Roll Over Protection for the Oil & Gas Industry

Transcription

1 Roll Over Protection for the Oil & Gas Industry Gavin Davidson & Aeron Lloyd Safety Devices International Ltd IAGC & IOGP Bi-Annual Joint HSE Forum Paris 29 th September 2016

2 Contents Are roll overs still an issue for the industry? Primary and secondary safety systems Considering roll over risk Types of ROPS Effect of ROPS on existing safety systems Effect of ROPS on CoG Manufacturer ROPS Roll over examples Roll over testing Roof strength testing Quality & Manufacturing Legislation Conclusion References Questions?

3 IOGP Data The IOGP safety database is the largest database of safety performance in the upstream oil and gas industry. The submission of data is voluntary and is not mandated by IOGP membership. Category of event No. of fatal incidents (No. fatalities) % of fatal incidents (% of fatalities) Type of activity No. of fatal incidents (No. fatalities) Struck by 634 (703) 40 (34) Transport - Land 430 (501) 27 (24) Caught In, Under or Maintenance, Inspection, 202 (205) 13 (10) 230 (330) 15 (16) Between Testing Falls from Height 171 (178) 11 (9) Drilling/Workover/Well Services 180 (210) 11 (10) Water-related, drowning 129 (143) 8 (7) Unspecified - Other 158 (168) 10 (8) Other 89 (287) 6 (14) Construction, Commissioning, 161 (168) 10 (8) Lifting Crane, Rigging, Deck Exposure Electrical 89 (95) 6 (5) 141 (145) 9 (7) Operations Transport - Water, incl. Marine Explosion/Burn 89 (222) 6 (11) 86 (102) 5 (5) activity Pressure release 78 (95) 5(5) Transport - Air 47 (247) 3 (12) Assault & Violent Act 66 (85) 4(4) Production operations 45 (73) 3 (4) Exposure Noise, Chemical, Biological, Vibration 17 (22) 1(1) Office, Warehouse, Accommodation, Catering 42 (53) 3 (3) Confined Space 15 (27) 1(1) Seismic/Survey Operations 43 (50) 3 (2) Overexertion/Strain 6 (6) 0(0) Diving, Subsea, ROV 23 (24) 1(1) Slips & Trips (at same height) 1 (1) 0(0) Total 1,586 (2,071) Total 1,586 (2,071) Table 2: Work-related land transport fatalities reported to IOGP * *Reproduced from SPE , Improving the Opportunity for Learning from Industry Safety Data. % of fatal incidents (% of fatalities)

4 IOGP Data At least 33% of all MVC incidents resulting in a fatality involve a vehicle rollover. At least 37% of all MVC incidents resulting in a Lost Work Day Case involve a rollover.

5 IOGP Data

6 IOGP Data

7 BP Algeria Data 85 MVC accidents in total, data reduced to 37 due to poor detail available.

8 BP Algeria Data

9 BP Algeria Data

10 BP Algeria Data

11 Summary of data IOGP state: 27% of the fatalities reported to IOGP between 1991 and 2012 were as a result of land transportation incidents At least 33% of all MVC incidents resulting in a fatality involve a vehicle rollover Which means 9% of all fatalities reported to IOGP are a result of rollover Rollovers do not appear to be decreasing BP Algeria data shows: 62% of all MVC incidents involved rollover 83% of all MVC fatalities involved a rollover

12 Primary and secondary safety systems Seatbelts Curtain Air Bags Electronic Stability Control (ESC) ESC improves a vehicle's stability by detecting and reducing loss of traction. When ESC detects loss of steering control, it automatically applies the brakes to wheels individually, such as the outer front wheel to counter oversteer or the inner rear wheel to counter understeer. Speed Limiters

13 Considerations for ROPS Vehicle selection Speed limits Road conditions Driving exposure Local driving conditions

14 Types of ROPS - Internal

15 Types of ROPS - External

16 Types of ROPS Internal / External

17 Effect of ROPS on existing safety systems Crash structures Seatbelt mountings Dashboard Airbags Curtain Airbags

18 Effect of ROPS on vehicle Centre of Gravity (CoG)

19 Effect of ROPS on vehicle CoG Height Occupants Occupant mass (kg) ROPS ROPS mass (kg) Front mass (kg) Rear mass (kg) Total mass (kg) Error (kg) CoG height from floor/mm Longitudinal CoG from front axle N N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y CoG height (mm) Occupants No ROPS With ROPS Change in CoG

