipment as they are the ones with the most “need to know”. Data
analysis, is another important issue. How data is analysed and presented can
significantly affect the perception of reliability. For example, if early life failures are
combined with other failures over the life time of equipment then equipment will appear
to have a constant failure rate which in fact it is not. This may give the impression that
early life failures do not exist!
OVERALL
22 What is the Value of Reliability to the Company?
Reliability is about risk management and adding value.
Definition: Reliability is the ability of a product or system to perform its required

functions, at the specified levels of performance without failure, in the specified
environment under the specified operating conditions of use for the time required. This
can be interpreted, in simple, terms to mean “the probability that the system will not fail
during its operation”
There is a direct and fundamental connection between risk and reliability. Most failure
events, whether at system or component level, have adverse consequences. The
product of the probability of failure occurrence and the consequence of the event defines
the risk of the event. The consequences of a failure event can have many dimensions
and vary in scale. In the oil industry, most attention is paid to the following adverse
consequence categories:
• Health and safety (number of fatalities, injuries, illness)
• Environment (quantity of pollution and damage to the eco system)
• Finance (costs arising from lost production, replacement and repair of failed
items)
• Reputation (perception of investors, governments, regulators and potential
partners)
For any given system there will be many failure events with particular consequences
(risks) and when summed they define the overall risk of the system. Where these risks
are unacceptably high, they must be reduced to a level which is acceptable to the
business and its stakeholders. Where the risks are low, they must be managed such that
they remain acceptably low.
The application of reliability engineering principles in design is the discipline which
reduces the probability of a system/product failure and hence reduces the risk of a
failure, by either preventing the failure or by extending the time to failure.
For the subsea industry reliability improvement can have a positive impact on risk
reduction but this statement is conditional on the extent to which the risk can be
reduced. Furthermore risk reduction cannot be achieved cost free. For any given project,
the key questions follow through the following sequence of questions:
a) How big is the current risk?
b) How far can the risk be reduced?
c) What is the acceptable risk?
d) How much should the business spend to reduce the risk?
Answers to these questions may require substantial risk, reliability and business
analysis. The answer to question (d) is influenced by the answers to questions (a) – (c).
For example, if the risk is already low or close to acceptable level then clearly the risk
reduction spend should be substantially lower than projects where the risk (or the
uncertainty about risk) is high and the level of acceptable risk is low.
In other words, the level of investment in reliability improvement and risk reduction must
be commensurate with the risk reduction potential. It is also the case that suppliers must
also gain value for internal investments in developing their reliability engineering and risk
management capability. It must improve their ability to sustain or improve their market
position for products and services.
23 Reliability Management outside the Project life cycle

There are several factors which are important to Reliability achievements in the longer
term which exist outside the life of an individual project. Examples include:
Organisational learning, Research and Development and Education and Training. These
will need to be addressed in the API recommended practice
ANNEX 2
EXAMPLE MODEL OF HOW TO DEAL WITH DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF
PROJECT
Projects and Reliability Programmes
During the workshop the above issues were raised many times; what level of detail that
would be demanded by the API RP. We have tried therefore to devise a system which
aligns the reliability programme and effort to the type of project and the following is
suggested:
The nature of the contracting strategy and the type of project should influence the
reliability practices employed and the degree of reliability effort in the project. Four
categories are suggested A, B, C, D as illustrated in figure 1. For example a lower level
of reliability effort may be permissible for a small project such as 2 well tieback using
field proven equipment in similar configurations to prior projects from which there exists
a good deal of reliability information (category D project). At the other end of the
spectrum is the product development project involving a high degree of risk and
uncertain performance (a category A project).
The schematic in fig.2 is a 1st attempt to define the differences in expectations of

process inclusion and process reliability effort between the three types of project.
Changes
System Risk
Technology Operating Envelope architecture Criticality
Low budget low risk project using field
Typical operating Minimal change of proven equipment in same configuration
Mature hardware L yes Cat D procedure note a
conditions System Configuraion and similar operating conditions as
previous projects
No
Low to moderate risk project using field

Typical Operating Major change of proven equipment in similar operating
Mature hardware L-M yes Cat C procedure
Conditions Configuration envelope to previous projects but with a
different system architecture
No
Non mature for Moderate to High risk project using either

extended Operating
extended operating M-H none mature equipment or with extended yes Cat B procedure note b
environment
envirnemnt operating conditions
No
High risk Project using new/novel

Novel technology H technology in a new or different system yes Cat A procedure note c
architecture
Notes
a Assumes that there is extensive prior
information and data on reliability
b Thisf category would include typcal
deepwater field development project
c Novel technology means hardware never
used before for production purposes. This
category includes typical product
development projects (all electrical trees)
Fig. 1: Categories of reliability Management practice

Project Category
PROCESS A B C D
Define Reliability Requirements 5 4
Design for reliability achirvement , improvement and risk reduction 5 4 3
Reliability Assurance 5 4 3
Verification and validation 5 4 3
Risk and reliability analysis in design 5 4 3
Reliability Qualification testing 5 4 3 2
Reliability Performance Monitoring and Analysis 5 4 3 2
Project Risk Management 5 4 3 2
Supply chain Management 5 4 3 2
Management of change 5 4 3 2
Organisational learning and knowledge Management 5 4 3
Education and training in reliability 5 4
R&D in reliability 5
These process are stronly

recommended to be included
These processes may be
ommitted
These Processes are optional
Level of Effort
5 high
3 Moderate
1 Low
Fig. 2
Design stage Reliability Focus

Appriase
Feasibility Identify what could work
Concpetual Design Select what will work reliably

Select
Define
Front End Engineering Design Define how it will work reliably
Detail Design Make it it work reliably in principle
Manufacture Build it without compromising reliability

Execute
Installation and commissioning Install it and make it work in practice
Operation Verify that it works reliably and maintain it
Fig 3: Suggested Reliability Focus for each project stage

SubSea Reliability Framing Workshop
Agenda
John Allen Introduction 15 min
Don Wells Framework 15 min
John Strutt Reliability Process history overview 60 min
Don Wells Working segments objectives - 6 stages 20min
John Strutt Working segment introduction 10min
20 min. per session & 10 min. discussion break 1/4 2hrs

Lunch 30min
5/6 1hr
Contributions from the floor 1hr
What’s next Work Plan/Engagement/Involvement 1hr
1
FIRSTNAME LASTNAME COMPANY Phone Fax Email
Rajiv Aggarwal ABB Lummus Global - FPS 713-821-5298 rajiv.aggarwal@us.abb.com
John Allen ABB Offshore 281-855-0319 john.o.allen@us.abb.com
Ray Ayers Stress Engineering Services 281-955-2900 281-955-2638 ray.ayers@stress.com
Paul Balaster Halliburton/KBR 713-760 3103 unsure of e-mail paul.balaster@halliburton.com
Morris Baldridge Halliburton 972-418-3981 morris.baldridge@halliburton.com
John Bednar bp 281-249 4325 bednarjm@bp.com
Jennifer Bell Mentor Subsea Engineering, Inc. 281-870-5464 281-870-5130 jmbell@mcdermott.com
Luis Bensimon Kerr-McGee 281-673-6408 281-673-4408 lbensimon@kmg.com
Jim E. Chitwood ChevronTexaco/DeepStar 281-596-3307 281-596-2656 chitwje@chevrontexaco.com
Tim Dean Kerr-McGee 281-673-6559 281-673-4559 tdean@kmg.com
Craig Duehl BP 281-247-7972 duehlcy@bp.com
Bob Duzan Boeing
David Harrold FMC 281-591-3831 dave.harrold@fmcti.com
Rick Kopps Marathon 713-296-3362 713-296-3190 RKopps@marathonoil.com
Mike Larkin ChevronTexaco 713-432-2681 alarkin@chevrontexaco.com
Ken Malloy Stress Engineering Services 713-466-1527 713-896-6807 ken.malloy@mohreng.com
Doug McFadden USA doug.w.mcfadden1@jsc.nasa.gov
Paul Miller INTEC 713-570-1000 paul.miller@intecengineering.com
Bjorn Nilberg DNV 281-721-6783 bjorn.nilberg@dnv.com
Angela Norris Kerr McGee 281-618-6000 anorris@kmg.com
Ken Powell Cameron 713-939-2457 powellkp@camerondiv.com
Nathan Ramamurthy ABB Vetco Gray 281-405-3838 nathan.ramamurthy@us.abb.com
Ian Rodger Jardine 66 7711 874387 ian.rodger@jardine.co.uk
Gaurav Sharma Halliburton/Granherne
Mark Siegmund bp siegmund@bp.com
John Strutt Cranfield University J.E.Strutt@cranfield.ac.uk
Hai Hong Sun ABB Offshore HSun@eagle.org
Ed Szymczak ABB Vetco Gray 281-847-4674 ed.szymczak@us.abb.com
Ernesto Valenzuela ABB Offshore 281-877-6819 281-877-5820 EValenzuela@eagle.org
Eric Waguespack ChevronTexaco 281-596-2373 281-596-2150 ericwaguespack@chevrontexaco.com
Aozhi (Christina) Wang ABS 281-877-5993 cwang@eagle.org
Don Wells ConocoPhillips 281-293-3803 281-293-6688 don.wells@conoco.com
Ken Young Stress Engineering Services kenneth.young@mohreng.com
API 17N working groups
Feasibility and Conceptual Design

