HULL INSPECTION TECHNIQUES & STRATEGY

R. Caldwell, Marine Integrity Management Solutions Ltd., UK

SUMMARY
As field life extends, managing the hull integrity of a Floating Offshore Installation (FOI) has become more critical.
Employing Class entails the hull undergoing a robust five yearly survey cycle to assure its integrity. Part of that cycle
includes drydocking the vessel. FOIs tend not to drydock resulting in significant challenges to operators in managing
the hull integrity of their floating installations. Consequently, some operators have chosen to extend the concepts of
structural integrity management and are seeking to develop new techniques to support risk based inspection of the
submerged hull and the internal cargo and ballast tank structure. Inspection techniques and the information obtained
therefrom are key parameters in the assessment of structural integrity. But are these parameters well identified? What
data is needed to assure hull integrity and how can we best obtain this data?

1.

INTRODUCTION

As understanding in the management of Floating

Offshore Installations (FOI) has grown across the
offshore Oil & Gas (O&G) industry, so too has an
appreciation of the criticality of FOI hull structures.
Previously the hull was seen by many operators as
merely the platform upon which the process equipment
was located. The hull condition was considered as low
risk. The hull had, after all, been designed and
constructed to Classification Society Rules, some of
which stemmed from over 250 years of experience with
ocean going vessels. However, the offshore O&G sector
is increasingly challenging Classs prescriptive survey
requirements for floating installations in service as
operators seek to implement risk based inspection and
maintenance strategies which better fit their operational
goals. This project seeks to consolidate known and
developing inspection technology with an objective to
develop guidelines on their application to the offshore
floating industry, the qualifications of personnel
providing these services and specifications for equipment
which can be used.
2.

BACKGROUND

The offshore O&G industry has developed very

differently from the more traditional marine industry. A
ship operates under the legislative and regulatory
framework of an adopted Flag State who as signatories to
IMO Conventions, impose Statutory regulations and
Classification. This results in Classification being
mandatory for all ocean-going trading vessels. In
contrast, the legislative and regulatory framework for an
FOI varies throughout the world and is as a rule
governed by the National regulations of the Coastal State
in which it will be operating. As a result, whereas in the
Marine Industry, Class is considered as an important part
of the regulatory framework, it does not enjoy this stature
in the O&G industry.
At the outset, all operators build their FOI to Class Rules
since these continue to be the most suitable build
standard for FOI and are expected to remain so for the
foreseeable future. This is, in part, because of the

building yard's technical and commercial familiarity with

the Class concept and their Rules. However, it is during
the operational life of an FOI that the maintenance of
Class becomes more challenging.
The UK model is that of self regulation and one which
has been adopted to varying degrees globally. Under the
UK's Safety Case Regulations (SCR) [1], the asset owner
is required to identify major accident hazards (MAH) and
from these, Safety Critical Elements (SCE). They are
then required to produce a Performance Standard for
each SCE outlining how they will assure the integrity and
reliability of the SCE. This model does not mandate
Classification although the maintenance of Class is seen
by some operators as a means of achieving the
assurances for the Hull Performance Standard.
The basic premise behind Class Rules is that following
build, the hull undergoes a robust five yearly cycle of
surveys during which every aspect of the hull structure
and marine systems is examined to confirm and assure
their continued integrity. Part of that survey regime
includes drydocking the vessel. This allows the owners
to carry out external hull maintenance such as cleaning
and painting. Where items are found deficient, there
exists an opportunity, either during such drydockings or
at port calls, for the owner to carry out repairs.
Unfortunately an FOI is afforded neither the luxury of
port calls nor regular drydockings. As a result, some
operators employ a more risk based approach in the form
of integrity management.
3.

OFFSHORE PRACTICE

The primary focus of the offshore operator is to achieve a

respectable return on their capital and operational costs.
They achieve this by maximising continuous safe
production with the minimum of through life inspection,
maintenance and repair disruption. This results in all
inspection, maintenance and repair work having to be
scheduled around production requirements with the
minimum of risk. The planning and scheduling of these
inspection and maintenance tasks are considered
paramount to the efficient operation of the asset.
Operators have developed a mature methodology for
ensuring the integrity of SCE from their experience of

operating fixed platforms.

