74 gp schleyer

Inspiring the next generation of engineers EE2010

The Higher Education Academy Engineering Subject Centre 1

P074

Major Hazards Management – a finishing module forundergraduate engineers on how to manage risk

Graham Schleyer1 ([email protected]), Nicholas Underwood1, Graham Dalzell2 andNicola Stacey3

1University of Liverpool, School of Engineering, UK;

2Consultant;

3Health and Safety Laboratory, UK

Abstract: Risk specialists from the Health and Safety Laboratory and staff from the EngineeringSchool at the University of Liverpool collaborated to embed safety risk education materials into theundergraduate curriculum. The project, funded by the Health and Safety Executive, took 4 years toimplement and assess. The outcome was an approach that can be promoted to other higher educationinstitutions on the basis of its success, namely to make undergraduate engineering students moreaware of their professional responsibilities for their own safety and the safety of others in their role asengineers. Independently of the above project, the lead author undertook an industrial secondment toShell Global Solutions (UK), funded by the Royal Academy of Engineering. This paper will describethe development and delivery of a new fourth year module called ‘Major Hazards Management’ inwhich many of the risk concepts introduced earlier in the undergraduate programme are given a moredetailed treatment for students electing to progress to a deeper specialist level of understanding.Moreover, it will describe how the module, which is part philosophical and part analytical, drawsupon the experiences of both the secondment and earlier project to provide the opportunity forstudents to put into practice the methods used by industry, in particular the oil and gas industry, tomanage hazards. A key aspect of the module is the industrial input by specialists who are prepared topass on their knowledge and experience to the next generation of engineers.

Introduction

Students completing a four-year accredited engineering degree programme are expected to have alevel of understanding to a specialist depth in a few topics as well as a solid grounding in fundamentalengineering principles. Some specialist modules are provided in the final year of the degreeprogramme often linked to research topics pursued by staff. One such module was ‘ExplosionHazards and Evaluation’, taken by both undergraduate and postgraduate students on the MEngmechanical engineering programme and the MSc aerospace and mechanical systems engineeringprogramme, with the objective of acquainting them to procedures for the analysis and design ofstructures subjected to extreme loads arising from accidental explosions. This provided thesestudents with a specialist insight into methods used by industry for assessing the resilience ofbuildings and structures against blast. The module, however, did not address the wider issues ofaccident causation and safety culture within an organisation which are equally important to considerfrom the viewpoint of risk management. The opportunity to address these issues came with anindustrial secondment to a major hazards consultancy, Shell Global Solutions (UK), in 2008 that pavedthe way and provided the motivation to update the module. Furthermore, safety risk concepts hadalready been introduced earlier in the curriculum as a result of a previous project that would link well tothe new module.

A further motivation for revising the module was to enable the students to apply a generic approach torisk management in any ‘major hazards’ industry not just the oil and gas industry. The concept ofinterrelationships between hazards within an organisation is illustrated by Reason’s ‘Swiss cheesemodel’ (Reason, 1990). Each layer of cheese represents a defence (barrier) against failure. The holesin the cheese represent weaknesses in the defences in the system. They vary in size and position inthe slice. The entire system fails if the holes in each slice momentarily align, producing a possible



‘Accident Trajectory’. One line of defence could be protection but to consider protection in isolationwould result in a failure to take a holistic systems approach to managing hazards and therebymanaging risk.

The University of Liverpool School of Engineering has been working with the Health and SafetyLaboratory (HSL), with funding from their parent body the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), tointegrate risk concepts into undergraduate engineering courses since October 2004. As a result,various new materials have been developed and merged into core engineering modules in the form ofcase studies and real-life examples to teach the fundamentals of safety and risk concepts including arole-play accident investigation simulation (Schleyer et al, 2008). These materials were not merely anadd-on to an existing module but embedded so as to demonstrate direct connections between the risktheme and the main subject. All the materials used or identified during the HSE project are describedin the project report (Stacey et al 2009). Since its conclusion in January 2009, HSL and HSE havecontinued to provide advice to help consolidate and build upon this earlier work.

The paper discusses the structure and syllabus of the new module showing how it draws on conceptsof safety and risk introduced earlier in the curriculum, and the content and impact of the secondment.

