Formal Safety Assessment of a Marine Seismic Survey Vessel Operation, Incorporating Risk Matrix and Fault Tree Analysis

Abstract

In maritime safety research, risk is assessed usually within the framework of formal safety assessment (FSA), which provides a formal and systematic methodology to improve the safety of lives, assets, and the environment. A bespoke application of FSA to mitigate accidents in marine seismic surveying is put forward in this paper, with the aim of improving the safety of seismic vessel operations, within the context of developing an economically viable strategy. The work herein takes a close look at the hazards in North Sea offshore seismic surveying, in order to identify critical risk factors, leading to marine seismic survey accidents. The risk factors leading to undesirable events are analysed both qualitatively and quantitatively. A risk matrix is introduced to screen the identified undesirable events. Further to the screening, Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) is presented to investigate and analyse the most critical risks of seismic survey operation, taking into account the lack of historical data. The obtained results show that man overboard (MOB) event is a major risk factor in marine seismic survey operation; lack of training on safe work practice, slippery deck as a result of rain, snow or water splash, sea state affecting human judgement, and poor communication are identified as the critical risk contributors to the MOB event. Consequently, the risk control options are focused on the critical risk contributors for decision-making. Lastly, suggestions for the introduction and development of the FSA methodology are highlighted for safer marine and offshore operations in general.

Keywords

Seismic vessel / Formal safety assessment / Maritime safety / Hazard identification / Risk assessment / Risk control option / Cost-benefit assessment

References

[1] Abdussamie N, Daboos M, Elferjani I, Shuhong C, Alaktiwi A. Risk assessment of LNG and FLNG vessels during manoeuvring in open sea. J Ocean Eng Sci, 2018, 3: 56-66

[2] Ahmed Ali B, Risza R, Azizul B. Reliability analysis using fault tree analysis: a review. Int J Chem Eng Appl, 2013, 4: 173

[3] Ale B, Burnap P, Slater D. On the origin of PCDS - (probability consequence diagrams). Saf Sci, 2015, 72: 229-239

[4] Alyami H, Yang Z, Riahi R, Bonsall S, Wang J. Advanced uncertainty modelling for container port risk analysis. Accid Anal Prev, 2019, 123: 411-421

[5] Anyanwu JO, Okoroji L (2014) The causes and minimization of maritime disasters on passenger vessels. Global J Res Eng. https://www.engineeringresearch.org/index.php/GJRE/article/view/1131/1063

[6] Aven T. Risk assessment and risk management: review of recent advances on their foundation. Eur J Oper Res, 2016, 253: 1-13

[7] Bai Y, Jin W. Naomi R. Introduction to marine structural design. Marine Structural Design, 2016, 2, Oxford: Elsevier Ltd

[8] Bell J, Healey N (2006) The causes of major hazard incidents and how to improve risk control and health and safety management: a review of the existing literature, Health and Safety Laboratory

[9] Bucci P, Kirschenbaum J, Mangan LA, Aldemir T, Smith C, Wood T. Construction of event-tree/fault-tree models from a Markov approach to dynamic system reliability. Reliab Eng Syst Saf, 2008, 93: 1616-1627

[10] Buchanan C (2016) Seismic Survey Vessel [online]. USA: content graphics. Available: http://www.contentgraphics.com/category/illustration/ [accessed 26th May 2017]

[11] Cai B, Kong X, Liu Y, Lin J, Yuan X, Xu H, Ji R. Application of Bayesian networks in reliability evaluation. IEEE Trans Ind Inf, 2019, 15: 2146-2157

[12] Carlos Guedes S. Safety and reliability of industrial products, Systems and Structures, 2010, London: CRC Press

[13] Chirp-Maritime (2014) Seismic Vessel and Yacht [Online]. UK: CHIRP MARITIME. Available: https://www.chirpmaritime.org/seismic-vessel-and-yacht/ [Accessed 16th May 2017]

[14] Curcurù G, Galante GM, La Fata CM. Epistemic uncertainty in fault tree analysis approached by the evidence theory. J Loss Prev Process Ind, 2012, 25: 667-676

[15] Duijm NJ. Recommendations on the use and design of risk matrices. Saf Sci, 2015, 76: 21-31

