Working together

for a safer world

2013 Top Drive Systems Dropped Objects Prevention Workshop

The upstream drilling industry has made significant positive
steps in the past decade towards the prevention of Dropped
Object incidents. The result being that compared to a decade
ago, overall dropped object incidents have been significantly
reduced on virtually all types of drilling assets globally.
Asset owners (rig owners), operators (oil companies) and
equipment manufacturers have all taken part with various
levels of vigorousness in reducing the overall amount of
dropped objects occurring on drilling assets. Unfortunately,
the picture is not perfect. Dropped Object incidents are still
occurring at a rather alarming rate globally and within all
types of drilling assets, making it painfully obvious that it is
not an asset type or regional related phenomena.
A review of Dropped Object incidents highlights that they
originate from a variety of root causes in a variety of
systems. Thus realistically, a simple solution cannot be easily
found; instead multiple solutions with multiple approaches
will be required to continue the drive towards Dropped
Object free operations.
Originally initiated and fully supported by Brunei Shell
Petroleum Company, the Lloyds Register Global Technology
Centre (Singapore) with cooperation from Lloyds Register
Energy Drilling, facilitated a one day workshop titled
Preventing Top drive Systems related Dropped Objects.
This took place on the 12th November 2013 at the Lloyds
Register Energy Drilling Training facility.
The Singapore Lloyds Register Global Technology Centre
(GTC) is set up to advance technical innovation and support
the industry. In collaboration with business, academia, and
public research and development agencies, the GTC will focus
on five main research themes critical to safety in the energy
and marine sectors and welcomes research proposals from
across the industry. The GTC aims to build strong energy
related R&D capabilities in Asia, develop partnerships with
research institutes, regulators, and governments. It also aims
to assist industry partners in introducing new technology
to solve challenging issues, and act as a catalyst for industry
thought, leadership, and training.
Lloyds Register Energy Drilling is the result of the merger
between two companies, ModuSpec International and WEST
Engineering. The merger which occurred in 2012 combines
50 years of experience on drilling assets, including Dropped
Objects Prevention Schemes.
Lloyds Register is currently in the final stages of developing
a DROPS class notation. This notation will provide guidance

to rig owners and will set a minimum standard for Dropped

Object prevention measures to be put in place for a mobile
offshore unit (drilling rig) to become eligible for the DROPS
class notation.
Supported by Brunei Shell Petroleum Company, Lloyds Register
attracted the participation of important players in the industry.
Thus on the 12th of November multiple operators, multiple rig
owners, and a major manufacturer were present.
Through this workshop and anticipated subsequent DROPS
workshops, Lloyds Register along with industry partners
hopes to collate additional improvements in order to achieve
its Dropped Object incident free target. The main goal of the
workshop was to take a step back and approach Dropped
Object incident prevention from a fresh perspective, allowing
new ideas to develop and exploring new directions. The target
was not to find immediate solutions and draw final conclusions
but was defined as facilitating a joint industry discussion with
the objective of identifying and exploring opportunities to
minimise the occurrence of Dropped Objects.
Equipment system boundaries were defined based on recent
incident data from Brunei Shell Petroleum Company;
highlighting that an increased quantity of Dropped Object
incidents are related to Top Drive Systems (TDS). Based on the
historical data provided by Brunei Shell Petroleum Company
and the historical data available at Lloyds Register Energy
Drilling inspection records, the following high level areas were
defined to be explored.

1. Equipment and Systems
2. People
3. Management Systems
An additional subsection was created,
to divide between:

A. New TDS Systems (looking forward)
B. TDS Systems in use (current)
To provide structure for the discussions the analysis of
historical data was divided up into 4 focus areas. These were;

1. C
 ollisions (between top drive and structure or stand while
TDS is moving)
2. Failed fixing and securing (e.g. sheared or loose bolts)
3. Maintenance, inspection, and replacement
4. (Sub)vendor supplied parts

Upon completion of the one day workshop, Lloyds Register

held a number of internal follow up workshops, detailing
defined areas for further exploration by Lloyds Register or
by Lloyds Register and the industry combined. This paper
describes the areas Lloyds Register distilled from the one day
industry workshop on Top Drive System Dropped Object
prevention. Note that these areas of focus are listed in no
particular order of priority.

