application of dnv rp a203
TRANSCRIPT
1
Application of DNV RP A203 –Qualification of AUVs for Subsea ControlKevin MullenAustralasian Hydrographic Society and the Society for Underwater Technology
5th Joint Technical Seminar & Exhibition - AUVs Enhanced Acquisition and Intervention
Thursday 29th October 2009 Perth, Western Australia
I’ve got something interesting for you this morning.
I know that some of you are interested in the control of subsea gas wells, but all
of you are interested in AUVs and the new applications that they can be used for.
What I’m going to tell you is how you can demonstrate that your new AUVs and
your new applications will work – how you can qualify them.
2
Maturity of AUV technology
• “AUV technology has evolved over the past 10 years to a
point where the technology is relatively stable and has
been accepted as a viable method for many underwater
applications” – attributed to U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy, “An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century”, 2004.http://ausi.org/publications/SAUV_30DayTest.pdf 2004
But first, do you need to qualify them?
Some people claim that AUV technology is now relatively stable – this is from a
US government department.
3
Maturity of AUV technology
� Two contrasting opinions:
• “AUV technology has evolved over the past 10 years to a
point where the technology is relatively stable and has
been accepted as a viable method for many underwater
applications” – attributed to U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy, “An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century”, 2004.http://ausi.org/publications/SAUV_30DayTest.pdf 2004
• “Damn, damn, damn!”http://kilomoana.blogspot.com/ Sept 2008
Other people have a different opinion about AUVs.
A journalist said last year that people who work with AUVs start every interview
by saying, “Damn, damn, damn!”
Let me expand on that.
4
Kyla Buckingham said it on her blog, and she goes on to say that when she interviewed this man, it didn’t even get that far.
She says that she’s lucky to get interviews with AUV people. Mostly, the interviews get cancelled because they are too busy troubleshooting their
hardware or software.
Does this strike a chord with anybody?
5
� AUVs
• New technology
• New applications
� Concerns about reliability
• “Hobby-farm” AUVs
Qualification of AUV Technology
Now, with any piece of new technology or with new applications, there have gotto be concerns about reliability – unless you’re running the AUV like owning a
race horse, and you don’t really mind if sometimes it can’t run, as long as you get
a bit of fun out of it.
6
� AUVs
• New technology
• New applications
� Concerns about reliability
• “Hobby-farm” AUVs
� Commercial applications
• Hard-nosed bosses
• “It must work”
Qualification of AUV Technology
But once you start using your AUV for commercial or industrial purposes, you’ll find that people like these (managers or directors) start insisting that “failure is not
an option”.
7
� Control of subsea gas wells− Supply hydraulic pressure and
electrical power and signal
• Long Distance Umbilicals
− Cost
− Reliability
− Transportation and Installation
• Control Buoys
− Reliability
− Operations
− Logistics
− Personnel Access
Current Technology for Remote Subsea Control
Having set the scene, I’m going to explain why my piece of new technology is needed.
It’s for controlling subsea gas wells at great distances from shore – in excess of 100 km.
Controlling these wells needs hydraulic pressure and electrical power and signal.
To provide these, you need either long distance umbilicals, or control buoys, or of course platforms or floating facilities.
All these conventional methods have disadvantages:
• Long distance umbilicals are expensive to purchase and install, and may
be damaged by trawling or anchors;
• Control buoys are cheap, but they can be perceived by clients as having
operational problems for maintenance, re-fuelling, or getting men on and off; and
• Platforms and floating facilities are expensive, and may require a large team offshore to operate them.
With that in mind, I’m going to tell you about the Virtual Control Buoy.
8
Another Solution
� Another method of controlling remote wells –
� The Virtual Control Buoy
• Eliminates umbilicals
• Fault tolerant
• Robust
• Cheaper than control buoys
• Works at any stepout
• Reduced maintenance of remote control facilities
I’m proposing another solution, called the Virtual Control Buoy, as an alternative method of controlling remote wells.
