OTC 14161

Safe Evacuation From Offshore Petroleum Installations

Reeni Woolgar and Antnio Simes R, National Research Council of Canada, Institute for Marine Dynamics
Brian Veitch and Dean Pelley, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Ocean Engineering Research Centre

Copyright 2002, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2002 Offshore Technology Conference held in
Houston, Texas U.S.A., 69 May 2002.
This paper was selected for presentation by the OTC Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Offshore Technology Conference or its officers. Electronic reproduction,
distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written
consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print
is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was
presented.

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 to
determine 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 Simes R & 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
65m26m. Individual wave maker segments cover two
adjacent sides of the basin. On the sides opposite the wave
makers, expanded sheet metal passive wave absorbers are
fitted to reduce wave reflection in the basin. During these
tests, the water depth was 2.8m and all the waves were
unidirectional from the bank of wave boards at the West side
of the basin, as shown in the installation setup, Figure 1.
A platform was installed in the OEB and secured to the
floor of the basin. The platform was a simple, four legged
truss structure and was meant to be a generic, rather than
particular, petroleum installation. The platform penetrated the
water surface with small diameter cylindrical members that
did not reflect waves to a significant extent.

R. WOOLGAR, A. SIMES R, B. VEITCH AND D. PELLEY

Figure 1. Plan of OEB showing the location of test platform.

The lifeboat station was designed in three modules. The

davits, winches, and TEMPSC were mounted on a wooden
deck, which was in turn fitted to an aluminum truss beam. The
aluminum beam was attached to a stand on the platform in a
cantilever arrangement, like the one illustrated in Figure 2.
The modular arrangement facilitated rapid changes to the
configuration (e.g. launch height, clearance, and orientation)
during the test program. As this paper deals with the weather
effects, rather than the effects of configuration changes, only
the main configuration is described. A complete account of the
tests and results can be found in Simes R et al. (2002).
The TEMPSC model was arranged to be perpendicular to
the platform while stowed and at launch. The launch height
was 35m above the waterline. The clearance between the
platform and TEMPSC was 11.037m. This clearance is
approximately 3.0B, where B is the beam of the TEMPSC,
which was 3.7m (full-scale) in these tests.
Tests were done at six different environmental conditions
between calm water and Beaufort 8. The nominal wave
heights and wind speeds corresponding to each of the six
conditions are given in Table 1. Measured values are reported
in the plots presented in the results. Regular collinear waves
that propagated normal to the platform were used. As the
waves used were regular, the target value was in the Beaufort
scale range of the significant wave height, rather than the
mean wave height. The sizes of the different waves are
compared in Figure 3, which also illustrates the relative size of
the model TEMPSC.

Figure 2. Arrangement of lifeboat station on platform.

OTC 14161

OTC 14161

SAFE EVACUATION FROM OFFSHORE PETROLEUM INSTALLATIONS

Table 1. Definition of nominal environmental conditions.

Beaufort description Mean wind
Average
Significant
wave
wave
-1
[m]
[m]
[ms ]
(0) calm water
(4) moderate breeze

5.6 8.3

0.42-0.89

0.67-1.40

(5) fresh breeze

8.7 10.8

1.15-1.53

1.85-2.44

(6) strong breeze

11.3 13.9

1.95-2.93

3.04-4.58

(7) moderate gale

14.4 17.0

3.35-4.88

5.48-7.93

(8) fresh gale

17.4 20.6

5.79-8.54

9.14-13.72

The 1:13 scale model lifeboat was representative of an 80

person TEMPSC. Made from glass reinforced plastic, the
model weighed 5.26kg in the fully loaded test condition and
obtained an average full-scale model speed of 6.089knots in
calm water. The model was outfitted with an electric motor
and shaft, a 32mm four bladed propeller, a working rudder,
two rechargeable batteries, three accelerometers arranged
orthogonally, a simulated hydrostatic release circuit with interlocking mechanical release servos, a radio transmitter, a
wireless video camera, and a water detection light-emitting
diode. A detailed description of the TEMPSC can be found in
Simes R et al. (2002).

Figure 4. Test setup with TEMPSC in stowed position.

