You are on page 1of 4

# ASSUMPTION REGISTER OF DROPPED OBJECT

FOR

## GUNTONG EOR EARLY WAG PROJECT

REV.
DATE PREPARED BY REVIEWED BY APPROVED BY
NO.

C 28 August 2015 Amiratul Izana
Aznan

B Amiratul Izana
2014 Aznan

Amiratul Izana
5 November Aznan
A
2014
Bureau Veritas PRW ExxonMobil

ASSUMPTION SHEET

Assumptions:

## 1. The study considers the following scenarios:

 Dropped object during load transfer between standby boat and platform;

##  Crane boom collapse; and

 Crane collapse.
2. Based on CMPT [1], the frequency of dropped crane load and crane/ crane boom collapse
as below
Table 1: The Frequency of Structural Failure

## Description Frequency (per crane year)

-5
Dropped Object 5.0 x 10 per lift

-2
Boom Collapse 2.3 x 10 per crane year

-3
Crane Collapse 4.0 x 10 per crane year

3. A standard deck without any stiffening can be expected to be able to withstand impact
energy of less than 0.2MJ.
4. In the event that the object is dropped onto the platform, it is expected to puncture the
Upper Deck and impact on the Lower Deck if the impact energy exceeds 0.2MJ [1].
5. If the falling objects impact on personnel, it is assumed that it will cause immediate fatality
to the personnel.
6. It is assumed that the dropped object have sufficient energy to puncture the hydrocarbon
equipment and cause the large leak. It may result in large fire if ignited.
7. In the event of crane collapses, immediate fatality of the crane operator is expected, while
in a boom failure event, the crane operator is assumed to be safe.

## GUNTONG EOR EARLY WAG PROJECT 2|P a g e

8. The impact energy of a dropped object is given by the equation below.

E = mgh
Where
E = Impact energy (kJ);
m = Mass of dropped load (tons);
2
g = Gravitational acceleration (9.81m/s );
h = Height from release point to deck (m).
9. The equipment to be lifted on the platform, the lifting frequency and the weight of the loads
during normal operations is assumed based on [2] and Process Flow Diagram given.
Table 2: Lifting operation during normal operation

Heaviest
Lifting
Item No. Equipment Description Parts to be lifted Component
Frequency/Year
(MT)

684-4-ME-700
1 Skid 15 2
WAG Charge Pump

653-2-HX-430
2 Skid 1.1 2
Gas Charge Heater

653-2-V-310

## 5. Motor Operated Valves Valve 2.5 0.2

10. Due to insufficient data during this study period; lifting frequency for each activity has been
adopted from other platforms, based on the typical frequency [5].

## GUNTONG EOR EARLY WAG PROJECT 3|P a g e

11. The total kinetic energy is assumed to be absorbed by the damage capacity of the pipeline
and coating.The damage capacity depends on the wall and coating thickness used. The
impact capacity of the steel pipeline is determined as follows [4]:

1 1 3
 2  2  D 2   2
E  16.  .m p .  .D. 
 9  t  D
Where mp = plastic moment capacity of the wall (Nm/m)
t = wall thickness (m)
 = dent depth (m)
D = diameter of pipeline (m)

1. Centre for Marine Petroleum and Technology (CMPT), A Guide to Quantitative Risk
Assessment for Offshore Installations, 1999
2. EMEPMI, Provision of Engineering, Procurement and Construction Management for EMEPMI
BROWNFIELD PROJECTS, 4215169-00-PR-BOD-0001.
3. Risk Assessment Data Directory, Mechanical Lifting Failure, Report No. 434 – 8, International
Association of Oil & Gas Producers (OGP), March 2010.
4. Det Norske Veritas (DNV), Risk Assessment of Pipeline Protection - Recommended Practice
DNV-RP-F107, 2010.
5. Tele-communication with PRW Project key-person.