Secondment experience

The Industrial Secondment Scheme funded by the Royal Academy of Engineering in the UK providesan opportunity for engineering teaching staff in Higher Education institutions to update their knowledgeof methods and practices used in industry. The objective is that the secondment experience will leadto the development of new materials and ideas for improving the industrial relevance of teaching aswell as developing links with industry. In the case of the lead author, this was a matter of renewinglinks with industry. There are benefits for both the academic member of staff and the companyhosting the secondment. The company benefits through having an academic expert workingalongside staff for a fixed period.

The lead author applied in 2008 for a secondment to Shell Global Solutions (UK), Chester. The periodof the secondment was from July through to December 2008. During this time the secondee workedas if an employee of Shell complying with Shell business and safety rules. The direct contact for thesecondee at Shell was Prof Geoff Chamberlain and subsequently Dr Michael Persaud, successor ofProf Chamberlain. A mutually agreed work plan, originally submitted at the application stage, wasfollowed to ensure maximum benefit for all parties involved. This was considered both challengingand of significant relevance to the organisation. The secondee was fully aware of the importance ofthe topics in the plan having been previously contracted by Shell to work alongside staff in the group.The primary aim was to improve existing methodologies to bridge the gap between loading andresponse of structures subjected to accidental explosions. A procedure for evaluating buildingdamage using single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) methods and spreadsheet analysis tools wasdeveloped during the six months, including an appraisal of current practices within the Health, Safetyand Environment (HSE) consultancy group in the UK to address blast response problems.

One of the requirements of the secondment was to use the experience to revise the secondee’steaching module ‘Explosion Hazards and Evaluation’. The company’s principal business is majorhazards management consultancy which it offers to the oil and gas industry concerned with gasexplosion, fire and toxic release hazards. The idea of developing a module that essentially coveredthe activities of a major hazards management consultancy like Shell Global Solutions was formedduring the secondment. Experience of the nature of the work, the methods used and the prominentsafety culture led to the present structure and syllabus described in the next section. The spreadsheetanalysis tools developed on secondment to help extend the host’s technical assessment capabilitiescould also be used to demonstrate how a pragmatic suite of methodologies are suited for fast andefficient application in hazard and risk screening within the oil and gas industry. It is hard to imaginehow the School might have had access to Shell’s major hazard management software tools withoutthe secondment. Hazard analysis and risk management is part of the culture and practice ofengineering as a whole and this secondment has enabled a fresh new insight into this industrialpractice.

Structure and syllabus

Revision of the module commenced in June 2009 with the short-term appointment of a researchassistant, Nicholas Underwood, to help in developing the new syllabus and implementing the module



in time for the start of the 2009-10 session. The 7.5 credit module consisted of formal lectures, someof which were recorded, class exercises and group project presentations over a period of 12 weeks,the entire duration of the first semester. The class each week lasted 2 hours with a short break in themiddle. The module is offered as an option to 4

thyear mechanical engineering undergraduates (5 out

of 24 elected to take the module) but compulsory for the postgraduates. The cohort of students, 23 intotal, was made up of the 5 MEng undergraduate students on the mechanical engineering programmeand the rest MSc students on the aerospace and mechanical systems engineering postgraduateprogramme, the majority of whom were from overseas. Most weeks with a few exceptions saw 100%attendance. Assessment was in the form of a 2-hour written exam (70%) in January 2010 and a groupproject (30%). More details of the group project are given later.

The new module aims to put academic theory into the context of industrial experience and balancephilosophical with analytical content. Global discipline leaders in fires, explosions and hazardsmanagement from industry were approached about contributing to the new module. They were morethan willing to offer subject guidance, to lecture on their specialist topics, and to pass on theirknowledge and experience to the next generation of engineers. Going by their response andfeedback, the students appreciated this aspect of the new module the most, being exposed tospecialists from industry. With their permission, the guest lectures were recorded and made availableon the University’s virtual learning environment ‘VITAL’.

Syllabus

The objectives of the module for students were: To raise awareness of the priority given to health and safety in major hazards industries

particularly the oil and gas industry; and To impart knowledge and understanding of current practice particularly in the oil and gas industry

to manage the risks associated with major hazards.

The learning outcomes of the module for students were: To understand their role and involvement in industry to improve safety performance; and To demonstrate ability in

Identifying the causes of accidents and the interacting factors for accident avoidance; and Applying methods of hazard analysis and consequence assessment for managing the risks

associated with major hazards.

