Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
OTC 18364
Site Specific
can also account for the degradation that structures Over 150 yrs of Class Design
inevitably suffer. When combined with an assessment & Survey Experience of
Ships
of consequence of failure, structure is risk ranked for
the purposes of inspection planning. Hence, this process Figure 2 Hull Inspection Development Path
can be regarded as a vehicle for incorporating design
information, current condition, and user experience into
Like industry guidelines or codes, the class rules involved with developing a compartment inspection
have been continually revised over the years as more scope. It can assist in making choices that are presented
information (such as failures) becomes available. These in the class rules. For example, the class rules may
learnings which are inherent to the rules are invaluable. require a minimum of 3 representative ballast tanks to
RBI plans regardless of the complexity and analysis be inspected and the Screening Assessment case will
basis generally do not differ grossly from class rules. provide guidance on what 3 ballast tanks have the
Instead they tend to parallel class rules drawing upon highest risk. Figure 3 shows the method flow chart.
the rules as a starting point and along the development
path with optimizations in the inspection plan where Safehull Phase A & B
structural analysis, reliability and risk assessment Strength & Fatigue Analysis
indicate it is justified. The class rules form the well
traveled path which over the years has a proven track
Class Renewal Thicknesses
record for trading vessels and to a lesser extent with and Fatigue Allowables
offshore facilities.
While the class rules are an integral part of a risk-
based inspection plan, how much the risk-based Failure Likelihood Qualitative Consequence
Score Score Based on Component
inspection plan differs from the rules is directly related Criticality
to the foundation of structural analysis and structural
reliability developed for the specific asset. This is
evident in the comparison of four case studies,
described below. RBI plans for structural systems can Critical Inspection Locations
vary in complexity and structural analysis basis, from Based on Risk Score
the simple qualitative or deterministic approach to the
more quantitative or probabilistic route. Figure 3 Screening Assessment Flow Chart
RBI Case Studies The primary basis for the risk based scope comes
ABS has assisted in the implementation of these from the strength and fatigue analysis results from
varying levels of the RBI methodology to several FPSO SafeHull. For example, the likelihood of strength failure
installations. Four of the applications are presented is calculated deterministically and expressed as the ratio
herein to illustrate the wide range of possible of class renewal thickness over the as-gauged thickness.
engineering analyses that underline the flexibility of the The consequence is dependent on the location and
ABS RBI methodology. the potential extent or size of the failure. The
The case studies provide practical examples of the consequences are based on preset criticality classes for
varying degrees of complexity encountered in such the particular component of interest. For example, if the
plans as well as the specific information and analysis failure affects the hull girder strength, the level of
requirements necessary to feed each of the plan severity (i.e., the consequence) is high. The three levels
developments. are considered in our methodology: Primary, Secondary
The four case studies are referred within the paper and Tertiary in parallel to the corresponding type of
are as follows: structure falling into those three categories.
Screening assessment Pre- and Post Survey The calculated risk of a component is simply the
Scope Assessment product of the likelihood and the consequence. The risk
Degradation assessment Deterministic Approach scores for different compartments and components can
using SafeHull Analysis [1] then be used to rank or prioritize all structures of all
Structural reliability assessment (I) Reliability levels.
Based Method using SafeHull Analysis The benefit of the approach is that it is relatively
Structural reliability assessment (II) Reliability simple and the risk calculations are automated. It also
Based Method using Dynamic Load Analysis provides valuable information regarding the vessels
(DLA) /Spectral Fatigue Analysis (SFA) [2] strength and fatigue characteristics which would not
normally be available to a surveyor on a vessel-specific
The above naming scheme is used to distinguish the basis. This information coupled with the surveyors
differences between the RBI plan development experience results in a more focused inspection of the
approaches. hull structure
Screening Assessment Pre and Post Survey Scope Degradation Assessment Deterministic Approach
of Assessment using Structure Analysis
The Screening Assessment case is a risk-based The Degradation Assessment case is a risk based
approach intended to provide guidance on the scope of method intended to determine both the frequency of
hull inspections. The method identifies the most critical inspection as well as the scope. The method identifies
compartments and structure within a compartment. The the most critical compartments and structures within a
approach helps assist surveyors and other personnel
compartment using stress and fatigue results generated analyzed in a simplified approach. Generally, the class
by ABS SafeHull [2]. rules are used to address the scope of structures not
The method may take into account corrosion rates explicitly included in assessment process.