I claim that it has all of the advantages listed here, and that it eliminates the difficulties associated with the operation and maintenance of remote facilities or
umbilical systems.
So what is the Virtual Control Buoy?
9
The Virtual Control Buoy
• Sea gliders maintain position over the wellhead• Use several sea gliders for each wellhead• AUVs perform control and communications
S ate l l ite
The concept here uses three seagliders to carry out control and communication to the well.
The seagliders drift above the wellhead, occasionally diving and re-establishing their position if they have drifted too far away.
Using three seagliders gives us a very robust and fault tolerant system.
10
AUVs – spoilt for choice
But there are many other types of AUV besides seagliders.
Let’s try this one!
11
� The Solar-powered AUV (SAUV) can also carry out the
control and communications function
The Solar-powered AUV
This is the Solar-powered AUV.
The solar panel is 1 square metre, and it uses solar energy to recharge its lithium
ion batteries during daylight hours, so the endurance is potentially unlimited, unlike the seaglider which relies upon its battery pack.
12
The Solar-powered AUV
The hull is fibreglass and it can dive to a depth of 500 metres.
The vectored thruster can drive it at up 3 knots (1.5 metres/second).
You can see the radio and GPS and satellite antenna on top.
Underneath is the acoustic modem.
13
Communications and Control
S ate l l ite
Shore communication via Low Earth Orbit
satellite, e.g. Iridium
Onshore Control Facility
• Autonomous functions in solar-powered AUVs• Autonomous functions in well
• Acoustic communications with well• Satellite communications with shore
This shows the Virtual Control Buoy concept using Solar-powered AUVs. By having say three AUVs for each wellhead, you have a high level of redundancy,
so the availability should be high.
The AUVs use acoustics to communicate with the wellhead, and use satellites
such as Iridium to communicate with the Control Room onshore.
The AUVs have autonomous functions for position keeping.
The subsea wells have autonomous functions for shutting down, if
communication is interrupted for more than say 15 minutes.
14
Hardware, Software, Theory
This concept is not just about the AUV hardware - the concept relies on control theory for positioning the AUVs, and on software for implementing the theory, and
for command and communications.
15
Virtual Moorings
� Each AUV uses GPS to track its position
� If it drifts outside its watch circle –
• it autonomously directs itself to an upstream position
• and continues within the watch circle
To keep the AUVs in position, they detect their position with GPS, and then direct their motion to keep themselves above the wellhead.
This method of positioning is called Virtual Mooring.
How does Virtual Mooring compare with real mooring?
16
Virtual Moorings
One Seaglider (track in red) remained near a target about 2
miles north of a surface mooring
(buoy positions shown in cyan)
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
1999 experimentTracks of Spray seagliders in Monterey
Bay (depth contours in meters).
Conventional moored metocean buoy
Sea glider in Virtual Mooring mode
Look at this experiment.
The red symbols show us the motion of a seaglider put in Virtual Mooring mode.
The blue symbols show us a real buoy, tethered to the seabed. You can see that
the motions are similar.
This shows how seagliders behave in the field, but how do we get them out to the
field?
17
Sea Glider Transiting to Field
You just launch them from a small boat in shallow water close to the onshore base, and they make their own way out to the field. At the end of mission, you
instruct them to come back to shallow water for recovery.
Launch and recovery takes place close to shore, where the sea state is more
benign than out in the open ocean.
Launch and recovery times can be programmed during periods forecast to be calm, with a low seastate.
18
� No umbilical
� Self-powered
� Autonomous
Self-Powered Wellheads
• Kvaerner SPARCS (Subsea Powered Autonomous Control System) 1994
• ABB SWAT (Self-powered Wellhead with Acoustic Telemetry) 1985
A final piece in the jigsaw puzzle is the other things that umbilicals supply –electrical and hydraulic power.
