Otc 14161

8/10/2019 Otc 14161

1/10

Copyright 2002, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2002 Offshore Technology Conference held inHouston, Texas U.S.A., 69 May 2002.

This paper was selected for presentation by the OTC Program Committee following review ofinformation contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, aspresented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject tocorrection by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect anyposition of the Offshore Technology Conference or its officers. Electronic reproduction,distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written

consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in printis restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. Theabstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper waspresented.

Abstract

Marine evacuation systems used on offshore petroleuminstallations have been investigated using a series of model

experiments in a large test facility. The performance of a

conventional twin-falls davit launched lifeboat system wasevaluated during launching, clearing, and sail-away phases of

the evacuation process from a bottom fixed installation.

Performance was examined as a function of weather

conditions, from calm water up to Beaufort 8. Based on theresults, some guidance is given concerning the rational design

of evacuation system configurations.

Introduction

The work reported here is part of a larger study on offshore

evacuation system performance and safety. The main aim of

the work is to evaluate lifeboat evacuation capabilities as afunction of weather conditions. In particular, the aim is to

determine how performance capabilities deteriorate with

degrading weather conditions. Secondly, the work aims toestablish measures of capability, or performance, which have

practical utility for design and regulation purposes. These aims

are motivated by the trend away from prescribed specification

standards in favor of goal-setting regulatory regimes.

This paper focuses on the quantitative effects of weatheron lifeboat evacuation system performance. Observed and

measured experimental results are presented and discussed. A

set of evacuation zones is defined, which, together with theempirical results, lead to a method for configuring an

evacuation system arrangement that can reasonably be

expected to fulfill an explicitly defined role.

The scope of the work reported here is limited to

evacuation by twin-falls davit launched lifeboat, or totallyenclosed motor propelled survival craft (TEMPSC). Evacuation

starts with the lowering and splash-down of the boat, and ends

with sail-away to a rescue zone. Escape and rescue phases o

the escape, evacuation and rescue (EER) process are not deal

with here.Evacuation during emergencies must necessarily be done

in prevailing weather conditions. The performance oevacuation systems in rough weather is not well known

Experience under emergency conditions is fortunately limited

it is also not controlled in the experimental sense. Further

testing with full-scale manned equipment is prohibitively

dangerous and testing with unmanned equipment is expensive.The approach taken to investigate evacuation system

performance in rough weather was to conduct model scale

experiments, which overcame the problems noted above (e.gCrossland et al. 1992, pp.19-20). There are limitations to

model testing in this context, and some of these have been

discussed by Simes R & Veitch (2001). For example, no

attempt was made to model the reliability of the equipmentnor account for the role of maintenance. Further, it was

impossible to account for human factors.

Test Setup

The tests were done in the Offshore Engineering Basin (OEB

at the National Research Council of Canada, Institute for

Marine Dynamics (NRC/IMD). The OEBhas a working area of

65m26m. Individual wave maker segments cover twoadjacent sides of the basin. On the sides opposite the wave

makers, expanded sheet metal passive wave absorbers are

fitted to reduce wave reflection in the basin. During these

tests, the water depth was 2.8m and all the waves wereunidirectional from the bank of wave boards at the West sideof the basin, as shown in the installation setup, Figure 1.

A platform was installed in the OEB and secured to the

floor of the basin. The platform was a simple, four legged

truss structure and was meant to be a generic, rather thanparticular, petroleum installation. The platform penetrated the

water surface with small diameter cylindrical members that

did not reflect waves to a significant extent.

OTC 14161

Safe Evacuation From Offshore Petroleum InstallationsReeni Woolgar and Antnio Simes R, National Research Council of Canada, Institute for Marine DynamicsBrian Veitch and Dean Pelley, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Ocean Engineering Research Centre

8/10/2019 Otc 14161

2/10

2 R. WOOLGAR, A. SIMES R, B. VEITCH AND D. PELLEY OTC 14161

Figure 1. Plan of OEB showing the location of test platform.