An overview of the syllabus is given in Table 1. The * symbol next to a topic indicates this is a guestlecture.

Table 1: Syllabus

Week Topic (*guest lectures)

1 Introduction to major hazards management*

2 HAZID & HAZAN*

3 HAZID class exercise

4 Vapour cloud explosions*

5 E-lecture on human factors*

6 Accident causation and introduction to group project

7 Group work

8 Blast effects and loading

9 Blast response and SDOF methods

10 Process fires*

11 Group project presentations

12 Buncefield case study

Lecturers/facilitators

Mr Graham Dalzell, Consultant (previously BP) Professor Geoff Chamberlain, Consultant, Waverton Consultancy Ltd (previously Shell Global

Solutions) and visiting professor, Loughborough University



Dr Michael Persaud, Global Discipline Leader, Major Hazards Management, Shell GlobalSolutions

Mr Graham King, Principal Inspector, Health and Safety Executive Dr Graham Schleyer, Senior Lecturer, School of Engineering, University of Liverpool Mr Nicholas Underwood, Research Assistant, School of Engineering, University of Liverpool Mrs Nicola Stacey, Senior Risk Scientist, Health and Safety Laboratory

Introduction to major hazards management

Everyone from the managing director to the person working on the shopfloor in an organisation has apart to play in managing hazards and reducing the risk of accidents that cost loss of reputation, loss ofincome and loss of life. Ideally, those who direct and manage an organisation’s operations shouldlead on safety and risk management and cascade their knowledge through an organisational structureresulting in a safety culture that every employee understands.

An example of this is the mission statement for the employees of the BP Trinidad project:

“We will know what is dangerous, why it is dangerous and what each of us has to do to keepus safe.”

Unfortunately, as a trail of past incidents has shown, a breakdown of safety culture in an organisationis one of the main factors of increasing the risk of accidents.

Knowledge and understanding is a key to minimising the potential for major incidents. This isunderlined by the most common statements during accident investigations:

“I didn’t think that would happen; I didn’t know it would be like that; I didn’t think they would dothat with it. I didn’t think!”

This module is geared to make students think about what could go wrong, the consequences of someprocess going wrong and what can be done to prevent escalation. Employers and businesses that arecommitted to health and safety are looking for evidence of these skills in recruiting the next generationof engineers. Thus it is important to demonstrate the relevance of the subject to students with realexamples and case studies but perhaps one of the best methods to instil a sense of the importance ofthe subject is for the students to be exposed to leaders from industry who have had many years ofexperience in managing hazards, investigating incidents, solving problems and responding to urgentrequests.

HAZID & HAZAN

The understanding of hazards, causation, severity and consequence is the most powerful means ofreducing risk. Risk assessments must distil and deliver appropriate knowledge to everyone whodesigns, operates, maintains and manages equipment or plant. They must not be a one-off specialistactivity but a living process owned by those responsible for the hazards. This series of two lecturesdelivered by Mr Graham Dalzell, a safety specialist, covers the fundamental concepts of hazards andrisk through to the structured approach to risk assessment, a skill that every engineer must be able toapply. The content builds on materials delivered earlier in the undergraduate programme andcontains real life examples many of which are drawn from Mr Dalzell’s personal experience. A hazardanalysis exercise was devised to be carried out in class following these two lectures. This was anopportunity to consolidate the previous two weeks’ learning. The exercise was based around a petrolfilling station. There have been 243 reported incidents of fires breaking out at petrol stations aroundthe world, between 1993 and 2004. There are in excess of 9,000 filing stations in the UK. Studentswere asked to work in groups and identify possible hazards for three different situations, namely (1)tanker delivery, (2) storage of fuel in underground tanks, and (3) manual filling at the petrol pumps.They were then to estimate the level of risk (low, medium, high) considering frequency of exposure,the possibility to limit harm, severity of harm and probability of occurrence of harm.



E-lecture on human factors

During the earlier joint project with HSL the opportunity to embed four keynote lectures into 1st

yeardesign was recognised. These were all professionally recorded by HSL’s visual and presentationservices with a view to turning them into e-lectures for future use. One by Graham Dalzell, who alsolectures on this new module, continued to be used but the other three were not used due totimetabling changes so as to introduce more active learning activities into year one. However, duringthe development of this module these recordings were reviewed and one by Graham King, a principalHSE inspector with a mechanical engineering background was identified as being particularly relevantto the new module. The lecture, “We are All Human”, was therefore edited for reuse.