that may change over the FPSOs life time. Corroded
structures have reduced strength as a result of the loss Structural Reliability Assessment Reliability Based
of local or global section The ratio of the forecasted Methods
stresses in corroded structures and their allowable limits These cases represent the more comprehensive
are used to set the likelihood of a strength related failure approach to RBI plan development [11], [12]. The
on a risk matrix. approach for both the Structural Reliability Assessment
The consequences are based on the generic failure (I) and Structural Reliability Assessment (II) cases are
severities, using the same process as described in the generally the same, but there are some significant
Screening Assessment case. The risk scores for each differences in the structural analysis which result in
component are calculated for the future service years. variations in the reliability analyses used to set
The risk increases with time as the strength and fatigue inspection frequencies and scopes. The main
ratios increase, which in turn increase the likelihood of differentiator between these cases and the cases for the
a structural failure. The consequence remains the same Screening and Degradation Assessments is the use of
over time. When specific components within a tank reliability-based methods to determine when and where
reach the high risk level on the risk matrix, the the hull structures should be inspected.
compartment is to be inspected, thus helping to set the
inspection interval. The approach enables an automated Data Gathering
and Quantification of
Safehull Phase A & B or
DLA / SFA
formulation of the tank inspection frequencies. Degradation Mechanisms Strength & Fatigue Analysis
Quantification of Safehull
Degradation Mechanisms Strength & Fatigue Analysis Qualitative Risk
Assessment to Identify
Higher Risk Components
Risk Based Inspection Scope and Schedule Risk Based Inspection Scope and Schedule
Based on Risk Score
Figure 4 shows the flow chart for this method. The The objective of the Structural Reliability
information required to develop a Degradation Assessment in RBI plans is to provide comprehensive
Assessment RBI plan includes: forward looking plans that provide not only guidance on
scope and frequency but also inspection sequencing and
Structural Analysis (SafeHull Phase A and B) plan updating (i.e., thresholds indicating if changes or
Corrosion Rate Models specific actions need to take place). The plan
Baseline inspection with comprehensive thickness development includes not only structural analysis
measurements that provide information on the as- results but also historical data, tank service condition
gauged or as-built thickness. data, condition summary, qualitative risk assessment
and information on the all other external structures
Like the Screening Assessment case, the benefit of that may affect the hull inspection. Figure 5 shows the
this method is that it is semi-automated, and setting the flow chart for the two methods.
risks tends to be strictly based on the structural analysis The process starts with the structural analyses,
results. The fact that the risk results tend to be only consisting of both strength and fatigue assessments. The
based on structural analysis also sets application limits: analyses provide global stress and fatigue results in the
it can not go beyond what the engineering tool can do. as-is condition as well as results for local models of
For example, in many cases hulls and topsides are highly stressed or FPSO specific areas to further refine
analyzed separately. Hull structures that support heavier the assessment. The results of these assessments allow
topsides may have a higher probability of failure and the identification of specific critical areas of the
therefore drive inspection scopes and frequencies of a structure that are at high stress levels or are prone to
hull structure in that particular location. However, this fatigue damage, so that they can then be targeted in the
can not be captured if only hull structures were inspection program.
