The use of risk-based inspection planning for offshore structural components is becoming quite familiar. This paper describes an application of this technique to mooring chain. In many cases, the technique is based on probabilistic modelling of fatigue crack growth in the structural components, and updating of the failure probability on the basis of inspections. The extension of this basis from a single component to very many components is necessary to tackle series systems, such as mooring chain, where a fatigue fracture can arise in any chain link. The theoretical basis for the analysis is described, including details of the model for stochastic dependency between the chain links. Results are shown that compare failure probabilities for a single chain link and a chain segment. The effects of various levels of inspection coverage are illustrated. An example of a cost optimal inspection plan is developed for mooring chain on an FPSO in the northern North Sea.

Issue Section:
Technical Papers
Keywords:
fatigue testing, offshore installations, inspection, planning, fracture mechanics, risk analysis, Inspection Planning, Mooring Lines, Fracture Mechanics, Structural Reliability
Topics:
Chain, Failure, Fracture (Materials), Inspection, Mooring, Probability
1.
Mathisen, J., (1999), “Changes to DNV’s POSMOOR Rules, Based on the DEEPMOOR Project,” Seminar on Dynamic Positioning and Mooring of Floating Offshore Structures, Norwegian Soc. of Chartered Engineers, Sandefjord.
2.
Okkenhaug, S., (2001), “DNV POSMOOR–New Edition 2001,” conference on Dynamic Positioning and Mooring of Floating Offshore Structures, Norwegian Society of Chartered Engineers, Kristiansand.
3.
Sigurdsson, G., Lotsberg, I. & Landet, E., (2000), “Risk Based Inspection of FPSOs,” Int. Conf. on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, OMAE’2000, New Orleans.
4.
Det Norske Veritas, (2001), “Offshore Standard DNV-OS-E301, Position Mooring,” Høvik.
5.
API, (1995), “Recommended Practice for Design and Analysis of Stationkeeping Systems for Floating Structures,” RP2SK, American Petroleum Institute, Washington D.C.
6.
BSI (1999), “Guide on methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in fusion welded structures,” BS 7910, British Standards Institution.
7.
Pommier
,
S.
,
Sakae
,
C.
,
Murakami
,
Y.
,
1999
, “
An empirical stress intensity factor set of equations for a semi-elliptical crack in a semi-infinite body subjected to a polynomial stress distribution
,”
Int. J. Fatigue
,
21
, pp.
243
–
251
.
8.
Klase´n, B., Dillstrøm, P, (2001), private communication of results from stress analysis of a bar with flaws of various sizes.
9.
Couroneau
,
N.
,
Royer
,
J.
,
1998
, “
Simplified model for the fatigue growth analysis of surface cracks in round bars under mode I
,”
Int. J. Fatigue
,
20
(
10
), pp.
711
–
718
.
10.
Mathisen, J., Hørte, T., Moe, V., Lian, W., (1999), “DEEPMOOR–Design Methods for Deep water Mooring Systems, Calibration of a Fatigue Limit State,” Det Norske Veritas, report no. 98-3110, rev.no. 03, Høvik.
11.
SESAM, (1996), “User’s Manual PROBAN General Purpose Probabilistic Analysis Program,” DNV Software report no. 92-7049, rev.no. 1, Høvik.
12.
Førli, O., (2000), “RBI for Offshore Structures–Service Development, POD curves for electromagnetic NDT,” memo no. forl/00aaabx1, DNV Materials Technology and Laboratories RN530, Høvik.
Copyright © 2004
 by ASME
You do not currently have access to this content.