The operator normally
employs an integrity contractor that provides technicians
who carry out inspections based on a developed integrity
management strategy. The strategy defines the extent,
type and periodicity of inspections to be carried out.
Most inspection schedules employ a risk-based approach.
This methodology is typically adopted on their floating
assets too. However, the complexity and variety of the
hull structural configuration of FOI have led to
challenges on how this approach is adopted particularly
on areas such as the submerged hull, cargo and ballast
tanks whilst ensuring uninterrupted continuous
production.
FOIs normally remain on location for the duration of
field life, often up to 20 years. With the advent of new
extraction technology, in many cases, this is being
extended even further. During this time, they experience
significantly different loadings and contain different
fluids than their marine counterparts. An FOI in a fixed
location cannot divert around bad weather: Green seas
and slamming damage can and has occurred. A typical
FPSO loads continuously. The loading / offloading cycle
may be as short as 7 days. The consequence is that the
hull girder experiences significant stress fluctuations and
low cycle fatigue, as well as wave loading high cycle
fatigue, is a known threat to the hull structure of these
vessels. Structural damage can have high consequence to
production, the environment and not least the safety of
personnel on board which can number over a hundred.
Repairs on location may be technically too demanding
resulting in the asset having to leave field with the
associated significant economic implications.
To date, the Class Societies have not fully addressed
these issues in-so-far as their Rules relating to FOIs have
yet to properly acknowledge and account for these
fundamental differences between the operation of a
seagoing vessel and an FOI.
4.

CARGO TANKS

Class Regulations presently require an exclusive Class

surveyor to carry out the surveys. However, Class
surveyors are not in a position to comply with their own
regulations when carrying out close-up surveys, defined
as "normally within reach of hand" [2]. Scaffolding a
tank on an FOI on location to gain access to all areas
requiring inspection is prohibitively expensive as well as
impractical and rafting does not meet offshore industry
safety criteria.
As
such, it has become
common practice for
Rope
Access
Technicians (RATs) to
access structures, carry
out inspections and
report findings to the
Class surveyor.
Concurrent production
operations present a
number of unique

challenges predominantly centred around isolations to

adjacent cargo tanks and deck piping containing crude oil
and/or inert gas. The practicalities of tank cleaning on
location and dealing with slops have to be carefully
managed to avoid any detrimental environmental
consequences. The level of cleaning must be complete in
order to not only be able to carry out the inspection
safely but to be able to do so thoroughly. Cargo tanks
can suffer from isolated bottom pitting (Figure 1),
grooving and accelerated underdeck corrosion, which are
not easy to detect if the tank is not properly clean.

Figure 1: Bottom Pitting in a cargo tank

All of the inspection techniques that involve close visual
inspection of the higher level structures incur a safety
risk whether using rope access, scaffolding, or rafting.
The inspectors are more often than not part of the
contracted integrity inspection team permanently
onboard the asset and may not have had formal certified
training in inspection of ships structures leaving the
operator and classification societies exposed to risk.
A tank such as that shown in figure 2 has considerable
structural elements all of which have to be given due
consideration at the inspection outset.

Figure 2: Typical single bottom tank configuration

The penetrations of bottom longitudinals through the
forward and aft bulkheads as well as their connection
through the bottom web frames are areas of interest as
are the web frame toes, the centre girder bracket toes and
the stringer toes to name but a few. Also clearly visible
is the piping located in the tank: It too requires to be

integrity managed. In the tank shown in figure 3, only

the transverse bracket toes remain from the list of areas
above.

Figure 3: Typical double skinned cargo tank

Presently both tanks require to be inspected in the same
way even though their differing structural configurations
provide an opportunity, with the correct techniques and
methodology, to inspect the latter without entering the
tank.
5.

BALLAST TANKS

A number of the same challenges that exist for cargo

tank inspections on FOI exist for the ballast tanks too.
These are likewise inspected concurrent with continued
operations resulting in similar isolation threats. Cleaning
may not be as big an issue but the confined space threat
of these double side/double bottom tanks is significant
with adjacent cargo tanks in use.
A greater challenge is the integrity management of
ballast tank coatings. Grit blasting and recoating entire
tanks is difficult to achieve offshore. The accurate
assessment of the extent of coating deterioration and
corrosion is therefore paramount in order to effectively
mitigate these critical hull structural integrity degradation
threats. It is not sufficient to rate an entire tanks coating
condition as good, fair or poor. The coating and
corrosion condition of all tank areas must be recorded.
6.