A. New Design Top Drive Systems

A major positive contributor which would prevent dropped
Objects from Top Drive Systems is a significant design change.
The current design of virtually all manufacturers is typically
based on a design originating decades ago. Although from
an operational and engineering point of view it meets the
intended purpose, significant improvements can still be made
with regard to integrated Dropped Object prevention. Fully
enclosed TDSs should be explored with suitably strong
panelling, hinged appropriately, and at the same time
allowing for full internal inspection. The only external parts
being the drill stem shaft protruding from the bottom of the
enclosure. TDS pipe handlers and link tilt mechanisms all to be
fully enclosed so that any Dropped Object would be retained
inside the enclosure.
New Top Drive Systems should be fully set up to accept
foreseeable other vendor items. Typical examples are the
rotary hose connections. Due to lack of an imbedded strong
point to accept secondary securing for rotary hoses, (ill-fitting)
custom made clamps are often used, introducing quantities of
additional bolts, nuts and steel parts.
A persistent notion in the drilling industry is that full
automatic pipe handling and automatic drilling is a technology
still decades away from implementation. Multiple operations
in other industry sectors are highlighted which have been fully
automated successfully, improving safety and improving overall
operations speeds and efficiency. Deep-water pipe laying
efficiency sharply increased when pipe handling of small and
large diameter pipe sections became fully automated. Lloyds
Register is convinced that a Dropped Object incident free
operation will require further development and use of
automation and automated zone management.

B. Top Drive Systems in use

Existing conventional and new TDSs are complex equipment,
designed for high load applications and a variety of different
tasks; tripping, drilling, handling BOP and marine riser etc. The
variety of tasks and the high load factors require a range of
sub systems to be installed on a typical TDS such as pipe
handlers, hydraulic cylinders, oil lubrication pumps, all of which
are usually bolted on the sides. The first major improvement
that can be realised is to identify items that can be removed
and eliminated from the TDS. Manufacturers are to re-visit
current and future designs and verify items to be removed
from a TDS by either omitting or relocating them to the fixed
position in the derrick or on the drillfloor. The mantra less is
more seems to be in place; less appurtenances create a
situation of enhanced protection against Dropped Object

potential. After all, the best protection against Dropped

Objects is achieved by not having the object at height at all.
Proper attention to the primary fixings is the start to
achieving a reduction in the potential for Dropped Objects.
Once sufficient attention in the design is given to the selection
of an optimal fixing method, and the equipment is installed
accordingly, the most important target should be to maintain
the original bolting, clamps and other fixings and keep these
in good condition. Secondary retention and securing are only
secondary. Lessons can be learnt from the airline industry;
the reason parts do not regularly drop from planes is not due
to better secondary retention or securing; parts do not
regularly drop from planes because the condition levels of the
primary retention are typically maintained on higher levels
than in the drilling industry.
Occasionally sheared bolts occur on TDSs, directly resulting in
a dropped object. This would indicate a design failure if bolts
shear before reaching the replacement point of the said item.
However there are strong indications that the industry
nowadays is often operating TDSs near the maximum
operating envelope or even exceeding the envelope. Not
necessarily in maximum load path, but more specifically in
the area of vibration and prolonged high torque near the
end of the envelope. Industry consensus and maintenance
manuals prescribe additional inspection after jarring, an
operation typically associated with inducing high levels of
vibration and torque. However all agreed that multiple other
operations introduce similar levels of vibration and torque
which currently are not followed by a similar inspection
regime.
Manufacturers concur that little data is available on the actual
vibration levels experienced during operation of the TDSs in
the field, being it relative or absolute. Once vibration levels
are more accurately known by manufacturers by measuring
them over an extended period and by exploring all types of
operation, design changes can be implemented to achieve
improved operational envelopes or optimal inspection
schemes. Mounting accelerometers on multiple TDSs for the
duration of a drilling program was agreed to be explored
further. The data is to be submitted to the manufacturers in
order for them to analyse all aspects of their design against
these vibration levels.

C. Zone Management and Anti Collision

Historical data conclusively shows that multiple Dropped
Object incidents originate from collisions of a TDS with the
rig floor, equipment (drill pipe) on the rig floor, crown or with
elevators clashing with the structure or monkey board trough
extended link tilt system. Proven technology is available to
prevent equipment collisions in any industry by utilizing a
variety of approaches. Whether new or conventional units in
service, to conclusively prevent equipment collisions two things
need to happen in the industry:
(i) F ull acceptance of full automatic anti-collision prevention
with kinetic measurement to incorporate speed
and weight.

