LR Risk Based Inspection For Hull Structures Guidance Notes August 2015 050815

Guidance Notes
for
Risk Based Inspection
of Hull Structures
August 2015
Guidance Notes
for
Risk Based Inspection
of Hull Structures

August 2015
Guidance Notes for Risk Based Inspection of Hull Structures, August 2015
A guide to the Guidance Notes

and published requirements
Guidance Notes for

Risk Based Inspection of Hull Structures
Introduction
These Guidance Notes are intended to be a live document
and are subject to change without notice.
A comprehensive List of Contents is placed at the beginning
of these Notes.
Lloyd’s Register is a trading name of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited and its subsidiaries. For further details please see http://www.lr.org/entities
Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates and their respective officers, employees or agents are, individually and collectively,
referred to in this clause as ‘Lloyd’s Register’. Lloyd’s Register assumes no responsibility and shall not be liable to any person for any loss, damage or
expense caused by reliance on the information or advice in this document or howsoever provided, unless that person has signed a contract with the
relevant Lloyd’s Register entity for the provision of this information or advice and in that case any responsibility or liability is exclusively on the terms and
conditions set out in that contract.
Lloyd’s Register
Contents
Risk Based Inspection of Hull Structures
Section 1 Introduction 1
1.1 General 1
1.2 Purpose 1
1.3 Overview of the Process 1
2 Abbreviations and Definitions 3

3 Operator Evaluation 3
3.1 General 3
3.2 Applicability 3
3.3 Scope of RBI Scheme 3
3.4 Impact Study 4
3.5 Viability Decision 7
4 Preparation and Planning 7

4.1 General 7
4.2 Input Data 7
4.3 Risk Assessment of Components and Systems 13
4.4 Develop Risk Based Inspection Plan 15
4.5 Evaluating the RBI Plan 16
4.6 Approval Process for RBI Program 17
5 Inspections and Surveys 17

5.1 General 17
5.2 Execute Inspection Plan 17
5.3 Diagnosis and Prognosis 19
5.4 Escalation to Lloyd’s Register 20

6 Review 20
6.1 General 20
6.2 Data Maintenance 20
6.3 Audit 21
© Lloyd’s Register Group Limited 2015. All rights reserved.
Except as permitted under current legislation no part of this work may be photocopied, stored in a retrieval system, published, performed in public,
adapted, broadcast, transmitted, recorded or reproduced in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. Enquiries
should be addresse © Lloyd’s Register Group Limited 2014
Published by Lloyd’s Register Group Limited
Registered office (Reg. no. 08126909)
71 Fenchurch Street, London, EC3M d to Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, 71 Fenchurch Street, London, EC3M 4BS.
Lloyd’s Register
Risk Based Inspection of Hull Structures Section 1
Section within industry that these are effectively neutralised over a five
year cycle.
1 Introduction
2 Abbreviations and Definitions This document has two purposes, it outlines a method for
assessing how to apply RBI as well as exploring the question
3 Operator Evaluation
of whether an organisation should apply RBI.
4 Preparation and Planning
5 Inspections and Surveys It is important to highlight that this document only refers to
6 Review hull structures.
1.3 Overview of the Process

■ Section 1 Figure 1 shows the stages in the RBI process and is followed
Introduction by a detailed description of each stage (Sections 3 to 6).
In Stage 1 of the process an Operator Evaluation is conducted
1.1 General in order to understand the unit’s operational environment,
the scope of the Lloyd’s Register RBI and the investment/life
Lloyd’s Register’s Rules and Regulations for the Classification cycle costs.
of Offshore Units (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for
Offshore Units), Part 1, Chapter 6, allow for a Risk Based Next, in the Preparation and Planning stage 2 preparatory
Inspection (RBI) scheme to be applied to floating offshore works are carried out to obtain relevant design data and
installations at a fixed location. operational unit records and planning of which methodology
to use. Also outlined at this stage is how to define the RBI
The RBI scheme is an alternative to the traditional periodical plan by identifying critical elements and other priority levels/
classification survey scheme. It is applied by following an risk bands, mitigation measures, audit techniques and
RBI Plan approved by Lloyd’s Register, with the purpose of management structure.
detecting and monitoring system, sub-system, equipment
and component degradation and applying appropriate Stage 3 is the Inspections and Surveys stage which involves
decision making criteria to manage risk to acceptable levels. the operator holding the inspection as per the RBI plan,
escalating and issues to Lloyd’s Register, and reviewing any
RBI techniques may be used to provide justification for the changes to the RBI plan. During this stage Lloyd’s Register
assignment of Class, and may be systematically applied to will hold planned surveys as well as any ad hoc surveys as
the whole of an installation or to individual systems, sub- escalated by the operator, and consider any changes to the
systems or components. The RBI Plan should however cover RBI plan.
the whole of the hull, and/or marine machinery, and systems if
the Clients’ intention is to apply a RBI scheme to them. The final stage, stage 4, of the process is the Review, during
which the operator must demonstrate good maintenance
1.2 Purpose of records and perform an internal audit to evaluate the
effectiveness of the RBI plan. Lloyd’s Register conducts an
This document is designed to guide the industry in how to annual audit of RBI documentation and survey reports.
implement RBI schemes on units Classed with Lloyd’s
Register.
It explains how an RBI methodology allows a company to

prioritize and plan inspections based on the potential for, and
consequence of, failure rather than using traditional time-
based inspection plans.
Some of the major benefits of a well-structured RBI

management plan are that it can minimize downtime and
help mitigate risk and shutdowns due to non-conformance
with class Rules. As such, RBI plans usually depend upon
additional resources during implementation but it is accepted
1 Lloyd’s Register
Applicability
Operator Evaluation
Operator activity
• Consider the unit’s operational Scope of RBI Scheme
environment, scope of Lloyd’s Register
RBI and the investment/lifecycle costs.
Impact Study
Lloyd’s Register activity Section 3
• Lloyd’s Register provide consultancy
at this stage. Viability Decision
No Use traditional time

Proceed
based inspection
with RBI?
regime
Yes
Input data
Preparation & Planning
Operator activity
• Obtain relevant design data and Risk Assess Components/Systems
operational unit records.
• Decide on which RBI methodology
to use. Develop RBI Plan
• Define the RBI Plan by identifying
critical elements and other priority
levels / risk bands, mitigation
measures, audit techniques and Evaluate RBI Plan Section 4
management structure.
Approval Process for RBI Plan

Lloyd’s Register activity
• Lloyd’s Register and Operator test
the RBI Plan.
No Use traditional time

Approved based inspection
by LR? regime
Yes
Inspections & Surveys Execute Inspection Plan
Operator activity
• Hold inspections as per the RBI plan.
Diagnosis and prognosis
• Escalate issues to Lloyd’s Register.
• Review any changes to RBI Plan.
Yes
Section 5
Within
Lloyd’s Register activity parameters
• Hold planned surveys. of RBI plan?
• Hold ad hoc surveys as escalated by
operator
No
• Consider any changes to RBI Plan.
Escalation to Lloyd’s Register
Review Data maintenance

Operator activity
• Maintenance of records
• Internal audit to evaluate Audit
effectiveness of RBI plan
Section 6
Lloyd’s Register activity

• Annual Audit of RBI documentation
and survey reports
Figure 1: Risk Based Inspection Process