This lecture explains, through the use of case studies, the role of human factors in accident causation.The different types and causes of human errors, the reasons why employees violate rules andprocedures are described in the lecture as well the factors that influence human performance. Finallya number of solutions are proposed for both reducing the likelihood and impact of human error,misuse and procedural violations.

Students watch the e-lecture on VITAL during one of their timetabled periods.

Accident causation

Major accidents, involving loss of reputation, loss of income and loss of life continue to occur across awide variety of industries. This lecture highlights that practically all accidents have multiple causes,each occurring when an appropriate combination of causes comes together at one time and place. Ithas been shown that the most common generic sources of accident causes are Engineering problemsfollowed by Management problems then Operator issues and Environmental factors. A detailed study(Neale, 2007) of 45 well-known reported accidents drawn from a number of operating areas includingRailways, Ships, Aircraft, Power Stations, Chemical Process Plant, and Bridges and Structures wasused to identify the four major sources of accident causes each with a number of sub-sections totalling14 sources. Analysis of the 45 accidents indicated contributions from 169 causes. Analysis of causesin the operating areas identified patterns emerging between areas, with Engineering problems beingthe leading cause in all areas followed by Management problems particularly in the Railways andBridges and Structures then Operator errors particularly in Ships, Aircraft and Power Stations, andthen Environmental factors particularly in Chemical Process Plant.

A detailed accident analysis of the Port of Ramsgate walkway collapse served to illustrate a number ofthe sources described in the generic list and linked well with its previous adoption earlier in theprogramme as a case study on safety and risk management, and laboratory exercise (Schleyer et al,2008).

This lecture led directly onto the group project.

Group project

Students were given details of the group project in week 6 and divided into five groups of 4 and onegroup of 3. The groups were given 4 weeks to complete the project which accounted for 30% of themodule assessment. Each group was asked to: Analyse a major accident, in particular the engineering issues which arose; Investigate the causes of the accident; Recommend how the incident could have been prevented; and Present the results of their analysis/investigation in a short report and orally.

The groups were given a major accident to investigate from the following list: BP Texas City Herald of Free Enterprise Kings Cross Escalator Challenger Shuttle Piper Alpha Ladbroke Grove



The project consisted of 3 stages: Individual report (1 page max.) describing the key facts of the accident; Group report (2 pages max.) presenting the analysis of the causes and their interaction using the

template on causes of accidents (see Accident causation) together with their case forprevention; and

Group presentation covering Introduction to the accident; General hazards in the particular industry; Causes; and Prevention.

In giving the students different accidents to analyse exposed them to more cases and a variety ofsituations and industries, allowing the groups to learn from each other. This also eliminates theproblem of collusion.

Group presentations took place in week 11. The standard of presentations was excellent witheveryone taking part. About 5 minutes was allowed after each presentation for questions and thisstimulated useful interaction. The students agreed to their presentation being made available onVITAL.

Vapour cloud explosions

Prof Chamberlain was invited to give a lecture on his specialist subject of vapour cloud explosionsbeing a leading authority and having worked in this area for many years. Vapour cloud explosions(VCE’s) are a major hazard in the petrochemical industry. Examples of VCE’s include the piper alphaexplosion on the 6

thJuly 1988 which still ranks as the worst disaster in the history of offshore

operations; 167 people died. In more recent times there was the Texas City Oil Refinery andBuncefield in 2005 that serve as classic case studies. Buncefield is mentioned later.

This lecture provides an insight into the fundamentals of gas explosions, the mechanisms that lead topressure rise and the effects of confinement and congestion, illustrated by the Shelkin feedback loop.Examples are given of how experimental research has been used successfully to validate computersimulations.

Blast effects

This series of two lectures introduces the students to procedures for the analysis and design ofstructural elements subjected to explosion loading and directly links with the lecture on vapour cloudexplosions. First, methods of determining air blast loading on structures are given. This is followed byan introduction to structural dynamics and the single-degree-of-freedom methods commonly used inindustry to estimate structural response and damage. The students are given the opportunity to usethe spreadsheet tools developed by the lead author on secondment to analyse typical problems. It isemphasised that the physical effects modelling of explosions is a process that informs risk particularlyat the initial design phase of a project. Other applications of this technology are facility siting studies,upgrading existing buildings for improved blast resilience and accident investigation.