MARINE SYSTEMS

Tank inspections may be driven by the management of

components located within ballast and cargo tanks such
as piping, valves, deepwell pumps, level and other safety
devices. Such access could allow the opportunity to gain
inspection data on adjacent tanks, if suitable inspection
techniques were acceptable.
7.

CORROSION & COATING ASESSMENT

In the marine industry, the assessment of corrosion is

effectively dealt with by thickness gauging of plating and

stiffening. This is required to be carried out by

companies approved by the Class Societies.
The
approval requires the company to provide technicians
with experience of ships structure as well as being
competent in using the gauging equipment and requisite
reporting software.
For classed FOI, a similar
philosophy is applied. However, the O&G industry does
not lend itself well to this philosophy being effective. As
intimated earlier, the operator normally employs an
integrity contractor that provides technicians usually with
rope access qualifications who carry out all forms of
integrity inspections based on developed integrity
management strategies. Whilst they normally have the
necessary NDT competence, they lack fundamental hull
structural knowledge, most commonly of the
nomenclature. This has resulted in structure being
incorrectly identified which can lead to ineffective
integrity assessment. Employing such an integrity
inspection regime can also result in confusion when it
comes to reporting of corrosion and coating condition.
Many of the NDT technicians are more familiar with
international standards with which they report on the
topside infrastructure. The marine industry and Class
Regulations however adopt the International Association
of Classification Societies (IACS) Recommended
Guidelines for Coating Maintenance & Repairs for
Ballast tanks and Combined Cargo/Ballast tanks on Oil
Tankers [3]. Whilst this document goes some way to
compare international standards with its own guidance,
the scope for misinterpretation is great and, as previously
intimated, it falls short of O&G industry expectations
with respect to its use as a tool for integrity management
purposes. These issues are particularly prevalent on
account of most inspection companies having a high
turnover of personnel. To aggravate this further, it has
become increasingly common for the industry to
challenge the Class Societies to justify a surveyor
onboard who will not physically carry out the survey but
only review inspection reports, an activity, they suggest,
that could be equally effectively carried out ashore.
Where bed space is at a premium, this results in these
technicians carrying out the Class inspections themselves
and reporting their findings to Class.
There is presently only very limited guidance as to the
extent of supervision or assistance that may be given to
the RAT or other inspectors and none to their hull
structural competence.
For classed assets, IACS
presently permits remote inspection techniques provided
they meet with its recommendation No. 42 [4]. This
recommendation provides for an assessment of the
technique proposed on a case by case basis. The
technique is to provide the survey results normally
obtained by the Surveyor. However, it stipulates that
confirmatory close-up surveys are to be carried out by
the Surveyor at selected locations where close up surveys
are required to verify the results of the Remote
Inspection Technique. This would appear to negate the
very reason for adopting the remote technique.

8.

SUBMERGED HULL

The submerged hull of an FOI differs in a number of

important aspects from a ship hull. A ships hull is
shaped to maximise fuel efficiency. To facilitate this, the
owner will normally remove marine growth and reapply
antifouling during drydocking. An FOI will not drydock
and will not be afforded the luxury of antifouling
reinstatement.
In contrast, marine growth on the
submerged hull of an FOI does not have a significant
detrimental operational impact although it can prevent
effective inspection of the external hull plating, welds
and coating.
The risks to the underwater portion of an FOI differ from
a trading tanker too. An FOI is highly unlikely to suffer
from grounding damage: This was recognised by a
number of designs being double sided but only single
bottomed. Neither do FOI suffer from sterntube seal
wear or pintle wear to the same extent as trading tankers.
The majority of modern purpose built FOI now minimise
appurtenances such as the number of hull penetrations in
order to reduce the problems and costs associate with
shipside valve and seachest grillage maintenance.
Ships now routinely carry out in-water surveys in lieu of
their intermediate docking. These are carried out in
designated sheltered waters affording suitable visibility
by divers employing CCTV and guided by a Class
surveyor. For an FOI, this work has to be carried out on
location. Since the O&G industry has steered away from
divers where possible because of the safety risks, this
will generally result in a work class ROV being deployed
from a support vessel with considerable associated costs.
As a consequence, FOI operators challenge the
periodicity of these costly subsea inspections when it
appears that the degradation mechanisms are much less
critical to their FOI, even more so when a number of
techniques for items such as shipside valves have been
developed allowing them to be effectively integrity
managed from inboard. This has resulted in their seeking
alternative inspection techniques, some from inboard, to
inspect the external submerged hull.
9.

