The practice of remote dynamic positioning trials has increased during the course of the Covid-19 pandemic, but questions linger over whether remote trials are fit-for-purpose
In Riviera Maritime Media’s Data driven and objective-based independent testing for DP vessels webinar, held in association with Caterpillar and sponsored by Global Maritime, Keelson and Onestep Power, the panel of experts discussed the issue.
Shell International Exploration and Production projects and technology principal marine operations engineer Suman Muddusetti started by questioning what was meant by data-centric methods in the context of independent testing of dynamic positioning (DP) vessels. He noted there is guidance from a range of industry bodies, including OCIMF (OCIMF DP FMEA Assurance Framework Information Paper) and this could be summarised as, “Acquiring a transparent and aligned view of the validated post-failure DP capability of the DP vessel. That is what we are trying to establish,” he said.
Polls taken during the webinar revealed the delegates comfort levels with guidance available. In one poll: Should guidance be considered by IMCA and MTS to define remote trials? 85% replied yes and 15% no. This was backed up to some extent in another poll: Is the independent witness, as detailed in IMCA M190 and referred to by the MTS techop, required for acceptable DP testing at annual trials? The majority (54%) were in favour with 38% neutral (nice to have) and 8% feeling it was not required.
In a further poll on the subject: The OCIMF DP FMEA assurance information paper provides clear requirements for the verification and validation of DP systems based on data centricity. What prevents the DP community from implementing this guidance? 45% replied they did not want to use it, 35% were not aware of it, 16% said they did not understand it, and 4% replied they did not have time to read it.
Mr Muddusetti had this to say on DP testing functionality, “We want to deliver predictable incident-free DP operations. Why do I say predictable incident rate DP operations? We do not want to be lucky. We want to be predictable.” He added, “We want to establish the basis of confidence that we can actually carry out our industrial mission and deliver incident-free, predictable DP operations.”
In a poll: What is the motivation for DP testing? Delegates chose client acceptance (65%) and 35% class compliance.
Mr Muddusetti noted it is important to understand what data-centric does NOT mean. This includes photos, print-outs and handwritten notes that fail the following tests and do not have supporting collaborative information such as: providing the necessary details to corroborate test results, both local effect and end (global effect); providing unambiguous evidence of meeting performance expectations; measuring relative performance of different sensors and systems; providing data for triangulation (such as time, pressures, or temperatures); do not facilitate independent verification.
In conclusion, Mr Muddusetti defined data-centricity as the data provided should be comprehensive and capable of providing corroborating evidence of the validated post-failure DP capability of the vessel in an intuitive manner: whereby the reader can independently arrive at the same conclusion as the person who conducted the trials and establish the basis of the confidence (for all stakeholders) on the ability to deliver predictable incident-free DP operations.
Another poll question was: How did webinar delegates view the new technologies such virtual or augmented reality as the answer to providing an independent witness to DP testing? 64% thought these were an option, but 24% thought they were not an option and 12% thought these technologies should not be considered.
What are the benefits of data-centric testing? Delegates replied that the benefits were measurable, comparable results (54%), repeatable tests (19%) and more granular data for fault finding (19%). The remainder (8%) felt the benefit was the definition of systems limitations.
Keelson Marine Assurance senior partner and marine consultant Mat Bateman took on the challenge of addressing the scale of the issue with an illustration of a section of a power network within a wider DP system. In the example, there are seven different networks for a single engine/switchboard section, all exchanging data, in a separate but connected network to the DP system.
Veracity, volume, velocity and variety – the four Vs – is the acronym adopted by the data community, he said, which means the reliability of the data, the amount, the speed and the different sorts of data. “We need to bring all these four elements together to give us good fault-free data. And if we get that right, it informs and supports our goals,” he said.
Regarding remote trials, he acknowledges, “The financial cost of having a surveyor go out to a vessel, and then in quarantine for up to 14 days, is really challenging” and one we must be cognizant of.
