Abstract
Recently, quantitative risk assessment (QRA) has been widely used as a decision-making tool in the offshore industry. This study focused on analyzing dropped objects in the design of a modern offshore platform. A modified QRA procedure was developed for assessing production module protection against accidental external loads. Frequency and consequence analyses were performed using the developed QRA procedure. An exceedance curve was plotted, and a high-risk management item was derived through this process. In particular, simulations and experiments were used to verify the difference between the potential and impact energies according to drop orientation. When the object dropped in a specific orientation, the impact energy was confirmed to be up to 4.7 times greater than the potential energy. To reflect the QRA results in structural design, the proposed procedure should be used to calculate the maximum impact energy. The proposed procedure provides a step-by-step guide to assess the damage capacity of a production area as well as the damage frequency and consequences.
Highlights
An exceedance curve was plotted and a high-risk management item was derived through this process
This study focused on dropped object risk assessment based on frequency and consequence analyses in the design of a modern offshore platform
A modified quantitative risk assessment (QRA) procedure was developed for assessing production module protection against accidental external loads
Summary
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Since the Piper Alpha incident in 1988, the importance of ocean plant explosion fires has become more apparent and QRA applications have been widely applied in the UK Despite these efforts, the Gulf of Mexico accident that occurred on 20 April 2010 resulted in 11 casualties, 17 wounded, and $2.7 billion worth of environmental damage [1]. Conventional risk analysis methods, including fault tree (FT), event tree (ET) and bow-tie (BT), have been extensively adopted in previous studies. These methods are static and fail to capture the variation in risk as change occurs in the operation and environment [3]. Simulations of fires, gas diffusion, and explosions have allowed for relatively more rational quantitative assessment of risk consequences
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