INSPECTION PROVISION

The purpose of carrying out a structural survey of any

tank is to determine the extent of corrosion wastage and
structural defects present in the tank. In terms of
guidance on the provision of inspection in the O&G
industry and FOI in particular, the operator is directed to
ISO 19904: Petroleum and natural gas industries Floating offshore structures - Part 1: Monohulls, semisubmersibles and spars [5]. The standard states that for
Personnel Qualifications, Only suitably qualified
personnel shall be assigned to perform inspections.
With respect to the equipment used, Any equipment or
measuring instruments used as part of a structural
inspection shall be provided with current, valid
calibration certificates or a ready means of confirming
that they remain within acceptable calibration
standards and that inspection programmes ensure, The

reliability, accuracy, precision and tolerance of the

system, including operating personnel, shall be
established.
10.

THE CHALLENGE

FOI operators agree that Class surveys and their initial

periodicity are on the whole sufficiently robust to
mitigate hull structural risks. However, as these assets
reach their end of design life, the probability of failures
will increase. The challenge of this project is to provide
a variety of alternative inspection techniques acceptable
to the O&G industry and the Classification Societies
which will allow operators the flexibility to implement a
more pragmatic approach to inspections and inspection
scheduling and in so doing maintaining or potentially
reducing further the level of risk of hull structural failure.
In so doing, the project will attempt to quantify the
present level of acceptable structural risk. Both the O&G
industry and the Classification Societies have been
invited to participate. During this phase, the failure
mechanisms associated with FOI hull internal and
external structure will be identified and defect size
criteria developed. This criteria will in turn be used to
establish a probability of detection criteria against which
all the investigated inspection technologies will be
graded.
The deliverables will be guidelines on a variety of
inspection techniques, the equipment used there with and
training & certification to ensure inspector competence.
A matrix of inspection technique and periodicity between
inspections will be developed.
The remainder of this paper describes a number of
existing techniques, their advantages and disadvantages
and their opportunities to develop further.
11.

MANUAL TOOLS TECHNOLOGY

Contracting companies providing inspection technicians

and/or equipment are regularly challenged on their
personnel competence and equipment certification but
there is presently only general NDT guidance rather than
specific inspection technique procedures. Presently
inspection technicians are required primarily to have rope
access training and NDT qualifications generally
unspecified. There is a heavy dependency on integrity
engineers providing quality workbooks for the
technicians to use. These generally contain drawings of
the structure to be inspected and criteria to be employed
when reporting findings. There is obviously some
practical constraints to using these workbooks in tanks
when suspended from ropes. The technicians are
generally encouraged to take photos but this at their
discretion. Ideally continuous contact with an integrity
engineer or Class surveyor is sought. The Head Up
Display (HUD) is a development which assists the
technician in seeing information from remote
instruments or prior reports whilst sending inspection
data to the surveyor or integrity engineer (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Rope Access Technician using HUD (Courtesy

of EM&I)
Common equipment such as cameras and ultrasonic
thickness gauging probes have been developed to
facilitate inspecting bellmouths without their removal.

Figure 6: Corrosion Image Processing Algorithm

(Courtesy of MINOAS)
12.
NON-DESTRUCTIVE
TECHNOLOGY

Figure 5: Cobra Equipment (Courtesy of EM&I)

Mobile phones and other mobile technology available
today are increasingly becoming commonplace in
everyday life. They are capable of taking photographs
and video footage with voice overlay. With the correct
apps, such devices could be employed in a number of
ways. They could be made to facilitate an appropriate
level of technical overview during a remote inspection by
enabling technical drawings to be electronically to hand
during the inspection. The devices are also equipped
with a bank of accelerometers to detect the orientation of
the handset. It may be possible to use this functionality
to control a surveying robot and immediately analyse the
data retrieved. Transponders are already used in some
operations for locating ROVs. All this information could
be transmitted to onshore in real time permitting an
immediate appropriate technical assessment.
On-line execution of image processing algorithms and
results are being developed which can be applied to
images immediately available from field providing
corrosion assessment features (Figure 6).