• Core Tasks
– R&M specification tasks at this stage. How should they be performed
– What Feasibility and concept design tasks to achieve reliable system
– Collation of information for Assurance (who what how)
• Tasks associated with Implementation of Verification and Analysis
– What verification/validation tasks need to be addressed at this stage
– What tools, data and methods are available or could be used
– What tests need to be performed at this stage.
• Implement Reliability Management tasks
– Reliability Planning and Project risk management
– Supply chain tasks / issues to be addressed at this stage
– Design change/life cycle transition issues to be addressed
• Activities which sustain reliability capability in the long term
• Integration and Interfaces
• Organisational Issues specific to this phase
Front End Engineering Design

1. Core Tasks
1. R&M specification tasks at this stage. How should they be performed
2. What FEED tasks to make systems achieve required reliability
3. Collation of information for Assurance (who what how)
2. Tasks associated with Implementation of Verification and Analysis
1. What verification/validation tasks need to be addressed at this stage
2. What tools, data and methods are available or could be used
3. What tests need to be performed at this stage.
3. Implement Reliability Management tasks
1. Reliability Planning and Project risk management
2. Supply chain tasks / issues to be addressed at this stage
3. Design change/life cycle transition issues to be addressed
4. Activities which sustain reliability capability in the long term
5. Integration and Interfaces
6. Organisational Issues specific to this phase
Detail Design
1. Core Tasks
1. R&M specification tasks for this phase. How should they be performed
2. What detail design tasks to achieve reliable system
Manufacture
1. Core Tasks
1. R&M specification tasks. How should they be performed?
2. What Manufacturing tasks to make systems achieve required reliability
Installation and Commissioning

• Core Tasks
– R&M specification. How should they be performed
– What I&C tasks to make systems achieve required reliability
– Collation of information for Assurance (who, what, how)
Operation
1. Core Tasks
1. R&M specification tasks. How should they be performed
2. What maintenance and Operation tasks to make systems achieve required
reliability
3. Collation of information for Assurance (who, what, how)
Pretender and tendering

• Core Tasks
– R&M specification tasks at this stage. How should they be performed
– What planned designs to achieve reliable system
– Collation of information for Assurance (who what how)
• Integration and Interfaces
Long term Investments in Reliability

1. What Organisational learning and knowledge management tasks do we
need to perform
1. Should success/failure knowledge be collated and shared if so how?
2. What knowledge needs to be collated
3. What is the best way of distributing and communicating success /failure
knowledge
4. What tools do we need for this
2. What education and training issues need to be addressed and at what stage
in the project life cycle
1. Who needs to be trained
2. What sort of training
3. What level of competence
3. What sort of R&D should be performed to support and sustain development
of reliable products, reliability assessments and key reliability management
processes
Organisational Issues
• How should Reliability teams be integrated into projects
– Distributed model ?
– Centralised Model?
– Roles responsibilities and team structures at each phase
Distributed CentralisedModel
Model
DistributedModel
Model Centralised
1.1. Wider
Widercoverage
coverageofofreliability
reliabilitybecause
because 1.1. Disciplinesneed
Disciplines needless
lessspecialist
specialist
all disciplines involved reliabilitytraining
reliability trainingbutbut
all disciplines involved
2.2. Potentially
Potentiallyprovides
providesgreater
greater 2.2. Potentiallyreduces
Potentially reducesorganisational
organisational
organisational redundancy.Requires
Requiresconcentration
concentrationofof
organisational redundancybut
redundancy butrequires
requires redundancy.
reliabilityknowledge
knowledgeininaafew fewexperts
experts
all disciplines to be trained in reliability
all disciplines to be trained in reliability reliability
engineering
engineeringand andrisk
riskmanagement.
management. 3.3. Largerteam
Larger teamofofreliability
reliabilityspecialists
specialists
3.3. Smaller needed to execute reliability
Smaller team of reliabilityspecialists
team of reliability specialists needed to execute reliability
requirementswith withadequate
adequatecoverage.
coverage.
who’s
who’s role is more facilitationthan
role is more facilitation than requirements
execution
execution 4.4. Communicationwithin
Communication withinReliability
Reliability
4.4. Communication Groupisiseasier,
easier,but
butmore
moredemanding
demanding
Communicationbetween betweendisciplines
disciplines Group
to communicate reliability actionstoto
and
andreliability
reliabilitygroup
groupisismore
more to communicate reliability actions
challenging, disciplines.
challenging,but butactions
actionsare
arerecognised
recognised disciplines.
understood
understood 5.5. Canaccommodate
Can accommodategreater greaterdegree
degreeofof
5.5. Requires uncertaintyand andcomplexity
complexityinin
Requiressimpler
simplermodels
modelsandandclear
clear uncertainty
decision rules
decision
decisionrules
rulestotoprovide
provideconsistency.
consistency. decision rules
Reliability Engineering
Risk Management Centre
Subsea Reliability
Recommended Practice
API 17N RP
J E Strutt
Agenda
• Prior work on Subsea reliability carried out
by Cranfield for BP
– Background
– Motivation and barriers to reliability
– Reliability Strategies
– Key Reliability Processes
– Organisational issues
The BP Reliability
Strategy
What it is and why it was needed
Motivation for the Subsea

Reliability Strategy
Project Manager
The project is on time and

within budget. That’s great!
The Latest Project but will the system work?
Why Subsea Delivery Managers and Engineers

Should be concerned about Systems Reliability
Foinaven
Schiehallion
Subsea Delivery Manager
Troika
Reliability Strategy Overview

• 2 years ago BP engaged Cranfield to assist with the set up of
an overlying reliability strategy for its subsea sector
• First task in developing a reliability strategy was to understand

what was impeding implementation
• Strategy was formulated based on understanding and
developing the processes that deliver reliability
• Principles are currently being implemented within
– Gulf of Mexico Thunder horse project
– UKCS Federal Subsea Hardware Contracts
– Angola block 18 project
• Reliability Capability has become a key part of contract

evaluation criteria
Barriers To Implementation
of a Reliability Strategy
• Very poor Industry awareness of the discipline
• Few customers asked specifically for reliability
• Major factors appeared to be
1. Business Focus on CAPEX causing disconnection between reliability

and good business risk management
– High costs of analysis and testing with
– No perception of the value of reliability
2. Varying perceptions of how reliability is achieved.
– A dominant belief is that good quality management will deliver
product reliability
3. Lack of good subsea reliability data
4. Lack of predictive capability in reliability assessment tools
– Many engineers in the industry felt there was little point in
performing analysis
– Tools and data are particular weak in terms of influence of design.
Manufacture, environment and usage variables on reliability. i.e.
Good design management does not influence the reliability when
reliability is based on historical failure data
What is Reliability
• Technical Definition
Reliability is the ability of a product or system to perform
its required functions, without failure, in the specified
environment under the specified operating conditions of
use for the time required
Ability is usually defined as a probability

