IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/ijsaem/v13y2022i4d10.1007_s13198-021-01527-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A novel toolbox for dropped object hit probability evaluation and orientation optimization of subsea lines

Author

Listed:
  • Zhenhui Liu

    (Western Norway University of Applied Science)

  • Ajit Kumar Verma

    (Western Norway University of Applied Science)

Abstract

Traditionally, the ‘ring model’ proposed by DNV has been widely used for doing quantified risk assessment of subsea lines. A breadth interval of 10 m is normally used. No studies have been performed to investigate the sensitivity of the breadth interval influences, mainly due to the tedious calculation it may involve. In this paper, a simple and efficient toolbox built by Python language is presented. It is shown that the hit probability calculated by present toolbox has excellent agreement with the example cases. The toolbox is further used to do sensitivity studies. Two typical subsea line configurations are used. Benefiting from the toolbox’s efficiency on handling geometry operations, the convergence of the breadth interval in the ring model can be investigated for the first time. The hit probability starts to converge when the breadth interval is less than 5 m in the cases investigated. The normally used breadth interval (10 m) tends to give higher total hit probability. Additionally, it is shown that present framework can be used to find an optimized orientation of the subsea lines with regards to the minimized hit probability, which might be useful for the subsea field layout design.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhenhui Liu & Ajit Kumar Verma, 2022. "A novel toolbox for dropped object hit probability evaluation and orientation optimization of subsea lines," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 13(4), pages 1705-1713, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:ijsaem:v:13:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s13198-021-01527-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s13198-021-01527-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13198-021-01527-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s13198-021-01527-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Berner, C. & Flage, R., 2016. "Strengthening quantitative risk assessments by systematic treatment of uncertain assumptions," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 46-59.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bjørnsen, Kjartan & Selvik, Jon Tømmerås & Aven, Terje, 2019. "A semi-quantitative assessment process for improved use of the expected value of information measure in safety management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 494-502.
    2. Berner, Christine Louise & Flage, Roger, 2016. "Comparing and integrating the NUSAP notational scheme with an uncertainty based risk perspective," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 185-194.
    3. Bani-Mustafa, Tasneem & Flage, Roger & Vasseur, Dominique & Zeng, Zhiguo & Zio, Enrico, 2020. "An extended method for evaluating assumptions deviations in quantitative risk assessment and its application to external flooding risk assessment of a nuclear power plant," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    4. Raoni, Rafael & Secchi, Argimiro R., 2019. "Procedures to model and solve probabilistic dynamic system problems," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    5. Flage, Roger & Askeland, Tore, 2020. "Assumptions in quantitative risk assessments: When explicit and when tacit?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    6. Juntao Zhang & Hyungju Kim & Yiliu Liu & Mary Ann Lundteigen, 2019. "Combining system-theoretic process analysis and availability assessment: A subsea case study," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 233(4), pages 520-536, August.
    7. Langdalen, Henrik & Abrahamsen, Eirik Bjorheim & Abrahamsen, HÃ¥kon Bjorheim, 2020. "A New Framework To Idenitfy And Assess Hidden Assumptions In The Background Knowledge Of A Risk Assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    8. Tasneem Bani-Mustafa & Nicola Pedroni & Enrico Zio & Dominique Vasseur & Francois Beaudouin, 2020. "A hierarchical tree-based decision-making approach for assessing the relative trustworthiness of risk assessment models," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 234(6), pages 748-763, December.
    9. Berner, Christine Louise & Flage, Roger, 2017. "Creating risk management strategies based on uncertain assumptions and aspects from assumption-based planning," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 10-19.
    10. Flage, Roger & Aven, Terje & Berner, Christine L., 2018. "A comparison between a probability bounds analysis and a subjective probability approach to express epistemic uncertainties in a risk assessment context – A simple illustrative example," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 1-10.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:ijsaem:v:13:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s13198-021-01527-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.