Lloyd’s Register 2
Risk Based Inspection of Hull Structures Sections 2 & 3
■ Section 2 (3.4).
Abbreviations and Definitions • Viability Decision: Once applicability, scope and impact
assessments have been completed an informed decision
can be made (3.5).
ACFM Alternating Current Field Measurement
ALARP As Low As Reasonably Practicable
3.2 Applicability
BH Bulkhead
CVI Close Visual Inspections 3.2.1 The first step of the Operator Evaluation stage is to
FEA Finite Element Analysis decide if an RBI scheme is applicable the installation in
GVI General Visual Inspection question. An RBI Scheme can be applied to:
• Floating offshore installations at a fixed location;
HSE Liquefied Natural Gas
• Existing facilities where the owner/operator can demonstrate
IACS International Association of Classification
there is sufficient technical knowledge and unit historical
Societies
data to develop an RBI Plan;
IMO International Marine Organisation • New constructions where the RBI plan should be developed
ISIP In-Service Inspection Plan as part of the design process.
Inspection Detailed examination of a component
MOC Management of Change 3.2.1.1 Limitations of the RBI scheme
MPMS Machinery Planned Maintenance Scheme
It is important to recognise that currently there is no provision
OEM Original Equipment Manufacture
for a RBI scheme within relevant National Administration or
Operator The company responsible for the maintenance
IMO Conventions and Codes. While a number of statutory
of the unit
surveys can remain within time based 5 year cycle without
PoF Probability of Failure any disadvantage to the offshore unit’s operation, safety
RBI Risk Based Inspection of construction requires special consideration. It is vital
RBMI Risk Based Maintenance Inspection that the Owner/Operator develops and approves with LR a
ROV Remotely Operated Underwater Vehicle comprehensive RBI Plan to be able to approach Flag/Coastal
State Authorities to obtain the necessary acceptance from
SME Subject Matter Experts
them to run and inspect the unit under RBI scheme.
Survey A series of inspections grouped into a Hull and marine machinery and systems must be all designed,
category constructed and maintained to LR Rules irrespective which
Unit A floating offshore installation survey scheme should be implemented.
IWI In Water Inspection
3.3 Scope of RBI Scheme
■ Section 3 3.3.1 To assess if an RBI approach should be used a

clear definition the scope, systems and system boundaries
Operator Evaluation
that would be covered by a proposed RBI plan should be
developed. Relevant systems, subsystems, components are
3.1 General
arranged in hierarchical order to identify/define components
or group of components that can and need to be inspected
3.1.1 This section supports the operator in deciding if an
(inspectable items). The development of equipment hierarchy
RBI approach would be beneficial to their asset. It explains
for a hull structure is described in subsection 3.3.1.1 and
the need to firstly consider a unit’s operational environment,
shown in Figure 3.
the scope of Lloyd’s Register RBI and the investment/lifecycle
costs.
Appropriate and sufficient information should be collected
to define the condition of the systems, subsystems, and
There are 4 aspects to the Operator Evaluation; these are
components of hull structure. The types of information/data
explained in more detail in the subsequent sections:
required are discussed in subsection 3.3.1.1.
• Applicability: Assess if you can apply a RBI to your unit (3.2).
• Scope: Assess what unit areas you will apply the RBI
3.3.1.1 Equipment Hierachy and Register
method to (3.3).
• Impact: The cost effectiveness of applying RBI to your unit
The identification of systems, subsystems, components
and grouping of components is a vital step for effective RBI process, it is important that grouping of systems/components
planning. The hull structure of a typical offshore unit consists account for risk factors such as the environments, or region
of many components, and each of which plays a critical role (aft, mid body or fore) where the system/component is located.
in establishing the integrity of the vessel. The following factors For instance, plating located in an oil tank will have a different
should be taken into consideration when defining subsystem/ corrosion rate than the similar plating located in a ballast tank.
component boundaries: Therefore, the grouping and naming of systems/components
• The systems or component should be inspectable. It is noted needs to be carried out to ensure all unique combinations of
that components which, by their nature and/or location may components and risk factors can be considered.
not be inspectable are designed with appropriate safety
factors as per the Rules for Offshore Units, Part 4, Chapter 5 In order to carry out a successful RBI program, the following
tables 5.5.1 and 5.5.2; tasks need to be performed along with system breakdown:
• The risk evaluation (probability of failure and consequence • Identification and definition of functional and physical
severity assessment) can be performed on the systems/ relationships, interactions and dependencies of components;
components within the context of inspection; • Definition of the operating conditions such as load,
• A sufficient level of information must be available for the systems/ temperature, pressure, associated with each inspectable
components to perform the RBI program. component;
• Identification of the common cause failure (CCF) of
Further, the ability to group components into inspectable units components;
will depend on the function of the structure and interaction • Identification of the failure modes and degradation
of each component (ability to isolate inspectable components mechanism associated with individual components or group
from other parts of the overall structure during inspection). of components;
The unit can be divided into four main systems: primary hull • Identification of possible consequences due to failure of
structure, topside structure, turret structure and positional components.
mooring system as shown in Figure 2.
3.3.1.2 Scope Limits
Unit
Although this document describes how RBI can be applied to
hull structures, RBI plans can include other elements covered
in the Rules for Offshore Units, Part 1, Chapter 6, including
Machinery, Turret and Moorings, Risers and Process Systems.
Positioning
Hull Structures Topside Structures Turret Structures
Mooring System
Lloyd’s Register also supports the following areas using
specifically designed risk based inspection services:
Figure 2: Primary breakdown of a typical unit • Topsides (RBMI);
• Machinery Marine Systems (MPMS).
This document only focuses on the hull structure for applying
a RBI process. A well-structured system breakdown or Subsea Systems are not subject to Classification requirements
component grouping is required for an effective RBI program. and are out of scope for a Lloyd’s Register RBI scheme.
A typical breakdown for hull structure is shown in Figure
3. The main components of hull that are subject to RBI 3.4 Impact Study
study include deck, ballast tanks, cargo tanks, slope tanks,
dry compartments (void spaces) and hull penetration and When deciding whether to implement an RBI scheme it is
watertight closures. The third layer of hierarchy includes recommended that an initial impact study be undertaken in
primary support structures, which are boundaries to each main order to understand how this will affect business. The Impact
hull component, include bulkheads, girders, side structures Study is similar to an internal business case, and will identify if
and bottom structures. This hierarchy can be expanded an RBI approach will offer value to the organisation.
to further levels of which components are considered as
inspectable components. It is recommended that this satisfy 3.4.1 Considerations
Lloyd’s Register’s Rules for Offshore Units however any other
well-structured hierarchy that follows IACS guidelines is also The RBI approach is aimed at identifying where the degradation
acceptable with approval of LR class. in equipment and structures is most likely to take place. Such
degradation may or may not cause significant risks to the asset
Since, risk estimation is the principal element of the RBI or wider organisation. Therefore the following considerations
Deck girder
Deck longitudinal
Deck
Deck plate
Deck transverse girder/web frame
Transverse BH
Inner Hull Longitudinal BH

Ballast Tank
Bottom Structure
Side Structure
Transverse BH
Longitudinal BH
Cargo Tank
Bottom structure
(Inner bottom panel)
Hull Side structure (Inner skin panel)