The lifeboat station was designed in three modules. Thedavits, winches, and TEMPSC were mounted on a wooden

deck, which was in turn fitted to an aluminum truss beam. The

aluminum beam was attached to a stand on the platform in a

cantilever arrangement, like the one illustrated in Figure 2.The modular arrangement facilitated rapid changes to the

configuration (e.g. launch height, clearance, and orientation)during the test program. As this paper deals with the weather

effects, rather than the effects of configuration changes, only

the main configuration is described. A complete account of thetests and results can be found in Simes R et al. (2002).

The TEMPSCmodel was arranged to be perpendicular tothe platform while stowed and at launch. The launch height

was 35m above the waterline. The clearance between the

platform and TEMPSC was 11.037m. This clearance is

approximately 3.0B, where B is the beam of the TEMPSC,

which was 3.7m (full-scale) in these tests.

Tests were done at six different environmental conditionsbetween calm water and Beaufort 8. The nominal wave

heights and wind speeds corresponding to each of the six

conditions are given in Table 1. Measured values are reportedin the plots presented in the results. Regular collinear waves

that propagated normal to the platform were used. As thewaves used were regular, the target value was in the Beaufort

scale range of the significant wave height, rather than the

mean wave height. The sizes of the different waves arecompared in Figure 3, which also illustrates the relative size of

the model TEMPSC.

Figure 2. Arrangement of lifeboat station on platform.

8/10/2019 Otc 14161

3/10

OTC 14161 SAFE EVACUATION FROM OFFSHORE PETROLEUM INSTALLATIONS 3

Table 1. Definition of nominal environmental conditions.

Beaufort description Mean wind Averagewave

Significantwave

[ms-1] [m] [m]

(0) calm water 0 0 0

(4) moderate breeze 5.6 8.3 0.42-0.89 0.67-1.40

(5) fresh breeze 8.7 10.8 1.15-1.53 1.85-2.44

(6) strong breeze 11.3 13.9 1.95-2.93 3.04-4.58

(7) moderate gale 14.4 17.0 3.35-4.88 5.48-7.93

(8) fresh gale 17.4 20.6 5.79-8.54 9.14-13.72

The 1:13 scale model lifeboat was representative of an 80

person TEMPSC. Made from glass reinforced plastic, the

model weighed 5.26kg in the fully loaded test condition and

obtained an average full-scale model speed of 6.089knots incalm water. The model was outfitted with an electric motor

and shaft, a 32mm four bladed propeller, a working rudder,

two rechargeable batteries, three accelerometers arranged

orthogonally, a simulated hydrostatic release circuit with inter-locking mechanical release servos, a radio transmitter, awireless video camera, and a water detection light-emitting

diode. A detailed description of the TEMPSCcan be found in

Simes R et al. (2002).

Figure 3. Environmental conditions.

The fixed platform contained some of the instrumentation

and electronics for the tests. The launching system, computer

and associated electronics were stored on the platform near the

twin-falls davit launching system. Three wave probes were

attached to the platform and oriented parallel to the davitsystem such that one probe was aligned to each of the stern,

midships, and bow of the lifeboat as pictured in Figure 4. One

anemometer was mounted to the underside of the davit frameplatform. Four video cameras were arranged to permit views

from the beam, from overhead, from the davit frame, and also

from a rover camera. An optical tracking system was used tomonitor and track the six degrees of motion of the lifeboat.

Figure 4. Test setup with TEMPSC in stowed position.

Test Matrix

The test matrix is present in Table 2, where the first column

denotes the subsets in the test series, the second column showsthe number of times a successful launch was made in the

specified conditions, and the third column describes the

nominal weather conditions in terms of the Beaufort scaleThe fourth and fifth columns are the average measured mean

wind speed and mean wave height, respectively, of the tests

done in the particular subset.

For example, the subset KLM1450 consisted of 19nominally identical launches in moderate gale weather

conditions, or Beaufort 7. The average measured mean wind

speed in the 19 tests was 15.5ms-1and the average mean wave

height was 6.7m. Note that the results are reported as full-

scale values, rather than model scale.