[16] Eilperin J, Mufson S (2015) Royal Dutch Shell Suspends Arctic Drilling Indefinitely. Energy and Environment [online]. Available from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/09/28/royal-dutch-shell-suspends-arctic-drilling-indefinitely/?utm_term=.8e4e9ff291ae [Accessed 5th Mar 2017]

[17] Emmerson C, Lahn G (2012) Enhanced Marine Risks in the Arctic [online]. London, UK: Lloyd’s and Chatham house. Available: http://www.arctis-search.com/Enhanced+Marine+Risks+in+the+Arctic [Accessed 5th Jun 2018]

[18] Endrina N, Rasero JC, Konovessis D. Risk analysis for RoPax vessels: a case of study for the strait of Gibraltar. Ocean Eng, 2018, 151: 141-151

[19] Ferdous R, Khan F, Sadiq R, Amyotte P, Veitch B. Fault and event tree analyses for process systems risk analysis: uncertainty handling formulations. Risk Anal, 2011, 31: 86-107

[20] Flage R, Baraldi P, Zio E, Aven T. Probability and possibility-based representations of uncertainty in fault tree analysis. Risk Anal, 2013, 33: 121-133

[21] Godaliyadde D, Phylip-Jones G, Yang ZL, Batako AD, Wang J. An analysis of ship hull vibration failure data. J Saf Reliab, 2009, 29: 15-26

[22] Gonzalez AJ, Dankel DD (1993) The engineering of knowledge-based systems: theory and practice, Prentice-Hall, Inc.

[23] Görçün ÖF, Burak SZ. Formal safety assessment for ship traffic in the Istanbul Straits. Procedia Soc Behav Sci, 2015, 207: 252-261

[24] Gwadc (2010) Government of Western Australia Department of Commerce. Code of practice, Man overboard prevention and response [Online]. Perth, Australia: Government of Western Australia Department of Commerce. [Accessed 18th May 2019]

[25] Haapasaari P, Helle I, Lehikoinen A, Lappalainen J, Kuikka S. A proactive approach for maritime safety policy making for the Gulf of Finland: seeking best practices. Mar Policy, 2015, 60: 107-118

[26] Hakan A, Ayhan M, Ismail Hakki H (2013) Formal Safety Assessment of Cargo ships at coast and open seas of Turkey. International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil America Society of Mechanical Engineering, 9. doi:https://doi.org/10.1115/OMAE2012-83315

[27] Hoops S, Hontecillas R, Abedi V, Leber A, Philipson C, Carbo A, Bassaganya-Riera J (2016) Ordinary differential equations (ODEs) based modeling. Computational Immunology. Elsevier

[28] Hu Y-N. Research on the application of fault tree analysis for building fire safety of hotels. Procedia Eng, 2016, 135: 524-530

[29] IAGC (2011) International Association of Oil and Gas Producers. An Overview of Marine Seismic Operations [online]. International Association of oil and gas Producers. Available: https://www.norskoljeoggass.no/contentassets/ae812078242441fb88b75ffc46e8f849/an-overview-of-marine-seismic-operations.pdf [Accessed 5th May 2018]

[30] IAGC (2013) International Association of Geophysical Contractors. Man Lost Overboard from Streamer Deck

[31] IEC Analysis techniques for system reliability – procedure for failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA), 2006, Brussels: BSI

[32] Ikeagwuani U, John G. Safety in maritime oil sector: content analysis of machinery space fire hazards. Saf Sci, 2013, 51: 347-353

[33] IMO Interim guidelines and the application of formal safety assessment (FSA) to the IMO rule-making process, 1997, London: International Maritime Organisation

[34] IMO Guidelines for formal safety assessment (FSA) for use in the IMO rule-making process, 2002, London: International Maritime Organisation

[35] IMO Revised guidelines for formal safety assessment (FSA) for use in the IMO rule-making process, 2012, London: International Maritime Organisation

[36] IMO Formal Safety Assessment [Online], 2015, London: International Maritime Organisation, Available: http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Safety/SafetyTopics/Pages/FormalSafetyAssessment.aspx [Accessed 6th Jun 2018]

[37] IMO Revised guidelines for formal safety assessment (FSA) for use in the Imo rule-making process, 2015, London: International Maritime Organisation