20 Effect of ROPS on vehicle CoG

21 Manufacturer supplied ROPS?

22 Examples of roll over incidents

23 Examples of roll over incidents

24 Examples of roll over incidents

25 Roll over test set up Vehicle without RPD Vehicle with RPD Test speed 50 km/h 50 km/h Initial Roll 205⁰ 205⁰ Initial Yaw 20⁰ 20⁰ Initial Pitch 5⁰ 5⁰ Height from ground to first point of contact 210 mm 210 mm Test mass 2011 kg 1897 kg Instrumentation Accelerometers Triaxial at centre of gravity, Triaxial at chassis crossmember Rate sensors Roll, Pitch and Yaw sensors at centre of gravity String potentiometer internal from A- pillar corner to floor Accelerometers Triaxial at centre of gravity, Triaxial at chassis crossmember Rate sensors Roll, Pitch and Yaw sensors at centre of gravity String potentiometer internal from A- pillar corner to floor Pre test photograph

26 Roll over without ROPS

27 Roll over test results Vehicle without RPD Vehicle with RPD Number of rolls completed 2 3 ¼ Position of vehicle at rest Image of damage to vehicle Maximum deflection (mm) A-pillar B-pillar C-pillar O/S N/S O/S N/S x x 8 19 y A-pillar y 4 35 z z Resultant Resultant x x 1 5 y B-pillar y 1 2 z z 2 10 Resultant Resultant 2 11 x 7 21 x 0 1 y y 0 0 C-pillar z z 1 1 Resultant Resultant 1 1

28 Roll over test results Vehicle without RPD Vehicle with RPD Displacement of offside (driver side) A-pillar Description of damage in initial impact Description of damage in subsequent rolls Peak acceleration in initial impact in z-direction Some damage to roof, A-pillar and cant rail. Windscreen became detached. Significant damage to A-pillar, roof and cant rail, particularly on offside (driver s side) of the vehicle. Roof crushed to be resting on seat backs. Little or no damage in initial impact Limited crush on offside of vehicle. Crush on nearside of vehicle from last roll impact. Deformation to RPD around A-pillar corner g g Peak accelerations X 4.96 g X 6.84 g Y g Y 9.47 g Z g Z g Resultant g Resultant g

29 Roof Strength FMVSS216a GVW < 6000lb (2722kg) must withstand 3.0 times Unladen Vehicle Weight (UVW) GVW > 6000lb (2722kg) must withstand 1.5 times Unladen Vehicle Weight (UVW)

30 IIHS (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) Roof Strength Test Protocol V3 July 2016 Based upon FMVSS216a but specifies a maximum displacement rather than a force. Roof Strength Rating Boundaries SWR to < to < 3.25 Rating Good Acceptable Marginal <2.50 Poor SWR= Load/kerb weight

31 Comparison of roof strength requirements Vehicle Chevrolet Ford GMC Canyon Jeep Nissan Nissan Toyota Toyota Colorado Explorer Crew Cab Cherokee Frontier Pathfinder 4runner Tocamo Year UVW(Curb weight) GVW IIHS Peak force FMVSS216a GVW <2722kg FMVSS216a GVW >2722kg Former OGP Requirement BP Algeria accident reconstruction UVW UVW BP UVW GVW GVW BP GVW All figures in kg OGP figure includes 1.5 x UVW BP Algeria is for vertical load case

32 Manufacturing & Quality Material specification Tube / pipe bending Manufacturing fixtures Welding method & weld inspection Mounting points Joint types Backing plates Fasteners Certification of ROPS Traceability of ROPS

33 Manufacturing & Quality

34 Manufacturing & Quality

35 Manufacturing & Quality

36 Manufacturing & Quality

37 Conformity with legislation

38 Conclusion

39 References & Acknowledgements SPE paper , Improving the Opportunity for Learning from Industry Safety Data SPE , Continuing the Efforts to Learn From Industry Safety Data Report 2014m : Safety performance indicators Motor Vehicle Crash Data TRL Client Project Report CPR1002: Design Standard for Rollover Protection Devices TRL Client Project Report CPR1387: Further Development of Standard for Roll-over Protection Devices Friedman and Nash Advanced roof design for rollover protection. Paper number 01- S12-W-94 PPAD 9/33/99 (C) Effectiveness of Electronic Stability Control Systems in Great Britain

40 Questions? Gavin Davidson & Aeron Lloyd Safety Devices International Ltd (0)

41