Confidential 2013 Aker Solutions Preferred partner

Preferred partner
Robust Risk Analysis from a engineering
point of view
Stavanger 24
th
of October
Linda Flttum & Tore Svidal
Confidential 2013 Aker Solutions Preferred partner
What is overall important to a project?
Critical decisions at the right time
Maturity requirements per milestone
Predictability in:
Design development
Deliverables
Quality
Cost

Develop a project that meets National Regulations and Clients
Requirements and which provides a good as possible working
environment, is inherently safe with as low as possible risk for people
and the environment

25 October, 2013 Slide 2
Confidential 2013 Aker Solutions Preferred partner
What is overall important to expect from a Risk Analyst
Experienced and well qualified in general and with expertise also to:
Qualitatively rank different design proposals in the feasibility, concept
and FEED phases
Propose alternatively design solutions
Provide the project with DAL values at the end of the FEED phase
which is likely to be valid when Final As Built deliverables are
completed
Flexibility to rapidly perform additional analysis and assessments as
e.g. part of ALRP evaluations
Willing to locate key risk analyst personnel in the same office as
engineering is performed
Have the right tools and methods
Can provides the project with correct and sufficiently robust results





25 October, 2013 Slide 3
Confidential 2013 Aker Solutions Preferred partner Slide 4
Confidential 2013 Aker Solutions Preferred partner
FEED
Fabrication
Assy &
Hook-up
AFC
Detail Engineering
Procurement
Align contract and Project Execution Model milestones
Ready for
Tow
Start
FEED
Class II
cost
estimate
Hull to
Hook-up
Yard/Mating
PO Long Lead
CA EP(C)
Contract Milestones
Milestones
Modules to
Hook-up
Yard
Hook-up &
Completion
1A 1B 1C
1D
2A
2B
2C
3A 3B
3C
4A 4B
4C
5A 5B 5C
5D
Feasibility &
Concept
System
Definition
Detailing &
Fabrication
Assembly/
Erection
System
Completion
Slide 5
2 6 10 14 14 5
8
Freeze DALs
As built IFC drawings
Duration [months]
Confidential 2013 Aker Solutions Preferred partner
Project Execution
A new oil or gas discovery
Slide 6
Main project goal:
The best alternative solutions for how to bring up the oil and
gas from the reservoir on a safe and reliable manner to be
developed.
Different solutions will be evaluated.
Concept to be developed to a ~ +/- 30% cost estimate.


Robust Analysis:
Qualitatively assist engineering to select the best alternative
solution.
Quantified risk analysis may be introduced for special
challenging concept
Rank different concepts.
Propose alternative and better solutions.

Confidential 2013 Aker Solutions Preferred partner
Project Execution
Slide 7
Main project goal:
Project matures the selected concept to ensure the correct
size of the production unit.
Concept to be developed to a ~ +/- 20% cost estimate.


Provide the project with DAL values at the end of the FEED
phase which is likely to be valid when Final As Built
deliverables are completed
Event Exposed
Area
Items to be Protected Design Load
Heat Load
(kW/m
2
)
Duration
(Minutes)
Fire at
Process area
Main deck
Process area
from
EL50.500
and above
- Main deck
- Main loadbearing structure
- Critical equipment/piping
250/150
250/150
250/150
20 + 40
20 + 40
20 + 40

Robust Analysis:
Quantified risk analysis is introduced
Rank different design alternatives for the selected concept
and assist engineering to select the best alternative
solution
Establish sectionalisation principles topside and need for
sectionalisation on production import and export lines (e.g.
SSIV)
Establish Safety Strategy and Performance Standards
Establish DAL for input to engineering design and
procurement of long lead items

Confidential 2013 Aker Solutions Preferred partner
Project Execution
Slide 8
Main project goal 2A:
Project confirms the best concept
All systems needed on the production units are defined
Procurement of most important equipment ( priority1)
where engineering information is needed, or with long
delivery time



Robust Analysis:
Quantified risk analysis to be started early in the detail
engineering phase.
Confirm/verify and detail out DALs
Assist in ALARP evaluations
Rank different design alternatives for the selected concept
and assist engineering to select the best alternative
solution
Confirm sectionalisation segments topside and need for
sectionalisation on production import and export lines (e.g.
SSIV)
Start to perform and establish segment evaluation vs.
volumes, blowdown duration, flare height and radiation
levels.
Continue to provide DALs for input to engineering design
and procurement


Confidential 2013 Aker Solutions Preferred partner
Project Execution
Slide 9
Main project goal 2B:
The design of main steel structures are completed.
All systems needed on the production units are defined.
Procurement of priority 2 equipment where engineering
information is needed.