RELIABILITY
RELIABILITY==PROBABILITY
PROBABILITYOFOFNOT
NOTFAILING
FAILING
RELIABILITY
RELIABILITY==11--PROBABILITY
PROBABILITYOF
OFFAILURE
FAILURE
R(t)
R(t)== 11-- F(t)
F(t)
R(t)
R(t)==exp
exp(-λ.t)
(-λ.t)
F(t)
F(t)==11--exp
exp(-λ.t)
(-λ.t)
λλ isisthe
thefailure
failurerate
rate
What is Availability
Reliability Goal: To stop
the system from failing
WORKING 1
State tr tf tr tf tr
FAILED 0
Maintainability Goal: to time

restore system quickly
The
Theability
abilityof
ofan
anitem
itemtotobe
beininaastate
statetotoperform
performaarequired
requiredfunction
function
under
undergiven
givenconditions,
conditions,atataagiven
giveninstant
instantinintime
timeor
orover
overaagiven
given
interval,
interval,assuming
assumingthat
thatthe
therequired
requiredexternal
externalresources
resourcesare
areprovided
provided
(BS
(BS4778)
4778)
A=
Uptime
=
MTBF Steady state
Uptime + Downtime MTBF + MTTR
Availability
Ap = production availability:
A0 = Operational Availability: includes all contributions to down time
Ai = Intrinsic Availability : includes only down time under design control
Reliability vs. Availability

Deep water Operators need high levels of production
availability to generate return on investment (availability
directly relates to cash-flow)
BUT
Availability can be achieved in 2 ways

1. Extend maintenance free operating period (reliability)
2. Reduce time to restore system (maintainability)
As the water depth increases there is increasing value in

driving for reliability rather than maintainability to achieve
availability. Defined minimum periods of failure free
operation (MFFOPs) are good for business.
What Reliability Really Means

Technically:
Reliability means the Probability of not Failing in
operation
BUT
To make reliable products we must understand the
process that delivers reliability
In Reality:
Reliability measures how well you are meeting
your business and ethical objectives
Operator’s Goals
Reliability does not appear in corporate Goals
GOALS IN PROJECTS:
High level goals are defined by business and ethical
requirements, such as:
• Cost and Delivery
• Health and Safety
• Environment
Plus
The large number of System Design and Operability
requirements that the design teams have to meet.
These must not conflict with the high level business goals.
Where does Reliability Figure

Affordable Delivered To
DE
price Schedule
LI
ST
V ER
O
C
Y
RELIABILITY
Means
Making the System work …. and Safely!
Managing Reliability in Projects

This is not a trivial task because you need to ensure
that all the system goals are met while keeping to
cost and delivery
De
st liv e Most projects can achieve Cost and Delivery goals.
Co ry Only the best teams can successfully deliver
Reliability to competitive Cost and Delivery goals
Reliability
System
Goals
Does Reliability add value?

• Other industrial sectors believe so
– UK MoD are insisting on an R&M case to be
delivered with the product in major defence
development projects
– UK Aircraft manufacturers are investing in the
development of the Ultra Reliable Aircraft
– Automotive Vehicle manufacturers are
imposing reliability requirements on their
suppliers to provide greater product reliability
for their customers
In the Automotive Industry
Improved Business
position
Impact of Reliability
Strategy on Vehicle
Manufacturer Ford Jaguar
From the Global Vehicle Conference IMechE 2000

In Aeronautics
The Ultra Reliable Aircraft Project
• Reliability suddenly increasingly important
– The increasing military customer requirement for risk
transfer to Prime Contractors
– The move to capability/service based contracting and
flow down through the supply chain
– Commercial Airline drive for higher reliability at entry
into service
– Commercial Airline drive for greater availability and
despatch reliability in service
Courtesy of URA project manager

When does Reliability Add Value

• To a rational decision maker reliability will add value when the
risk reduction benefit exceeds the cost of reliability
implementation
• [P2C2 – P1C1] > C0
– Investment Cost = C0
– The Benefit is risk reduction = [P2C2 –P1C1]
• P1C1 = Risk with Reliability Investment
10-1
• P2C2 = Risk with no Reliability Investment
Event Probability
10-2
P2C2
PP1 target
targetprobability
probabilityofoffailure
failure
10-3 1
Cost = C0 CC1 Cost of failure with implementation
Cost of failure with implementation
1
P1C1 PP2 Current
2 Currentprobability
probabilityofoffailure
failure
10-4 CC2 Cost of failure without implementation
Cost of failure without implementation
2
CC0 Cost
Costofofreliability
reliabilityimplementation
implementation
0
Event Consequences
Customer Value of Reliability

Value
ValueIncreases
Increasesas:
as:
PP2 and C2 Increases Do we know what
2 and C2 Increases
PP1 and C1 Decreases risks and reliability we
1 and C1 Decreases
Cost
CostCoCo Decreases
Decreases want to achieve?
Value = Benefits - Costs

Value = P2C2 – P1C1 - C0
Reduce Risks Reduce Costs

Do we know what our
current risk and
reliability levels are? Drive for Effective Drive for Efficient
Implementation Implementation
Customer Value of Reliability

• If this expression is placed into a cash flow
context (time value of money) we see
– Failures which occur early in production have very
much greater impact on NPV than failures which occur
later in life
• This is the origin of the business focus on CAPEX
– Business managers find it hard to justify a definite
upfront expenditure (investment) in reliability as a trade
off against a possible future loss
– The perception of failure consequence is the key factor
• Reliability only starts to be taken seriously when the
cost of failure is so high that it pays to invest in
avoidance strategies
What actually adds Value?

• Reliability improvement reduces risk
• Risk reduction adds Value
• Reliability Analysis reveals the Value
Analysis
Analysisand
andTesting
Testing
Reduces
Reducesuncertainty
uncertainty
Reveals
Revealsthe
theValue
Value
10-1 acceptable 10-1
Uncertainties Large
Event Probability
Event Probability
10-2 10-2
P2C2 P2C2 Uncertainty
10-3 10-3 envelopes
Cost = C0 Cost = C0
P1C1 P1C1
10-4 10-4
Event Consequences Event Consequences

Supplier Reliability Value

• Bid on reliability as well as price and delivery
• Increase likelihood of contract award
– Greater ability to persuade customers to purchase your
products and services rather than those of your
competitors
• Sustained business relationship in the longer term
– Customer pleased with reliability performance.
– Contract renewals and award of next contract
• Reduced warranty costs
• Future incentivisation of reliability in contracts
But only if the customer recognises value in reliability capability
The Aim of the Deepwater Reliability Strategy
Design
Designout
outall
all Foreseeable
Foreseeableearly
earlylife
lifeand
andthrough
throughlife
lifefailures
failures
Early Life Wear out

failures Random failures Failures
Remove
Remove Remove
RemoveororMinimise
Minimise Decommission
Decommission
Past expensive
expensiveEarly
Early foreseeable
foreseeable throughlife
through life before
before
Life Failures failures wear
Life Failures wearout
Breakdown rate
failures out
Subsea Goal
Anticipated Field Life System Life cycle
All
Allwe
weare
areleft
leftwith
withare
arethe
theunforeseeable
unforeseeable(random)
(random)failures
failures
ororwear out failures beyond anticipated field life
wear out failures beyond anticipated field life
How do we get there?