Numerous methods were developed in the 80s and 90s for subsea power generation and control, by companies such as Kvaerner and ABB.
Agip developed a system and actually used it to operate a subsea well located 4
km from a platform without an umbilical.
• Kvaerner SPARCS (Subsea Powered Autonomous Control System) 1994;
• ABB SWAT (Self-powered Wellhead with Acoustic Telemetry) 1985;
• Caltec MURCS (Minimum Umbilical Remote Control System) 1998;
• Agip SWACS (Autonomous Control System for a Subsea Well), 1996; and
• Concept for Turbine Generator powered by the MEG line, Martyn Witton,
2003.
At present, the major manufacturers have mothballed the technology, and only
Weatherford is progressing it with a design for a Subsea Hydraulic Power Unit.
(I did hear from a colleague that FMC have recently done some work on Subsea
HPUs).
19
Satellite Communications
� Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Satellite Link
• Constellations of low altitude satellites
• Globalstar, Iridium and Orbcomm
• Antennae do not require pointing
• Low power equipment
• Low cost equipment
• Messaging services
• Already well-proven with seagliders and SAUVs
Communication with shore is achieved with Low Earth Orbit satellites – this is well-proven from seagliders.
Satellite communication is preferred for communications from land to an
offshore seaglider. The preferred means of satellite communication is LEO
satellite link (e.g. Iridium and Globalstar networks), which is well suited for the
limited data and the transfer rates required. Messaging systems such as the Iridium Short Burst Data (SBD) service can provide cheap bidirectional transfer of
information.
Due to the low orbit height of LEO satellites, simple low power transmitters are
adequate, with antennae that do not require pointing.
20
Acoustic Communication
� Acoustic communication from an AUV to the seabed
• Using a Benthos MODEM
• Good for up to 2 km through the water
• 800 bytes per second
� Agip SWACS project (subsea wells acoustic control system)
• Installation in 1987 on the Agip Luna 27, in the Ionian Sea.
• The well was located in 176 metres water depth
• 3,700 meters away from the Luna A platform
• Still producing in 1996
And communication with the subsea wellheads is done with acoustics – this also is well-proven.
Using acoustic transmission with seagliders and Solar-powered AUVs is
already proven.
Acoustic control of well is already proven – not from seagliders, but from a
platform. This was demonstrated by the Agip Luna project in 1996.
21
Mission Duration
� Sea gliders glide out to the field. . .
• . . . and return at end of mission for maintenance
• Thermal gliders generate their own power
� Potentially 6-12 months for thermal gliders
� Solar-powered AUVs
� Potentially 12 months for SAUVs
We are hoping to achieve mission durations of up to 12 months for thermal gliders, and also for Solar-powered AUVs.
This is the vision, of mission durations for the seagliders of 6-12 months. I have a
researcher at the University of Western Australia who is looking at
power/energy/duration issues right now, as his Master’s thesis.
The enabling technology for long mission durations is harvesting the energy
needed for the propulsion from the ocean's temperature gradient. The ocean is
warm at the top and cold in deeper water.
Thermal propulsion uses the volume change that occurs when melting a
substance like wax. In warm water at the surface the wax melts, and expands. As the glider dives into cold deep water, the wax freezes and contracts.
At the surface, the expanding wax converts heat to mechanical energy. This stored mechanical energy is used to push oil from a bladder inside the vehicle’s
hull to one outside, changing its buoyancy and initiating the dive. At the bottom of
the dive, the wax cools and the cycle reverses. It’s not actually perpetual motion,
because it uses the thermal gradient in the ocean – it only seems like perpetual
motion.
In April 2008, a research team led by Dave Fratantoni of Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) retrieved a prototype thermal glider that they had launched 4 months before in the Caribbean Sea. The vehicle had
crisscrossed a deep ocean basin 75 times, travelling more than 3,000 km.
Dave Fratantoni said "We now believe the technology is stable enough to be used for science. It is no longer just an engineering prototype".