[38] IMO Revised guidelines for formal safety assessment (FSA) for use in the IMO rule-making process, 2018, London: International Maritime Organisation

[39] Islam R, Abbassi R, Garaniya V, Khan F. Development of a human reliability assessment technique for the maintenance procedures of marine and offshore operations. J Loss Prev Process Ind, 2017, 50: 416-428

[40] ISO Risk management – risk assessment techniques, 2010, Brussels: CENELEC

[41] ISOGRAPH Reliability workbench 12, 2015, Isograph: Incorporating FaultTree+

[42] ISOGRAPH 2017. Fault tree +. 2017 ed.: Isograph

[43] JHC Joint Hull committee. The Northern Sea route, 2012, London: Joint Hull Committee

[44] Kabir S. An overview of fault tree analysis and its application in model based dependability analysis. Expert Syst Appl, 2017, 77: 114-135

[45] Kalantarnia M, Khan F, Hawboldt K. Dynamic risk assessment using failure assessment and Bayesian theory. J Loss Prev Process Ind, 2009, 22: 600-606

[46] Komal S. Fuzzy fault tree analysis for patient safety risk modeling in healthcare under uncertainty. Appl Soft Comput, 2015, 37: 942-951

[47] Kontovas CA, Psaraftis HN. Formal safety assessment: a critical review. Mar Technol, 2009, 46: 45-59

[48] Lavasani SMM (2010) Advanced Quantitative Risk Assessment of Offshore Gas Pipeline Systems. PhD Thesis, Liverpool John Moores University, UK

[49] Lee PTW, Yang Z (2017) Multi-Criteria Decision Making in Maritime Studies and Logistics: Applications and Cases, Springer

[50] Lois P, Wang J, Wall A, Ruxton T (2004) Formal safety assessment of cruise ships. Tour Manag 25:93–109

[51] Long D, Hillman M (2014) Introduction: medical engineering design, regulations, and risk management. Clinical Engineering. Elsevier

[52] Loughran CG, Pillay A, Wang J, Wall A, Ruxton T. A preliminary study of fishing vessel safety. J Risk Res, 2002, 5: 3-21

[53] MAIB (2005) Persons Reported Overboard From 1991 to 2004 To The UK Marine Accident Investigation Branch ( MAIB ) [online]. UK: marine accident investigation branch. Available: http://www.manoverboard-mob.com/9.html [accessed 5th Aug 2018]

[54] MAIB Marine accident investigation branch annual report, 2016, Southampton: Marine Accident Investigation Branch

[55] MARINE-INSIGHT (2011) Ramform Sovereign – The Most Advanced 3D Seismic Vessel in the World. Available: http://www.marineinsight.com/types-of-ships/ramform-sovereign-the-most-advanced-3d-seismic-vessel-in-the-world/ [Accessed 20th May 2017]

[56] Mokhtari K, Ren J, Roberts C, Wang J. Decision support framework for risk management on sea ports and terminals using fuzzy set theory and evidential reasoning approach. Expert Syst Appl, 2012, 39: 5087-5103

[57] MSC FSA "trial application to high speed passenger catamaran vessel", 1997, London: Maritime Safety Committee, International Maritime Organization

[58] MSC Formal safety assessment. Overview and IACS Experience, 2002, London: International Maritime Organisation

[59] Ni H, Chen A, Chen N. Some extensions on risk matrix approach. Saf Sci, 2010, 48: 1269-1278

[60] Nyman T, Sassi J, Porthin M, Sonnimen S (2010) Aaland Sea FSA Study. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finalnd (VTT)

[61] OET (2016) First offshore well in years breaks world record. Uruguay: Offshore Energy Today. Available: http://www.offshoreenergytoday.com/uruguay-first-offshore-well-in-years-breaks-world-record/ [Accessed 16th Dec 2016]

[62] Oliveira LW, Seta FDS, De Oliveira EJ. Optimal reconfiguration of distribution systems with representation of uncertainties through interval analysis. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst, 2016, 83: 382-391

[63] Papanikolaou A. Orszulik S. Tanker design and safety: historical developments and future trends. Environmental Technology in the oil Industry, 2016, 3, Wantage: Springer International Publishing Switzerland

[64] Parsons JR (2016) Application of formal safety assessment in polar maritime transportation: namely routeing, emergency procedures and human factors (FORSASS. POMARTRA), IAMU

