Proceedings of the

3rd International Symposium of Maritime Science

Nov. 10-14, 2014 Kobe, Japan
1

Collision Risk Assessment of Vessel and Offshore

Platform: Case Study of Platform Construction
Project at Bintuni Bay West Papua
Muhammad Habib Chusnul Fikri*, Ketut Buda Artana**, Made Ariana**, Dinariyana D.P.**,
Kriyo Sambodho ***
* Student at the Department of Marine Engineering ITS Surabaya
**Lecturer at the Department of Marine Engineering ITS Surabaya
*** Lecturer the Department of Ocean Engineering ITS Surabaya
East Java, Indonesia.
Mhabibcf93@gmail.com, ketutbuda@its.ac.id

AbstractOne leading oil and gas company operates

Tangguh gas field in Bintuni Bay, West Papua. There are also
two refineries and a gas liquefaction facility operating there.
In addition, the company currently has a many facilities
consisting of two offshore platforms, gas pipelines, and
fourteen locations of wellhead. Currently, the company
initiated a project to build two new platforms, and a new
refinery to increase production. As a one of requirements to
issue a permit from the government of Indonesia, the risk will
be assessed based on the level of consequence or impact of a
collision on the platform and the level of frequency of
collisions between ships and platforms. This Research
describes how much risk impact due to collisions between
vessels and platforms. The analysis is based on three main
variables; platform geometry to the shipping channel, the
strength of the structure in reducing the impact energy of the
ship, and the seabed soil 's ability to absorb the impact energy
of collision and hold the platform in order to remain upright.
From this research, it will be evaluated whether the risk is
acceptable or not, some certain steps that need to be done
should risk is unacceptable.

pipeline connecting those platform to receiving terminal. As

shown that the facilities are located in a distance from the
shipping lane. The distance between platforms to the center
of the shipping lane is around 3000 m.

Keywords Bintuni Bay, Marine Engineering, Risk

Assessment, Ship Platform Collision.

I.1 Head-on Passing Vessel Collision

The collision frequency (i.e. the predicted number of
collisions per year) is calculated for each shipping lane
which passes the platform as: [1]

I.

FREQUENCY CALCULATION

Visiting vessels, which approach the platform on

legitimate business under their own power, including:
Passing merchant vessels, which pass close to the
platform because it lies close to their route between
ports
Fishing vessels, which may pass close to the platform
repeatedly if it lies within fishing grounds.
Naval vessels, which may conduct exercises near to
platforms.
Offshore tankers, which may load at offshore moorings
near to other platforms.
Other support vessels which are anchored beside
platforms for long periods.
Figure 1 shows the design position of platform and the

Platform B

Platform A

Figure 1. Platform and Shipping Lane Position

FCP = N x Fd x P
(1)
Where:
N = Total traffic in the lane (vessel movements/year).
Fd = Proportion of vessels that are in the part of the lane
directed towards the platform.
P = Probability of collision per passing vessel

Figure 2. Fault Tree Analysis of Head-on Collision

2
Fault tree analysis is used to calculate probability of
collision per passing vessel. Few factors are included in
calculation in order to know the probability of collision
per passing vessel based on each developed collision
scenario. Figure 3 shows the collision frequency is
proportional to the size of the platform and the ship. The
combined size is known as the collision diameter. The
collision diameter is defined as the width of that part of
the shipping lane crosssection from which the ship would
hit the platform unless it changed course. If the traffic
across the lane follows a normal (or Gaussian)
distribution, the probability can be determined accurately
by integration of the appropriate part of the distribution,
which is usually carried out using published tables. If the
collision diameter is small compared to the lane width, a
more convenient analytical approximation is: [1]

vessel attempt to collide with platform, there are some

possibility of ships machinery or propulsion system
breakdown. The possibility of drifting passing vessel
collision then is influenced by wind and current direction
at the present time. The mathematical equation is
presented as follow [1]
FCD = Nb x P x D/BL
(4)
Nb
P
D
BL

Where:
=
=
=
=

total traffic in the box (vessels/year)

Probability of collision per passing vessel
collision diameter
box length perpendicular to wind direction

Figure 4. Fault Tree Analysis of Drifting Collision

For drifting calculation, developed fault tree analysis

has a little different. A factor of wind/current blow is
included as a cause factor that lead into collision while
ship in a dead-ship condition Most merchant ships have a
single diesel engine driving a single propeller.
Breakdowns (i.e. loss of power, propulsion and/or
steering) are not comprehensively reported, because most
are repaired by the ship itself before any damage is
caused. The frequency of breakdowns depends on the
severity/duration of events which are included.
Figure 3. Head-on Passing Vessel Collision Geometry [1]

Fd = D x f (A)

(2)

For the normal distribution, the probability density is: [1]

f (A) = [exp (-k2/2)]/ (2)

(3)

A = distance from platform to lane centerline at closest

point of approach
= standard deviation of traffic distribution across the
lane, normally 50% of A
k = A/ i.e. the number of standard deviations that the
platform is from the lane centerline
I.2 Drifting Passing Vessel Collision
The developed scenario for drifting passing vessel
collision is as follow: while there are any possible passing

3
=
width of tanker normal to drift track
=
width of platform normal to drift track
=
initial distance of tanker from platform
For a uniform distribution of wave directions, the
probability of drifting on a collision course is then /2.