• Two broad categories of Reliability Strategy
– The targeted reliability paradigm BP
BPstrategy
strategybased
basedon
onthis
this
• Reliability Goal setting The key differences
• Control oriented
• Design to meet the reliability goals
– The measured reliability paradigm The Thetraditional

traditionalapproach
approach
• No formal setting of reliability goals
• Reliability analysis based on historical failure data
employed to check acceptable performance
• Focus is justification of design decisions based on
other criteria such as cost and function
The Targeted Reliability Paradigm

• Define the Reliability requirements
– Initiates the reliability strategy
– Arguably the key customer (Operator) capability
• Design to achieve the Reliability requirement

– Arguably the most important supplier capability
• Provide Assurance that the requirements have

been met in advance of operation
– Do we know how to do this?
– An Important business capability for the supplier
– What evidence is acceptable?
The Targeted Reliability Paradigm

Manufacture
Conceptual Design/ FEED
Detail Design
Level 0: Overall System Level

Define Confirm Reliability
Requirements Level 1 Subsystems goals met
Level 2: Subsystems
Level 3: Subsystems
Reliability Assurance
Reliability Allocation Verify design reliability
Allocate reliability and robustness from
Component level
From overall system components level
level through through to overall
Design to achieve system level
subsystems to
required component
component level
reliability
Design for Reliability

Performance
Key Processes Important in Reliability

Core processes
Implement Assurance Define R&M
Implement Management Requirements
Long term Investments
Design for Assure Customer of
R&M Achievement R&M achievement
Verification and Validation

Risk & Reliability
Project Risk Management
Supporting Analysis in design
Processes where Reliability tracking
much of the cost Supply Chain Management
and Analysis
of reliability
implementation Reliability Qualification
Change Management
Testing
goes
Organisational Learning
Education and Training Research & Development

KP1:Defining R&M Requirements

KP Key Reliability Processes
1 Definition of reliability requirements
• Defined the Metrics (SMART requirements) 2 Design to achieve and improve reliability
3 Reliability Assurance
• Process should include selection i.e. Select most reliable 4 Reliability Verification and Validation
5 Risk and reliability analysis in design
concept consistent with safety, environment, cost and 6 Performance tracking and analysis
7 Reliability Qualification testing
delivery goals 8 Project risk management
9 Supply chain Management
10 Management of Change
• Reliability requirements should be risk based: 11 Organisational Learning
12 Education and Training
– HSE risks 13 Research and Development
– Environmental risks
– Financial risks
• Link to business requirements (tools?)
• Link to function and performance specification (procedure?)
• Allocation from high level goals to components (tools?)
• Defining reliability requirements is a key capability for the
end customer
Unless
Unlessthis
thisisisin
inplace
placethe
thecustomer
customershould
shouldnotnot
expect
expectreliability
reliabilitytotobe
beachieved
achievedin
inearly
earlylife
life
Reliability and Functional Requirement
• Reliability is as fundamental a design

requirement as function and performance
• For every Functional requirement a Reliability
requirement can (in principle) be specified
– Function: Seal A must not leak
– Reliability: P(seal A does not leak) > 0.99
• For every Performance requirement a Reliability

requirement can (in principle) be specified
– Function: Valve must close in less than 10 seconds
– Reliability: P(time to close < 10) > 0.99
But
Butwe
weneed
needto
todefine
definehow
howreliable
reliableititneeds
needsto
tobe
be
MFFOP as Requirements
• MFFOP Minimum Failure Free Operating Period
• Dr M.T. Todinov at RERMC Cranfield has built new MFFOP

tools
• How do we deal with this parameter? In principle:

– Define what MFFOP you want (e.g. MFFOP = 5 yrs)
– Define what Probability of failure before MFFOP is acceptable (P*)
– This must be risk based
– Calculate the MTBF needed to deliver (P*, FFOP)
Example 1 Example 2
FFOP 25 yr FFOP 3 yr
P* 0.1 P* 0.01
MTBF* 164 yr MTBF* 220 yr
How do we obtain P*?

• P* is informed by the business risk. It is as
high or as low as the business can tolerate
Risk What the customer can afford to pay
P* = =
RI
SK
Consequences what the customer would have to pay
-0
10 A
CC
EP
10-1 TA
PROBABILITY
N
CE
CR 1
10-2 IT F(t)
ER 10-1
IA 10-2
10-3 10-3
Maximum Allowable FFOP
P* 10-4
10-4 probability of failure 10-5
10-6
10-5 10-7
10-8
10-9
10-6
0
t (month)
1 0 20 40 60 80 100
10 102 103 104 105 106
CONSEQUENCE MEASURE
KP2: Design for Reliability

• The focus is on decision making and Design
action
– to achieve required reliability or availability
– to improve reliability and/or reduce risk
• Application of design for reliability principles

– Simplicity (minimum parts to provide function)
– Functional Clarity
– Unity ( no weak components)
– Robustness (insensitive to variation)
– Reduce vulnerability
– Remove common cause failures (defeat
redundancy)
– Materials selection to avoid degradation processes
This
Thisisiswhat
whatadds
addsvalue
valueto
tothe
thecustomers
customersbusiness
business
KP3: Reliability Assurance

• The process of accumulating evidence that
the design meets reliability requirements
• Document is R&M Case
– Reasoned arguments to justify reliability
assertions made
– If risk of failure is low, R&M Case explains why
it is low (important when there are disagreements
on failure rate)
• Evidence can take different forms:
– Qualitative reasoning ( list of barriers)
– Test data
– Results of analysis and simulation
– Track record of the components
• Assess uncertainty on reliability and
availability
Tell
Tell me
mewhat
whatyou’ve
you’vegot.
got.No
Nocheating!
cheating!Just
JustHonesty!
Honesty!
KP4: Verification and validation

• Verify that reliability processes/ tasks
and plans have been implemented
• Capability Maturity models can be
used as a verification audit of an
organisation’s reliability process
capability
• Validation
– Validate arguments and assertions
– Check soundness of premises used in
arguments
– Validate models and data
– Validate tests
The
Thetruth
truththe
thewhole
wholetruth
truthand
andnothing
nothingbut
butthe
thetruth
truth!!
Bench Marking Reliability Capability
Perceived Value to Customer/Supplier

Proactive, Learning
& Sustaining 5
5
Optimised 5 CMM Capability
Levels
4
4
Managed 4
3
CMM
3
Defined 3 2
2
Repeatable 2
1
1
Initial 1 Perceived Effort by Customer/Supplier
Reactive &
Ad hoc
Required Minimum Capability = 4
NN Level
Level Characterised
Characterisedby
by Approach
Approach
55 Optimised
Optimised Adaptive
Adaptiveprocesses
processes pro-active
pro-active
44 Managed
Managed Influences
Influencesdesign
design
33 Defined
Defined Measured,
Measured, Openloop
Open loop
22 Repeatable
Repeatable Prescriptive
Prescriptive
11 Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled Ad
Adhoc
hoc re-active
re-active
For
ForBP
BPthis
thisisisaakey
keypart
partof
ofthe
theverification
verificationprocess
process
KP5: Risk and reliability analysis

• Analyses should inform design
• Qualitative and quantitative tools
• Identification and Assessment
• Main tools in current use are:
– Availability RAM analysis / Availability simulations
– FMECA – The main stay for identification and semi-
quantitative risk analysis
– FTA/RBD useful for system focus
• Advanced Tools
– Load strength interference (S-R analysis)
– Structural reliability
– Etc.
• Many tools exist but most are rarely used
This
Thisisiswhere
whereaalot lotof
ofeffort
effortgoes
goesbut
butititonly
onlyadds
adds
value
valueififititisisinfluencing
influencingdesign
designreliability
reliability
KP6: Performance tracking & analysis
1. Operators must provide access to failure information and

contribute to collective data analysis
2. Establish philosophy for data collection and develop
robust Field Performance Reporting systems
3. Consider use of condition monitoring and inspection as
an input to the process
4. Track customer failures and understand how they occur
5. Analyse FPR data for Reliability demonstrations and use
to inform reliability improvement strategy
6. Develop data collection strategy for each field
development project
7. Input this data to organisational learning process (KP11)
Track
Trackwhat
whatfails
failswhen
whenand
andhow.
how.This
Thisisisthe
theprocess
processthat
that
will
willbuild
buildup
upthe
thedata
databases
basesfor
forthe
theindustry
industrytotouse
use
KP7: Reliability Qualification Testing

• This subsea industry does not do much of this
• The purpose of reliability testing is to explore and validate
performance characteristics and failure processes
• Reliability testing has several goals:
– Identification of failure modes in products
– Verification of failure modes identified in FMECA activities
– Model validation (for Physics of Failure models)
– Learning about physical failure mechanisms where the mechanism is
poorly understood
– Demonstrating reliability and reliability improvements from design
change
– Generation of reliability and product life data
– Qualification of the product
• Reliability testing includes a number of highly specialised methods
for Accelerated Life Testing (ALT), Highly Accelerated Life
Testing (HALT) Step Stress Testing (SST) etc Test components
This
Thiscan
canrun
runup
upcosts
costsbut
butititisisdirect
directand
andtangible
tangibleand
and
often
oftenprovides
providesthe
themost
mostbelievable
believableevidence
evidence
KP8: Project Risk Management

