1 / 28

Cost Effectiveness of Hull Girder Safety

Cost Effectiveness of Hull Girder Safety. Rolf Skjong & EM Bitner-Gregersen Det Norske Veritas. OMAE, Oslo, June 24-28, 2002. Content. Acceptance criteria in Structural Reliability Analysis Acceptance Criteria in Formal Safety Assessment Common Criteria?

jaser
Télécharger la présentation

Cost Effectiveness of Hull Girder Safety

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Cost Effectiveness of Hull Girder Safety Rolf Skjong & EM Bitner-Gregersen Det Norske Veritas OMAE, Oslo, June 24-28, 2002

  2. Content • Acceptance criteria in Structural Reliability Analysis • Acceptance Criteria in Formal Safety Assessment • Common Criteria? • Application to Hull Girder Strength • Conclusion

  3. Traditional Approach - SRA • Typical Example:DNV Classification Note 30.6 (1992) on Structural Reliability Analysis of Maritime Structures • SRA is Bayesian theory • Explains why SRA does not produce Probabilities with a frequency interpretation • No gross error • Epistemic uncertainty & model uncertainties included • SRA talk of “notional” reliabilities

  4. Traditional Approach - SRA • Target should depend on consequence • Calibration against known cases (that are acceptable good/best practices in the industry) • Calibration against similar cases with similar consequences • Based on accepted decision analysis techniques • Based on tabular values (presented as a last resort)

  5. Traditional Approach - SRA • Based on tabular values (presented as a last resort)

  6. Traditional Approach - RA • Quantitative risk assessment is the basis for regulations in many industries • PSA/PRA - Nuclear • Hazardous Industries (Seveso I/II) • Offshore (Safety Case) • Shipping (FSA) • Etc.

  7. Traditional Approach - QRA • Present Risk Results in terms of • Individual Risk (Fatalities) • Individual Risk (Health and Injuries) • Societal Risk (Group Risk) • Environmental Risk • Economic risk (not necessarily a regulatory issue)

  8. Traditional Approach - RA • Example Individual risk

  9. Traditional Approach - QRA • Example Societal Risk

  10. Traditional Approach - QRA Not acceptable Intolerable High Risk Acceptable if made ALARP ALARP Negligible Acceptable Low Risk

  11. Traditional Approach - QRA • The As Low As Reasonably Practicable Area implies that cost effectiveness assessment may be used • Risk is made As Low As Reasonably Practicable, when all cost effective safety measures have been implemented • Implies that a decision criteria for cost effectiveness will be required • It seems to be accepted at IMO that most ship types are in the ALARP area but not ALARP • Cost Effectiveness will be the only criteria

  12. Common Criteria • Cost effectiveness criteria is easy to use, both for SRA and FSA studies • Advantage to SRA: Only change in risk is used in the decision process, not the absolute numbers • Criteria to use: $ 1.5 - $ 3.0 million • Decision at MSC 76 in December 2002

  13. Previous IMO decisions • Example from IMO: UN Organisation for maritime safety and environmental protection regulations

  14. Girder Collapse/Sagging

  15. PROCODE • Use limit states formulation with target beta • Optimisation of partial safety factors • Control Variables: Partial Safety Factors • Minimum Scatter around a target reliability by minimising the penalty function • Target to vary to produce cost effectiveness ratios

  16. PROCODE One design Case: Subjected to: With one of the inequalities turning into equality This is generalised to Multiple design cases in PROCODE

  17. PROCODE • Programmable functions • Limit States • Code Checks • Penalty functions • Defined by Data (additional to PROBAN) • Scope • Safety Factor • Design Parameter

  18. PROCODE RESULTS • Code Evaluation (before optimisation starts) • Optimised partial safety factors • Resulting reliabilities • Resulting design parameters (input to cost analysis)

  19. PROCODE Results

  20. PROCODE Results

  21. Resulting Steel Weight

  22. Costs

  23. Costs

  24. GCAF Calculation of GCAF (L Profiles) GCAF = (Cost of RCO)/( PLL)  -> 3.50 to 3.72 (Pf=2.41 10-4 to 10-4) 20 persons 20 years 50% survives  P  PLL = (2.41 10-4 - 1.0 10-4 ) •20 •20 •0.5 = 0.0302 GCAF = (4,309,760 -3,997,769)/0.0302 = $ 10.3 million

  25. NCAF Calculation of NCAF (L Profiles) NCAF = (Cost of RCO -Economic Benefits)/( PLL)  -> 3.50 to 3.72 (Pf=2.41 10-4 to 10-4) 20 years Old Ship  P Cargo Benefits = (2.41 10-4 - 1.0 10-4 ) •20• ($11 + $ 21 million ) = $ 90,240 NCAF = (4,309,760 -3,997,769-90,240)/0.0302 = $ 7.13 million

  26. Results

  27. Conclusion • In reliability based code calibration CEA (NCAF) may be used as an alternative to target  • Consistency with RA • The decision is based on the derivative of PF with respect to design variables only • Not reliant on probability (the absolute number) • Mid ship bending moment (ship deck/sagging) • NCAF at about $ 3 million corresponds to 10-4 target • Compares well to last line of defence, lifeboats at $ 1 million • More studies necessary for other limit states

  28. Evacuation Failure Flooding Collision Human error, navigation Fire One criteria HE, QRA, SRA Optimising risk control options according to their cost effectiveness:

More Related