D1
D2
L

II.

CONSEQUENCE ASSESSMENT

There are two criteria of impact level as follow:

- Global failure; very large impact collision,
resulting in a very massive deformation that led to
failure of structure and facility shutdown
- Local failure; produced impact has exceeded the
power of material elasticity, resulting in permanent
deformation. However, failure of structure still can
be avoided so as facility shutdown is not necessary.
Any impact absorbed by pile would give various effect
depend on impact energy given by collision. Ship impact
energy is calculated as follows:
Ek= k(mv2)/2

Figure 5. Drifting Passing Vessel Collision Geometry [1]

I.3 Visiting Vessel Collision

Tankers which load offshore, or are permanently
moored offshore as floating production or storage vessels,
may suffer several types of collisions while approaching
the platform. Same cases also applied on approaching
supply vessel. An offshore tanker may become adrift if:
It suffers machinery breakdown while approaching or
departing from its mooring.
It suffers machinery breakdown or major DP failure
while stationed using dynamic positioning.

(6)

Where:
m= ships displacement (weight)
v = ships velocity
k = 1.1 for head-on collision
= 1.4 for drift collision
Beam deflection is the deflection due to the influence of
external force against a column. In addition to the
deflection of the beam, there are other deformations in the
column due to the impact force, which is dent. Dents per
diameter ratio indicates the possibility of a tear in the
column due to the impact force. Collision energies capable
of being held by a cylindrical tubular column is as follows
[3]
:
2

E 16

1
2

mp

1
2

3
2

(7)
It may then collide with nearby platforms if:
It drifts towards the platform
It is unable to restart its machinery (if applicable)
It is unable to use thrusters to alter its track
It is unable to use anchors to stop
A probability distribution of wave directions may be
obtained from wave climate data for the area. In a simple
study, it is often assumed similar to the wind rose, which
is more readily available, or even more simply assumed to
be uniform. The angle subtended by the platform is
estimated as: [1]
A = arctan [(D1 + D2)/2L]
(5)
where
:
A
=

angle subtended by platform (rad)

Where:
E
= absorbed energy
D
= outer diameter OD
mp
= plastic moment capacity (=0.25 x SMYS x t2)

= dent depth
t
= column thickness
Where the dent per diameter ratio exceeds 5%, damage
repairing is needed. [3] The denting of a tubular is
described by the equation below. This equation for impact
energy (E), obtained from integration of the impact force
as a function of the dent depth, are[13]
(8)
The result shows that equation (7) and equation (8) give
similar value. In other word, those equations are verified.

4
III.

ANALYSIS OF COLLISION RISK

III.1 Frequency Calculation

Frequency analysis is conducted by estimating annual
ships call per year. Considering the geometry location of
platforms and ships lane which can came across by any
directions, variation of standard deviation value is putted
into calculation as shown from table 1. However,
conservative values of hazard probability are taken into
account to make sure that every possible hazards are
covered into calculation. The analysis is conducted within
this scenario:
Scenario:
1. Human error by standby watching officer
2. Failure of platform location identification by
navigation system
3. Failure of propulsion system-dead ship
4. Failure of determining the shipping lane, causing
the ship take voyage lane near platform (within
500 m prohibited radius)

[Ref no.25, 26], having 1600 mm of diameter and 60 mm

wall thickness. By this simulation, it will be known the
limit of structure resistance from impact energy
Table 2. Consequence Calculation

Table 1. Frequency Calculation for Head-on Collision

Finite element analysis also conducted as a verifying

method of consequence analysis

As shown from table above, result of annual frequency

calculation indicate the hazard of being hit by ship is safe.
Basically, as long as the annual probability of collision is
less than one, we could assume that is safe.
Figure 6. Results of FEM Analysis

III.2 Consequences Analysis

Various kind of possible ships are used in calculation of
consequences. For each ship classes based on
displacement and engine power, each consequence level is
calculated by various speed (4-10 knot for head-on
collision and 1-4 knot for drifting collision). Size of the
single leg is obtained by data provided from BP Indonesia

5
with the installation. Further examination of these
incidents has shown that there were a number of reasons
why difficulty was experienced in establishing
communications. However, it has become clear that radio
procedures used to establish communications with the
approaching vessels are often not correct in that the initial
calling was made on VHF Channel

Figure 7. Results of Empirical Analysis

From this analysis, it can be concluded that estimate value

of impact energy absorbed by platform structure is about
37% of total impact energy (kinetic energy from ship)
IV.