• Develop Reliability plans
• Establish plan early and update through life
• Assess risks in plan implementation
• Ensure acceptable balance between product
risks and Project risks
• Ensure that there are sufficient Resources
– Sufficient Quality thinking time!
– Competent staff
• knowledgeable and experienced
Early
Earlyplanning
planningand
andupdating
updatingof
ofreliability
reliabilityactivities
activitiesisis
crucial.
crucial.Need
Needto
toFront
Frontload
loadthe
thedesign
designeffort
effort
KP9: Supply Chain Management

• It is often found that high-level systems failures with
significant consequences originate from the failure of minor
bought in components in the system.
• Systems designer/integrators must understand the
significance of the risk potential of all components, including
minor components supplied by 2nd and 3rd tier suppliers.
• Reliability requirements may need to be allocated down to all
components including Commercial Off the Shelf Systems
(COTS) and bought-in items.
• Suppliers are expected to be capable of managing the various
interfaces between the customers and suppliers down the
supply chain.
• Suppliers must invest effort with customers to understand
– Impact of supplied component reliability on system reliability
– Interfacing risks and dependencies
Ensure
Ensureno
no“genetic”
“genetic”defects
defectsin
inthe
thesystem
system
KP10: Management of Change

• Consider the impact of life cycle transitions
on reliability
• ID and assess design, manufacturing,
environmental and operational differences
likely to affect reliability
• ID changes needed to improve reliability
and meet RAM goals
• Implement changes early in the design life
cycle
• Monitor and assess change orders
What
Whatisisdifferent
differentthis
thistime
timeififnot
notaddressed
addressedin
indesign
design
and
andmanufacture
manufacturecancancause
causesystem
systemfailure
failure
KP11: Organisational Learning

• Analysis of failure information
– convert to organisational knowledge to improve
product reliability.
• Feed back of information to the whole
organisation involved in design and system
integration
• understand the lessons to be learned from
failure.
• Develop your Company
– Human Capital and
– Structural Capital
The
Thekey
keyto
tolevel
level55capability:
capability:sustaining
sustainingand
andimproving
improving
reliability
reliabilityperformance
performanceinto
intothe
thefuture
future
KP12: Education &Training

• knowledge of how design and the
design processes can prevent failure.
• Understand technical failure
mechanisms and at how the
organisation and human factors cause
errors and mistakes.
• Understand and become proficient in
risk, reliability assessment and risk
management tools
The
Theoutput
outputisisonly
onlyas
asgood
goodas
asthe
theinput!
input!
KP13: Research & Development

• R&D programs support and inform the reliability
strategy of the organisation
• R&D programmes are dictated by the company's
overall business strategy.
• Capable organisations will use R&D as a key input to
product, management and tool development.
• Key areas where research is currently necessary in
the reliability field includes:
– Develop of reliability assessment tools
– Predictive tools linking design manufacture usage and
environment to product reliability
– Development of improved data and data collection
methods
– Development of reliability testing methods/tools
– Development of novel products with high levels of
fault and damage tolerance and reliability
Keep
Keepahead
aheadof
ofthe
thepack!
pack!
Design for Reliability Achievement

• Important to distinguish between
– Field development projects and
– Product development projects
• Insufficient lead time in FD projects to improve product reliability
• Operators must work with suppliers to anticipate future product requirements
Reliability Improvement Reliability
Lead time Assurance
Design for Reliability process

Operators Field Design
Anticipation of Operating experience
Development Feasibility Manufacture
future need Failures
Projects Assembly
Customer needs
customer aware
Product order
Product delivery
Repairs/replacements
Repairs/replacements
Anticipate
Feedback &
Learning
Suppliers Product
Development Design Development and
Projects Manufacture
Reliability Assurance of
Products in Development
Reliability Growth
Design for Reliability process

Subsea Projects
•• Product
ProductDevelopment
Developmentprojects
projects
–– Feasibility
Feasibilitystudies
studies
–– Conceptual
Conceptualdesign
design
–– Front Develop reliable products
FrontEnd
EndEngineering
Engineering
–– Detail
Detaildesign
design
–– Manufacture
Manufacture
–– TestÆCorrect
Test ÆCorrect •• Field
–– Change FieldDevelopment
Developmentprojects
projects
ChangeDesign
Design –– Feasibility
Feasibilitystudies
studies
–– Conceptual
Conceptualdesign
design
•• Product
ProductImprovement
Improvement Reliability –– Front
FrontEnd
EndEngineering
Engineering
–– Feasibility
Feasibility Performance –– Detail
Detaildesign
design
–– Design
Designchange
change
Feedback & –– Manufacture/assembly
Manufacture/assembly
–– Product TestÆ
ProductTest ÆCorrect
Correct Learning –– Installation/Commissioning
–– Manufacture Installation/Commissioning
Manufacture –– Operation
Operation
–– Modification
Modification
–– Decommissioning/removal
Decommissioning/removal
Summary
• A sustainable subsea reliability strategy will require Oil Companies, their
contractors and suppliers to become more efficient and effective in
reliability Management. This calls for:
9 Greater Awareness of the value of reliability to the business
9 Greater commitment to reliability as a business goal
9 Development of Capability in reliability
Ö Key Process and tools
Ö Organizational learning
• Individual company efforts to develop their reliability strategy will be
constrained by the varying requirements across the market place.
• Reliability must involve the whole supply chain network. The subsea sector
must adopt a common strategy.
• The API standard on reliability will define the reliability strategy for the
sector as a whole:
9 Buy in by all organizations is crucial
9 Common vision
9 Agreed processes and methods
Subsea Reliability Study v2 8/4/03 10:20 am Page 1
The BP Subsea
Reliability Strategy
A guide for BP leaders
“IT MUST WORK”
Final Rev 0, Dec 2002

Contents
Foreword and Introduction 3
Introduction 4
Our Goal 5
How we achieve It 5
What is the prize? 6
What the Strategy provides 5
How we measure ourselves 7
Reliability Strategy Processes 8
Definition of Reliability Requirements 9
Risk and Reliability Analysis in Design 10
Reliability Assurance 11
Reliability Verification, Validation and Benchmarking 12
Project Risk Management 13
Reliability and Qualification Testing 14
Performance Tracking and Analysis 15
Supply Chain Management 16
Management of Change 17

Reliability Improvement and Risk Reduction 18
Organisational Learning and Knowledge Management 19
Education and Training in Reliability 20
Reliability Research and Development 21
Glossary 22
Contact List 23
2
Foreword
A large portion of BP's future growth is invested in deepwater and particularly

subsea equipment and operations. It is absolutely critical, if we are to achieve our
Great Operator aspiration, that our subsea equipment operates with the highest
possible reliability. Upstream Technology and the Business Units have collaborated
with academia and outside industries to develop a set of reliability processes which
are embodied in the attached handbook. It is imperative that we start to embed
these processes in all our subsea projects and operations and continue to learn,
improve and update our knowledge of how to improve reliability of critical
components.
Ian Vann
GVP and Technology Director
3
Introduction
As we push new developments into deeper waters and more remote areas,
Subsea will form an increasing proportion of our total production, particularly in the
growth areas, and by 2005 it will be nearly 20% of the total.
In the last decade, BP’s and the industry’s reliability record for Subsea Production
has been mixed and in some cases below expectations resulting in low initial
operating efficiencies and high costs of remedial works. As we go deeper and to
more remote locations the price of failure will be unacceptably higher.
To meet our GO Team targets of increasing First Year Operability, lower Capex and
avoidance of project “wrecks” we need to have a step change in the Reliability of
Subsea Systems. This handbook brings together and summarises the work
completed over the last 18 months to achieve this.
The BP Subsea Reliability Strategy is a long term, multi level program based on
good practice from other industries where high reliability is now taken for granted.
It has been adapted in conjunction with Cranfield University to suit our industry
using feedback from benchmark projects in the North Sea and the Gulf of Mexico.
We now need to implement the strategy across all our projects and operations in
the next 18 months.
Achieving a step change in Subsea Reliability cannot be done overnight. While

