Upload
isiah-mitchum
View
213
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Crack Management – Part IIFeedback From In-Service Inspections
Based upon OTC 15064 “FPSO Fatigue Assessment: Feedback From In-Service Inspections”
Clemens G.J.M. van der Nat (Bluewater)
Martijn G. Hoogeland (Bluewater)
Mirek L. Kaminski (MARIN)
Content
Why a different strategy for offshore unit? Fatigue life strategy Feedback into hull fatigue strategy Conclusions
Tanker vs. FPSO
Empirical design vs. first principles design Total asset vs. (small) part of field development Weather routing vs. continuous environmental
exposure Inspection, Maintenance & Repair (IMR)
at shipyard vs. on site & in operation
Fatigue life strategy
Objective:Control fatigue accumulation over lifetime of FPSO– Hull selection– Repair & Lifetime Extension (R & LE) program– Hull monitoring & in service inspection– Fatigue defect repairs
Hull selection
Objective:– Determine hull status– Estimate R & LE scope
Current practices– Review of trading history & class records – Inspection of fatigue sensitive details– Preliminary evaluation of deck and bottom
longitudinals
Typical tanker structures
Flat bar stiffener
Bracket
Web frame
Side shell longitudinal
Life extension modification
Objective – To ensure sufficient lifetime of hull as FPSO– Definition of yard scope
Current practice– Fatigue analysis– Improving details– Provide access to structure for inspection
Fatigue sensitive details
– Fatigue damage occurs mainly between primary and secondary members
– Fatigue life prediction for longitudinals
Original detail Upgraded detail
Enlarged brackets and backing brackets
Prediction vs. Inspection
Expected damage after 20 years
Number of defects after 6 yearsBacking brackets only
Prediction vs. Inspection
as reported
Fracture as
predicted
Hull inspection at field Objective
– Check of actual integrity of hull Methods
– By periodic inspections– By continuous hull monitoring system
Current practices– 5 yearly cycle of inspections– ½ yearly cycle of defects found
Crack detection
Crack detection depends on:– Location (accessibility)– Loading condition of vessel– Cleanness/ corrosion/ colour of coating of
surfaces– Inspection method
Crack growth rate is not linear
Defect repair
Objective– Control progressive failure of structure:
Yielding / buckling Impairment of water & gas tight boundaries Unstable fracture
Method– Understanding of cause and consequences
Load path Criticality of damage
Repair schedule
– Priority by consequences– Analysis of:
Location Length Direction
1
3
2
Crack
4
Fatigue repair
Current practices– Unloading crack-tip
Drilling hole at crack-tip
– Relocation of hotspot Addition of (backing) brackets Addition of lug plates
– Renewal of material Welding New steel
Feedback from inspections
Feedback to hull selection– More locations and details must be examined
Web
1
3
2
Crack
4
Feedback from inspections
Hull modification– Analysis improvements
Use operation experience Use JIP knowledge
Cost effectiveness CAPEX <-> OPEX– Combine with coating scope– Offshore repair expensive due to operational
implications
Conclusions
Tankers are suitable as offshore unit. However:– Awareness of vulnerability for fatigue is starting
point– Control of fatigue damage in FPSO structures
requires a strategy Monitoring will give valuable information to reduce
uncertainties and improves control
Bluewater fatigue strategy
BW fatigue strategy includes at least:– Adequate selection process for hull– Selection of critical details and locations– Reliable prediction of remaining fatigue life– Principal: “Prevention is better than cure”– Consequence based repair program