Structure
Transverse BH
Longitudinal BH
Slope Tank
Bottom structure
(Inner bottom panel)
Side structure (Inner skin panel)
Longitudinal BH
Transverse BH
Dry
Compartments Fore/Aft End Transverse BH
(Void spaces)
Bottom Structure
Side Structure
Hull penetration
Structures attached
and watertight and adjacent to HP & WTC
closures
Figure 3: Hierarchical breakdown of hull components

should be addressed prior to confirming if an RBI approach justification can be demonstrated to the Classification Society.
should be adopted: Another benefit of using RBI is an opportunity to group
• Important details regarding the equipment and structures components with similar materials and service parameters
have to be captured, and an assessment undertaken of the together and conduct sampling inspections instead of
degradation mechanisms most likely to occur. Sometimes inspecting 100% of components in a group. This method is
this information has already been determined as part of commonly used for low risk components.
design process;
• An assessment of the consequence of equipment/structure Sometimes non-intrusive inspection methods can be used
failure should be determined. This may be in terms of instead of intrusive inspections and the benefit of this is a
business financial impact, health and safety, environmental reduction in the potential for human error.
impact, damage to reputation etc. Normally, a combination
of these impacts should be considered; Overall, there may be inspection cost savings especially for
• The likelihood of failure should be updated regularly equipment and structures operating within normal design life,
throughout the life of the unit so the assessment but, generally the more significant benefit is the expected
remains current. This update involves collation of increase in equipment uptime and hence production output.
results of inspection, input of operating data such as loading
information, environmental conditions and other key factors, Another benefit of the RBI approach is that the risks to the
and may well include data such as from condition monitoring operation are known, and where they exceed a threshold
systems. Generally, the consequence of failure remains level, may then be subject to remedial action prior to a
constant unless there is a change of use of the unit; significant business impact occurring (e.g. safety, financial,
• The RBI process should be undertaken in a structured and environmental etc.).
consistent manner. Typically a software based approach is
used for this; A further benefit is the risk profile generated for each key
• Determining the likelihood of equipment or structural equipment item and structural element showing where the
failure may identify that it has reached an unsafe condition risk of failure lies. This allows priorities for remedial work to
where it is no longer safe to use (until remedial maintenance be forecast. Risk profiling provides knowledge of the physical
is undertaken); status of the vessel to all stakeholders.
• An RBI approach does not remove the need to
undertake inspections. Indeed, inspection frequency 3.4.3 Resources
may increase for selected equipment and structural
elements where risk increases with usage, whereas for In order to help determine whether to follow traditional
others it may decrease frequency. This occurs as a result fixed time programme versus a risk based approach the
of a number of factors that lead to deterioration including key considerations revolve around technical capability to
aspects such as cyclical loads, the operating environment manage a risk based approach. The RBI approach requires
and effectiveness of maintenance. A unit operating in a more effort at the start to develop the initial equipment risk
relatively benign environment will have different sea loading profiles and determine the appropriate inspection tasks and
conditions to one operating in a harsh one and therefore frequency. This requires funding as well as the appropriate
is unlikely to require identical inspection frequency for people to do this work, whether internal staff or contractors.
some elements. A risk based approach takes into account There also needs to be on-going management and operation
many different factors to determine the appropriate of the system including the capability to identify and deal
inspection frequency. with ‘anomalies’, although this is the same for the Class fixed
frequency inspection process. Generally, the knowledge of the
3.4.2 Benefits risk and how this is changing is seen as valuable knowledge
to the stakeholders involved in operating such Units, and
RBI offers a more focused approach to inspection than the allows early identification of issues to critical equipment and
current fixed frequency inspections, with the focussing of structures which can ensure operational effectiveness.
inspection effort where it can provide the most benefit.
Whilst it does require more effort to achieve this ‘focus’, RBI Since the RBI process is based on inspection needs rather
assessment implemented at the first ‘design loop’ may spot than cycles some equipment and structural components that
the areas which can be easily re-designed, thus creating a are presenting a higher risk may have increased inspection
more reliable unit with less inspection and intervention at the frequency. A number of factors will influence inspection
operational stage. The resulting reward for this effort is that frequencies for example the age of the unit, operational
some inspections may be undertaken less frequently where demands outside designed parameters such as cyclical loads/
harsh environments, and other factors leading to deterioration. • Input Data: Ensure you have sufficient information regarding
the condition of all RBI items, identified as per the scope
The RBI approach does require a mind-set change for those (4.2);
involved. It is no longer about undertaking surveys at the • Risk Assess Components/Systems: Use qualitative and/
intervals specified by the Class society. Rather, they are or quantitative risk assessment techniques to estimate the
undertaken based on assessment of risk that each equipment probability of component/system failure (4.3);
and structural item poses. These risk assessment methods • Develop RBI Plan: Develop a RBI plan for applying risk
are used in other industries, notably oil and gas, and significant reduction measures (4.4);
cost savings can be achieved mainly as a result of keeping • Evaluate the RBI Plan: Assess if the RBI plan fulfils the key
production equipment operating. conditions for it to be considered as an executable plan (4.5);
• Approval Process for RBI Scheme: Submit the proposed RBI
Impact Traditional RBI
Generic survey Bespoke survey scheme customised to each unit and its plan to Lloyd’s Register. Any deviation to the approved plan
Surveys scheme with well operation. Identified anomalies also bring in a quantification of
understood princi- risk element when deciding on whether to increase inspection needs to be referred to Lloyd’s Register for consideration
ples. frequency.
Knowledge of a unit’s equipment risk profile (4.6).
improves reporting to stakeholders and assists
prioritisation of remedial/repair/update activity.
Training
Provided on de-
mand.
Change of emphasis from scheduled to pro-active maintenance
will require staff to be familiar with methodologies and expec- 4.2 Input Data
tations.
Easy to Expected higher up-front costs as data is gathered on equip-
Costs forecast and even-
ly spread over the
ment/structural elements and risk profiles developed, but
reducing over the lifecycle of a unit. An RBI methodology will
Appropriate and sufficient information (input data) on the
lifecycle of a unit
with
also reduce inspection preparation (e.g. cleaning) costs and
could also lessen the chances of downtime. When the risk
condition of the systems/components is required for carrying
increases in costs
as it ages.
assessment is undertaken at the early design stage
identification of the high risk items/components may help to
out an effective RBI program. The subsequent subsections
re-design them therefore significantly
reducing the operational costs/risks/losses.
summarize the types of input data to be collected and
Practical Similar to traditional approach, however may be more flexible reviewed within the scope of the RBI program for both units in
Approach engineering based and focussed on critical areas, based on reliability of the data
approach. obtained at initial stage and/or from similar units in service. operation (conversion) (see section 4.2.1) and new-build unit
(see section 4.2.2).
Table 1 Traditional and RBI approach comparison
4.2.1 Input data for a unit in Operation/Conversion
3.5 Viability Decision
Figure 4 illustrates the types of data to be collected for a unit
At the end of Operator Evaluation Stage a decision has to in operation. These include design analysis, operation history
be made: Is RBI a viable option for your company? If the analysis, and inspection data analysis.
assessment of Applicability has shown that RBI can be
applied, the Scope of what the method will be applied to is 4.2.1.1 Equipment/structural modelling
clearly defined, and the Impact Study has shown the RBI
approach to be beneficial then it is viable to proceed to the The level of detail of the assessment process may vary in
next stage of the RBI process: Preparation and Planning. so far as the extent to which you consider different damage
mechanisms e.g. corrosion, environmental cracking, stress
■ Section 4 corrosion and so on. Where a failure may lead to a potentially

catastrophic event then it can be justified to monitor each
Preparation and Planning major damage mechanism. Where the consequences of
deterioration are less severe a more general assessment of
4.1 General deterioration may be performed, for example, a sampling
approach.
This section provides an overview of the second stage of the
RBI process: Preparation and Planning. It involves the need Where there is a single damage mechanism it is relatively
to obtain relevant design data and operational unit records; easy to determine remaining life by measuring, for example,
how to decide on which RBI methodology to use; and finally the (metal) pipe wall thickness and analysing the rate it is
how to define the RBI plan by identifying critical elements and reducing in order to determine when it is no longer safe to
other priority levels/risk bands, mitigation measures, audit use. However, for other structural elements and equipment, it
techniques and management structure. may be necessary to infer the rate of deterioration by utilising
factors such as the number of loading cycles, or vessel
The Preparation and Planning stage has 5 parts; these are voyage history or number of equipment revolutions, and so
listed below and outlined in more detail in the subsequent on. Normally a combination of these will be used and typically
sections. combined with other information such as from condition
monitoring systems or manual inspection measurements as 4.2.1.4 Inspection data analysis