The net result of using thermal propulsion is that all the electrical energy in the seaglider's batteries can be used exclusively for control and communication.
22
Feasibility
� All the technologies proposed are established:
• Sea gliders / Solar-powered AUVs
• Virtual moorings
• LEO satellite communications
• Subsea acoustic communications
• Self–powered autonomous wellheads
� The only novel aspect is using AUVs for control
So, I claim that this concept uses a number of existing proven technologies in a new way which could provide technical and economic benefits for the remote
control of the large gas developments off the North West Shelf of Australia - think
of Ichthys, Scarborough, Io/Jansz.
All the technologies are proven, the only new thing is using them all together, and
using them for control of subsea wellheads
Something else that is novel is that the concept is being launched into industry
with no strings attached to it. There are – deliberately - no patents or licenses on
this.
23
Well, that persuades me. And those AUVs, especially the seagliders, have a real coolness factor.
But how do we persuade guys like these?
Managers and accountants are impervious to cool.
[Field testing a thermal seaglider in the Bahamas.]
24
Qualifying New Technology
� DNV-RP-A203 Qualification Procedures for New Technology
• Describes a recommended work process for qualifying technology
• A public document which can be applied by anyone
What we can use to demonstrate the feasibility of new AUV technology is this – a procedure from DNV that deals with the qualification of new technology.
DNV-RP-A203 is like a roadmap for the qualification process.
It provides a systematic approach to the qualification of new technology, ensuring
that the technology functions reliably within specified limits.
25
Technology Qualification
� DNV’s Definition of Qualification:
• Qualification is the process of providing the evidence that the technology will function within specific limits with an acceptable level of confidence.
Qualification is a documented set of activities to prove that the technology is fit for purpose.
We want to qualify our equipment, our systems, and our concepts to increase confidence –
Confidence for us, for our managers, and for the people who are putting money
into our venture.
26
DNV Observations
� Industry Technology Qualification Practices
• Failure modes and mechanisms not systematically identified
• Design and qualification by “Trial and Error”
• “Band-aid solutions”
• Tests are often “function tests” and not “qualification tests”
• “Margin to failure” not determined
• Actual operating environment usually not tested
• The provided “evidence” is poorly organized and documented
� Consequences
• Schedule and budget overruns and poor reliability
To get a better understanding of what qualification is, it’s useful to consider what it isn’t.
DNV have seen generally poor practice in industry, when people or companies are trying to qualify new technology.
•They observe that a systematic approach is not taken to identify failure modes.
•There’s no systematic approach to design and qualification, it’s more a process
of “trail and error”.
•When failures are seen, they generally apply a quick fix instead of bottoming out
the issue.
•When testing is done, it is often a perfunctory function test, rather than testing to
the limit. With a successful qualification test, you push the equipment beyond
normal operating conditions – this should tell you that in normal conditions, you are operating at a safe margin from the edge.
The consequences of these industry practices should be obvious.
27
The DNV Qualification Work Process
This shows the eight steps in the DNV qualification process.
It’s a risk-based approach:
•First, you establish a qualification basis comprising requirements, specification
and description.
•Screen the technology based on identification of failure modes.
•Assess possible modification.
•Collect reliability data. This can come from experience, numerical analysis or tests.
•Analyse the reliability of the new technology, and determine if it meets the
requirements.
28
Qualification Work Process
To look at the qualification process another way, it identifies risks or threats to your system, and guides you in the qualifying activities that you carry out to
eliminate or mitigate against those threats.
It’s not really that difficult!
•The DNV process ensures traceability.
•It allows you to track the qualification process.
•It allows you to document the performance margin.
•It can identify gaps.
•It will improve confidence.
29
Qualification Basis
� Objective
• Describe the technology to be qualified
• Define system boundaries (limit scope)
• Set operational limitations
• Define functional requirements
• Set reliability target (when relevant)
Let’s look at the first step, establishing the Qualification Basis.