there are short term wins which we must target, the overall program is long term
and requires changes and improvements in process and behaviours similar to the
cultural changes that have vastly improved our safety performance in the last 3
years. As such we have adapted the format of the GHSER booklets to promote our
13 key processes for Subsea Reliability in this booklet. This is aimed at Managers
and Leaders of teams engineering new and operating existing subsea systems who
we would expect to implement the strategy by progressively adopting the 13 key
process in this document.
While many of the processes are already common practice, some are not and will
involve additional training and procedures. To do this successfully, the key attribute
must be communication, education and persuasion at all levels with equipment
suppliers, engineering contractors/installers, industry and government organisations
and most importantly with our partners. We are unlikely to achieve our ambitions
alone – we must take industry along with us to achieve the cultural change we have
set out.
Please share this Strategy with your teams, suppliers and contractors and play an
active role in the Subsea Performance Network that will continue to develop and
promote the Strategy at all levels. Your feedback is important.
David A. Brookes
4
Our goal
BP will be distinctive in our pursuit of enhancing the reliability of subsea technology

to ensure that it is perceived as the best and most cost effective field development
solution.
How we achieve it
The implementation of a reliability improvement strategy on BP projects is based

on the introduction of reliability into subsea system requirements. BP will demand
greater assurance from suppliers that a known level of reliability will be achieved.
This will influence the design process and the way reliability is managed during
design and manufacture in the subsea industry. It will also influence the way
systems are selected with increased emphasis placed on a supplier’s reliability
management capability.
The strategy targets three groups of processes that it identifies as being essential
components to a well defined reliability engineering and risk management
capability. These are defined below.
In all, these three groups account for thirteen key processes.
IDENTIFY Definition of Reliability Requirements

Risk and Reliability Analysis in Design
IMPLEMENT Reliability Verification, Validation and Benchmarking

Reliability and Qualification Testing
Performance Tracking and Analysis
Supply Chain Management
Management of Change
Reliability Improvement and Risk Reduction
INVEST Organisational Learning and Knowledge Management

Education and Training in Reliability
Reliability Research and Development
Figure 1. The Thirteen Key Reliability Processes.
The first group of processes, ‘Identify’, is used to develop a project specific

strategy. System reliability requirements are defined. Specific reliability tasks and
activities are identified to meet these requirements and form part of an overall
reliability plan to deliver against strategy expectations.
The project specific reliability plan is executed in the second, ‘Implement’ group of
processes. These processes specifically relate to the management of risks during
the project life cycle and assurance that these risks are being either eliminated or
reduced.
5
The third and final group of processes, ‘Invest’, is used to continually improve the
success of the strategy on current and future projects. As such, the processes
within this group are shared between the project and the Subsea Performance
Network. A sustained investment in learning and education is required in order to
effect a step change in reliability. To this effect, BP has made a long term
commitment to support Reliability Research and Development at Cranfield
University’s Centre for Risk and Reliability Engineering.
Each of the thirteen processes can be linked to stages within the BP Capital Value
Process. These links are made in the section on Reliability Strategy Processes. The
‘Identify’ group of processes is shown against the CVP process in Figure 2 below.
Front Loading
CVP Stages APPRAISE SELECT DEFINE EXECUTE OPERATE
Reliability Processes
1 Define Requirements
1 Allocate Requirements
2 Reliability Analysis
2 Reliability Assurance
R&M Case R&M Case R&M Case R&M Case R&M Case
Rev 1 Rev 2 Rev 3 Rev 4 Rev 5
Figure 2. CVP Process
What is the Prize?
Effective management processes that fulfil the intent of the Reliability Expectations
will result in enhanced project performance, protection of our group reputation,
improvement of our liability profile, and a distinctive leadership position in our
industry.
What the Strategy provides

The strategy provides a broad-based set of Expectations integrated into thirteen
processes. This framework will help BP leaders focus on reliability needs, forecast
and allocate resources, set direction for reliability activities, and consistently deliver
improved reliability performance throughout the project life cycle.
Figure 3. shows the generic life cycle of a subsea system and how reliability
activities form a learning loop that can continuously improve reliability by increasing
the understanding of failure.
6
Design
Inspection/
Maintainance
Failure Prototyping
Lessons Mode
Learnt Prediction
Trend Research &

Analsis Development
Supplier's
Operation understanding Manufacture
of failure
Data Accelerated
Collection Lift Testing
Education Hazard
& Manage-
Training ment
Installation FAT
SIT
Figure 3. Continuous Improvement
All subsea team leaders must communicate the Reliability Expectations to their
teams and are accountable for delivery of Reliability performance. Each Project
shall have documented systems in place to meet the Expectations, including
justification, where necessary why certain Expectations are not applicable to that
Project.
How we measure ourselves
Where we would like to be
Level 5 CONTINUOUS
Optimised Reliability IMPROVEMENT
Level 4 PREDICTABLE
Managed Reliability RELIABILITY
Level 3 CONSISTANT
Defined Reliability RELIABILITY
Level 2 Where we are now

Repeatable Reliability
Level 1
Initial Reliability
Figure 4. How we measure ourselves
We shall measure ourselves, our suppliers and contractors in all of the Thirteen Key
processes. This we shall do periodically during audits to measure continual
improvement in our processes.
Moving from where we are now to our target level will require action on all areas of
our 13 processes which are set out in the section ‘Reliability Strategy Processes’
7
Reliability Strategy Processes
Definition of Reliability Requirements
Reliability Verification, Validation

and Benchmarking

Reliability Improvement
and Risk Reduction
Organisational Learning and

Knowledge Management
8
Definition of Reliability Requirements
BP will work with its key subsea Suppliers and Contractors to define reliability
requirements for its subsea developments. The first and most important stage
involves a formal setting of system reliability requirements as part of the Appraise
stage of a project.
The purpose of the reliability requirements is to minimise BP’s health, safety,
environmental and business risks.
Reliability requirements can be both qualitative and quantitative. Numerical or
quantitative requirements are set by determining the system hazard rate that
guarantees a specified minimum failure-free operating period (MFFOP) so that the
probability of premature failure is below an agreed limit.
MFFOP is used in preference of Mean Time To Failure, MTTF because in the case
of non-constant hazard rate the MTTF measure can be misleading.
Minimum Failure Free Operation Period with a
maximum probability of premature failure
Start of Time
Operation
Figure 5. MFFOP reliability requirements – a combination of a specified MFFOP

interval and a maximum acceptable probability of premature failure.
Another advantage of the MFFOP approach is that it provides a direct link between
reliability requirements and risk (health, safety, environmental and financial). This
link can for example be made in the requirements by calculating the maximum
acceptable probability of premature failure from the maximum acceptable losses
(risk) divided by the cost of the consequences from failure.
During Project Select and Define stages, both Project and Suppliers will be
expected to allocate reliability requirements for selected architecture designs down
to system and component level. It is expected that this would include defining and
imposing reliability requirements down the supply chain.
Attention will generally be placed on reliability requirements which ensure high
levels of production in the early life of a field
Expectations
1.1 Reliability requirements will be defined very early in the design cycle at
concept development stage and then refined during Front End Engineering
Design (FEED).
1.2 Reliability requirements will normally be set at system level to meet corporate
safety and business goals.
1.3 Reliability requirements will be documented.
1.4 Suppliers and contractors shall develop a plan to implement the strategy and
achieve the required reliability targets.
1.5 Suppliers and contractors shall translate system level reliability requirements
to subsystems and components using a reliability allocation process.
Reliability Requirements will normally specify:
Function, performance, production profile.
Minimum failure free operating period (MFFOP), usually field life.
Maximum acceptable level of the probability of premature failure (the probability
that the time to failure will be smaller than the specified MFFOP).
Expected external environment, expected internal environment including
production fluid composition, temperature, pressure and system usage.
9
The purpose of risk and reliability analysis it to inform project decision making and
design improvement. Risk and reliability analysis tools will be used to identify
system or component failure modes with possible adverse consequences. From
these, decisions shall be made about design changes to improve reliability.
Expectations
2.1 Team Leaders will be expected to put into place and promote the use of risk
and reliability analysis processes to identify failures associated with BP’s
systems.
2.2 Suppliers will be expected to possess a high level of competence in:
Identification of system failure modes and mechanisms (FMECA/TRAP)
during project Select and Define stages.
Formal risk analysis.
Predicting reliability of manufactured and assembled products.
Predicting and assessing system reliability.
Simulation of system availability.
2.3 Analyses should be applied as early as possible during the design process so
that they can be used to inform decision-making and identify where reliability
improvements are needed.
2.4 Analyses should be capable of identifying and assessing:
Susceptibility to the various forms of damage.
Vulnerability and tolerance to damage.
Human error in manufacture, assembly or installation.
Common cause failure.
2.5 Analyses should refer to predictions based on expected service in addition to