part of the assessment of likelihood of failure. A software
programme is generally employed to manage the equipment Inspection data analysis covers damages, defects and
and structural data, process the calculations required, store failure mechanisms, type of corrosion, remaining thickness,
the results and generate inspection plans. condition monitoring for each component. It allows calculate
rates of corrosion and assesses uncertainty in knowledge
LR Class will examine the proposed approach to be used for about the condition of each component. Expected failure
modelling each equipment and structural item and advise on modes can be generated using inspection data, therefore,
its suitability. specifications and requirements should be made for what
is expected from inspection activities in order to satisfy the
4.2.1.2 Design analysis degradation models used in the RBI analysis. The common
failure modes associated with marine structures are buckling,
The main idea of Design analysis is to determine corrosion deformation, breakage, fracture, rupture, protrusion, loss of
allowances, remaining fatigue life and reliability for each stability etc. Each failure mode leads to deferent consequence
component in the third layer of hierarchy (see above). and normally caused by certain damage mechanism. The
Determination of remaining fatigue life is done considering same damage mechanism like corrosion can lead to different
data analysis from operation history (number of cycles, known failure mode and therefore a different consequence.
exposure to loads) as well as known actual thicknesses
obtained from analysis of inspection results. Ideally initial The most common degradation/deterioration mechanisms
fatigue life and initial corrosion allowances could be obtained associated with hull structural components are:
from a design house, however in practice these data are • Pitting;
rarely available. Therefore relevant models should be used for • General corrosion;
these calculations. If major modifications are made during the • Localised corrosion;
operation, the modified structure should be re-assessed for • Fatigue;
strength and fatigue to demonstrate the suitability for service. • Vibration;
It is very important to assess the uncertainty of the obtained • Environmental loads or cargo/ballast loading pattern;
information to have confidence in the determined results. • Unauthorised modifications to the hull, marine systems or
processing plant;
4.2.1.3 Operation history analysis • Wastage of the positional mooring system;
• Stress built into the structure during new construction phase.
Operation history analysis covers design changes and
modifications that have been implemented during the Areas where certain damage mechanisms are more active are
installation and operation stages; failure records; facility relatively known in inspection practice therefore assessment
operating pattern; and damage repair and modification of inspection records should decide whether or not the
information. Operation history provides a good understanding inspection extent and methods give enough knowledge in
of how well the asset is performing its intended function. This current condition of a component. Inspection program, the
data can be used during hazards/failure assessment and combination of NDT methods (such as visual, ultrasonic,
risk analysis. Data from operation history analysis should be radiology, etc.), frequency and location of inspection vary in
used to assess the loading to study the variation of load with their effectiveness for locating and sizing deterioration, thus for
design and to determine the fatigue related loading. The RBI determining deterioration rates, which also cause to generate
team will be able to understand and predict the failure modes uncertainty in knowledge about the condition. In such cases,
associated with particular components subjected to the RBI other knowledge bases, expert opinions, past experiences
plan from failure repair and modification. Past history of failure can be combined together to handle the data uncertainty.
can also be used during qualitative risk assessment to estimate
the failure probability, as well as severity of consequences. 4.2.2 Input data for new-build units
This would allow components to be screened according the
risk acceptance criteria. The unit’s operating data, failure, For the new build units, operation history and inspection
and repair and modification data needs to be properly data are not readily available. In such case, the data from
tagged and presented to ensure quality and accuracy. It is fabrication analysis and corrosion study will be utilized. Figure
important that uncertainty (confidence) in data is assessed at 5 illustrates the suggested flow chart for RBI process for new-
this stage. In practice operational history data can range from build units.
comprehensive journals to the absence of any data.
4.2.2.1 Design analysis components can be found in the Rules for Offshore Units.
It is still advisable to utilise services of a qualified corrosion
It is much easier to perform design analysis for new-build units engineer as some crude and processed product corrosion
as the majority of data can be obtained from the design house. properties can differ widely depending on the presence
It covers the structure design consideration and assumptions, of contaminants (like mercury, sulphur or H2S), water and
definitions of limit states, material and fabrication details, initial fluctuations in operating temperatures. Reasonable and
operational parameters, and corrosion allowances. However, practicable assumption of effectiveness of corrosion coating
additional information such as net scantlings and novel design and other corrosion protection (like cathodic protection) will
uncertainty factors need to be provided for new-build units. also be acceptable.
Assessing novel design uncertainty for each component is
very important as novel design would require more frequent 4.2.2.4 Other Additional Data
and thorough inspection.
In the case of scarcity of data, or for newly build vessels,
4.2.2.2 Fabrication analysis opinions from subject matter experts could be considered as
potential input data. A well-structured and documented expert
Fabrication analysis focuses on how well the unit was elicitation process should be used to obtain this information.
fabricated. It covers construction material properties, coating Site specific data also needs to be collected covering the
information such as thickness and effective life of coatings, metrological information where the particular unit is located.
fabrication defects and their uncertainty of fabrication. This includes the general and site specific ocean data such
Uncertainty (confidence) of fabrication is estimated by as wave height, wave period, weather records, and seismic
assessing extent of inspection and inspection scope that activity records. Offshore unit plan appraisal/classification is
was undertaken during fabrication by a ship yard and a based on pre-defined operation location and the Certificate
third party. Also it is important to know how far test results of Class is valid for that location only. The RBI plan will
were from the code limits. The assessment of remaining life be specific to that area and any re-location of the unit will
depends on the fabrication analysis data, and hence the need to be verified by the plan appraisal office. The hazard
reliability of the components. It is important to assess the assessment will also need to be reviewed based on the unit’s
uncertainty associated with fabrication defects. There may be current location of operation.
a possibility of fabrication defects, both inherent and known,
and information on those defects needs to be gathered. 4.2.3 Remaining life calculation for each component
Practical solutions to reduce that uncertainty may be thorough
inspection of the structure within first-second year of the It is important to establish limits for each active degradation
unit’s operation. Alternatively, If an RBI plan is introduced mechanism beyond which damage of each component
prior to fabrication it may be considered if changing the becomes unacceptable to class. Few degradation mechanisms
original inspection scope increases fabrication confidence acting simultaneously should be considered and analysed.
and therefore extend intervals between inspection during Knowledge of class limits, corrosion allowances, net
operation or/and allowing grouping of certain components scantlings, fatigue life, active degradation mechanisms and
due to lower risk. Any revealed defect may be then repaired rates of deterioration allows calculating remaining life for each
at the early stage. If the result of such an inspection should component for time based degradation mechanism. All this
show no apparent fabrication flows, reduction of the following data needs to be determined by this stage (refer to Figure 4
inspection frequency may be considered. and Figure 5).
4.2.2.3 Corrosion Study 4.2.4 Class Limits
For new-build units historical records on inspection, failure The primary statement of compliance will refer to adherence to
analysis, repair and maintenance data will obviously not be the minimum (or ‘net’) scantling requirements as applied to the
available. Therefore, inspection analysis cannot be used to project. This is not however the entire picture as compliance
formulate the failure modes and degradation/deterioration will also be built up with reference to the observable elements
mechanisms and expected/predicted data used during the e.g. pitting, cracking, coating breakdown, and localised plastic
RBI study. The corrosion study includes analysis of expected deformation which are more subjective and have traditionally
degradation mechanism and rates of deterioration based been subject to the experience and direct assessment of
on operating environment (like pressure and temperature), the Class Surveyor. In this instance we are endeavouring to
materials, containing fluid properties and corrosion protection quantify an element of the knowledge to help keep the plan
information. The corrosion rates for a typical unit’s hull manageable so that every defect is not considered as an
anomaly. Each plan will have to consider these elements on sufficient residual strength remains for the desired time on
a) a facility based approach, station to a plan for repair.
b) location on the facility where the defect occurs, for example: • Midships – potential to see the highest shear loads
• Pitting - The density of pitting; one or both sides of the plate; and bending stresses on the facility hence cracking in
location e.g. ballast tank, void space, internal subdivision/ this area that is attributable to shear load effects is to be
bulkhead/hull, ballast system piping penetrating cargo/fuel considered a limit state and corrective action proposed for
tanks etc; implementation.
• Cracking – Is it local? Is the only example of cracking in
that area? How large and how long ago was the area last Brackets not located in stress critical areas:
inspected? (i.e. large crack with a small interval between • Where brackets are not located in stress critical areas
inspection may signal concerns; a small crack with a long (as defined in the plan) they can be tolerated subect to
interval between inspections, may signal less concern). Is assessment of the impact of the damage, provided they
this primary or secondary steel? Where could the crack have not opened up and cracking has not occurred in
run? Is it located in or near the area of possible high stress or directly adjacent brackets;
frequently changing stress level? • Where cracks have occurred they are to be considered
• Coating breakdown - Rate of breakdown; area it covers; one anomalies that must be recorded and recognised in the
or both sides of the plate. For tank coating, this also needs plan and the plan revised as required with respect to
to consider cargo (e.g. ballast, crude oil, produced water changes in inspection frequency. Where repair is required
etc.); the plan is to record the remedial action and the timeframe
• Plastic deformation – Is this minor mechanical damage or for it.
evidence of the structure yielding/what is the location? Is it
buckling of the structure under topside etc. A defect that results in the failure of the tightness of a cargo/
slop tank:
IACS Rec. 47 – Shipbuilding and Repair Quality Standard • Where cracking or perforation is identified that results in
may be used in the support of these assessments. However, the failure of the tightness of a cargo / slop tank this is
application of any such standard requires knowledge and considered a limit state and requires corrective action.
experience of the attending surveyor/inspector.
Interface between topside process plant module support and
Examples: hull:
Bulkhead between spaces other than those used for the • The interface between topsides process plant module
same purpose (e.g. adjacent ballast tanks) or on the shell, for support and the hull is considered a critical area. Both
instance a slops tank adjacent to a sea water ballast tank. hull (Class) and topsides standards are influenced by the
The question is what level of cracking is permissible on the interface. This area should therefore be subject to robust
bulkhead, brackets and stress critical areas: monitoring as part of the RBI process.
• Bulkhead – cracking of any size breaches the Class limit • Preferential Corrosion: An area that should be the subject
in these areas primarily due to the pollution risk posed by of observation includes the traditional coating breakdown
communication between the two tanks. This would breach but also the potential risk of preferential material wastage
MARPOL which would be unacceptable from a statutory where different materials are used in the topsides
perspective; supporting arrangement and the connected hull structure.
• Cracking on brackets would not necessarily breach a Class Accordingly, evidence of preferential corrosion should
limit as: be considered a limiting state and subject to immediate
a) the limit state of containment is not breached; action.
b) the limit state of global strength is not necessarily • Cracking/deformation; evidence of this in way of the
breached. supports and deck is to be considered of critical
For deformation/cracking in the shell and major structural importance and where identified to result in:
members, the following can be considered for guidance: a) immediate updating of the RBI plan to capture the
• Fore end – depending on the Metocean conditions this rate of change;
area of the unit may be subject to intense periodic loading b) A plan for remedial work to be undertaken.
that can lead to deformation. Where deformation is identified
it should be further examined for evidence of cracking. Topside process plant primary structure:
Where this has occurred the plan should be considered • Existing RBI industry best practice should be followed for
to have achieved a limit state requiring intervention. This topsides process plant primary structure.
intervention may vary from performing a study demonstrating
This is to follow LR System