Test Matrix
The test matrix is present in Table 2, where the first column
denotes the subsets in the test series, the second column shows
the number of times a successful launch was made in the
specified conditions, and the third column describes the
nominal weather conditions in terms of the Beaufort scale.
The fourth and fifth columns are the average measured mean
wind speed and mean wave height, respectively, of the tests
done in the particular subset.
For example, the subset KLM1450 consisted of 19
nominally identical launches in moderate gale weather
conditions, or Beaufort 7. The average measured mean wind
speed in the 19 tests was 15.5ms-1 and the average mean wave
height was 6.7m. Note that the results are reported as fullscale values, rather than model scale.
Table 2. Test series.
Series
Label

Figure 3. Environmental conditions.

The fixed platform contained some of the instrumentation

and electronics for the tests. The launching system, computer
and associated electronics were stored on the platform near the
twin-falls davit launching system. Three wave probes were
attached to the platform and oriented parallel to the davit
system such that one probe was aligned to each of the stern,
midships, and bow of the lifeboat as pictured in Figure 4. One
anemometer was mounted to the underside of the davit frame
platform. Four video cameras were arranged to permit views
from the beam, from overhead, from the davit frame, and also
from a rover camera. An optical tracking system was used to
monitor and track the six degrees of motion of the lifeboat.

# of
tests

Beaufort
description
(0) calm water

Mean
Wind

Mean
Wave

[ms-1]

[m]

KLM1400

KLM1420

12 (4) moderate breeze

3.606

1.001

KLM1430

19 (5) fresh breeze

9.375

2.106

KLM1440

30 (6) strong breeze

12.619 3.965

KLM1450

19 (7) moderate gale

15.504 6.708

KLM1460

22 (8) fresh gale

18.028 9.139

Results and Discussion

The evacuation phases modeled in the experiments can be
conveniently explained with reference to the example in
Figure 5, which shows one of the launches made in Beaufort 6
conditions. The figure presents the launch site in three views.
At the top is a plan view, in the middle is an elevation abeam
the TEMPSC (xz), and at the bottom is an elevation looking
along the centerline of the TEMPSC (yz).
Considering the top view first, the outline of the
installation is shown at left (x = -11.037m) and the lifeboat
station protrudes perpendicular from it. An outline of the
TEMPSC is arranged so that its stern is at the intersection of

R. WOOLGAR, A. SIMES R, B. VEITCH AND D. PELLEY

OTC 14161

20

Strong Breeze
KLM1440_013

15

Y [m]

5
0

Installation

10

-10
-15

Danger Zone
Boundary

-5
Rescue Zone
Boundary
Splash-down
Boundary

-20
-10

-5

10

15

20

25

30

X [m]
45

Installation

40

Strong Breeze
KLM1440_013

35
30
25
Z [m]

the xy axes. In addition, three imaginary borders are shown in

the top view as dashed lines. One is the circular border
centered at the origin. The other two are parallel to the edge of
the installation.
The circular border defines a splash-down zone that
centers on the target launch point (at the origin vertically
below the TEMPSC). The size of this zone should
accommodate safe launches. Previous experiments revealed
that a TEMPSC should be expected to miss its target drop point
by some amount. Further, after it has reached splash-down,
but before it begins to make way, a lifeboat is vulnerable to
the oncoming wind and waves. Of particular importance is the
extent that the lifeboat can be pushed backwards during its
first wave encounter. This distance is referred to here as set
back and is illustrated in Figure 6. Combined, the effects of
missing the target and being set back by waves can be severe
enough to cause a collision between the boat and the
installation (e.g. Simes R 1996, Simes R & Veitch 2001,
Campbell et al. 1983).
A practical definition of the splash-down zone then is an
area that encompasses the combination of set back and missed
target vectors. According to this definition, the splash-down
boundary is not a fixed size, but rather would be expected to
be bigger in rougher conditions and smaller in more benign
conditions. The size of the zone can be defined by choosing an
acceptable threshold, based, say, on a probability that the
TEMPSC will be inside the zone after set back. An upper size
limit might be imposed based on other system limitations,
such as the seaworthiness of the TEMPSC. A splash-down
border radius of 15m is shown in Figure 5. This is admittedly
somewhat arbitrary, and is not consistent with the clearance
used in these tests as the clearance should not be smaller than
the splash-down zone, but is useful in the present context for
illustrating the utility of the performance measures and zones.
The area between the installation and the closer parallel
boundary is a danger zone. It is meant to provide a buffer to
accommodate launching in damaged conditions. In Figure 5,
this border is 4.6m from the platform. Again, this value was
chosen somewhat arbitrarily. The appropriate size depends on
the type of installation and other factors, such as the type of
damage conditions that are expected to be survivable.
Thirdly, a rescue zone boundary is shown at 25m from the
platform. This is meant to indicate the distance from the
installation that is considered safe for rescue operations. It is
not clear what this distance is, but it could be the closest
distance to the installation that a stand by vessel can come in
an emergency situation, for example. The region between the
danger and rescue zone boundaries is the clearing zone.
Prior to the tests, the borders used to define the zones were
chosen rather arbitrarily. This topic is revisited later where a
suggestion is made on how these can be integrated to help
guide design decisions.
Returning now from the description of zones, the irregular
line in the top view of the figure is the projected path taken by
the TEMPSC during its launch, from lowering and splashdown, to sail-away across the rescue zone border.