24VG001
Vtgass
Vskeutskiller
HC: 12.3 tonn
20VA001
1.trinns separator
HC: 94 tonn
24PA001A/B
HC:< 1 tonn
24ESV1025
24ESV1031
24ESV1036
24ESV1022
Robust Analysis:
Quantified risk analysis and emergency preparedness
analysis continues.
Confirm/verify and detail out DALs.
Continue to provide DALs for input to engineering design
and procurement .
CFD evaluation related to fire and response analysis
versus structures and hydrocarbon segments
Continue to perform and establish segment evaluation vs.
volumes, blowdown duration.
Assist in ALARP evaluations.


Confidential 2013 Aker Solutions Preferred partner
Project Execution
Slide 10
Main project goal 2C:
The P&IDs and global design are completed
All supplier information with interfaces are frozen
Procurement of priority 3 equipment

Robust Analysis:
Quantified risk analysis and emergency preparedness
analysis continues.
Confirm/verify and detail out DALs.
Continue to provide DALs for input to engineering design
and procurement .
CFD evaluation related to fire analysis finalished.
Response analysis versus structures and hydrocarbon
segments finalised versus main structural structures
Finalise hydrocarbon segment evaluation vs. volumes,
blowdown duration for large bore lines.
Assist in ALARP evaluations.

Confidential 2013 Aker Solutions Preferred partner
Project Execution
Slide 11
Main project goal 3A:
Design of outfitting arrangements and small items
Detail design completed
Issue of all drawings for fabrication



Robust Analysis:
Quantified risk analysis and emergency
preparedness analysis finalised for detail
engineering phase.
Confirm/verify and detail out DALs.
Response analysis versus structures and
hydrocarbon segments finalised versus secondary
and outfitting structures
Finalised hydrocarbon segment evaluation vs.
volumes, blowdown duration for all lines.
Assist in ALARP evaluations.

Confidential 2013 Aker Solutions Preferred partner
Project Execution
Slide 12
Main project goal 3B:
The fabrication yard performs shop engineering
and preparations for fabrication
Engineering assists the fabrication yard

Robust Analysis:
Update analysis according to introduced changes
No change.

Confidential 2013 Aker Solutions Preferred partner
Project Execution
Slide 13
Main project goal 3C & 3D:
Pre-fabrication of steel sections
Assembly of steel sections to modules
Equipment and system installation
Engineering assists the fabrication yard


Robust Analysis:
Update analysis according to introduced changes
No change.

Confidential 2013 Aker Solutions Preferred partner
Project Execution
Slide 14
Main project goal 4A 4C:
Assembly and hook-up of modules
Hook-up installation of equipment and systems
Engineering assists the fabrication yard

Robust Analysis:
Update analysis according to introduced changes
No change.

Confidential 2013 Aker Solutions Preferred partner
Project Execution
Slide 15
Main project goal 5A 5C:
Onshore/at-shore Commissioning of equipment and
systems
Preparation for tow-out
Tow-out
Offshore installation and commissioning
As-built documentation and contract close-out


Robust Analysis:
As Built

Confidential 2013 Aker Solutions Preferred partner
To much optimisation can be introduced:
Simulate a few fires and use the result in structural response analysis
Structural response simulations concludes that PFP is not required
But












If explosion occurs during start-up of fire is the structural response
analysis fully valid? Structure may have deflected rather much
Is this robust or ALARP?




Robustness
25 October, 2013 Slide 16
Loss of
containment
Explosion
Fire
Ignition
Confidential 2013 Aker Solutions Preferred partner
PFP epoxy application cost
Correct timing: Application cost for 1 m
2
epoxy PFP with a thickness
of 8 mm is in the order of NOK 4.500,- m
2

Incorrect timing: In the order of 2 to 3 times cost of as indiciated for
correct timed PFP application


Remove epoxy PFP:
Takes from 30 minutes to cut off cutting machine to 3 hours with water
jetting. Approximately 3 person required.


