Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
155
Hazards XXI
# 2009 IChemE
INTRODUCTION
Hydrocarbon leaks from process equipment make a significant contribution to the risks on offshore installations. When
risk management options are evaluated using quantitative
risk assessment (QRA), the frequency of such leaks is an
input to the study that will have a major influence on the
estimated risk, and hence risk management decisions. This
paper considers the source of such data, and reviews a
recent initiative to improve its quality and consistency.
When performing a QRA, the main challenge is to
have access to relevant data, and be able to process and
understand such data correctly in order to obtain proper
input data to the analyses.
The calculated risk contribution from hydrocarbon
leaks on offshore installations depends largely on the
quality of the input data used, and the company conducting
the actual analyses. It has been identified that the latter is
caused by the analysts using different methodologies and
assumptions when analysing the data to obtain the results.
Therefore, StatoilHydro initiated a project to establish relevant and consistent data sets which should be available
and used by all contractors providing QRAs for their
facilities in the North Sea. The work has been based upon
the UK Health & Safety Executives (HSE) Hydrocarbon
Release Database (HCRD). The HCRD has been in operation since 1992 and contains all reported releases from
the UK Continental Shelf (UKCS).
. Grouping data for different types and sizes of equipment, where there is insufficient experience to show significant differences between them.
. Fitting analytical leak frequency functions to the data,
in order to obtain a smooth variation of leak frequency
with equipment and hole size.
. Splitting the leak frequencies into different leak scenarios in order to promote compatibility with different
approaches to outflow modelling in the QRA.
638
Hazards XXI
leak experience. Most HCRD equipment types have therefore been used as defined by HSE, but some with relatively
little leak experience have been combined. In the future, as
more leaks are reported, it may be possible to subdivide
these groups while still having sufficient data to fit the
leak frequency functions.
The leak frequency is very dependant of how the
number of leak sources is estimated. In the HCRD, the definition of the different equipment types are given, covering;
. the equipment types that are included in the different
equipment categories,
. the scope of the different leak frequency functions, i.e.
which leak sources that are included and not.
GROUPING OF DATA
The DNV analysis covers 17 different types of process
equipment and one composite group (valves), as listed in
Table 1. Wellhead equipment, drilling equipment, pipelines
and risers are all excluded from the analysis, since other
more extensive data sources are available for such equipment. The remaining types of equipment are termed
process equipment.
HCRD and the Statistics Report allow 78 separate
types and sizes of process equipment to be distinguished.
In some cases, there is relatively little leak experience and
differences in leak frequencies between certain types and
sizes of process equipment have no statistical significance.
Such results may be misleading. To avoid this, it is desirable
to combine equipment types and sizes with relatively little
# 2009 IChemE
for d 1 mm to D
(1)
where:
Filters
Pig launchers & pig receivers
(4 sizes)
D
d
m
Frup
Hazards XXI
# 2009 IChemE
F(d) Cd m Frup
for d 1 mm to D
(5)
for d 1 mm to D (2)
The hole size in HCRD is represented by an equivalent diameter, d, of a circular hole with area equal to the
actual hole. Fitting F(d ) is complicated by some characteristic in the available data as shown in Figure 1 below. These
show both historic distributions and corresponding mathematical functions over the range 0.1 mm to 100 mm. This
is done for completeness although the shape of the curves
below 1 mm are significant since many leaks in this range
may not be recorded and holes of this size are typically
excluded from risk assessments.
When fitting F(d), the following key assumptions are
made:
(3)
(4)
where:
C, a and n are constants for each equipment type:
The HCRD provides sufficient data to determine C,
a and n to establish f(D) for pipes, flanges and manual
valves. For the other equipment types, f(D) is equal to the
constant C. The additional rupture frequency Frup and the
slope parameter m are assumed to be constants, i.e. not
dependent on equipment size, for any equipment type.
However, it should be emphasized that this is an addition
640
Hazards XXI
# 2009 IChemE
DEFINITION OF SCENARIOS
As shown in the previous section, experience shows that
when using all data from the HCRD to establish leak frequencies, the calculated leak frequencies of released quantities above a given magnitude may differ significantly
from what is actually experienced. Thus, in order to
promote compatibility with different approaches to leak
outflow modelling in the QRA, the existing method
divides the leaks in HCRD into two main scenarios; full
pressure leaks and zero pressure leaks.
Full Pressure Leaks
This scenario is intended to be a leak through the defined
hole, beginning at the normal operating pressure, until controlled by emergency shutdown (ESD) and blowdown, with
a probability of ESD/blowdown failure. This is subdivided
as follows:
LEAK SCENARIOS
COMPARISON OF ESTIMATED AND
RECORDED OUTFLOW
Standard methods were used in order to estimate the
minimum quantity of hydrocarbon which would be released
under the conditions indicated by the incident data in the
HCRD. Figure 2 shows a scatter diagram for a number of
leak scenarios from the HCRD where these are estimated
and the recorded outflows have been compared. There
were 3644 incidents recorded in the HCRD database at
31st March 2008. 755 of these incidents were related to
equipment and systems that are not included in the DNV
analysis. Some of the remaining incidents in the database
have no recorded hole diameter. In addition all incidents
with a leaking hole diameter larger than 100 mm are
recorded as .100 mm in the database. Furthermore,
most of the leaks have an estimated initial leak rate that is
less than the cut-off criterion of 0.1 kg/s typically used in
QRAs. After exclusion of the above mentioned scenarios,
there are 892 incidents left as basis for the leak categorisation analysis.