30
Qualification Basis
� Objective
• Describe the technology to be qualified
− The Virtual Control Buoy
♦ Seaglider/SAUV
♦ Subsea HPU and power generation
♦ Communication channels
• Define system boundaries (limit scope)
• Set operational limitations
• Define functional requirements
• Set reliability target (when relevant)
The technology to be qualified is the Virtual Control Buoy, and we’ve documented the requirements and specification for it.
31
Technology Assessment
� Objective
• Define which parts of the system are unproven by:
− Dividing the system into manageable parts (System
Break-down)
− A top-down assessment starting at the overall system level
• Classify the technology parts with respect to novelty
Next, we look at what parts of our equipment or system need to be qualified.
To do this, it’s best to use a multi-disciplinary team.
32
Team for Technology Assessment
� Objective
• Define which parts of the system are unproven by:
− Dividing the system into manageable parts (System
Break-down)
− A top-down assessment starting at the overall system level
• Classify the technology parts with respect to novelty
For the Virtual Control Buoy, I called on my fellow engineers.
We’ve got people here from Subsea, Pipelines, Marine, and Subsea Controls.
You also need a facilitator and a scribe for these group sessions.
33
Technology Assessment – System breakdown
� The system can be divided into manageable
parts by either/or
• Sub-systems and components (see table.)
• Sequences of processes (chemical, kinetic, electrical, etc.)
• Sequence of operations in project phases (manufacturing, installation, operation, etc.)
First, we break the system down into logical parts – we can consider sub-systems for the AUV…
34
Technology Assessment – Classification
… and then consider the state of the technology for each part, according to the application area, and the maturity (the newness) of the technology.
Technology in Class 1 is proven technology, and technology in Classes 2 to 4 is defined as new technology,
needing qualification according to this procedure.
35
Technology Assessment – Classification
ID Component Function New Application Technology Technology
Aspect 1
Known
2
New
1
Known
2
Developing
3
New Class
1 Seaglider
1.1 Buoyancy Generation Y Y 11.2 Hulls and Hydrodynamic Performance Y Y 1
1.3 Satellite Communication Y Y 1
1.4 Local Radio Communication Y Y 1
1.5 Subsea Acoustic Communication Y Y 1
1.6 Gliding Control Y Y 11.7 Scientific payloads Y Y 11.8 Long Operational Lifetimes Y Y 3
1.9 Handling in Small Boats Launch and Recovery Y Y 1
1.10 GPS System Navigation Y Y 1
1.11 Dead Reckoning System Navigation during Dives Y Y 1
1.12 Virtual Mooring Mode Station Keeping Y Y 21.13 Reprogramming During Mission Y Y 11.14 Long Distance Transits Transit to Field Y Y 2
1.15 Thermal Buoyancy System Power Generation Y Y 2
1.16 Fleet Behaviour, "Swarming" Cooperative Control Y Y 2
1.17 Energy/Power/Bandwidth Balance Y Y 3
1.18 Marine growth retardant non-copper or lead Y Y 21.19
2 Solar AUV
2.1 Solar Panels Power Generation Y Y 1
2.2 Propellor Y Y 1
2.3 Solar Panel biofouling Y Y 42.4 Alternative power sources fuel cell? Y Y 2
This is our Technology Assessment for the Virtual Control Buoy.
36
Failure Mode Identification and Risk Ranking
� Objective
• Identify all failure modes of concern for the elements defined as unproven
− Judge and rank the associated risks
− Define the likelihood of occurrence
− Define consequence
• Define risk
Now that we’ve assessed the technology for its novelty, we can continue by considering failure modes and ranking them according to the level of risk that
they have.
Again, this is best done by a team.
They identify failure modes and then decide on their probability and their
consequences.