TESTING

(NDT)

As far as surveying methods are concerned the

Alternating Current Field Measurement (ACFM)
technique is increasingly used in the offshore industry
both in underwater and topside structural parts, for the
detection of fatigue cracks. Processes have been put in
place to distinguish between transverse and longitudinal
defects, as well as cracks located on the outer and the
inner surface of the specimens, although at present this is
limited. Furthermore the results are not affected by the
coatings of the structure. In general, the ACFM
technique is considered a reliable, cost-effective, timeeffective surveying method to detect defects and
determine their dimensions.
Presently Time of Flight and other ultrasonic methods
are capable of inspecting external plating and the full
volume of welds from inside the hull thus eliminating the
need to employ expensive workclass ROV and standby
vessels.
Further techniques utilising eddy current such as the
Saturated Low Frequency Eddy Current (SLOFEC)
technique are now being used for rapid scanning to detect
through-wall discontinuities in steel materials up to
35mm and these methods have the advantage of being
able to inspect through marine growth in many instances.
Whilst this technique is one of the inside looking out,
some operators prefer to inspect from the outside in.
These techniques could be equally developed to inspect
cargo tank bottom plating pitting from within a water
ballast double bottom tank. If they were marinised they
could potentially be used attached to ROVs.
13.

ROBOTIC TECHNOLOGY

Crawlers of various types have been deployed to carry

inspection tools such as ultrasonic thickness probes and
CCTV whilst in contact with the hull structure and have
the advantage of being relatively inexpensive to deploy.
An existing example is Snoopy, an underwater, line-

operated vehicle, launched or operated from the FOI. A

line is deployed around the hull to guide and tow Snoopy
around hull obstructions, such as the bilge keels. Once in
position, the unit's buoyancy is adjusted to bring it into
close contact with the hull. Snoopy then tracks along the
hull, continuously monitoring the condition of the plating
thickness, coatings and cathodic potential. Reports are
produced on site, using 3D color graphics mapping
bottom plate condition such as the presence of corrosion
pits, condition of coatings and the cathodic potential. A
typical case history is the Snoopy device illustrated
below (Figure 7) which was used to inspect slops tank
bottom plating from outside the hull this being
beneficial to the operator who had concerns about pitting
but who had operational difficulties in taking the tank out
of service and cleaning it sufficiently.

With the advent of the suitcase-sized micro ROV, some

operators are opting to employ these devices to carry out
ballast tank inspections (Figure 8). Dependent upon the
tank configuration, the lightening holes are generally the
limiting constraint on the size of the ROV that can be
employed. These may be as small as 350 x 225 x 210
mm.

Figure 8: Micro ROV (Courtesy of HPR)

Figure 7: Snoopy at work (Courtesy of EM&I)

In this instance the Snoopy device carried an array of
ultrasonic probes and a CCTV pan and tilt camera in
order to inspect selected areas of the tank from outside
and to examine the condition of the external coating.
Future developments include improved accuracy of
location and wider area coverage with larger probe
arrays.
14.

Another operating constraint for the micro ROV is that a

typical double skinned FOI having common wing and
double bottom water ballast tanks some 50m long, 30m
wide and 30m deep will require the micro ROV to
operate on an umbilical of length 150m.
Unfortunately there is presently no industry guidance on
their use and the quality of inspection can vary
considerably. Figure 9 below is an example of what may
be construed as good photo quality.

ROV TECHNOLOGY

Due to the safety concerns related to diving operations,

considerable investment in ROV development by the
offshore industry has resulted in a myriad of ROV
capable of performing
very nearly all underwater
tasks.
ROV are now
commonly
used
for
subsea hull inspections.
The need to employ a
costly work-class ROV
for
underwater
hull
inspection
is
being
increasingly challenged
by some of the newer,
smaller ROVs which are
able to be launched from
the FOI itself.