1. Equipment Hierarchy
Vessel System (Hull, Machinery, …) Compartment Major Component
2. Design Analysis Per Component: 3. Operation History Analysis Class and Client
4. Inspection Data Analysis
• Loads Was the Vessel/Compartment Inspection Reports.
and Condition assessment
LR Models exposed to Conditions Higher or Scope and extent
• Fatigue per component
• Known Fabrication Defects Lower than it was designed for?
• Uncertainty of exposure to high Data collection
Failures and Repairs
loads/operating conditions
• Damage Mechanisms
• Rates of Corrosion
• Fatigue Life
• Failure Modes
• Corrosion Allowances • Uncertainty in knowledge about
• Reliability condition
• Known Defects
• Effective Life of Coating
Remaining Life Estimation for Class Limits for each Damage

each component for each Mechanism for each component Failure
damage Mechanism to reach with knowledge of Corrosion Modes
class limits. Allowance from step 2.
Criticality Matrix Development.
Probability of Reaching Class Limits.

Criticality of Component. Consequence of Failure of each
Assessment of probability based on
Position on Recommended Component for each Failure mode
remaining life and Design and
Criticality Matrix. for Environment, People, Vessel.
Fabrication uncertainties.
Inspection Plan for Tank based

on position in Criticality Matrix.
Design Was Tank exposed to operation Yes

Conditions outside design parameters? Reassess Inspection Plan.
No
Implement Inspection Plan.
Reassess Criticality. Analyse Inspection Results.
Figure 4: Flowchart of RBI process for units in operation
This is to follow LR System

1. Equipment Hierarchy
Vessel System (Hull, Machinery, …) Compartment Major Component
Models MDR Containing Fluid

2. Design Analysis Per Component: from Design 3. Fabrication Analysis 4. Corrosion study
• Loads House / Analysis per component of Analysis of expected DM and rates
how well ship was fabricated of deterioration based on Fluid Materials Operating
• Fatigue LR Analysis
parameters, Materials, Corrosion Parameters (P, T, …)
• Novel Design Uncertainty
• Scantlings / Corrosion allowance Mitigation (Cathodic Protection)
and process Data - Pressure, Temp
• Fatigue Life
• Known Defects • Damage Mechanisms
• Net Scantlings
• Corrosion Allowances • Effective Life of Coating • Rates of Corrosion
• Reliability • Fabrication Defects • Failure Modes
Uncertainty (QA/QC)
• Novel Design Uncertainty Factor
Remaining Life Estimation for Class Limits for each Damage

each component for each Mechanism for each component Failure
damage Mechanism to reach with knowledge of Corrosion Modes
class limits. Allowance from step 2.
Criticality Matrix Development.
Probability of Reaching Class Limits.