historical experience of failures.
2.6 High level expectations on risk and reliability should be referenced in project
approval documentation.
2.7 Risk and reliability assessments should be updated at specified intervals and
as changes are planned.
The available risk and reliability analysis tools will generally include:
Qualitative Tools:
Failure Modes, Effects and Criticality Assessment (FMECA).
Technical Risk Assurance Process (TRAP).
Quantitative Tools:
Fault Tree Analysis (FTA).
Event Tree Analysis (ETA).
Load-Strength Interference.
Reliability Block Diagrams (RBD).
System Availability Simulation.
10
Contractors and suppliers will be expected to provide documentary evidence during

the Execute stage to assure BP that the required reliability can be and will be
achieved. This formal reliability assurance process will require the collation and the
preparation of a formal document called a Reliability and Maintainability (R&M)
Case.
The R&M case is a living document which develops over the life cycle of the
system. It summarises the design reliability requirements and references the
evidence needed to support the eventual reliability assertions made at the end of
the design to meet the specified BP reliability requirements. The R&M case will be
validated through the Operate stage.
Expectations
3.1 The R&M case is a living document which is built up over time (Concept
design, Front End Engineering Design, Detail Design, Manufacture, Operation
and Decommissioning) to refer to relevant evidence of reliability achievements
and reliability assertions.
3.2 BP team and discipline leaders should establish the R&M Assurance Policy
and Acceptance criteria for the case.
3.3 Contractors and suppliers are expected to prepare the R&M evidence, build
the R&M Case and submit the R&M Case on completion of the project.
3.4 BP Engineers and reliability specialists evaluate the R&M Case throughout the
life cycle of the design and beyond into operations.
3.5 The R&M Case will typically refer to information covering:
System Description.
BP’s Reliability Requirements.
Key areas of R&M risk in the product and manufacturing processes.
Plans and Strategy for reliability achievement.
Evidence.
Assertions.
Designers’ assumptions and limitations on use.
Conclusions and recommendations.
3.6 The key part of the R&M Case will be the reference to evidence of reliability
achievement which will generally take the form of:
Data related to prior field performance.
Reliability analyses, calculations and simulations.
Expert opinion.
Tests.
11
Reliability Verification, Validation and

Benchmarking
BP will assess the capabilities and competencies of our contractors and suppliers
to perform work on our behalf. We will work together with them to ensure our
Reliability Requirements are met.
Contractors and suppliers shall develop internal processes for the verification,
validation and bench marking of their reliability performance through the project
Execute stage.
Expectations
4.1 Design teams will verify all data and validate all models used for reliability
assessment.
4.2 Reliability data used for analyses will be obtained from valid sources and
databases.
4.3 BP or a BP appointed third party shall periodically audit design teams to verify
the following:
All design assumptions, reliability models and data are valid.
All required processes and activities have been completed.
The audit shall also Benchmark the capability of the organisation to perform
against the key BP reliability processes. This information will be shared
within the BP organisation.
12
Project risk management is a continuous process throughout the Select, Define

and Execute stages which provides assurance that product reliability will not be
compromised by competing cost and schedule goals.
It is necessary to identify risks associated with project tasks and schedules,

including those that impact reliability, and to define risk reduction and mitigation
responses to prevent product reliability being compromised. It is believed that the
key to delivering product reliability to cost and schedule is front loading the design
effort.
Expectations
5.1 Reliability tasks are identified and sufficiently resourced early in project life
cycle.
5.2 Potential project risks are identified and assessments made of the potential
impact on project schedule, the need to increase resources and the need to
increase cost to maintain function, performance or reliability.
5.3 Risks associated with contractor and procurement activities in BP’s
businesses are identified, communicated and managed.
5.4 Potential product risks are identified and assessments made of the increased
uncertainty in product reliability and hence likelihood of failure.
13
Reliability and qualification testing has particular importance in reliability assurance.

Testing is necessary to explore and validate performance characteristics and failure
processes and is performed during the Execute stage.
In qualification testing the goal is to confirm that specified performance goals can
be met. Reliability testing, differs in that it involves testing equipment beyond
minimum industry standards to determine actual failure boundaries. Reliability
testing uses a number of highly specialised methods to improve knowledge of
failure mechanisms and these are fed back in to the reliability assurance process.
Expectations
6.1 All products used on subsea systems shall be qualified and demonstrated to
meet function and performance requirements.
6.2 BP engineers, contractors and suppliers shall develop an understanding of
testing requirements for key systems and components.
6.3 Tests are performed throughout the design and development process to
support reliability assurance.
6.4 Failure modes identified through reliability analysis are tested for validity.
6.5 Known failure mechanisms are validated.
6.6 Tests are developed to validate physics of failure models or to develop
improved understanding about physical failure mechanisms especially where
the physical failure mechanism is poorly understood.
6.7 Reliability assessments arising from design changes are validated.
6.8 Reliability and product life data are generated.
Specific reliability testing methods available include:

Accelerated Life Testing (ALT).
Highly Accelerated Life Testing (HALT).
Step Stress Testing (SST).
Environment Stress Screening (ESS).
Highly Accelerated Stress Screening (HASS).
14
Tracking the reliability performance of products and systems and analysing the data
to generate useful reliability metrics is a fundamental input to reliability
management.
As well as a means of organisational learning, the process provides final validation

of system and component reliability and is therefore a long term measure of
reliability improvement. The process involves communication between BP and its
suppliers to share equipment field performance data throughout product life.
Expectations
7.1 BP and its suppliers and contractors shall collaborate in the development of
field performance reporting systems. Data shall be collected on systems,
component performance and failures.
7.2 Data shall be analysed and used to support reliability demonstration and to
inform reliability improvement. Where appropriate, failures shall be subjected
to root cause analysis and recorded in a lessons learned database.
7.3 Reliability performance is tracked over time to assess hazard rates which are
bench-marked from project to project to demonstrate long term reliability
improvement.
7.4 Suppliers shall possess data management and interrogation systems and, by
reliability analysis, estimate product reliability for their products and use this
data to demonstrate continual reliability improvement.
7.5 BP and its suppliers and contractors shall collaborate with cross sector
reliability data collection schemes such as OREDA, SIREN and Well Master to
generate generic reliability data bases.
7.6 Suppliers shall track manufacturing defects and failures and implement
corrective actions when failures occur, including improvement of design or
manufacturing processes.
15
Management of reliability throughout the supply chain is a process to ensure that

final product reliability is not compromised by the failure of components supplied by
second and third tier suppliers.
BP, its suppliers and contractors shall have systems in place to cascade reliability
requirements down through the supply chain and ensure that they are met. Supply
chain management will be carried out in the Execute stage.
Expectations
8.1 All first tier suppliers shall have a system in place to allocate reliability
requirements down to all bought-in or subcontracted items.
8.2 All first tier suppliers and contractors shall be capable of managing the various
interfaces throughout the supply chain.
8.3 Pre-qualification, selection and retention criteria are established for work
performed by contractors, suppliers and others.
8.4 Clear deliverables and performance standards are agreed and systems are put
in place to assure reliability, safety and technical compliance.
8.4 Joint venture and alliance partners should have reliability management
systems that are aligned with those of BP, meet legal compliance
requirements and satisfy corporate expectations and targets.
8.4 Suppliers and contractors and shall take steps to minimise the variability in
properties of the same component type sourced from multiple suppliers.
16
Many failures originate from changes that occur during the design and manufacture
of a system, in its operating environment or in its usage. BP and its suppliers and
contractors shall put in place systems for monitoring, assessing and managing all
changes that can occur throughout the system life cycle.
Expectations
9.1 All changes that affect reliability are formally assessed, managed,
documented, communicated and approved.
17

