TABLE OF CONTENTS Risk based design has been the focus of attention for several years. It appears to be viewed almost as some people would view religion, you are either for or against. Those who favour this concept are mainly representatives of the oil companies. The contractors appear to be either for or against according to how their contract has been formulated, which is quite understandable. Sometimes the authorities appear to be against this approach, at least when it is implemented in practice. Legislation, on the other hand, makes quite extensive references to this approach.
The idea of risk based design is that protective and mitigative measures are chosen and designed according to the hazards and the risks that are present, instead of applying deterministic design solutions, given by authority requirements, standards or previous projects.
So far all is well, but it appears that the widespread adaptation of this approach is only happening slowly. This is surprising given the enthusiasm of the oil companies for the approach, and the potential it should offer, in a situation where cost margins are constantly under pressure.
So what is the problem about the risk based design approach? Why is it not taken into more widespread use?
Do we not trust the design solutions chosen on this basis?
Do we not trust risk analysis as a tool?
Is the data not good enough?
Do we not trust the risk assessors who use the approach?
These questions will...