This chart is “uncalibrated”…
37
Failure Mode Identification and Risk Ranking
� Calibration
… so it’s preferable to use a chart like this, which has numbers on the axes, and also a description of what the numbers mean.
38
Failure Mode Identification and Risk Ranking
Failure Mode Consequence Risk Mitigation/Comments
Severity Likelihood Ranking
Collision by passing vessel - even sailing boats 3 4 M Mitigated by redundancy, diving capability
Negotiating shipping lanes in transit 3 4 M Mitigated by redundancy, diving capability
Predatory sea life 3 3 M Mitigated by redundancy
Lightning 3 1 L Mitigated by redundancy
Limitations on angle of acoustic communications 3 3 M Mitigated by redundancy + keeping over well
Overturning 3 3 M Self-righting capability
Bird fouling of solar panels 3 3 M Mitigated by redundancy + further study needed
Biofouling of solar panels 4 3 M Mitigated by redundancy + further study needed
Weather risk 3 4 M Accept some downtime
Failure of subsea equipment - eg Subsea HPU etc 4 4 H Retrievable modules for easy change-out
Marine Growth and Fouling 3 4 M Mitigated by redundancy + materials/coatings
Fouling by seaweed or flotsam 3 4 M Mitigated by redundancy + straked wings
Theft or "Salvage" by passing vessels 3 3 M Mitigated by redundancy, diving capability
Encountering Ice 4 3 M Use VCB only in tropical and temperate zones
Insufficient temperature differential for thermal glider 4 3 M Use Solar AUV
Poor/ No Operation during cyclone/typhoon conditions 3 3 M Accept some downtime
Solitons impact on navigation trajectory 1 3 L Negligible effect
Areas with constant currents > 0.5 m/s N/A N/A N/A Use Solar-Powered AUV
Areas with constant currents > 3 m/s N/A N/A N/A Can't use VCB in these conditions
Chemical Injection N/A N/A N/A Needs chemical injection lines from shore/surface
Annulus venting N/A N/A N/A Inject annulus pressure into production side
Hydrate remediation N/A N/A N/A Other provision need to be made
The team came up with these failure modes.
The Risk Ranking is always before you’ve done anything to mitigate them.
Some of the risks are mitigated or eliminated by improvements – e.g. negotiating
shipping lanes, by diving.
Some of the risks are unavoidable and have to be accepted – e.g. weather risks,
causing loss of position or loss of satellite signal.
Some of the risks are eliminated by reducing the operating envelope – e.g.
operating in ice. Instead of putting an icebreaker on the front of the seaglider, just
accept that you won’t operate in arctic conditions.
Some of the risks need further study – e.g. fouling of the solar panels.
39
Biofouling of Solar Panels
This shows marine fouling of the photoelectric panels.
The shots show fouling after 11 and 25 days.
40
Failure Mode Identification and Risk Ranking
Failure Mode Consequence Risk Mitigation/Comments
Severity Likelihood Ranking
Collision by passing vessel - even sailing boats 3 4 M Mitigated by redundancy, diving capability
Negotiating shipping lanes in transit 3 4 M Mitigated by redundancy, diving capability
Predatory sea life 3 3 M Mitigated by redundancy
Lightning 3 1 L Mitigated by redundancy
Limitations on angle of acoustic communications 3 3 M Mitigated by redundancy + keeping over well
Overturning 3 3 M Self-righting capability
Bird fouling of solar panels 3 3 M Mitigated by redundancy + further study needed
Biofouling of solar panels 4 3 M Mitigated by redundancy + further study needed
Weather risk 3 4 M Accept some downtime
Failure of subsea equipment - eg Subsea HPU etc 4 4 H Retrievable modules for easy change-out
Marine Growth and Fouling 3 4 M Mitigated by redundancy + materials/coatings
Fouling by seaweed or flotsam 3 4 M Mitigated by redundancy + straked wings
Theft or "Salvage" by passing vessels 3 3 M Mitigated by redundancy, diving capability
Encountering Ice 4 3 M Use VCB only in tropical and temperate zones
Insufficient temperature differential for thermal glider 4 3 M Use Solar AUV
Poor/ No Operation during cyclone/typhoon conditions 3 3 M Accept some downtime
Solitons impact on navigation trajectory 1 3 L Negligible effect
Areas with constant currents > 0.5 m/s N/A N/A N/A Use Solar-Powered AUV
Areas with constant currents > 3 m/s N/A N/A N/A Can't use VCB in these conditions
Chemical Injection N/A N/A N/A Needs chemical injection lines from shore/surface
Annulus venting N/A N/A N/A Inject annulus pressure into production side
Hydrate remediation N/A N/A N/A Other provision need to be made
Besides using engineering judgment to rate the risks, you can use test result, or numerical analysis, or use databases of reliability information.