Reliability Improvement
and Risk Reduction
Suppliers and contractors are expected to identify reliability improvement

opportunities at the Define and Execute stages by, for example, eliminating failure
modes, reducing complexity, developing fault tolerant configurations and designing
damage tolerant components. Should it not be possible to eliminate a failure
mode, the risk shall be reduced by reducing the likelihood of occurrence, reducing
the magnitude of the failure consequence, or both.
Expectations
10.1 Suppliers shall develop strategies to increase system reliability by application

of active and passive redundancy, removal of common cause failures and by
improved interface reliability (for example, connectors).
10.2 Suppliers shall develop strategies and research activities to increase product
reliability by reducing the variation (uncertainty) associated with the product
strength and the operational loads.
10.3 Suppliers shall develop strategies and research activities to increase product
reliability for example by reducing design and operational stresses (thermal,
mechanical, chemical) and increasing product strength and tolerance to
degradation processes (fatigue, erosion, corrosion and wear).
10.4 Suppliers shall take action to improve reliability when analyses indicate
unacceptable risks and tests reveal failures.
10.5 Suppliers shall develop systems with small variations in strength (capacity).
10.6 Suppliers shall investigate new technologies which remove high consequence
failure modes.
10.7 Suppliers shall develop stress screening and burn-in test methods to remove
or reduce defects introduced during manufacture and assembly.
10.8 Suppliers shall develop systems and technologies to enable in-service
inspection and monitoring.
10.9 Suppliers shall develop components and mechanisms that are protected from
the environment.
18
Organisational Learning
and Knowledge Management
This process involves the transformation of reliability related data and information
generated by all key processes into organisational learning. This process requires
the collation and analysis of data and the generation of ‘lessons learned’ in to a
knowledge base, with systems in place to integrate the lessons in to improved
practices. Equally important are activities, cultures and systems that support the
proactive dissemination of this knowledge throughout the supply chain.
Expectations
11.1 BP and its suppliers and contractors will work together to understand the root
cause of failure and to collect and convert failure information in to
organisational knowledge.
11.2 BP and its suppliers and contractors will work together to share failure
information to improve product reliability.
19
Education and training in design for reliability is seen to be an important enabling

process in the reliability strategy. Training should include all levels of engineers and
managers in the project organisation with the aim to generate wide understanding
of the reliability strategy, its goals and methods. In addition, design engineers need
to become familiar and proficient in the use of the tools, and understand root cause
failure mechanisms and the impact of organisation and human factors in design.
Expectations
12.1 BP, its suppliers and contractors shall develop in depth knowledge of how
design, at system and product level, and the design process can influence
failure and system reliability.
12.2 BP shall target training at understanding technical failure mechanisms and at
how the organisation and human factors cause errors and mistakes directly
impacting reliability.
12.3 BP shall develop competency requirements in reliability for design engineers,
lead engineers and project managers.
20
Reliability research and development is a process to support and inform the

reliability strategy of BP, its suppliers and contractors. BP has made a long term
commitment to support Reliability Research and Development at Cranfield
University’s Centre for Risk and Reliability Engineering with the goal of developing
tools and methods to support the BP subsea reliability strategy.
Expectations
13.1 BP, its suppliers and contractors shall engage in and use reliability research
and development to input in to product and process development.
Research currently ongoing at the University of Cranfield:

Developing efficient reliability methodologies, models and tools for
Setting reliability requirements.
Linking reliability requirements with health, safety, environmental and financial
risks.
Exact risk analysis in case of different failure modes and variable consequences
of failure associated with each failure mode.
Quantifying the impact of the variability of design parameters on strength,
reliability and early life failures.
Reliability improvement by reducing the sensitivity of the design to variation of
design parameters.
Reliability improvement based on physics of failure.
Key areas where research is currently necessary include:

Improving understanding of potential failure modes and mechanisms.
Development of improved data and data collection methods.
Development of efficient reliability testing methods and tools.
Development of novel products with high levels of fault and damage tolerance
and reliability.
21
Glossary
ALT Accelerated Life Testing

CVP Capital Value Process
ESS Environmental Stress Screening
ETA Event Tree Analysis
Failure Mode Description of the manner in which failure has occurred
or may occur
FAT Factory Acceptance Testing
FEED Front End Engineering Design
FMECA Failure Mode Effects and Criticality Analysis
FRACAS Failure Reporting And Corrective Action System
FTA Fault Tree Analysis
GHSER Getting Health, Safety and Environment Right
GO Great Operator
HALT Highly Accelerated Life Testing
HASS Highly Accelerated Stress Screening
Hazard Rate The fraction of failures of items in service per unit time
MFFOP Minimum Failure Free Operating Period
MTTF Mean Time To Failure, average value of the times to failure
OREDA Offshore REliability DAta
R&M Case Reliability and Maintainability Case
RBD Reliability Block Diagram
Probability of Probability that the time to failure will be smaller than the
Premature Failure specified MFFOP
SIREN Subsea Investigation and Reporting of Events Network
SIT Site Integration Testing
SST Step Stress Testing
TRAP Technical Risk Assurance Process
WELL MASTER Reliability Database of Well-completion Equipment
22
Contact List
For further information, please contact:
David Brookes, Senior Advisor
UTG Deepwater Technology

Compass Point, 79-87 Kingston Road,
Knowle Green, Staines,
Middlesex TW18 IDY, UK
Telephone: +44 (0)1932 774801

Email: brookeda@bp.com
23

1 Api RP 17N Workshop: Executive Summary of Meeting

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

1 Api RP 17N Workshop: Executive Summary of Meeting

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

1 S T API RP 17N WORKSHOP

Report Prepared by J E Strutt

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF MEETING

a. Operators (BP, Marathon, Chevron-Texaco, Conoco-Phillips, Kerr McGee,…

a. Deepstar sponsorship of reliability

1. Feasibility and Concept Design 1. Definition of reliability

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF KEY CONCERNS AND THE WAY FORWARD

1. The meeting enabled company representatives to comment on the proposed

Feasibility Concept and FEED

• Need to address big projects as well as small

• Need to address details of the specific components at this stage.

• Reliability tasks tend to focus on inspection, testing and quality control

• I&C is a reliability critical phase, installation procedures can damage

• Focus on reliability data collection and failure analysis

FROM THE OPERATORS:

GENERAL QUESTIONS, ANSWERS AND DISCUSSIONS

Responses: Redundancy is one of many reliability improvement strategies which can be

FEASIBILITY CONCEPT & FEED DISCUSSION

Response 3: No two projects have identical environmental conditions, water depths,

6 Concern about RP flexibility: Whatever is documented in the API RP it must be

8 Where is the Subsea boundary and how do we deal with interfaces?

Comment: Question 7 suggests approaching the reliability issue from a product

9 What needs to be done during Feasibility Concept and FEED?

Responses: Typically it will be important to understand what level of reliability or

DETAIL DESIGN PHASE DISCUSSION

10 What gets done in Detail design?

11 What is important about the definition of reliability requirements?

MANUFACTURE AND TEST PHASE DISCUSSION

13 What gets done in Manufacturing Phase?

For certain types of equipment (e.g. electronic equipment) Environmental Stress

14 How do we define the level of surveillance and inspection during manufacture?

15 Reliability Planning in the manufacturing stage

INSTALLATION AND COMMISSIONING PHASE DISCUSSION

18 How do things tie together?

19 What sort of analytical procedures do you think should be planted in this

20 Is it realistic to set numerical targets for reliability processes?

OPERATION AND DATA COLLECTION PHASE DISCUSSION

21 What gets done at this stage?

Response: During operation, attention shifts away from “design/manufacture for

We need to consider and standardise databases. We need agreements on what to

Definition: Reliability is the ability of a product or system to perform its required

23 Reliability Management outside the Project life cycle

The schematic in fig.2 is a 1st attempt to define the differences in expectations of

Low to moderate risk project using field

Non mature for Moderate to High risk project using either

High risk Project using new/novel

Fig. 1: Categories of reliability Management practice

These process are stronly

Design stage Reliability Focus

Feasibility Identify what could work

Concpetual Design Select what will work reliably

Front End Engineering Design Define how it will work reliably

Detail Design Make it it work reliably in principle

Manufacture Build it without compromising reliability

Installation and commissioning Install it and make it work in practice

Operation Verify that it works reliably and maintain it

Fig 3: Suggested Reliability Focus for each project stage

Don Wells Framework 15 min

John Strutt Reliability Process history overview 60 min

Don Wells Working segments objectives - 6 stages 20min

John Strutt Working segment introduction 10min

20 min. per session & 10 min. discussion break 1/4 2hrs