Safe Evacuation From Offshore Petroleum Installations
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Marine evacuation systems used on offshore petroleum installations 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 was evaluated 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 the results, 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 a function of weather conditions. In particular, the aim is todetermine how performance capabilities deteriorate with degrading weather conditions. Secondly, the work aims to establish 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 weather on lifeboat evacuation system performance. Observed and measured experimental results are presented and discussed. A set of evacuation zones is defined, which, together with the empirical 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 totally enclosed 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 of the escape, evacuation and rescue (EER) process are not dealt with here. Evacuation during emergencies must necessarily be done in prevailing weather conditions. The performance of evacuation 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.g. Crossland et al. 1992, pp.19-20). There are limitations to model testing in this context, and some of these have been discussed by Simões Ré & Veitch (2001). For example, no attempt was made to model the reliability of the equipment, nor 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 OEB has a working area of 65m×26m. Individual wave maker segments cover two adjacent sides of the basin.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».