Table 2. Test series.

Series

Label

# of

tests

Beaufort

description

Mean

Wind

Mean

Wave[ms-1] [m]

KLM1400 1 (0) calm water 0 0

KLM1420 12 (4) moderate breeze 3.606 1.001

KLM1430 19 (5) fresh breeze 9.375 2.106

KLM1440 30 (6) strong breeze 12.619 3.965

KLM1450 19 (7) moderate gale 15.504 6.708

KLM1460 22 (8) fresh gale 18.028 9.139

Results and Discussion

The evacuation phases modeled in the experiments can be

conveniently explained with reference to the example inFigure 5, which shows one of the launches made in Beaufort 6conditions. The figure presents the launch site in three views

At the top is a plan view, in the middle is an elevation abeam

the TEMPSC (xz), and at the bottom is an elevation lookingalong the centerline of the TEMPSC(yz).

Considering the top view first, the outline of the

installation is shown at left (x = -11.037m) and the lifeboastation protrudes perpendicular from it. An outline of the

TEMPSC is arranged so that its stern is at the intersection of

8/10/2019 Otc 14161

4/10


thexyaxes. In addition, three imaginary borders are shown in

the top view as dashed lines. One is the circular border

centered at the origin. The other two are parallel to the edge ofthe installation.

The circular border defines a splash-down zone that

centers on the target launch point (at the origin vertically

below the TEMPSC). The size of this zone should

accommodate safe launches. Previous experiments revealedthat a TEMPSCshould be expected to miss its target drop point

by some amount. Further, after it has reached splash-down,but before it begins to make way, a lifeboat is vulnerable to

the oncoming wind and waves. Of particular importance is the

extent that the lifeboat can be pushed backwards during its

first wave encounter. This distance is referred to here as setback and is illustrated in Figure 6. Combined, the effects of

missing the target and being set back by waves can be severe

enough to cause a collision between the boat and the

installation (e.g. Simes R 1996, Simes R & Veitch 2001,

Campbell et al. 1983).A practical definition of the splash-down zone then is an

area that encompasses the combination of set back and missedtarget vectors. According to this definition, the splash-down

boundary is not a fixed size, but rather would be expected to

be bigger in rougher conditions and smaller in more benign

conditions. The size of the zone can be defined by choosing an

acceptable threshold, based, say, on a probability that the

TEMPSCwill be inside the zone after set back. An upper size

limit might be imposed based on other system limitations,

such as the seaworthiness of the TEMPSC. A splash-down

border radius of 15m is shown in Figure 5. This is admittedlysomewhat arbitrary, and is not consistent with the clearance

used in these tests as the clearance should not be smaller than

the splash-down zone, but is useful in the present context forillustrating the utility of the performance measures and zones.

The area between the installation and the closer parallelboundary is a danger zone. It is meant to provide a buffer to

accommodate launching in damaged conditions. In Figure 5,

this border is 4.6m from the platform. Again, this value waschosen somewhat arbitrarily. The appropriate size depends on

the type of installation and other factors, such as the type of

damage conditions that are expected to be survivable.Thirdly, a rescue zone boundary is shown at 25m from the

platform. This is meant to indicate the distance from the

installation that is considered safe for rescue operations. It isnot clear what this distance is, but it could be the closest

distance to the installation that a stand by vessel can come in

an emergency situation, for example. The region between the

danger and rescue zone boundaries is the clearing zone.Prior to the tests, the borders used to define the zones were

chosen rather arbitrarily. This topic is revisited later where a

suggestion is made on how these can be integrated to help

guide design decisions.

Returning now from the description of zones, the irregularline in the top view of the figure is the projected path taken by

the TEMPSC during its launch, from lowering and splash-

down, to sail-away across the rescue zone border.