Criticality of Component. Consequence of Failure of each
Assessment of probability based on
Position on Recommended Component for each Failure mode
remaining life and Design and
Criticality Matrix. for Environment, People, Vessel.
Fabrication uncertainties.
Inspection Plan for Tank based

on position in Criticality Matrix.
Design Was Tank exposed to operation Yes

Conditions outside design parameters? Reassess Inspection Plan.
No
Implement Inspection Plan.
Reassess Criticality. Analyse Inspection Results.
Figure 5: Flowchart of RBI process for new units
4.3 Risk Assessment of Components and assigned based on the knowledge of subject matter experts.
Systems Table 2 provides the description of typical likelihood/
probability definitions. Any other suitable definitions will be
The RBI planning uses both qualitative and quantitative risk acceptable with approval of LR Class.
assessment results, refer to Figure 4 and Figure 5). Likelihood Indicative Likelihood Probability
One or more components in 10 in a similar condition ≥10-1
Very Likely will reach class limits over next 5 years.
The probability of failure can be estimated using either
Component is deteriorated. One or more components 10-2-10-1
qualitative (completed by SME evaluation) or quantitative Likely in 100 in a similar condition will reach class limits over
(calculated) approaches. next 5 years.
Component has evidence of damage. One or more 10-3-10-2
Possible components in 1000 in a similar condition will reach
class limits over next 5 years.
4.3.1 Qualitative probability of failure Component is classed as being ‘as new’ 10-4-10-3
Unlikely condition.
For RBI to be implemented successfully the chance of a

component being within class requirement by the time of Table 2: Likelihood Definitions
the next inspection must be determined. For the purposes of
RBI risk assessment, the term “probability of failure” means 4.3.2 Quatitative probability of failure
the PROBABILITY OF REACHING CLASS LIMITS. This is
will inevitably be time dependant and is therefore assessed The quantitative probability of failure (PoF) is estimated as the
as the probability of an event occurring over agreed period. probability of violating the safety margins (limit state function)
The probability of any component reaching class limits in 100 defined by the LR class. Limit state functions are formulated
years will be very likely. However, the probability of a new utilizing standardized engineering principles, such as LR
component reaching class limits within 1 year (depending on design Rules (class limits) and parameters such as material
its current condition) is significantly less likely. It is logical to and geometric properties and scantling, manufacturing
make a probability assessment period equal to normal interval tolerances, static, dynamic and operational loads.
between class inspections.
The quantitative estimation of PoF is time dependent since
Probability of failure depends on the following major data: the damage mechanisms that affect the components such
• Current condition of analysed component; as corrosion and fatigue cracking, are time dependent. The
• Calculated remaining life for the component (calculated for capacity process decreases with time due to the damage
each damage mechanism); progression. Several methods can be used to estimate the
• Our confidence (and uncertainty) in knowledge about time dependent failure probability. The methods used are
component condition, it’s operating history, fabrication, reviewed and approved by LR class.
design etc. as described in section 4.1.
4.3.3 Consequence of failure assessment
The RBI system needs to replicate this knowledge into
assigning relevant probability of failure of a component Consequence due to failure of particular inspectable
during next agreed time period. For example; If the estimated components should be estimated. Consequence of undesired
remaining life of a component is 100 years and it was event can also be estimated using both qualitative and
designed to a proven design type (high confidence in design), quantitative approaches. Similar to likelihood assessment,
fabricated well (number of known defects is low or they are the severity levels of consequences are qualitatively assigned
not serious and all required tests were undertaken during based on the knowledge of subject matter experts. Table 3
fabrication with good results), and inspected properly and fully provides the typical descriptions of the five consequence
during operation with no damage found and operated within levels (negligible, minor, moderate, major, and catastrophic).
design parameters, then it can be said that that probability Consequence categories considered include, as a minimum,
of this asset failing in next 5 years is very Low. However, if people, environment and asset. Any suitable consequence
the estimated remaining life of a component is 15 years, there definitions should be considered and approved by LR Class
are no fabrication records, no close visual inspection was for use in RBI plan.
ever carried out during operation and there are no operational
history records, then it can be said that probability of this To estimate consequence of failure the ‘Damage Mechanism’
component reaching class limits in the next 5 years is high and ‘Failure Mode’ must be considered. The consequence
or likely. of a component failure depends on failure mode, e.g.
consequence from protrusion is leak of product or ballast
The likelihood or probability estimates are qualitatively water, while consequence from loss of stability would be
major repair in a dock. Therefore for the same component 5. Frequent HIGH HIGH EXTREME EXTREME EXTREME
a number of consequences may be determined. At the same
Probability/Likelihood of failure
4. Likely MEDIUM HIGH HIGH EXTREME EXTREME
time ‘Failure Mode’ is related to active ‘Damage Mechanism’. 3. Possible MEDIUM MEDIUM HIGH HIGH EXTREME
Guide to Consequence Definitions 2. Unlikely LOW MEDIUM MEDIUM HIGH HIGH
Level People Environmental Assets

Minor injury that does No discernable effect to sir, water or land. Minimal effect (i.e. a slight 1. Rare LOW LOW MEDIUM HIGH HIGH
Negligible not require First Aid. <1 L. marring of paint surface/as-
set still 1. Negligible 2. Minor 3. Moderate 4.Major 5. Catastrophic
completely usable) Consequences
<£2,000.
Injury requiring First Aid Low impact. Small/minor oil spill amounts Minor loss (i.e. a small crack
Minor treatment, but no time >10 L. Cleaned up immediately site staff in a window, a slight bend in
loss. and/or contractors. Impact contained to
operations area.
a handrail or burnt out light
can be repaired when time Table 4: Risk Matrix
permits)
>£100,000
Injury that requires Moderate impact (oil release >100L). Loss which requires some
Moderate medical tratment other Immediately cleaned up by site staff and/or level of repair before return to Risk Corrective Action
then First Aid. Lost contractors. Impact confined within proper- normal use.
time. ty boundary. No loss of wildlife. >£1,000,000 Low Acceptable/tolerable as is. No immediate action
Single fatality and/or Major impact (oil release >1 T). Not imme- Loss requiring required.
Major severe injury/disability. diately contained. Considerable clean-up substantial repairs/replace-
Lost time. using site and external resources. Impact ment to make usable). Moderate Risk is ALARP. Continue to maintain controls and aim to
may extend beyond property boundary. >£20,000,000 continuously improve.
Some marine/bird wildlife loss.
Multiple fatalities and/ Severe impact, local species Massive loss (e.g.: total loss
High Risk is acceptable/ tolerable if ALARP. Controls must be
Catastrophic or multiple cases of per- destruction and likely long recovery period, of unit). set and ALARP is to be demonstrated and documented.
manent total disability. extensive clean-up w ith >£100,000,000
external resources. Impact on Extreme Operation not acceptable. Must NOT proceed. Find an
regional scale. >10 T. alternative method and re-assess.
Table 3: Consequence Definitions