20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-10

-5

10

15

20

25

30

X [m]
45
40

Strong Breeze
KLM1440_013

Installation

35
30
25
Z [m]

20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-20

-15

-10

-5

Y [m]
Figure 5. Evacuation path in a strong breeze.

10

15

SAFE EVACUATION FROM OFFSHORE PETROLEUM INSTALLATIONS

20

Fresh Gale
KLM1460_002

15

5
0

Installation

10

-5
-10
-15

Danger Zone
Boundary

The projected path also appears in the two elevation views.

In the xz view, the path during lowering appears as an almost
straight vertical line, indicating that there was negligible
motion in the plane of the twin falls during deployment. Upon
splash-down, the TEMPSC was unable to make way
immediately. In fact, the path shows that the TEMPSC was
pushed back toward the installation by an oncoming wave. It
began to make way after the first wave passed and then
continued to move almost straight out to the rescue zone
border, cresting two more oncoming waves along the way.
In the bottom (yz) view, the path during lowering exhibits
some oscillation. This was due to the wind, which, although
was bow on to the TEMPSC, set up more oscillatory motion
perpendicular to its direction that parallel. The projected path
after splash-down is not very useful in this view for this
particular case because it shows the TEMPSC as it sailed
straight out of the page.

Y [m]

OTC 14161

Rescue Zone
Boundary
Splash-down
Boundary

-20
-10

-5

10

15

20

25

30

X [m]

SETBACK

45
40

Installation

Fresh Gale
KLM1460_002

35
30
25
Z [m]

20
15
10
5
0

Figure 6. Set back.

-5
-10

A second example, this one for a launch in a fresh gale or

Beaufort 8 conditions, is presented in Figure 7. A good
impression of the size of the wave is given by the path
illustrated in the xz view. In the same view, it can also be seen
that as soon as the TEMPSC landed, it was carried by the wave
back toward the installation. In this case, the set back was
bigger than the clearance and there was an impact or collision
with the installation. In order to avoid collision damage to the
model, a soft mesh was arranged near the water surface under
the edge of the installation. The mesh cushioned the impact.
As a result, the path appears to go into the installation in
Figure 7.
Another result is evident in this example. When the
TEMPSC crested the second wave (at about x = 21m) it lost its
way momentarily, as can be seen in the top view. This result
and others like it are qualitatively similar to observations made
by Hollobone et al. (1984) who estimated set back up to 12m
in Beaufort 7 conditions and above, and an 8m wave height
limit to TEMPSC seaworthiness.
Rather than show results for more individual tests, all the
results are shown in the following plots. The legend for the
plots presented in Figures 8 through 14 is given in Table 3.

-10

-5

10
X [m]

Figure 7. Evacuation path in a fresh gale.