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

m

302520151050-5-10

X [m]

Ins

tallation

DangerZone

Boundary

Splash-downBoundary

Strong BreezeKLM1440_013

Rescue ZoneBoundary

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

-5

-10

m

302520151050-5-10

X [m]

Strong Breeze

KLM1440_013

Installation

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

-5

-10

m

-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15

Y [m]

Strong BreezeKLM1440_013

Installation

Figure 5. Evacuation path in a strong breeze.

8/10/2019 Otc 14161

5/10


The projected path also appears in the two elevation views.

In thexzview, the path during lowering appears as an almost

straight vertical line, indicating that there was negligiblemotion in the plane of the twin falls during deployment. Upon

splash-down, the TEMPSC was unable to make way

immediately. In fact, the path shows that the TEMPSC was

pushed back toward the installation by an oncoming wave. It

began to make way after the first wave passed and thencontinued to move almost straight out to the rescue zone

border, cresting two more oncoming waves along the way.In the bottom (yz) view, the path during lowering exhibits

some oscillation. This was due to the wind, which, although

was bow on to the TEMPSC, set up more oscillatory motion

perpendicular to its direction that parallel. The projected pathafter splash-down is not very useful in this view for this

particular case because it shows the TEMPSC as it sailed

straight out of the page.

1

2

3

SETBACK

Figure 6. Set back.

A second example, this one for a launch in a fresh gale orBeaufort 8 conditions, is presented in Figure 7. A goodimpression of the size of the wave is given by the path

illustrated in thexz view. In the same view, it can also be seen

that as soon as the TEMPSClanded, it was carried by the waveback toward the installation. In this case, the set back was

bigger than the clearance and there was an impact or collision

with the installation. In order to avoid collision damage to themodel, a soft mesh was arranged near the water surface under

the edge of the installation. The mesh cushioned the impact.

As a result, the path appears to go into the installation in

Figure 7.

Another result is evident in this example. When theTEMPSCcrested the second wave (at aboutx = 21m) it lost its

way momentarily, as can be seen in the top view. This result

and others like it are qualitatively similar to observations madeby Hollobone et al. (1984) who estimated set back up to 12m

in Beaufort 7 conditions and above, and an 8m wave height

limit to TEMPSCseaworthiness.

Rather than show results for more individual tests, all theresults are shown in the following plots. The legend for the

plots presented in Figures 8 through 14 is given in Table 3.

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

m

302520151050-5-10

X [m]

Installation

DangerZone

Boundary

Splash-downBoundary

Fresh GaleKLM1460_002

Rescue ZoneBoundary

45

4035

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

-5

-10

m

302520151050-5-10X [m]

Fresh Gale

KLM1460_002

Installation

Figure 7. Evacuation path in a fresh gale.

Table 3. Legend

8/10/2019 Otc 14161

6/10


Figure 8 shows the performance measure missed target

plus set back. The weather conditions are indicated by mean

measured wave heights. The corresponding mean wind speedscan be seen in Table 2, where the values given are the means

for all the tests done at each of the six nominal weather

conditions. For each test, the maximum measured value of the

performance measure is plotted as a single result. For

example, the lifeboat was launched 30 times in weatherconditions nominally described as Beaufort 6; each of these

tests is indicated by one of the 30 triangle symbols plotted at awave height of about 4m in Figure 8. Likewise, tests in

conditions corresponding to Beaufort 0, 4, 5, 7, and 8 are

plotted with the symbols as denoted in Table 3.

In addition, a solid line, two dashed lines, and two broken

lines are shown in the plot. These are the mean, the mean 1

standard deviation, and the maximum and minimum lines

through the entire data set.The plot shows several important characteristics. First, it

is clear that the upper bounds (the maximum and the mean + 1

standard deviation) of the combination of missed target plus

set back increase strongly with increasing weather conditions,indicating a progressive deterioration in the control over the

splash-down and initial sail-away phases. At a glance, the

performance measure appears to increase approximatelylinearly as twice the wave height, up to Beaufort 7.