25 October, 2013 Slide 17
Confidential 2013 Aker Solutions Preferred partner
Project cost and resource timing
Slide 18 Slide 18
Ability to
influence cost
Project cost
Time
E P C I C Operation
Front end
studies
FEED
Confidential 2013 Aker Solutions Preferred partner 25 October 2013 Slide 19
Why is it challenging to make robust risk analysis?
Some project examples..
Confidential 2013 Aker Solutions Preferred partner
Example: Leak frequency
The leak frequency is the one of the parameters in the risk analysis
with largest influence on the risk picture (and hences DALs!)
The leak frequency is estimated by counting the number of leak
sources from P&IDs
Further the DNV leak frequency model (industry practice) is used to
estimate the leak frequency based on statistical failure rates for
different leak sources (valves, flanges etc.)


25 October 2013 Slide 20
Challenge 1: How to ensure that the number of leak sources
is estimated similarly independent of person/Company
performing the calculations?

Challenge 2: How to estimate the increase in number of leak
sources from early stage to as built?

Confidential 2013 Aker Solutions Preferred partner
Counting of leak sources
Defined rules for performing
the counting by each sub-
contractor
Time demanding calculations &
manual work
Relatively inexperienced
personnel often responsible for
the calculations
Variation in results observed for
the same basis

Need for a industry practice?
Possible to utilize engineering
systems/PDMS better?

25 October 2013 Slide 21
Example of equipment count
Confidential 2013 Aker Solutions Preferred partner 25 October 2013 Slide 22
Increase in the number of leak sources throughout
the project

P&ID gas export meeting, FEED phase
P&ID gas export meeting, detail engineering
Some challenges:
Only large dimension piping
modeled in early stage
Many details/leak sources
missing (e.g. instruments,
valves, flanges)
Vendor P&IDs not available
before late detail eng.
No common industry method
to estimate increase in leak
sources & limited with
experience data
Normally the risk analysis
contractor makes the
assumption
Critical assumption for the
project

Confidential 2013 Aker Solutions Preferred partner
Relevance of leak frequency model

Estimation of leak frequency requires a lot of resources and it is
challenging to get it right
And even if we get it right, is this the best estimate of the leak
picture for the installation?
Is the leak frequency proportional with the number of leak sources?
Or is other factors also important for the leak frequency, e.g.
Safety & operation philosophy and culture
Variation in operation modes
Quality of design & fabrication
One advantage with the current leak frequency model is the focus on
reducing the number of leak sources
On long term basis: could a more simple and robust model be used?
Predicable for the project
Robust safety design



25 October 2013 Slide 23
Confidential 2013 Aker Solutions Preferred partner
Example: Congestion level in an explosion analysis
The congestion level inside the process areas is very important for
the resulting explosion pressure
The congestion level in the 3D model will increase until as built
Explosion analysis performed at an earlier stage in the project must
assume an expected increase in congestion level until as built





25 October 2013 Slide 24
Challenge: the design explosion
loads will be frozen at an early
stage in the project

This assumption is, hence, very
critical for the project
Confidential 2013 Aker Solutions Preferred partner
Increase in congestion level Project example
A significant increase in congestion level from detail engineering to
as built was reported
The assumption in detail engineering appears not to have been be
conservative enough
The change resulted in a significant increase in explosion pressure
Project was saved by a significant margin from dimensioning
accidental load to design accidental load










25 October 2013 Slide 25
Confidential 2013 Aker Solutions Preferred partner
Example: Explosion analysis in concept/FEED phase
The 3D model will be immature at this stage
Important to use a representative and conservative congestion level
It is desired to a have a significant margin to the acceptance criterion
at this stage


25 October 2013 Slide 26
3D modell in early phase (concept) 3D modell as built
Confidential 2013 Aker Solutions Preferred partner
How to add extra geometry to reflect as built?
25 October 2013 Slide 27
Different methods
Normally, the risk analysis contractors have their database with as
built platforms, and corresponding congestion levels
Is the reported/read equipment density from FLACS cofile utility a
real equipment density?
Known limitations in FLACS utility (used for density reporting) should be
accounted for
E.g. cylinders inside enclosed boxes may lead to overestimation