(ii) Incorporate different vendors into anti-collision

management.
As described earlier, the drilling industry seems reluctant to
embrace new and automated technology. From discussions it
has become apparent that a notion persists that automatic
systems are slower than manual operations. This notion is
virtually in all cases incorrect when operations are measured
over a longer period of time. To prevent collisions, the
operation cannot rely on manual handling alone. In addition
to the drilling industry, other industry sectors have conclusively
proven that when relying on human handling, equipment
collisions will occur over time at a higher incident rate then
in an automated environment. In manual mode, a driller
consistently operates close to an information overload
situation meaning the amount of information to be processed
by a driller is simply larger than the individual is able to
handle. This is a known phenomenon in many industries
where subsequently automation has taken over certain actions
to reduce the information load managed by the operator
(driller) and allowing the operator to take a step back and
monitor.
Kinetic Energy Monitoring Systems are proven technologies
which have been available already for over a decade. This
should be the minimum standard on any existing drilling unit
in order to target Dropped Object incident free operations by
preventing rig floor and crown collisions and collisions
between TDS and other equipment or structure.
Equipment collisions often occur when different vendors are
involved. Situations where one vendor has not taken enough
consideration of equipment operating in the same area
supplied by other vendors, or structures placed in the same
operational areas, again supplied by a different vendor. For
newly built drilling rigs, rig designers have to incorporate
detailed zoning specifications for drill floor equipment in
order for equipment manufacturers to incorporate these
specifications into their operational design. For conventional
drilling units already in use, proven aftermarket technology is
readily available to prevent collision of the TDS with structures
(monkey board) or equipment, including incorporating the
extended elevator link tilt functionality.

D. Dropped Object Prevention Inspections

time frame is based on. It is assumed to originate from the

time required to perform greasing activities on a conventional
TDS. Lloyds register is not challenging whether 30 minutes is
sufficient time to perform a thorough DROPS inspection on a
TDS, but is challenging the industry to provide a sound basis
for 30 minutes daily time available for both maintenance
activities and DROPS inspection.
The industry to review how much time is required daily to
both ensure operational uptime of the TDS (maintenance)
and perform Dropped Object potential inspections.
Once this correct amount of time (that can differ per rig / TDS)
is identified, based on a sound review for these tasks,
charter agreements between owner and operators should
clearly specify the monetary responsibilities (who will pay
for the time required). The argument the operator does
not allow us to do maintenance is often not correct and not
based on reality. The true argument is that the operator desires
to minimise the cost of downtime it takes to inspect or
maintain. The equipment owner has the ultimate responsibility
to maintain their equipment according to the original
equipment manufacturers specifications or beyond,
irrespective if the charter agreements support the financial
implication or not. This is the case in any industry. Thus
whether the party will cover the monetary side of the duration
is a simple contractual matter and unfortunately, is still not
often clearly specified in contracts.
Charter agreements between owner and operator should
clearly specify cost allocations for preventive inspection time
on TDS, covering both maintenance and DROPS inspections.
Maintenance crews typically undergo extensive training and
gain experience in identifying failing components on any type
of equipment by measurement and observation. The
individuals on drilling assets globally who are involved in daily
and weekly DROPS inspections on a TDS are often drill floor
crews. Drill floor crews are typically not trained to identity
failing components. They are trained and have gained
experience in other areas related to drilling a well, handling
drill pipe, recognizing well control situations. In order to
achieve successful DROPS inspection with a zero Dropped
Object incident rate, DROPS inspections on TDS must be carried
out by suitable technically trained staff.

Whatever the level of automation or design, be it late

generation or a conventional TDS, regular inspections with a
DROPS inspections on TDS to be carried out by suitable
focus on identifying Dropped Object potentials are required on
technically trained staff.
and around a TDS. This is simply because no matter how well
designed; a risk for a potential failure is always present.
DROPS inspections in general are often described and
Regular inspections should reduce the risk of these failures
managed by HSE departments. It was highlighted that some
becoming a potential Dropped Object hazard.
equipment owners have included DROPS specific notes in their
maintenance tasks. However, regular DROPS inspections are
An often observed comment found by Lloyds Register and
typically managed and driven by HSE departments.
many DROPS audits and inspections globally, is we do not
get the time to do a proper DROPS inspection. The workshop
Due to the technical complex nature of a TDS, regular
highlighted an interesting fact; the 30 minute TDS daily
DROPS inspections on a TDS are to be managed and driven
regular inspection interval is widely known in the drilling
by the maintenance department, and not by a non-technical
industry amongst manufacturers, owners and operators.
department, such as HSE or Drilling.
However, it is not known or understood what the 30 minute