This trend appears to level off as the weather increases

from Beaufort 7 to 8. A closer look at the results dispels this

impression. Rather than leveling off, the measure is in fact

physically limited by impacts between the installation andlifeboat. Impact cases are denoted in the plot by the symbols

assigned in Table 3. They occurred in 7 of the 19 Beaufort 7launches (37%) and in 8 of the 22 (36%) Beaufort 8 launches.

All the impacts occurred after splash-down and were due to

the combination of missing the target and being set back by

waves. No impacts occurred during lowering.

The clearance between the installation and the lifeboat in

the KLM test series was 11.037m, which the results show to

be inadequate to accommodate a collision free launch in theweather conditions corresponding to Beaufort 7 and above

This result has obvious practical value.

Of the two components in this performance measure, se

back is the more important by far. The missed target versu

weather showed no discernible relationship between the twoOn the other hand, set back versus weather was very similar

qualitatively and quantitatively to Figure 8.Another important characteristic of the plotted results in

Figure 8 is the variability of the results in each of the six

nominal weather conditions. Closer examination of the tests

through the use of video recording, showed that there was afairly strong relationship between the set back and the position

on the incoming wave that the lifeboat landed. This

relationship was noted in previous work (Simes R & Veitch

2001, Campbell et al. 1983). In the present tests, the position

on the wave at splash-down was qualitatively designated to beeither at a crest, in a trough, on the upslope, or on the

downslope. These positions are denoted in the plot by theappropriate symbol (see Table 3).

With reference again to Figure 8, the splash-down

positions are dominated by upslope positions, followed

distantly by crests. There were a few trough and downslope

splash-downs at lower weather conditions, but almost none atBeaufort 6 and above. This is a consequence of the relative

speeds of the waves and lifeboat lowering (e.g. Soma et al

1986, Finch et al. 2002). Further, it is evident that the lowes

(and most favorable) measures of missed target plus set backare associated with splash-downs on crests. The highest

measures, including all of the impact cases, are associated

with the fact that splash-down occurred on the upslope. Foexample, of the 19 Beaufort 7 launches, 12 were on upslopes

Similarly, of the 22 Beaufort 8 launches, 19 were on upslopes.

0

2

4

6

8

1 0

1 2

1 4

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1

W a v e H e ig h t (m )

Figure 8. Weather effects on performance.

8/10/2019 Otc 14161

7/10


Set back is examined more closely in Figures 9, 10, and

11 where it is plotted against the phase angle of the wave forthe tests done in Beaufort 6, 7, and 8 conditions, respectively.

The wave crest is at 90, the trough is at -90, and the

oncoming face of the wave, the upslope, is in between. Mostof the wave phase angles corresponding to the downslope

portion of the wave are not plotted, as there were no splash-downs there.

Figure 9 shows that in Beaufort 6 conditions, the worst set

backs are associated with landing at and near the middle of the

upslope face of the wave, at wave phase angles of about 20.

As the lifeboat was dropped progressively closer to the crest,

the set back diminished. Two drops occurred at wave phase

angles that were >90, that is, just past the crest on the back,

or downslope of the wave. At the left of Figure 9, four splash-

downs are denoted qualitatively as being in troughs. Two ofthese experienced significant set back, but the other two were

relatively unscathed.

Similar results are shown in Figure 10 for Beaufort 7

conditions. All the landings occurred over the range of wavephase angles between 0and 60. Like the Beaufort 6 results,the set back was worst at the lowest wave phase angles and

improved for splash-downs closer to the crest. The six impact

cases shown correspond to the splash-downs at the six lowest

wave phase angles.

Much the same can be said of the Beaufort 8 resultspresented in Figure 11. Set back was smallest for the two

cases nearest the crest and became progressively worse as the

wave phase angle went to 0. Again, it is the lowest wavephase angles that are associated with the eight impacts in this

set of tests.

01234

56789

101112

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Wave Phase Angle [deg]

Figure 10. Set back versus wave phase angle, Beaufort 7 tests.