Figure 9: ROV photo of crack-like indication

However there is no location identification, no defect
sizing and no associated conclusive NDT to confirm
whether this is a coating crack or a structural crack.
Experience to date has found that a minimum of one
ROV operator should hold a valid CSWIP 3.3U
certificate as well as have knowledge and experience of
hull structure or have been through a Class provided
training scheme. The equipment provided must be fully

serviced and correctly calibrated. Ideally, the ROV

should be capable of the following functions:
Navigating through 400 x 600 mm access holes
Operating with a suitable illumination device
Operating with a video camera
Carrying out thickness gauging using a UT probe
Carrying out ACFM using an ACFM probe (presently
not possible see later comments)
Measuring defect sizes
Marking defect locations
Depth rating not less than 50m
The ROV control console and equipment within should
be suitably waterproof and 'Ex' rated (e.g. IP67) such that
the equipment has no spark potential. A provision to
record and overlay the video with date, time and depth
should be provided. Successful operations have shown
that 40 W of illumination is acceptable. The video
camera should have a still photo image facility with
minimum resolution capability of 550 x 0.1lux. A
suitable type approved underwater UT probe capable of
attachment to the ROV should be available for use. In
order to evaluate surface defects, a suitable type
approved underwater ACFM probe capable of
attachment to the micro ROV should be developed:
Present ACFM equipment is too heavy to be fitted to a
micro ROV without the micro ROV losing some of its
manoeuvrability. A mechanical or optical (laser) device
from which defect sizes can be measured should be
available for use. A capability to measure depth to
evaluate pitting should be developed and available for
use. A capability to identify and return to a specific
location is imperative. Whilst it is appreciated that this is
most readily achieved through the skill of the operator, it
is considered that a method of marking the location of a
defect should be available for use.
15.

BENEFITS

Industry guidance on inspection techniques and operator

qualifications as well as equipment specifications will
provide significant benefits to owners and operators of
FOIs as well as integrity contractors and the
Classification Societies working within O&G industry.
Some of these benefits will include:
Improved Safety reduced HSE risk
Reduced cost & budget uncertainty
Improved inspection quality
Consistent approach to training, management and
best practice
Fitness for Service recognition globally
Improve adequacy in managing FOI assets globally
Motivate industry and public authorities to improve
safety by standardized approach
Recognition and use by international authorities,
safety and environmental bodies globally

16.

CONCLUSION

This paper has described some of the challenges faced by

operators of floating offshore installations to manage
their structural integrity. It highlights the dearth of
guidance available to the operators on applying existing
inspection technology. It describes some of these
technologies, their operational constraints and future
development opportunities. Upon completion, the HITS
project aims to provide the offshore oil & gas industry
with comprehensive guidelines on the application of a
number of inspection techniques, including operator
competency levels, equipment specifications and relative
inspection frequencies thereby providing operators with
choices of inspection schemes which best suit their
operations.
17.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Author would like to acknowledge permission

granted by EM&I and the EU funded MINOAS project
for content and photographs related to inspection
technologies.
18.

REFERENCES

1.
The Offshore Installations (Safety Case)
Regulations 2005, Statutory Instrument 2005 No. 3117
Offshore Installations
2.
IACS Rec 82: Surveyors Glossary Hull Terms
& Hull Survey Terms
3.
IACS Rec 87: Guidelines for Coating
Maintenance & Repairs for Ballast tanks and Combined
Cargo/Ballast tanks on Oil Tankers
4.
IACS Rec 42: Guidelines for Use of Remote
Survey Techniques
5.
ISO 19904-1:2006 Petroleum and natural gas
industries - Floating offshore structures - Part 1:
Monohulls, semi-submersibles and spars
19.

AUTHORS BIOGRAPHY

Raymond Caldwell is a Chartered Marine Consultant

with Marine Integrity Management Solutions Ltd. He
consults as Chevron North Sea Ltd.s Marine Technical
Authority providing specialist hull, mooring & marine
systems advice and is the present Chairman of Oil & Gas
UKs FPSO Network. He also provides marine integrity
management and marine consultative advice for a
number of other FOI operators. Consulting for LR
Energys Technical Directorate, he provides advice on
development of their FOI Class Rules and in-house
marine integrity procedures. He represented LR at the
Mooring Integrity II JIP and LRs technical participation
in EU funded MINOAS & Ship Inspector JIPs.