Example:
compressor
with 104 m
piping inside
Confidential 2013 Aker Solutions Preferred partner
Results from a concept/FEED explosion analysis
Explosion load on firewall (4 x 4 m panel)

25 October 2013 Slide 28
Confidential 2013 Aker Solutions Preferred partner
Explosion analysis in concept/FEED phase
Important with a good method to establish representative equipment
density in the early phases of the project
Overestimation of equipment density may lead to too high explosion
pressures, and possible non-feasible concepts
In particular this applies for large process areas
Underestimation of equipment density may lead to significant
challenges later in the project






25 October 2013 Slide 29
Confidential 2013 Aker Solutions Preferred partner
Reflections - Industry
The fire and explosion analyses tend to be more and more complex
Are we on the right track?
Does this gives us increased safety level?
Are we optimizing too much?
What happens with the traceability of the analysis?

Need for more industry specific standards?
Calculation/estimation of number of leak sources
Standardization of generic assumptions, e.g. equipment density
Method for performing fire and explosion analysis

Are enough recourses used on analysis in the early stages of the
project?
Changes in method/best practice over time:
Challenge for a project when increase in risk level occur without any
design change
Openness about of causes of increase important
25 October 2013 Slide 30
Confidential 2013 Aker Solutions Preferred partner
Reflections Engineering
Set more stringent requirements to the risk analysis sub-contractor
Be more involved in the risk analysis execution
Take more responsibility for the assumptions
Get own experience data (e.g. equipment density and increase in
number of leak sources over time)
Increase risk analysis competency in-house
Possibility of doing parts of risk analysis by in-house team.


25 October 2013 Slide 31
Confidential 2013 Aker Solutions Preferred partner
Reflections - Risk analysis sub-contractors
Make robust assumptions in close cooperation with engineering / oil
company
Be willing to work integrated with the project
Ensure experienced personnel and secure continuity
Increase competency about project execution
Be open about uncertainty in the analysis
Communicate results clearly
Make transparent and traceable analysis

25 October 2013 Slide 32
Confidential 2013 Aker Solutions Preferred partner
Copyright and disclaimer
Copyright
Copyright of all published material including photographs, drawings and images in this document remains vested in Aker Solutions and
third party contributors as appropriate. Accordingly, neither the whole nor any part of this document shall be reproduced in any form nor
used in any manner without express prior permission and applicable acknowledgements. No trademark, copyright or other notice shall
be altered or removed from any reproduction.

Disclaimer
This Presentation includes and is based, inter alia, on forward-looking information and statements that are subject to risks and
uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ. These statements and this Presentation are based on current expectations,
estimates and projections about global economic conditions, the economic conditions of the regions and industries that are major
markets for Aker Solutions ASA and Aker Solutions ASAs (including subsidiaries and affiliates) lines of business. These expectations,
estimates and projections are generally identifiable by statements containing words such as expects, believes, estimates or similar
expressions. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expectations include, among others,
economic and market conditions in the geographic areas and industries that are or will be major markets for Aker Solutions businesses,
oil prices, market acceptance of new products and services, changes in governmental regulations, interest rates, fluctuations in currency
exchange rates and such other factors as may be discussed from time to time in the Presentation. Although Aker Solutions ASA believes
that its expectations and the Presentation are based upon reasonable assumptions, it can give no assurance that those expectations will
be achieved or that the actual results will be as set out in the Presentation. Aker Solutions ASA is making no representation or warranty,
expressed or implied, as to the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the Presentation, and neither Aker Solutions ASA nor any of its
directors, officers or employees will have any liability to you or any other persons resulting from your use.

Aker Solutions consists of many legally independent entities, constituting their own separate identities. Aker Solutions is used as the
common brand or trade mark for most of these entities. In this presentation we may sometimes use Aker Solutions, we or us when
we refer to Aker Solutions companies in general or where no useful purpose is served by identifying any particular Aker Solutions
company.
Slide 33 25 October, 2013