The uncertainties of loads and corrosion degradation Vessel Information (vessel historical damage,
are taken into consideration using reliability vessel class fleet historical damage, shipyard
approaches. The degradation models and reliability construction/conversion inspections and repairs)
analysis draw upon the vessels past history and Baseline inspection with comprehensive thickness
baselining inspections, structural analyses and the measurements and connection inspections
qualitative risk analysis. The degradation models enable Structural Analysis (SafeHull Phase A and B in the
forecasting and time-varying reliability methods to be Structural Reliability Assessment (I) case and
used in determining acceptable inspection intervals. The DLA/SFA for the Structural Reliability Assessment
results are compared with pre-defined reliability targets (II))
to determine the occurrence of structural failure. Probabilistic Corrosion Rate Models
The reliability targets are driven by the potential Qualitative Risk Assessment (system was broken
consequences identified as part of the qualitative risk into tank panels (6 sides of compartment) and risk
assessment. The results from the degradation modeling ranked for fatigue, strength and leak)
and reliability analysis are inspection intervals for a Strength and Fatigue Reliability Analysis Results
component or system that will allow that component or
system to maintain an acceptable level of reliability. Spectrum of engineering analysis
These models and analyses are updateable so that the The four case studies vary significantly with regards
most recent information is used when determining the to developing a foundation for the inspection plan. In all
current reliability level for both strength and fatigue. four cases, the class rules are an integral part of a RBI
The qualitative risk assessment identifies the plan. However, how much the risk-based inspection
potential consequences related to hull structural plan differs from the rules is directly related to the
damage. Generally, the assessment incorporates a foundation of structural analysis and structural
structured workshop similar to a hazard identification reliability developed for the specific asset. This is
(HAZID) study where risks associated with the system evident in the comparison of the four case studies.
are systematically identified and assessed. Other less The Structural Reliability Assessment (II) case
rigorous methods can also be used, but simplifications represents a risk-based plan that was built upon a first
ultimately result in limitations in the plan (i.e., not all of principles approach, incorporating an explicit dynamic
the key aspects are covered in detail). The risk load analysis and spectral fatigue analysis of the asset.
assessment is used to highlight and account for other The analysis utilized the actual as-gauged structure and
factors that may impact hull integrity not necessarily site environment. This comprehensive foundation of
covered by the strength and fatigue analyses or the analysis provided the basis for the risk based inspection
reliability analysis (such as leak potential from pitting plan. This level of available analysis provides
damage, coating breakdown, etc..). The results from this justification for the variation from the Class rules. This
assessment are used to adjust the individual component does not necessarily mean that the inspection
target reliabilities up or down on a risk basis which in frequencies and scopes differ more from the class
turn influences the required inspection intervals. requirements, but rather the basis for the inspections is
Furthermore, the input from the operations personnel driven more directly from the structural analysis and
and risk results generated during the exercise provides a structural reliability analysis results.
forum to identify key or critical inspection locations as On the other end of the spectrum, the Screening
well as understand potential consequences (i.e., impact Assessment has significantly less structural analysis and
to operations) related to the structural integrity of the uses deterministic methods to form the basis for the
hull. inspection plan. As a result, the plan has a greater
Because of the quantity of data and various types of reliance on the class rules.
input (e.g., reliability indices, outstanding issues, There is over 150 years of knowledge and
inspection-critical locations, as well as correlations experience within the class rules, and in order to justify
between tanks) a simple formula that calculates the an alternative from the class guidelines, a significant
inspection intervals and associated scope is not used. foundation of structural analysis and structural
Instead a systematic approach which uses the strength reliability analysis must be developed. This is illustrated
and fatigue reliability as the primary basis (i.e., starting pictorially in Figure 6. The figure shows a qualitative
point) for setting the intervals and then draws upon representation of the four case studies and their reliance
other data such as sampling inspections, critical on the class rules when developing the basis of the risk-
inspection points, outstanding issues as well as general based inspection plan. Also shown in Figure 6 is an
class requirements to adjust the inspection frequency arrow on the bottom of the figure depicting one of the
intervals. The approach couples both the reliability major advantages of the more comprehensive approach
analysis results (i.e., numerical results) with to RBI plan development. With the more
engineering judgment to set inspection interval ranges. comprehensive approach, the inspection plan is able to
The information required in the development of a better account for the site specific variables.
Structural Reliability Assessment in RBI plan is It is important to note that no one plan development
significant when compared to the lower level plans. The approach is necessarily better than another. ABS
information includes: evaluates the merits of each proposed RBI plan on a
RBI
Class Rules
0%
low 1 2 4 6 ocean
Stiffener (minor) (minor) (critical) (minor)
minor significant critical catastrophic
Immediate
Consequence repair