CONCLUSION AND MITIGATION

As shown from table above, the structure is not strong

enough to resist the impact given by ships collision. This
is show that the design of structure is not made to
withstand impact collision. Therefore, to reduce the risk of
collision the probability of collision itself must be reduced
by do some mitigation efforts.
Mark of Restricted Area. Under the law of Republic of
Indonesia number one (1) year 1973 about Continental
Shelf of Indonesia, to carry out exploration work in
natural resources, Indonesian government establishes a
prohibited area in a radius of 500 meters from the
outermost point of the installation of the exploration, and
a limited area with a radius of 1250 meters from the
outermost point of the restricted areas, where all the ships
of third parties are prohibited from entering or doing
activity in the area. A set of buoys can be used as mark of
restricted areas.

Figure 8. Illustration of border of restricted area around platforms.

Radio communication between offshore installations.

The Health and Safety Executive has become aware of
several recent incidents where installations, or their
attendant standby vessels, have been unable to establish
radio communication with a vessel on a collision course

Figure 9. Marine VHF radio.

Under the new GMDSS procedures, distress, urgency

and safety alerts are made in a significantly different
manner than before. Such alerts are not made by voice,
but digitally via digital selective calling (DSC) equipment,
on different frequencies (on VHF the alerting frequency is
now channel 70). After communication is established the
parties would change to a distress working frequency,
which
on
VHF
is
channel
16. Ship-to-ship
communication is to be conducted on VHF channel 13. By
further amendment, the IMO has determined that ships
subject to SOLAS are to maintain a continuous watch
where practicable on VHF channel 16.
Automatic Identification Systems. The Automatic
Identification
System
is
an
automatic
tracking system used on ships and by vessel traffic
services for
identifying
and
locating vessels by
electronically exchanging data with other nearby ships,
AIS base stations, and satellites. When satellites are used
to detect AIS signatures then the term Satellite-AIS) is
used. AIS information supplements marine radar, which
continues to be the primary method of collision avoidance
for water transport. AIS was developed by the IMO
technical committees as a technology to avoid collisions
among large vessels at sea that are not within range of
shore-based systems.

6
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]

The technology identifies every vessel individually,

along with its specific position and movements, enabling a
virtual picture to be created in real time. The AIS
standards include a variety of automatic calculations
based on these position reports such as Closest Point of
Approach (CPA) and collision alarms. As AIS is not used
by all vessels, AIS is usually used in conjunction with
radar. However, this recommendation is mean to install
AIS system inside platform for the purpose of two ways
communication with passing vessel, in conjunction with
the use of radio communication.
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]

Artana, Ketut Buda. 2013. Penilaian Risiko Pipa Gas Bawah Laut.
Guna Widya. Surabaya
Spouge, John. 1999. A Guide To Quantitative Risk Assessment for
Offshore. CMPT: DNV Technica.
Popov, Egor. P. 1983. Mechanics of Materials. McGraw-Hill

[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]

International student edition. New York. .

DNV-RP-F107. 2010. Risk Assessment of Pipeline Protection. Det
Norske Veritas
Health and Safety Executive. 2004. Ship Collision and Capacity of
Brace Members of Foxed Stell Offshore Platforms.Health and
Safety Executive: Zomervlinderberm, Netherlands
Hester dan Harrison. 1998.Risk Assessment and Risk Management.
Redwood Books: Manchester, United Kingdom
Ellinas, Charles P. 1984. Ultimate Strength of Damaged Tubular
Members. Journal of Structural Engineering: London, England
R.L.Brockenbrough. 1999. Structural Steel Designers Handbook.
McGraw-Hill, Inc: New York, USA.
DNV-OS-C101. 2011. Design of Offshore Steel Structures General
(LRFD Method). Det Norske Veritas
API RP 2A-WSD. 2000. Recommended Practice for Planning,
Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms-Working
Stress Design. American Petroleum Institute: Washington D.C.,
USA
API RP 14J. 2001. Recommended Practice for Design and Hazard
Analysis for Offshore Production Facilities. American Petroleum
Institute: Washington D.C., USA
Dalhoff, Peter. Ship Collision, Risk Analysis-Emergency SistemsCollsion Dynamic. Hambur University of Technology, Germany
Zhang, Shengming. 1999. The Mechanics of Ship Collisions.
Department of Naval Architecture and Offshore Engineering:
Technical University of Denmark
Visser Consultancy. Ship collision and capacity of brace members
of fixed steel offshore platform. 2004