[65] Patel J, Borgohain S, Kumar M, Rangarajan V, Somasundaran P, Sen R. Recent developments in microbial enhanced oil recovery. Renew Sust Energ Rev, 2015, 52: 1539-1558

[66] Psaraftis HN. Formal safety assessment: an updated review. J Mar Sci Technol, 2012, 17: 390-402

[67] Redmill F (2002) The significance to risk analysis of risks posed by humans. Eng Manag J:12

[68] Ruge B. Spitzer CSU, Dang VN. Risk matrix as tool for risk assessment in the chemical process industries. Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management, 2004, London: Springer

[69] Schuler M (2016) Maersk Drillship Spuds World’s Deepest Well [online]. Available: http://www.gcaptain.com/maersk-venturer-begins-drilling-worlds-deepest-well/ [Accessed 18th May 2017]

[70] SFS (2018) Safety for Sea. Emergency Procedures: “Man overboard” [Online]. Safety For Sea. Available: https://www.safety4sea.com/cm-emergency-procedures-man-overboard/ [Accessed 11th Feb 2019]

[71] Skjong R, Vanem E, Endresen Ø (2007) Design, Operation and Regulation for Safety [online]. Norway: Det Norske Veritas AS. Available: http://www.transport-research.info/sites/default/files/project/documents/20130130_135847_22756_SAFEDOR-D-04.05.02-2005-10-21-DNV-RiskEvaluationCriteria-rev-3.pdf [Accessed 13th Aug 2016 2016]

[72] Sniegocki H (2014) Application of formal safety assessment in the legal activity of international maritime. J Kones Powertrain Transp 21. https://doi.org/10.5604/12314005.1130510

[73] Stamatelatos M, Vesely W, Dugan J, Fragola J, Minarick J, Railsback J (2002) Fault Tree Handbook with Aerospace Application [online]. Washington: NASA. Available: https://www.elibrary.gsfc.nasa.gov/_assets/doclibBidder/tech_docs/Fault%20Tree%20Handbook.pdf [Accessed 1st Aug 2018]

[74] Sun M, Zheng Z, Gang L. Uncertainty analysis of the estimated risk in formal safety assessment. Sustainability, 2018, 10: 321

[75] Suresh PV, Babar AK, Raj VV. Uncertainty in fault tree analysis: a fuzzy approach. Fuzzy Sets Syst, 1996, 83: 135-141

[76] Vassalos D. Risk-Based Ship Design, 2009, Berlin: Springer–Verlag

[77] Vidmar P, Perkovič M. Safety assessment of crude oil tankers. Saf Sci, 2018, 105: 178-191

[78] Wang J, Pillay A. Technology and safety of marine system, 2003, London: Elsevier Ocean Engineering Series

[79] Wang J, Ruxton T. A design-for-safety methodology for large engineering systems. J Eng Des, 1998, 9: 159-170

[80] Westwood D (2006) World Offshore Drilling Spend Forecast 2006–2010 [online]. Available: http://www.offshorecenter.dk/log/bibliotek/Spending%20surge%20for%20offshore%20drilling.PDF [Accessed 18th May 2017]

[81] Xu L, Yang J-B (2001) Introduction to multi-criteria decision making and the evidential reasoning approach, Manchester School of Management Manchester

[82] Yang Z, Maistralis L, Bonsall S, Wang J (2018) Use of fuzzy evidential reasoning for vessel selection under uncertainty. Multi-Criteria Decision Making in Maritime Studies and Logistics. Springer

[83] Yazdi M, Kabir S (2018) Fuzzy evidence theory and Bayesian networks for process systems risk analysis. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 1–30. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2018.1493679

[84] Yuhua D, Datao Y. Estimation of failure probability of oil and gas transmission pipelines by fuzzy fault tree analysis. J Loss Prev Process Ind, 2005, 18: 83-88

[85] Zhang D, Yan X, Yang Z, Wang J (2011) Application of formal safety assessment to navigational risk evaluation of Yangtze River. International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering Rotterdam: America Society of Mechanical Engineering

[86] Zio E. Risk-informed regulation: handling uncertainty for a rational management of safety. Nucl Eng Technol, 2008, 40: 327-348

Funding

Liverpool John Moores University