The multitude of sub systems and appurtenances installed on

TDS is already mentioned and has resulted in the fact that any
given TDS contains large quantities of fasteners in a wide
variety of types. Manufacturers have been active in identifying
and applying secondary retention means, however it was
generally concluded that it requires a significant skill level
to identify all fasteners in such a manner that one can verify,
within a limited timeframe, that the item is still in position
and condition that it does not present a Dropped Object
potential. Manufacturers have aided this by preparing
picture books, highlighting in detail the various
components and their secure position. The workshop
highlighted the requirement for additional steps to
facilitate DROPS inspections on a TDS by two means:
Prepare an application, suitable to be used on a
(ruggedized and industry approved) hand held device
that can be taken up on the TDS during inspections. The
program is foreseen to display the content of the
conventional picture book in a natural manner that will
effortlessly steer an inspector by all areas on a TDS that are
required to be inspected. The use of Human Engineering
should contribute to identify the most optimal manner for
an inspector performing the task.
Manufacturers are urged to develop visual identifying
aids that clearly highlight items (fastenings) prone to
become a Dropped Object potential. The simplest
example is the use of contrasting colour paint to highlight
inspection items as some rig owners have already initiated.
Other examples are the use of signal (yellow) position
indicators on each fastener, making it easy to identify a
fastener which is not in secure position. This is to be
incorporated in new design, but also to be developed
and made available for aftermarket use.
The access to the TDS was questioned in many cases. How
realistic are the expectations of sound DROPS inspections,
when the TDS can only be assessed by man riding methods.
Even late generation drilling assets, typically outfitted with
man rider baskets (cherry pickers), still leave plenty of room
for improvement.
Looking forward, additional access areas should be designed
into the structure (derrick) supporting a TDS with capability
to fully access the TDS from all 4 sides and at all TDS heights.
Similar set ups to BOP inspection platforms should be
engineered, providing sound access platforms for multiple
maintenance staff while working in a natural posture
(standing upright on their feet).

Future rig design to improve accessibility to TDS with full

size platforms, readily available to be rigged up alongside
TDS on all four sides and covering full TDS height, in order
to allow for maintenance and inspection staff to perform
tasks in natural human posture. Envisioned are platforms,
hydraulically extended and retracted out of the derrick, to
create walkway type platforms that are operational in a
minimum time frame.

E. DROPS Standard
The workshop confirmed what was earlier highlighted in many
global inspections by Lloyds Register Energy Drilling, that
there is a lack of recognised industry standards pertaining to
DROPS. This lack of standards has resulted in regional
differences in the approach of Dropped Object prevention and
also differences between operators and owners vision on what
sound practice is. Secondary retention methodologies are
often not supported by sound engineering standards, but
merely based on experience. This is sometimes driven by
vendors supplying to the industry, presenting their items as
DROPS Proof or with the notion secondary retention built
into the design. The engineering methodology supporting
the built in secondary retention is often not clear or impossible
to retrieve.
Risk assessments are often still not properly carried out when
applying Dropped Object potential mitigation actions, such
as when installing secondary securing. As a result, it is
possible that more Dropped Object potential hazards are
actually introduced, by not correctly incorporating this
securing in the initial design, not correctly installing the
secondary securing or applying unsuitable additional
secondary securing measures.
An industry wide accepted standard is to be created for
mitigation of Dropped Object potential.

Conclusion
The approach to step back from the bolts and nuts and use
the combined knowledge of the industry (owners, operators
and manufacturers alike) has resulted in several new ideas and
visions that are presented in this paper.
Lloyds Register is committed to keep working together with
the industry to further investigate and explore these new ideas
in order to work towards the ultimate goal of DROPS incident
free operations in the drilling industry.

To find out more information about Lloyds Register Energy - Drilling, please contact us at
drilling.info@lr.org or visit www.lrenergy.org
ModuSpec and WEST Engineering Services are now Lloyd's Register Energy - Drilling

www.lrenergy.org
Lloyds Register Drilling Integrity Services Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. (Reg. no. 200100035N) is a limited company registered in Singapore.
Registered office: 1 Bukit Batok Street 22, GRP Industrial Building, #05-02, Singapore 659592.
Lloyds Register and variants of it are trading names of Lloyds Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates. Care is taken to ensure that all information
provided is accurate and up to date. However, Lloyds Register accepts no responsibility for inaccuracies in, or changes to, information.
Copyright Lloyds Register Drilling Integrity Services Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. 2014. A member of the Lloyds Register group.