Table 5:Risk Tolerance
4.3.4 Risk assessment and risk acceptance criteria
In quantitative risk assessment (QRA), for structural
In the RBI process, risk is defined as the product/combination components, a target failure probability is usually employed
of the probability that violating the safety margins (limits) as a risk acceptance criterion for setting inspection schedules.
assigned by the class rule and the consequence of event Tolerable target failure probabilities must take cognisance of
outcome. the function and potential risk anticipated with the failure of
the system/component.
Suitable risk acceptance criteria are required to undertake
risk based ranking of systems and components. The risk 4.3.5 Uncertainty assessment
acceptance criteria could be qualitative or quantitative,
depending on whether a qualitative or quantitative risk As with any risk management activity, RBI involves controlling
assessment methodology is employed. the effects of uncertainties on planned objectives. It requires
information about the uncertainties in the systems/components
In qualitative risk assessment, a risk matrix is generally and other information. It is important to understand the
employed to determine the risk level of a given hazard. This types of uncertainties associated with different systems and
is a matrix of consequence severity versus likelihood or components before collecting and proceeding with reliability/
probability of the hazard. The acceptability of the risk level risk analysis, as each type of uncertainty requires a different
depends on where the hazard sits in the risk matrix, based on approach of data collection and use in reliability/risk evaluation.
the risk levels assigned in the risk matrix.
The uncertainties could be due to inherent randomness
In creating a risk matrix, it is prudent to avoid too few or too (Aleatoric uncertainties) or lack of knowledge (Epistemic
many cells, as these could lead to confusion. Ideally, the risk uncertainty), both of which should be accounted for.
matrix should have no fewer than nine cells and not more than Uncertainty analysis including sensitivity analysis is performed
thirty-six cells. Furthermore, three or four levels of risk levels/ on RBI results in order to provide confidence bounds on the
categories are considered sufficient to define the risk level. results. Several methods for performing uncertainty analysis
are available, including a combination of expert judgement,
Table 4 shows a typical risk matrix, pairing the various statistical techniques, multiple sensitivity analysis and min-
consequence and likelihood scales. In this risk matrix 4 levels max approach for bounding the results.
of risk are defined, namely: low, medium, high and extreme as
shown in Table 5.
4.4 Develop Risk Based inspection Plan determined, the most appropriate inspection tools and
techniques will be selected based on failure mechanism and
The components or group of components are ranked based the location. The effectiveness of the inspection will depend
on the risk using the results of risk assessment. Risk reduction on the ability of detecting the deterioration mechanism and
measures should then be applied. The objective of the its severity.
RBI process is to develop a plan for risk reduction through
application of the appropriately selected inspection strategy. 4.3.5 In Service Inspection Plan (ISIP)
A RBI plan should include the following essential elements:
• Failure modes and degradation mechanism/rates; Prior to implementing an ISIP plan, it is important to highlight
• Inspection scope including critical inspection location; the fact that the plan is the outcome of the overall inspection
• Optimum inspection intervals; and monitoring scheme as determined by the RBI.
• Inspection mechanism;
Upon application an example RBI Plan more related to your The assessment and inspection aspects are integral parts of
project can be provided as this is likely to be very facility the RBI methodology and most of these aspects are covered
specific. in detail in the RBI guidance notes. However, the preservation
and maintenance as well as some other aspects related to
4.4.1 Failure modes and degradation mechanism/rates inspection/monitoring are also important and need to be taken
into consideration to ensuring the overall integrity of the hull.
The failure modes and degradation mechanisms/rates
associated with each inspectable component are listed Implementation and execution of the hull ISIP usually includes
prior to the inspection plan development and included in the the following activities:
inspection plan based on their risk level. • Development of the annual inspection work scopes;
• Development of the tag references for each critical inspection
4.4.2 Inspection Scope points together with configuration of the key data elements
associated with each of these;
The areas or zones that need to be inspected are defined • Grouping of these elements where appropriate to maximise
in the inspection scope. It is sometimes difficult to perform inspection efficiencies;
inspection on all areas or zones identified. In such cases, a • Managing the implementation and execution of the
sample is selected which represents the whole of the population inspection programme.
subjected to degradation. When part of a deteriorated asset is
subjected to the same operating and deteriorating conditions, 4.4.5.1 Critical Inspection Points
a representative sample is inspected from this part. This is
known as sampling. Critical inspection points should be identified as part of
the qualitative risk assessment, the strength and fatigue
4.4.3 Optimum inspection interval/frequency of reliability analysis as well as the structural analysis and
inspection condition summary. Typically the critical inspection points
and or locations fall into four risk-based inspection frequency
An optimal inspection plan is usually considered as part of the categories as detailed below:
RBI plan. Defining the optimal inspection interval at the system • 3-5 Year Inspection Interval - Inspection of the hull
level requires integrating risk and cost information, gathered exterior below water will confirm the general condition of
according to the RBI methodology. Also, the inspection the corrosion protection systems which are integral to
frequency/ intervals which are determined should be related to the overall integrity of the hull. Primary risk drivers such as
degradation mechanisms. Regardless of the method used to local strength and fatigue locations (e.g., sea chests, water
determine optimal inspection interval, the failure probability of intake connections, bilge keel toes, etc.) will also be included
systems and components must be considered as constraints as part of this inspection interval. The inspection frequency
in the optimization schemes. This will ensure that the for the below water exterior is generally in line with
systems/component failure probabilities or risk levels are not prescriptive Class requirements;
compromised. Clear evidence of the optimization variables, • 4-6 Year Inspection Intervals are for tanks that tend to fall into
constraints, and the objectives must be provided and any four groups:
assumptions made must be supported by traceable evidence. 1. Tanks generally in severe service (i.e., potential for
accelerated corrosion);
4.3.4 Inspection techniques/methods 2. Voids directly above any LNG/LPG tanks (exterior of
Liquid and Vapour domes and associated
Once the inspection scope and inspection interval are penetrations and trunks);
3. The hull exterior above water (local high loads from 4.5.1 Inspection procedures, data gathering, and
topsides structures and potential for accelerated reporting
corrosion if coatings not maintained);
4. Compartments with machinery and potential for high Clear guidelines for inspection process, data gathering and
personnel traffic; reporting must be prepared along with RBI plan. To avoid
• 5-7 Year Inspection Intervals – Generally associated for human error during inspection, a check-list type document or
tanks that are not anticipated to be under severe computer aided tool can be used to help inspection personnel
operating conditions such as: Condensate Tanks, Void identify the location, degradation, inspection method and
Spaces, Cofferdams and Refrigerant Space; required measurements to be logged.
• 7 Year Inspection Interval – For tanks associated with any
LNG/LPG Containment Systems and the miscellaneous 4.5.2 Management of Change (MOC) plan
Lube, Diesel and Fresh Water tanks located in the machinery
spaces. Changes or modifications may occur over time. The objective
of MOC is not to prevent such change, but rather to manage
When developing tank inspection workbooks, the inspection changes so that decisions are based on clear understanding of
interval ranges and requirements as detailed above should the advantages that the change will bring, as well as the impact
be taken into account and sequenced such that a continuous of the change to the initially developed RBI plan. Therefore, it
feed of data is being provided for each tank type. Also for is important to develop a proper MOC plan for dealing with
some of the void tanks, the inspections should be arranged anomalies, managing results and reporting to class.
to coincide with the below ballast tank inspections since the
voids must be accessed to access the ballast tank. This will 4.5.3 Condition Monitoring and Updating of RBI Plan
minimise the number of tank entries into these voids in order
to carry out the requisite inspections. It should also be noted The RBI plan is developed using available design, inspection
if tank conditions (i.e. coating breakdown, excessive corrosion and operation data during the RBI Preparation and Planning
or fatigue problems) are found to be unsatisfactory, which stage. However, as time goes on, changes to the unit’s systems
would lower the confidence of conditions in other similar and subsystems are inevitable. The initial RBI plan, therefore,
tanks, reductions in the inspection intervals may be necessary. has to incorporate those changes and therefore should be
updated. The following factors cause system changes:
4.5 Evaluating the RBI Plan
• Uncertain nature of the degradation – some degradation
Failure to execute the RBI process as planned will produce mechanisms occur only when some specific conditions
inaccurate, spurious or incomplete results, and certainly affect occur or some process condition will accelerate or slow
the subsequent steps of RBI program. The following elements down the deterioration. These conditions may not be
are to be properly defined in order to implement the RBI plan: revealed or predicted during the RBI assessment;
• Documentation of executable RBI plan; • Process and environment changes – changes in process
• RBI Implementing team and supervision; conditions and environmental changes, such as temperature,
• Inspection procedures, data gathering and reporting; moisture, pH, can be cause to alter the risk initially estimated.
• Availability and effectiveness of Inspection tools; For instance, process changes significantly affected the
• Management of Change (MOC) plan; corrosion rate and cracking tendencies of failure modes such
• HSE guidelines. as H2S cracking of carbon steel, sour water carrion, and
stress corrosion cracking;
The RBI Plan should fulfil the following conditions in order for • New hazardous/atypical hazards those which could not
it to be considered as an executable plan: identify during the formal hazard assessment process or
• It has to be up-to-date, periodically reviewed and approved those which generate after the assessment.
by relevant authorities including both the operator and LR;
• It must contain all the information required, presented in The RBI program should be able to be maintained and updated
a simple and concise manner. This helps to easily follow to ensure that the most recent inspection, operating condition,
the steps of the plan and avoid miss-interpretation and miss- and maintenance data are incorporated and risk and the
understandings that may rise during the inspection; inspection schedule is updated. The following elements of RBI
• It should use standard reporting formats. program are revised and updated:
Competent and qualified personnel must be identified for