41
Concept Improvement
� Objective
• Implement improvements that have been found necessary or beneficial during the Failure Mode Identification and Risk Ranking
� Will normally imply updating of previous steps
A beneficial outcome of the team assessment should be some good ideas.
These ideas can be incorporated at this stage…
42
Concept Improvement
� Objective
• Implement improvements that have been found necessary or beneficial during the Failure Mode Identification and Risk Ranking
− Diving capability on detecting approaching vessels, to avoid impact or theft
− Marine growth retardant, non-copper or lead
� Will normally imply updating of previous steps
For the Virtual Control Buoy, a definite improvement is the capability of diving when a vessel approaches, to avoid impact or theft.
Also, some type of retardant (or mechanical means) is needed to prevent fouling of solar panels.
43
Selection of Qualification Methods
� Select qualification methods that
• adequately address the identified failure modes of concern
• reduce risks (reduce uncertainties)
• document sufficient margin to failure
� Can be based on:
• Documented experience (e.g. experience databases)
• Numerical analyses
• Testing
• Procedural precautions
� Leads up to a “Technology Qualification Plan”
Qualification methods can be based on experience (which needs to be documented), and on theoretical analysis backed up by tests.
We haven’t got to this stage yet with the Virtual Control Buoy.
44
Success Evaluation
� Indicate the probability of completing the
qualification activities with success within the
available time frame
� An expert judgement based on
• Level of technical challenge
• Needed time to complete an activity relative to the time available
� Serves as basis for deciding to proceed into the
costly and time consuming Analysis and
Testing phase or not
At this point the project would make an assessment of what is needed to finish the work – and whether it’s worth proceeding or not.
45
Data Collection
� Carry out the qualification activities prescribed
in the Technology Qualification Plan
� Methods
• Analyses
• Testing
• Data collection
• Preventive procedures
Carrying out these qualification activities (especially the testing) is the most expensive part of the process – but by this stage, you should have rationalised
and justified everything that needs to be done.
46
Functionality Assessment
� To confirm that the functional
requirements and target reliability as
stated in the Qualification Basis are met
� Tasks:
• Verify that all qualification activities have been completed
• Verify that all acceptance criteria have been
met, or that Qualification Basis has been revised accordingly
• Update the Risk Matrix considering results from the Data Collection
ComplianceCompliance
At the end of the qualification process, you will have documented proof that the new technology meets the functional requirements with an acceptable level of
reliability.
We haven’t completed this process with the Virtual Control Buoy – at this stage,
it’s still only a concept – but you’ve seen how we’ve got to the fourth stage with
very little investment in time or money.
47
� Kevin Mullen
� INTECSEA
� http://www.intecsea.com
Contact information
"The best way to predict the future is to create it."
Peter Drucker
If you want any more information, or a copy of my notes, drop me an email.
The take-away message from this presentation is:
•Firstly, there are things we can do with AUVs that we haven’t even thought of yet
•And secondly, there is a formal process for qualifying our new technology and
applications - we don’t need to use ad-hoc methods any more.