0123456789

101112

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Wave Phase Angle [deg]

Figure 11. Set back versus wave phase angle, Beaufort 8 tests.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

1 1

1 2

-1 20 -1 0 0 -8 0 -6 0 -4 0 -2 0 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 0 0 1 2 0

W a v e P h a s e A n g l e [d e g ]

Figure 9. Set back versus wave phase angle, Beaufort 6.

8/10/2019 Otc 14161

8/10


Figure 12 presents the splash-down positions in the launch

area for all of the tests. An axes system with the origin at the

target splash-down point is superimposed. The x-axis isparallel to and (-)11.037m away from the side of the

installation. The vector between the splash-down and the

origin is known as the missed target performance measure. All

of the launches landed within a 1.5m radius of the origin.

The same type of plot is used in Figure 13 to present theset back results, though the weather effects are apparent in this

case. Concentric circles are shown in the plot. Each circlecorresponds to the mean +1 standard deviation for each of the

five weather conditions above the calm condition. The

smallest circle is for Beaufort 4, the next is for Beaufort 5, and

then Beaufort 6. The circles for Beaufort 7 and Beaufort 8 areof similar size, which reflects the physical presence of the

installation and the limit to set back due to impacts. The

missed target plus set back results are plotted in Figure 14.

Figures 13 and 14 plot the xy components of the measured

value of set back, and the vector sum of the measured valuesof missed target plus set back, respectively.

Conclusions

A practical application of the results presented here is in

the design of a lifeboat configuration. If, for example, an

emergency evacuation plan includes launching lifeboats inconditions up to, say, the limit of the seaworthiness of the

lifeboat, then it would be prudent to arrange for a splash-down

zone large enough to accommodate the weather effects, or the

missed target plus set back, so as to minimize the likelihood ofimpacts with the installation. Thus, in the event of evacuation

in extreme weather conditions, the size of the splash-down

zone is important. Pyman & Slater (1983) determined that thelikelihood of emergency evacuation by means of a TEMPSCis

small, but can be significant and that the expectedperformance of evacuation, based on historical records, is poor

in extreme weather.

As demonstrated by the results, the area required of thesplash-down zone can be substantial and can be expected to

increase commensurately with expectations of performance in

rougher weather. The splash-down zone should be clear of theinstallation and other possible hazards.

This concept is illustrated in Figure 15, where a circular

splash-down zone is drawn tangent to a danger, or buffer, zoneboundary outboard of the installation. The buffer zone is

meant to ensure that the lifeboat is not rendered useless if the

installation is in a damaged, but survivable condition.

Together, these zones provide rational guidance for choosingthe clearance of a lifeboat from the installation in order tomeet defined performance goals for evacuation.

The quantitative results can also be used to evaluate risks

involved in various scenarios. In addition, they provide a

benchmark to which mitigating measures, or alternativeevacuation systems can be compared.

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0. 0

0. 5

1. 0

1. 5

2. 0

-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2

X [m]

Y [m ]

Figure 12. Splash-down positions and missed target.

-14

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

-14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4

X [m]

Y [m]

Figure 13. Set back distances.

-14

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

-14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4

X [m]

Y [m]

Figure 14. Missed target plus set back.

8/10/2019 Otc 14161

9/10


Perhaps the most remarkable experimental result is that

the set back associated with landing a lifeboat on the face of a

wave has a critical influence on performance. Mitigating thiseffect should yield worthwhile results, such as reducing the

size of the splash-down zone and thereby reducing clearance

and all the associated structure, weight, and costs. Set back

might possibly be reduced by providing more propulsion

power to the lifeboats, or equipping them with propulsorsbetter suited to their role. Another way is to augment the

launch system, such as with the flexible boom used inconjunction with davit launched boats on several installations.

Yet another is by actively controlling the launch process and

coordinating it with the local wave environment so as to drop

the lifeboat on a relatively favorable part of a wave.The results of the research program have lead to the

development of performance measures, or benchmarks, that

can be used in the context of design, operations, and

regulatory considerations. The concept of performance

measures and their importance had been previously addressedby Kingswood (2000).