Table 3. Legend

15

20

25

30

R. WOOLGAR, A. SIMES R, B. VEITCH AND D. PELLEY

OTC 14161

The clearance between the installation and the lifeboat in

the KLM test series was 11.037m, which the results show to
be inadequate to accommodate a collision free launch in the
weather conditions corresponding to Beaufort 7 and above.
This result has obvious practical value.
Of the two components in this performance measure, set
back is the more important by far. The missed target versus
weather showed no discernible relationship between the two.
On the other hand, set back versus weather was very similar
qualitatively and quantitatively to Figure 8.
Another important characteristic of the plotted results in
Figure 8 is the variability of the results in each of the six
nominal weather conditions. Closer examination of the tests
through the use of video recording, showed that there was a
fairly strong relationship between the set back and the position
on the incoming wave that the lifeboat landed. This
relationship was noted in previous work (Simes R & Veitch
2001, Campbell et al. 1983). In the present tests, the position
on the wave at splash-down was qualitatively designated to be
either at a crest, in a trough, on the upslope, or on the
downslope. These positions are denoted in the plot by the
appropriate symbol (see Table 3).
With reference again to Figure 8, the splash-down
positions are dominated by upslope positions, followed
distantly by crests. There were a few trough and downslope
splash-downs at lower weather conditions, but almost none at
Beaufort 6 and above. This is a consequence of the relative
speeds of the waves and lifeboat lowering (e.g. Soma et al.
1986, Finch et al. 2002). Further, it is evident that the lowest
(and most favorable) measures of missed target plus set back
are associated with splash-downs on crests. The highest
measures, including all of the impact cases, are associated
with the fact that splash-down occurred on the upslope. For
example, of the 19 Beaufort 7 launches, 12 were on upslopes.
Similarly, of the 22 Beaufort 8 launches, 19 were on upslopes.

Figure 8 shows the performance measure missed target

plus set back. The weather conditions are indicated by mean
measured wave heights. The corresponding mean wind speeds
can be seen in Table 2, where the values given are the means
for all the tests done at each of the six nominal weather
conditions. For each test, the maximum measured value of the
performance measure is plotted as a single result. For
example, the lifeboat was launched 30 times in weather
conditions nominally described as Beaufort 6; each of these
tests is indicated by one of the 30 triangle symbols plotted at a
wave height of about 4m in Figure 8. Likewise, tests in
conditions corresponding to Beaufort 0, 4, 5, 7, and 8 are
plotted with the symbols as denoted in Table 3.
In addition, a solid line, two dashed lines, and two broken
lines are shown in the plot. These are the mean, the mean 1
standard deviation, and the maximum and minimum lines
through the entire data set.
The plot shows several important characteristics. First, it
is clear that the upper bounds (the maximum and the mean + 1
standard deviation) of the combination of missed target plus
set back increase strongly with increasing weather conditions,
indicating a progressive deterioration in the control over the
splash-down and initial sail-away phases. At a glance, the
performance measure appears to increase approximately
linearly as twice the wave height, up to Beaufort 7.
This trend appears to level off as the weather increases
from Beaufort 7 to 8. A closer look at the results dispels this
impression. Rather than leveling off, the measure is in fact
physically limited by impacts between the installation and
lifeboat. Impact cases are denoted in the plot by the symbols
assigned in Table 3. They occurred in 7 of the 19 Beaufort 7
launches (37%) and in 8 of the 22 (36%) Beaufort 8 launches.
All the impacts occurred after splash-down and were due to
the combination of missing the target and being set back by
waves. No impacts occurred during lowering.
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0

W a v e H e ig h t (m )

Figure 8. Weather effects on performance.

10

11

OTC 14161

SAFE EVACUATION FROM OFFSHORE PETROLEUM INSTALLATIONS

12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Set back is examined more closely in Figures 9, 10, and

11 where it is plotted against the phase angle of the wave for
the tests done in Beaufort 6, 7, and 8 conditions, respectively.
The wave crest is at 90, the trough is at -90, and the
oncoming face of the wave, the upslope, is in between. Most
of the wave phase angles corresponding to the downslope
portion of the wave are not plotted, as there were no splashdowns there.
Figure 9 shows that in Beaufort 6 conditions, the worst set
backs are associated with landing at and near the middle of the
upslope face of the wave, at wave phase angles of about 20.
As the lifeboat was dropped progressively closer to the crest,
the set back diminished. Two drops occurred at wave phase
angles that were >90, that is, just past the crest on the back,
or downslope of the wave. At the left of Figure 9, four splashdowns are denoted qualitatively as being in troughs. Two of
these experienced significant set back, but the other two were
relatively unscathed.
Similar results are shown in Figure 10 for Beaufort 7
conditions. All the landings occurred over the range of wave
phase angles between 0 and 60. Like the Beaufort 6 results,
the set back was worst at the lowest wave phase angles and
improved for splash-downs closer to the crest. The six impact
cases shown correspond to the splash-downs at the six lowest
wave phase angles.
Much the same can be said of the Beaufort 8 results
presented in Figure 11. Set back was smallest for the two
cases nearest the crest and became progressively worse as the
wave phase angle went to 0. Again, it is the lowest wave
phase angles that are associated with the eight impacts in this
set of tests.