In a poll: Do you think remote solutions available today are... 76% felt they were inferior to traditional onboard witnessing, 12% equal to traditional onboard witnessing, and 12% better than traditional onboard witnessing.
The challenge with remote trials, he noted, is that they rarely include a sufficiently ’independent witness’ as guided by IMCA/MTS to give the process integrity. Improved guidance on remote trials and better use of the available technology was how Mr Bateman summarised his interests in the subject and how Keelson is looking at the VR / AR space.
A poll during the webinar asked: Can annual DP trials (remote or otherwise) be performed effectively without a sound understanding of the DP redundancy concept, including common points and compensating provisions, (as provided by a good quality DP System FMEA)? 85% replied no while only 15% agreed.
Global Maritime business lead dynamic position services Dag Leo Emblemsvåg took the view that it is important when looking at data-driven testing that it can only replace traditional methods if the verification, safety barriers and performance remain the same. To this, he added that the trend toward increased participation of crew in the trial process was positive, and should be preserved when looking at new methods.
In a poll, How does data-centric testing relieve the burden on the crew from traditional testing? Half (50%) agreed there is reduced disagreements for outcomes and 42% noted clear results presented in report format, with 8% choosing the presence of specialist technicians for installation and removal.
In a further poll: To what extent do you believe vessels today are ready for remote trials? 100% ready today (3%), 75% of the fleet ready today (0%), 50% of the fleet ready today (9%), 25% of the fleet ready today (66%), 0% of the fleet ready today (22%).
He said, “Objective-based testing is the key to any testing if verified by an independent witness or remotely and the acceptance level should not change regardless of solution.” He added, “The new solutions need to take into account the quality of evidence of testing for all parties such as third-party assurance and oil majors. It should also be able to hold up in a potential court case. Evidence that is not to this standard will be difficult to accept during a remote trials.” He concluded that “[New methods] need to make sure they increase the level of assurance and not the other way around.”
In a poll: The biggest hurdle testing creates is: money (43%), time (37%), personnel (17%), other (3%).
OneStep Power Solutions president Mark Craig stripped back testing to the fundamentals. “Do we know why we are testing or is it just something that we have always done?” he asked. He also asked if there is clear pass or fail criteria. “In addition to this, completing the programme should not require any changes to the systems under test,” he said, “changing systems to accomplish the goal does not prove the reliability or integrity of your system.”
The test report should be unambiguous. “Once the programme is complete, a report should be provided that clearly represents the results from the testing and provides the data from which the conclusions were reached,” he said. With data-centric testing, a large volume of data is produced and the algorithms used to analse the data need to be vetted. “We need to keep good security. We need to have a direct line of knowing where that data has been and if it has been tampered with.”
Takeaways
Mr Muddusetti stated it is no longer acceptable to conclude a test report with ’not as expected.’ He said, “Why we should do this is not whether we do it remotely or not, but to give us confidence that when we deployed these vessels to carry out the work we are asking them to do, we are going to get predictable incident-free DP operations out of it.”
Mr Bateman said remote trials producing predictable, reliable data is still a work in progress. At the same time, traditional reporting of ’acceptable’ has to change to a more data-centric approach.
Mr Emblemsvåg noted there was scepticism towards remote testing but it is the way forward, and vendors need to develop compatible data-centric systems.
Mr Craig said there was a recognition of the value of data-centric testing and being able to pinpoint how a system will react. He offered up the next stage in the discussion – how to access and control the data flow – mainly the bandwidth required going forward to stream, store and analyse the volume of data being produced and ensure it is pure and reliable. “We need to think about this as an industry, what we are going to accept in regard to the data and the data integrity.”
From left to right: Keelson Marine Assurance senior partner and marine consultant Mat Bateman, OneStep Power Solutions president Mark Craig, Shell International Exploration and Production projects and technology principal marine operations engineer Suman Muddusetti, Global Maritime business lead dynamic position services Dag Leo Emblemsvåg (source: Riviera)
© 2023 Riviera Maritime Media Ltd.