Process fires

Process fires are another major hazard in the oil and gas production industry. In the case of the PiperAlpha explosion, it was the subsequent fires that caused the large loss of life not the explosion itself.This lecture given by Mr Graham Dalzell, a leading expert on process fires safety, shares hisexperience over many years working in BP investigating incidents like Piper Alpha and leading asafety team in BP.

Buncefield case study

The massive explosion and fires at the Buncefield Oil Depot, Hertfordshire in December 2005 wasused as a classic case study in week 12 to illustrate how a disaster of this scale was allowed tohappen, the severity of damage to surrounding buildings and structures, the potential widerenvironmental impact and implications, and the organisational failures that led to the disaster. Thecase study served to pull together all the topics covered earlier and show the interrelationship of thevarious factors that contributed to the disaster.



Feedback

The module, as described above, was delivered for the first time to year 4 students in the firstsemester of the current 2009-10 academic year. At the end of the module students were encouragedto give feedback.

The feedback which is summarised below suggests the structure and content of the revised module isabout right. They liked in particular The different style of the module over the more conventional style; The significance of the subject matter illustrated by many examples and “real life situations”; The structure with guest lecturers able to illustrate from experience and make the subject

interesting and relevant; and The group project.

They suggested that the module could be enhanced by Having some practical or simulated experiments; Video presentation of examples; and More interaction in class.

Conclusions

Both safety professionals and industry recognise that every engineer must be able to apply a formalstructured approach to assessing risk. The inspiration to revise and restructure a final year module toinclude methods practiced in industry to manage risk in a major hazards industry arose through anindustrial secondment to Shell Global Solutions (UK) funded by the Royal Academy of Engineering.Such schemes offer excellent opportunities to academic staff to update teaching materials, developindustrial case studies and make useful links that will benefit their teaching.

A particular feature of the newly revised module has been the significant industrial input in the form ofsubject guidance and guest lectures in specialist areas. The visiting lecturers are able to draw on real-life examples largely from their own personal experience. The School of Engineering at the Universityof Liverpool believe strongly in supporting visiting lecturers and actively engaging with industry throughan industrial liaison board and a recently introduced resident engineer scheme. This is one way ofsustaining the support of visiting lecturers at a relatively low cost.

The new major hazards management module is an important contribution to the MEng degreeprogrammes as it consolidates the safety risk concepts introduced earlier in the programme andprepares the next generation of graduate engineers for the professional practice of hazard analysisand risk management, an ever increasing part of the culture and practice of engineering.

Student feedback following the first year of its implementation and delivery suggests the structure andcontent of the new module are about right. The suggestions for enhancing the module will beconsidered. The Shell major hazard software could be used to simulate different hazard scenariosand could also be used as the basis of a future group project variation.

References

Neale M. (2007) ‘The causes of accidents’. The Presidents’ Choice. IMechE.

Reason J. (1990) ‘Human error’. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Schleyer GK, Duan RF and Stacey N. (2008) ‘Role-play experience through virtual reconstruction ofaccident investigation’. In Proceedings of International Conference on Innovation, Good Practiceand Research in Engineering Education. Higher Education Academy Engineering Subject Centre,Loughborough.

Stacey N, Simpson, K and Schleyer GK. (2009) ‘Integrating risk concepts into undergraduateengineering courses’. RR702. Bootle, HSE.



Acknowledgements

The following organisations are acknowledged as having a supporting technical and/or financial role inthe projects mentioned in this paper: The Royal Academy of Engineering for funding the secondment; Shell Global Solutions (UK) for hosting the secondment; and The Health and Safety Executive for funding the earlier risk education project.

Copyright © 2010 University of Liverpool and British Crown: The authors grant to the EE2010 organisers and educational non-profit institutions a non-exclusive licence to use this document for personal use and in courses of instruction provided that thearticle is used in full and this copyright statement is reproduced. The authors also grant a non-exclusive licence to theEngineering Subject Centre to publish this document in full on the World Wide Web (prime sites and mirrors) on flash memorydrive and in printed form within the EE2010 conference proceedings. Any other usage is prohibited without the expresspermission of the authors.

74 gp schleyer

Documents