-30

-20

-10

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-30

-20

-10

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Figure 11. Set back versus wave phase angle, Beaufort 8 tests.

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-8 0

-6 0

-4 0

-2 0

20

W a v e P h a s e A n g le [d e g ]

Figure 9. Set back versus wave phase angle, Beaufort 6.

80

Wave Phase Angle [deg]

11

-1 0 0

90

Figure 10. Set back versus wave phase angle, Beaufort 7 tests.

12

-1 2 0

80

Wave Phase Angle [deg]

40

60

80

100

120

90

R. WOOLGAR, A. SIMES R, B. VEITCH AND D. PELLEY

Figure 12 presents the splash-down positions in the launch

area for all of the tests. An axes system with the origin at the
target splash-down point is superimposed. The x-axis is
parallel to and (-)11.037m away from the side of the
installation. The vector between the splash-down and the
origin is known as the missed target performance measure. All
of the launches landed within a 1.5m radius of the origin.
The same type of plot is used in Figure 13 to present the
set back results, though the weather effects are apparent in this
case. Concentric circles are shown in the plot. Each circle
corresponds to the mean +1 standard deviation for each of the
five weather conditions above the calm condition. The
smallest circle is for Beaufort 4, the next is for Beaufort 5, and
then Beaufort 6. The circles for Beaufort 7 and Beaufort 8 are
of similar size, which reflects the physical presence of the
installation and the limit to set back due to impacts. The
missed target plus set back results are plotted in Figure 14.
Figures 13 and 14 plot the xy components of the measured
value of set back, and the vector sum of the measured values
of missed target plus set back, respectively.

OTC 14161

2 .0
Y [m ]
1 .5
1 .0
0 .5
X [m ]

0 .0
-2 .0

-1 .5

-1 .0

-0 .5

0 .0

0 .5

1 .0

1 .5

2 .0

-0 .5
-1 .0
-1 .5
-2 .0

Figure 12. Splash-down positions and missed target.

14

Y [m]

12

Conclusions

10
8

A practical application of the results presented here is in

the design of a lifeboat configuration. If, for example, an
emergency evacuation plan includes launching lifeboats in
conditions up to, say, the limit of the seaworthiness of the
lifeboat, then it would be prudent to arrange for a splash-down
zone large enough to accommodate the weather effects, or the
missed target plus set back, so as to minimize the likelihood of
impacts with the installation. Thus, in the event of evacuation
in extreme weather conditions, the size of the splash-down
zone is important. Pyman & Slater (1983) determined that the
likelihood of emergency evacuation by means of a TEMPSC is
small, but can be significant and that the expected
performance of evacuation, based on historical records, is poor
in extreme weather.
As demonstrated by the results, the area required of the
splash-down zone can be substantial and can be expected to
increase commensurately with expectations of performance in
rougher weather. The splash-down zone should be clear of the
installation and other possible hazards.
This concept is illustrated in Figure 15, where a circular
splash-down zone is drawn tangent to a danger, or buffer, zone
boundary outboard of the installation. The buffer zone is
meant to ensure that the lifeboat is not rendered useless if the
installation is in a damaged, but survivable condition.
Together, these zones provide rational guidance for choosing
the clearance of a lifeboat from the installation in order to
meet defined performance goals for evacuation.
The quantitative results can also be used to evaluate risks
involved in various scenarios. In addition, they provide a
benchmark to which mitigating measures, or alternative
evacuation systems can be compared.

6
4
2

X [m]

0
-14

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

-2 0

-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14

Figure 13. Set back distances.

14

Y [m]

12
10
8
6
4
2

X [m]

0
-14

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

-2 0
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14

Figure 14. Missed target plus set back.

