Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-hn9fh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-11T05:15:00.421Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - Inspection and Maintenance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 September 2009

Jeom Kee Paik  and
Anil Kumar Thayamballi
Jeom Kee Paik
Affiliation:
Pusan National University, Korea
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Inspection may be defined as an activity performed during the service life of a functioning structural unit in order to help detect and evaluate deterioration in the structural components or equipment by visual, electronic, or other means. Maintenance indicates the total set of activities (not including inspections, for the sake of a correct definition) undertaken to enable the installation to remain fit-for-service, including repairs, replacements, adjustments, and modifications.

Inspection and maintenance play a significant role in the operation of ship-shaped offshore units as they do in other types of structures. The methods, frequencies, and acceptance criteria used for inspection and maintenance can significantly affect the structural integrity of the units.

The inspection and maintenance technologies for ship-shaped offshore units have been based on those of trading ships (HSE 1998), but with certain modifications to suit the particular mission of the offshore units involved. Traditionally, the inspection frequencies adopted for the marine and offshore industries have thus been determined largely by prescriptive practices usually at specified time intervals based on the age of the unit concerned, although more flexible risk-based approaches are now being considered, and sometimes employed, for the same purposes. The traditional practice developed on the basis of operational experience with generic classes of structures usually follows what regulatory requirements and classification societies guidelines presumably can be deemed adequate when applied to structures of the same class and circumstances.

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Ship-Shaped Offshore Installations
Design, Building, and Operation
 , pp. 400 - 446
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

