Which QRA Software?

Risktec recently completed a Fig 1. Integrated QRA models versus spreadsheet models
comprehensive survey of software
currently available for undertaking Integrated QRA Models Spreadsheet Models
quantitative risk assessment (QRA) for Advantages Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages
onshore and offshore oil and gas
• Inclusion of many • Difficulty of use and • Relatively easy to • Prone to errors by
facilities. The key requirement was that models in a common understanding – understand the analyst
the software had to be available to computing onerous user training
• Lower user training • Can be personal to
users under licence, with full user environment and familiarity
requirements and analyst and difficult
requirements (but
support. This immediately removed • Models validated easier user to update by others
decent results
against experiment familiarisation without errors
from the search any “in-house” tools require complex
(requires careful QA)
• Software quality modelling) • Good spreadsheet
developed by consultants. assured by supplier models provide • Macro programming
• Lack of control and
transparent can be difficult to
From an initial list of over 80 tools, only • Technical support flexibility – user
calculations and check
from software unable to modify
a handful of software products were supplier software (can be an
assumptions
• More time consum-
found that could undertake full QRA. advantage) • Better control – user ing to demonstrate
• Available “off-the- validation
Also, offshore and onshore QRA tools able to develop
shelf” enabling early • Lack of transparency
spreadsheet model • Perception – less
tend to be packaged separately, start of work – hidden assumptions
to level of detail
and calculation sophisticated (when
reflecting the different characteristics • Recognised and
methods, “black
required (flexibility reverse is often true)
that need to be modelled, e.g. offshore generally accepted of calculation and
box” (requires high
within the industry presentation)
evacuation, or onshore far field impact quality technical user
manual) • Lower external cost
on the public. (but man-hour time
• High initial and
can be expensive)
What is clear is that there is no single ongoing costs
(licences)
“best” tool designed for both offshore
and onshore QRA.

Key Findings Key Selection Criteria Risktec Verdict

• There are no commercially Key factors to consider when With apologies to the Top Gear car
available tools for “coarse” QRA at selecting QRA software include: magazine:
concept selection stage, but some • Scope – what exactly do you want Risktec survey – the choice is limited and
consultants have in-house models. to model and in how much detail? there is plenty of scope for improvement
• There is no single fully “integrated” Can the software meet your in the software currently on the market.
offshore tool. In practice, most requirements or will you be Risktec choice - spreadsheets for off-
companies develop bespoke, overwhelmed by the functionality? shore. SHEPHERD for the more complex
installation - specific, linked • Repeatability and transparency – onshore studies because users can select
spreadsheet models - see Fig 1. are the methods, rule sets and data their preferred physical effects tool.
• Onshore is better served and visible and traceable? Don’t be fooled by – good looks. Users
software products are generally • Cost – how much will licences, want flexibility and transparency in
well used and accepted. Non- training, in-house time and methods, rule sets and data.
hydrocarbon/ chemical risks (e.g. external consultants cost over the
transport) still need to be long-run? A Word of Warning!
• Integration – how easy will it be to With apologies to the Lonely Planet
quantified “off-line”, though they
integrate the processes for guide books:
tend to be less critical onshore
managing the software and “Software always changes - good
than offshore.
assessments into your company’s software usually gets better but
• A handful of products stand out as
management system? sometimes gets left behind, poor
technical leaders – see Fig 2.
software usually goes out of business,
new software gets launched, names
Fig 2. Leading QRA Tools
change – nothing stays the same”
Onshore QRA - Onshore QRA -
Offshore QRA
“Integrated”note 5 “Non-Integrated”
Conclusion
Users need to consider very carefully their
Neptune note 1
Safeti note 3 Riskcurves + requirements before selecting specific
Effects + software.
Damage
Often, using one of the onshore products
Plato note 2
Shepherd note 4 Riskplot
is the best way to proceed. But the com-
plexities of modelling offshore risks mean
Note 1 - “Computational workbench” linking modules to MS Excel/VBA that most organisations develop their
Note 2 - Concentrates on escalation of fire and explosion events taking account of geometry. own spreadsheet models to utilise the
Note 3- Incorporates PHAST physical effects tool methods, assumptions and data they
Note 4 - FRED physical effects tool is part of suite but user is not constrained to using it.
understand to an appropriate level of
detail.
Note 5 - “Integrated” means that most calculations are done “on-line” within software rather than
“off-line” by other tools. SAFETI is arguably more integrated than SHEPHERD Organisations with multiple facilities who
want a flexible but more robust approach
than spreadsheets, have an alternative
cost-effective option: to develop their
own bespoke model making use of
Microsoft.NET and/or ActiveX technology.
For further information, contact Steve
Lewis