OTC 14161

SAFE EVACUATION FROM OFFSHORE PETROLEUM INSTALLATIONS

Perhaps the most remarkable experimental result is that

the set back associated with landing a lifeboat on the face of a
wave has a critical influence on performance. Mitigating this
effect should yield worthwhile results, such as reducing the
size of the splash-down zone and thereby reducing clearance
and all the associated structure, weight, and costs. Set back
might possibly be reduced by providing more propulsion
power to the lifeboats, or equipping them with propulsors
better suited to their role. Another way is to augment the
launch system, such as with the flexible boom used in
conjunction with davit launched boats on several installations.
Yet another is by actively controlling the launch process and
coordinating it with the local wave environment so as to drop
the lifeboat on a relatively favorable part of a wave.
The results of the research program have lead to the
development of performance measures, or benchmarks, that
can be used in the context of design, operations, and
regulatory considerations. The concept of performance
measures and their importance had been previously addressed
by Kingswood (2000).
The focus of this paper has been on the missed target and
set back performance measures, and on the measure that
combines these two. Additional performance measures were
used in the tests. Three of these were time benchmarks
corresponding to the elapsed time between starting the launch
to splash-down, between splash-down and clearing the splashdown zone, and between splash-down and clearing to the
rescue zone. Several other measures were used to gauge the
controllability of the TEMPSC. These include collision
avoidance with the platform during and after launch lowering,
the amount of missed target, set back and the vector sum of
the two, as well as the path lengths the TEMPSC followed to
reach the splash-down zone and the rescue zone. The
remaining performance measures are used as proxies for
human comfort and injury and the seaworthiness of the
TEMPSC. These include the accelerations and motions
experienced during launch lowering and sail-away.
The next phase of the research program will examine the
performance of another type of evacuation system. Also, the
effects on performance of wave steepness, TEMPSC payload,
more extreme weather conditions, and damaged conditions
will be addressed. A previous phase of the research program
examined TEMPSC deployment from a floating structure.

Figure 15. Evacuation zones for safer lifeboat launching.

Acknowledgements
Financial support of this work was provided by a consortium
consisting of Transport Canada, Natural Resources Canada,
the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, and the
National Research Council of Canada. Additional funding for
the research program was subsequently provided by the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Atlantic
Canada Petroleum Institute.
Representatives of the supporting organizations helped to
shape the research program, as did stakeholder organizations,
particularly those at the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore
Petroleum Board and Petro-Canada. The authors acknowledge
with gratitude the contributions and financial support.
It is also appropriate to thank the people at NRC/IMD who
contributed to the fabrication and instrumentation of the
models, and helped conduct and carry out the experiments.

10

R. WOOLGAR, A. SIMES R, B. VEITCH AND D. PELLEY

References
Crossland, B. (Chair), Bennett, P.A., Ellis, A.F., Farmer, F.R., Gittus,
J., Godfrey, P.S., Hambly, E.C., Kletz, T.A., Lees, F.P. 1992.
Risk: Analysis, perception and management. The Royal Society,
London. 201 pp.
Simes R, A. and Veitch, B. 2001. Experimental evaluation of
lifeboat evacuation performance. To appear, Transactions,
Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Vol.109.
Simes R, A., Veitch, B., Woolgar, R., Sullivan, M., Pelley, D.
2002. Systematic Experimental Evaluation of Lifeboat
Evacuation Performance in a Range of Environmental
Conditions Phase I. TR-2002-02, Institute for Marine
Dynamics, St. John's.
Campbell, I.M.C., Claughton, A.R., and Kingswood, A.R. 1983.
Development of lifeboat launching systems for offshore rigs
and platform. Proceeding, International Conference on Marine
Survival Craft, Royal Institution of Naval Architects, 11 pp.
Soma, H.S., Drager, K.H., and Wright, J.F. 1986. A comprehensive
simulation technique for evacuation and sea rescue for offshore
installations and ships. RINA conference on Escape Survival
and Rescue at Sea, London.
Finch, T., Veitch, B., Simes R, A., Janes, G., Sullivan, M. 2002.
Life craft launch wave timer, or Wavetimer. Patent application.
Simes R, A. 1996. Comparative physical model study of offshore
evacuation systems. TR-1996-24, Institute for Marine
Dynamics, 110 pp.
Kingswood, A. 2000. Evacuation standards development and
quantification. Proceedings, 2nd International Conference &
Exhibition on Evacuation, Escape and Rescue, Aberdeen, 18 pp.
Pyman, M.A.F., and Slater, D.H. 1983. An objective numerical
assessment of the capabilities of survival craft in emergency
evacuation from North Sea installations. Proceedings,
International Conference on Marine Survival Craft, Royal
Institution of Naval Architects, 11 pp.
Hollobone Hibbert and Associates Ltd. 1984. Assessment of the
means for escape and survival in offshore exploration drilling
operations. Prepared for the Royal Commission on the Ocean
Ranger Marine Disaster.

OTC 14161