ABS (2003). Guide for surveys using risk-based inspection for the offshore industry. American Bureau of Shipping, Houston, December.
ABS (2004). Guidance notes on reliability-centered maintenance. American Bureau of Shipping, Houston, July.
Agarwala, V. S., and Ahmad, S. (2000) “Corrosion detection and monitoring a review.” Proceedings of Corrosion 2000 (Paper No. 271), NACE International, Orlando, March 26–31.Google Scholar
Babbar, V., Bryne, J., and Clapham, L. (2005). “Mechanical damage detection using magnetic flux leakage tools: The effect of dent geometry and stress.” NDT & E International, 38: 471–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berens, A. P. (1989). “NDE reliability data analysis. Nondestructive evaluation and quality control”. In Metals Handbook, Vol. 17. Meterials Park, OH: ASM International.Google Scholar
Berens, A. P. (1989). “NDE reliability data analysis.” In Metals handbook, Vol. 17: Nondestructive evaluation and quality control. Materials Park, OH: ASM International.Google Scholar
B⊘ving, K. (1989). NDE handbook: Nondestructive examination methods for condition monitoring. Abington, UK: Woodhead Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Conachey, R. M., and Montgomery, E. L. (2003). Application of reliability-centered maintenance techniques to the marine industry. Presented at a meeting of the SNAME–Texas Section, The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Houston, April 8.Google Scholar
DeFranco, S., O'Connor, P., Tallin, A., Roy, R., and Puskar, F. (1999). Development of a risk based underwater inspection (RBUI) process for prioritizing inspections of large numbers of platforms. Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 10846, Houston, May.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demsetz, L., and Cabrera, J. (1999). Detection probability assessment for visual inspection of ships. Ship Structure Committee, SSC- 408, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Demsetz, L., Carlo, R., and Schulte-Strathaus, R. (1996). Inspection of marine structures. Ship Structures Committee, SSC- 389, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Devanney, J. (2006). The tankship tromedy: The impending disasters in tankers. Tavernier, FL: Center for Tankship Excellence (CTX) Press.Google Scholar
Ditchburn, R. J., Burke, S. K., and Scala, C. M. (1996). “NDT of welds: State of the art.” NDT & E International, 29(2): 111–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DNV (2003). Guidance for condition monitoring. (Classification Notes, No. 10.2), Det Norske Veritas, Oslo.
DNV (2004a). Guidelines for ultrasonic thickness measurements of ships classed with DNV. Det Norske Veritas, Oslo.
DNV (2004b). Non-destructive testing. (Classification Notes, No. 7), Det Norske Veritas, Oslo.
DNV (2005). Fatigue design of offshore steel structures. (Recommended Practices, DNV-RP- C203), Det Norske Veritas, Oslo.
Dover, W. D., Brennan, F. P., Karé, R. F., and Stacey, A. (2003). “Inspection reliability for offshore structures.” Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering (OMAE 2003), Cancun, Mexico, June 8–13.Google Scholar
Drouin, P. (2006). “Brittle fracture in ships – A lingering problem.” Ships and Offshore Structures, 1(3): 229–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujimoto, Y., Kim, S. C., Shintaku, E., and Ohtaka, K. (1996). “Study on fatigue reliability and inspection of ship structures based on an enquete information.” Journal of Society of Naval Architects of Japan, 180: 601–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goyet, J., Rouhan, A., and Faber, M. H. (2004). “Industrial implementation of risk based inspection planning lessons learned from experience (Parts 1&2).” Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering (OMAE 2004), (Paper Nos. 51572 and 51573), Vancouver, Canada, June 20–25.Google Scholar
Halmshaw, R. (1997). Introduction to the non-destructive testing of welded joints. 2nd ed. Abington, UK: Woodhead Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
HSE (1997). A review of monohull FSUs and FPSUs. (Offshore Technology Report, OTO 1997/800), Health and Safety Executive, UK.
HSE (1998). Review of classification society structural survey requirements for FPSO/FSU's. (Offshore Technology Report, OTO 1998/163), Health and Safety Executive, UK.
HSE (2000a). POD/POS curves for non-destructive examination. (Offshore Technology Report, OTO 2000-018), Health and Safety Executive, UK.
HSE (2000b). Review of current inspection practices for topsides structural components. (Offshore Technology Report, OTO 2000/027), Health and Safety Executive, UK.
IACS (2004). Recommendation 87: Guidelines for coating maintenance and repair for ballast tanks and combined cargo/ballast tanks of oil tankers. International Association of Classification Societies, London.
IACS (2005a). Unified Requirements, UR Z10.1. (Rev. 12, 16 June 2005: Enhanced Survey Programme), International Association of Classification Societies, London.
IACS (2005b). Common structural rules for double hull oil tankers. International Association of Classification Societies, London.
IMO (2000). SOLAS /2 Recommended longitudinal strength. (MSC.108(73)), Maritime Safety Committee, International Maritime Organization, London.
INTERTANKO (2003). A guide to the vetting process. International Association of Independent Tanker Owners, UK.
ICS/OCIMF/IAPH (1996). International safety guide for oil tankers and terminals (ISGOTT). ICS (International Chamber of Shipping), OCIMF (Oil Companies International Marine Forum), and IAPH (International Association of Ports and Harbors), London: Witherby & Co. Ltd.
Ivanov, L. D., and Wang, G. (2004). “Uncertainties in assessing the corrosion wastage and its effect on ship structure scantlings.” Proceedings of 9th Symposium on Practical Design of Ships and Other Floating Structures (PRADS 2004), Luebeck-Travemuende, Germany, September, 12–17, Vol. 2, pp. 586 – 593.Google Scholar
Ku, A., Serratella, C., Spong, R., Basu, R., Wang, G., and Angevine, D. (2004). “Structural reliability applications in developing risk-based inspection plans for a floating production installation.” Proceedings of 23rd International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering (OMAE 2004), OMAE 2004–51119, Vancouver, Canada, June 20–25.Google Scholar
Lanquetin, B. (2005). Floating units integrity management and life care enhancement. Offshore Europe 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE 96385, Aberdeen, Scotland, September.Google Scholar
Li, D., Zhang, S., and Tang, W. (2003). “Uncertainty and Bayesian updating considering inspection for ship structures subjected to corrosion deterioration.” Proceedings of the International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering (OMAE 2003), OMAE 2003–37450, Cancun, Mexico, June 8–13.Google Scholar
LR (2003). FPSO inspection, repair, and maintenance – Study into best practice. (R20821-5-UKOOA), Lloyd's Register, London, May.
Ma, K., Orisamolu, I. R., and Bea, R. G. (1999). Optimal strategies for inspections of ships for fatigue and corrosion damage. Ship Structure Committee, SSC-407, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Moan, T., Vårdal, O. T., Hellevig, N. C., and Skjoldli, K. (2000). “Initial crack depth and POD values inferred from in-service observations of cracks in North Sea jackets.” Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 122: 157–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moubray, J. (1997). Reliability-centered maintenance. New York: Industrial Press Inc.Google Scholar
Oil and Gas News (2001). Patch repair of FPSOs. (No. 5), Det Norske Veritas, Oslo, December.
Paik, J. K., Brennan, F., Carlsen, C. A., Daley, C., Garbatov, Y., Ivanov, L., Rizzo, C. M., Simonsen, B. C., Yamamoto, N., and Zhuang, H. Z. (2006). Condition assessment of aged ships. Report of ISSC Technical Committee V.6, International Ship and Offshore Structures Congress. Southampton, UK: Southampton University Press.Google Scholar
Paik, J. K., Wang, G., Thayamballi, A. K., Lee, J. M., and Park, Y. I. (2003). “Time-variant risk assessment of aging ships accounting for general/pit corrosion, fatigue cracking, and local denting damage.” SNAME Transactions, 111: 159–197.Google Scholar
Porter, R. (1992). “Non-destructive examination in shipbuilding.” Welding Review, 11(1): 9–10.Google Scholar
Rudlin, J. R., and Wolstenholme, L. C. (1992). “Development of statistical probability of detection models using actual trial inspection data.” The British Journal of Non-Destructive Testing, 34(12): 583–589.Google Scholar
Rummel, W. D., Hardy, G. L., and Cooper, T. D. (1989). “Applications of NDE reliability to systems.” In Metals handbook, Vol. 17: Nondestructive evaluation and quality control.Materials Park, OH: ASM International.Google Scholar
Saidarasamoot, S., Olson, D. L., Mishra, B., Spencer, J. S., and Wang, G. (2003). “Assessment of the emerging technologies for the detection and measurement of corrosion wastage of coated marine structures.” Proceedings of International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference (OMAE), OMAE 2003–37371, Cancun, Mexico, June 8–13.Google Scholar
Smith, A. M. (1993). Reliability-centered maintenance. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Song, W. J, Rose, J. L., and Whitesel, H. (2003). “An ultrasonic guided wave technique for damage testing in a ship hull.” Material Evaluation, 61(1): 94–98.Google Scholar
SPS (2005). Sandwich plate system. (www.ie-sps.com) accessed June 2006.
Sumpter, J. D. G., and Kent, J. S. (2004). “Prediction of ship brittle fracture casualty rates by a probabilistic method.” Marine Structures, 17: 575–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talei-Faz, B., Brennan, F. P., and Dover, W. D. (2004). “Residual static strength of high strength steel cracked tubular joints.” Marine Structures, 17: 291–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiku, S., and Pussegoda, N. (2003). In service nondestructive evaluation of fatigue and fracture properties for ship structures. Ship Structure Committee, SSC-428, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
TSCF (1997). Guidance manual for tankers. Tanker Structures Cooperative Forum.
Vanlanduit, S., Guillaume, P., and Linden, G. (2003). “On-line monitoring of fatigue cracks using ultrasonic surface waves.” NDT & E International, 36(8): 601–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×