The focus of this paper has been on the missed target andset back performance measures, and on the measure that

combines these two. Additional performance measures were

used in the tests. Three of these were time benchmarks

corresponding to the elapsed time between starting the launch

to splash-down, between splash-down and clearing the splash-down zone, and between splash-down and clearing to the

rescue zone. Several other measures were used to gauge the

controllability of the TEMPSC. These include collision

avoidance with the platform during and after launch lowering,the amount of missed target, set back and the vector sum of

the two, as well as the path lengths the TEMPSCfollowed to

reach the splash-down zone and the rescue zone. Theremaining performance measures are used as proxies for

human comfort and injury and the seaworthiness of theTEMPSC. These include the accelerations and motions

experienced during launch lowering and sail-away.

The next phase of the research program will examine theperformance of another type of evacuation system. Also, the

effects on performance of wave steepness, TEMPSCpayload,

more extreme weather conditions, and damaged conditionswill be addressed. A previous phase of the research program

examined TEMPSCdeployment from a floating structure.

Figure 15. Evacuation zones for safer lifeboat launching.

Acknowledgements

Financial support of this work was provided by a consortium

consisting of Transport Canada, Natural Resources Canada

the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, and theNational Research Council of Canada. Additional funding fo

the research program was subsequently provided by theGovernment of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Atlantic

Canada Petroleum Institute.

Representatives of the supporting organizations helped to

shape the research program, as did stakeholder organizationsparticularly those at the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore

Petroleum Board and Petro-Canada. The authors acknowledgewith gratitude the contributions and financial support.

It is also appropriate to thank the people atNRC/IMDwho

contributed to the fabrication and instrumentation of themodels, and helped conduct and carry out the experiments.

8/10/2019 Otc 14161

10/10


References

Crossland, B. (Chair), Bennett, P.A., Ellis, A.F., Farmer, F.R., Gittus,

J., Godfrey, P.S., Hambly, E.C., Kletz, T.A., Lees, F.P. 1992.Risk: Analysis, perception and management. The Royal Society,London. 201 pp.

Simes R, A. and Veitch, B. 2001. Experimental evaluation of

lifeboat evacuation performance. To appear, Transactions,

Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Vol.109.Simes R, A., Veitch, B., Woolgar, R., Sullivan, M., Pelley, D.

2002. Systematic Experimental Evaluation of LifeboatEvacuation Performance in a Range of Environmental

Conditions Phase I. TR-2002-02, Institute for MarineDynamics, St. John's.

Campbell, I.M.C., Claughton, A.R., and Kingswood, A.R. 1983.

Development of lifeboat launching systems for offshore rigsand platform. Proceeding, International Conference on MarineSurvival Craft, Royal Institution of Naval Architects, 11 pp.

Soma, H.S., Drager, K.H., and Wright, J.F. 1986. A comprehensivesimulation technique for evacuation and sea rescue for offshoreinstallations and ships. RINA conference on Escape Survivaland Rescue at Sea, London.

Finch, T., Veitch, B., Simes R, A., Janes, G., Sullivan, M. 2002.Life craft launch wave timer, or Wavetimer.Patent application.

Simes R, A. 1996. Comparative physical model study of offshoreevacuation systems. TR-1996-24, Institute for MarineDynamics, 110 pp.

Kingswood, A. 2000. Evacuation standards development andquantification. Proceedings, 2nd International Conference &

Exhibition on Evacuation, Escape and Rescue, Aberdeen, 18 pp.Pyman, M.A.F., and Slater, D.H. 1983. An objective numerical

assessment of the capabilities of survival craft in emergencyevacuation from North Sea installations. Proceedings,

International Conference on Marine Survival Craft, RoyalInstitution of Naval Architects, 11 pp.

Hollobone Hibbert and Associates Ltd. 1984. Assessment of themeans for escape and survival in offshore exploration drilling

operations. Prepared for the Royal Commission on the OceanRanger Marine Disaster.

Documents

Otc 14161