As shown in the diagram there is a large spread in
the data. This indicates a large number of scenarios with a
significant difference between the recorded released mass
and the equivalent mass that would be estimated by using
a standard QRA methodology based on the recorded
incident data.
641
Hazards XXI
# 2009 IChemE
642
# 2009 IChemE
Hazards XXI
Table 2. Defined parameters for the definition of leak frequency curves for flanges
Scenario
Total leaks
Full leaks
Zero pressure
Frup
5.4 1025
5.4 1025
4.1 1026
1.0 1022
6.0 1023
5.0 10211
20.93
20.93
20.32
0.93
1.0
4.2
6.0 1026
5.0 1026
5.0 1027
The function is calculated separately for each equipment type and covering
.
.
.
UNCERTAINTIES
Uncertainties in the estimated leak frequencies arise from
four main sources:
. Leaks are required be reported in HCRD if they meet
certain criteria on release rate or mass, or if they
ignite. This means that not all small leaks that occur
will be reported in the HCRD because they fall outside
the criteria. It is also possible that some leaks above
the criteria are not reported. This will probably be the
case particularly for small leaks. In addition, other
faults such as errors in measuring the hole diameter or
estimating the quantity released can be foreseen.
Although the data in the HCRD appears to be of high
quality relative to other data sources, the possibility of
bias or error is recognised and the frequency results
may be sensitive to it.
. Inappropriate categorisation of the leaks into the different scenarios. This includes the methodology and the
simplifications made. The total leak frequency of the
equipment may not be sensitive to this, but the frequency
for the individual scenarios (limited leak, full leak etc.)
may be.
. Inappropriate representation of the leak frequency distributions by the fitted leak frequency distributions. This
results in part from the small datasets, but also from
APPLICATION
The leak frequencies for zero pressure leaks are estimated
using an operating pressure of 0.01 barg and below. The
leak frequency for limited leaks is established by multiplying the full pressure leak frequency according to the
proportion distribution as given in Table 3 below. It
643
# 2009 IChemE
Hazards XXI
Total
Gas
Oil
Condensate
2-Phase
Non-process
Zero Pressure
Limited Flow
ESD isolated
Late Isolated
6%
49%
42%
2%
6%
34%
57%
3%
7%
75%
16%
2%
7%
66%
25%
1%
2%
69%
29%
0%
9%
52%
36%
3%
The phases in the table above shall be interpreted as the initial phase of the fluid inside the equipment.
644
Hazards XXI
# 2009 IChemE
.
.
The results show that limited leaks have a shorter duration, release less quantity of hydrocarbons and have a lower
average leak rate compared with an ESD isolated leak. At
the same time the figures show that a late isolated leak has
a much longer duration, release much higher quantity of
hydrocarbons, but at a similar average leak rate compared
with an ESD isolated leak.
The following conclusions are therefore made:
.
645
# 2009 IChemE
Hazards XXI
Table 4. Time reduction factors for limited leaks2
Leak duration
Gas
Oil
Condensate
2-Phase3
Non-process
Time Factor
2.6
1.7
2.6
7.1
2.3
The time reduction factor can be used for all leak rates over
the duration and is illustrated for a gas leak in Figure 7.
CONCLUSIONS
The hydrocarbon release database collected by the HSE in
the UK offshore industry contains data of high quality,
which has rightly become the standard source of leak frequencies for offshore QRAs. Nevertheless, analysts experience problems because of the need to derive the frequencies
for specific types and sizes of equipment because of a desire
to obtain consistency between the modelled risks and actual
accident experience. The approach described here solves
these problems by dividing leaks into different scenarios,
allowing analysts to use frequencies for only those scenarios
that are compatible with their QRA outflow modelling.
Standardised leak frequencies have been developed for
different types of process equipment, using leak frequency
functions to ensure that consistent values are available for
any equipment type and hole size.
Given this approach, there still exist uncertainties in
the recorded data related to detailed information of the
different scenarios and how they have been interpreted. A
more thorough analysis of typical records may therefore
help to provide a deeper understanding of how to model
the different leaks and their cause. Such a deeper understanding may allow modifications to the standard method
described in this paper.
DF
R
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work in this paper is based on data collected by the
Health & Safety Executive, and was funded by DNV and
StatoilHydro. The authors want to thank Eli Glittum and
Unni Nord Samdal (StatoilHydro), and ystein Eriksen
and Jan Papas (Scandpower) for their kind support.
(6)
REFERENCES
1. Hydrocarbon Release Database (http://www.hse.gov.uk/
offshore/hydrocarbon.htm).
2. Spouge, John, 2006, Leak frequencies from the hydrocarbon release database IChemE, Hazards XIX.
3. Spouge, John, New Generic Leak Frequencies for Process
Equipment, Process Safety Progress, Volume 24, No. 4.
where:
646