executing the inspection process.
• Failure probability assessment, thus estimation of risk; education, training, or experience. If the selected personnel
• Inspection interval or frequency estimation; lack the skill on RBI, they should receive detailed training on
• Inspection scope (sample size and location of damage); the RBI methodology and on the procedures being used for
• Inspection techniques. the RBI study. If the RBI program is conducted by third party
consultants, sufficient evidence need to be provide to prove
4.5.4 Managing the RBI Plan that the personnel are qualified and experienced. All team
members should receive basic training on RBI methodology.
It is important to decide the time when updating of RBI plan
should be performed. Generally every performed inspection 4.6 Approval Process for RBI Program
provides new information about asset condition and therefore
about probability of failure. Each high confidence inspection The operator needs to submit the proposed RBI Plan to
performed will decrease probability of failure of a component Lloyd’s Register as per the Rules for Offshore Units Part 1,
if no damage was found. However, if significant damage is Chapter 6, Section 4, paragraph 4.1.1 for approval. The RBI
found then the remaining life will reduce, and probability of Plan should address, but not to be limited to the requirements
failure will increase. As a result this particular component could relevant to Planned Survey Programme as detailed in the
move up or down in the risk matrix (consequence of failure Rules for the Classification of Offshore Units Part 1, Chapter
usually remains the same). Subsequently, a new inspection 3, 1.6. LR scope of activities related to specific surveys and
plan needs to be developed. Also, it is necessary to update the inspections should be verified and amended where deemed
inspection plan when there is a significant change in the asset necessary at the approval stage by LR.
or operating condition or after each inspection cycle.
Any deviation to the approved plan needs to be referred to
The updated inspection plan includes the new inspection Lloyd’s Register for consideration.
schedule which is also updated based on the information
gathered through real time condition monitoring and inspection
■ Section 5
data. Probability and statistical methods are used to update the
failure probability, thus risk is based on the current condition Inspections and Surveys
or condition monitoring data.
5.1 General
4.5.5 Personal Qualification and Experience of RBI Team
The purpose of this section is to explain the third stage of the
Development of effective RBI program requires a multi- RBI process: Inspections & Surveys (as illustrated in the Figure
disciplinary team with essential skills, strong technical strengths 1). It defines both the Operator activity and the Lloyds Register
and relevant background. The primary objective of the team is activity throughout.
to ensure that all relevant and adequate information is gathered • Operator activity:
and organized prior to the RBI program development. The RBI o Hold inspections as per the RBI plan;
team should comprise of one or more personnel with expertise o Escalate issues to Lloyd’s Register;
in the disciplines below: o Review any changes to RBI plan;
• Risk Assessment and Management; • Lloyd’s Register activity:
• Inspection and Maintenance; o Hold planned surveys;
• Structural and Reliability analysis; o Hold ad hoc surveys as escalated by operator;
• Material and Corrosion analysis/chemistry; o Consider any changes to RBI plan.
• Ship/Unit survey;
• Naval architecture and marine technology; The Inspections and Surveys stage has 3 parts; these are listed
• Process operation; below and outlined in more detail in the subsequent section:
• Health, safety and Environment (HSE); • Execute Inspection Plan: Upon RBI plan approval the
• Financial and business analysis. operator should begin scheduling surveys as per the plan;
• Diagnosis and Prognosis: Information from inspections
Each member has to prove his level of experience and and surveys will be used to determine if the RBI plan is still
competence of subject matter using a brief biography or other valid;
acceptable format. The composition of the team could vary • Escalation to Lloyd’s Register: If findings suggest the RBI
depending on the RBI scope and complexity of the vessel. should be amended this must be reported to Lloyd’s
The risk assessment and management personnel should Register.
have a thorough understanding of risk analysis either by
5.2 Execute Inspection Plan walkways should be inspected to ensure there is adequate
visual indicators of hazard locations and proper identification
Once the RBI plan has been approved the operator should of components (e.g., hatches). Also, if suspect areas are
begin scheduling surveys as per the plan. discovered during the annual inspection, additional inspections
The onus is on the operator to ensure inspections and surveys of the hull may be required at the time of the inspection.
are conducted in line with both the plan and the Rules for
Offshore Units Part 1, Chapter 6, Section 4, paragraph 5.2.3 Hull Exterior Below Water
4.3. The operator is also responsible for ensuring relevant
inspections and surveys are conducted with Lloyd’s Register Inspections intended to provide information on the hull
in attendance. condition below water should be conducted both below water
as part of an IWI (In Water Inspection) and also above water
Lloyd’s Register can also attend for any ad-hoc surveys (from the deck and within the Water Ballast Tanks).
outside the plan.
The IWI should be conducted to confirm the exterior corrosion
5.2.1 Inspection Workbooks protection system is working properly on the hull and the
structural integrity of the hull is fit for purpose. The principal
Once the In Service Inspection Plan has been issued and methods of inspection would be via ROV. These inspections
approved typical the integrity project team will produce should be general visual quality with close visual inspections
technical workbooks for the site inspection personnel covering at selected locations or where defects and damage are found.
the fully planned scope for the given year. Thickness measurements of the exterior shell plating may also
be used in conjunction with internal inspections to measure
Workbooks should contain all the appropriate information and shell plating thickness in regions that are difficult to access
data to allow the site teams to perform their tasks as effectively internally.
and efficiently as possible. RBI require the inspection data
to be recorded in such a manner to enable confirmation of The IWI surveys should consist of the following activities:
the condition of the structures and systems which are in turn
directly related to the fitness-for-purpose of the structure. The • General visual of exterior surfaces and appurtenances.
inspection scopes should be targeted to inspecting regions The inspection should include the outer shell and hull
identified as having lower strength or fatigue reliability or areas markings looking for signs of coating breakdown,
that have been identified as critical. corrosion and excessive marine growth coverage;
• Visual inspection of the impressed current reference
Detailed below is a high level overview of the inspection scopes anodes/electrodes as well as cathodic potential
for above water, below water and compartment internals readings throughout the hull. Also at locations
which would be included in the appropriate workbooks. where sacrificial anodes are present, visual inspections,
grading of anodes and cathodic potential readings should
5.2.2 Above Water Inspection Scopes be carried out if regions of excessive corrosion are
observed or indications that corrosion protection is not
The inspections of the hull should include visual inspection of working properly, thickness measurements of suspect
the exterior parts of the hull structures above the waterline. areas should also be carried out;
The scope of the above water inspections should also cover • Close Visual Inspections (CVIs) should be conducted on
key connection points such as the crane pedestals and structures identified as critical. These include items such
topside structure deck connections as well as hull penetrations as thrusters and trunk spaces, water intake riser
such as tank vents and sounding tubes. Visual inspection of connections, bilge keel toes and exterior of sea chests;
these items is required to ensure no deterioration or damage • To enhance the information obtained from the IWI,
has occurred that would detrimentally affect their function. inspections of the shell and critical connections or
Condition of the exterior coatings will be surveyed throughout appurtenances could be conducted from within
the deck, around connections and penetrations and around the hull. Generally these inspections consist of drop cell
the splash zone. CP measurements and thickness measurements where
access with a ROV is limited or not feasible;
Walkways, ladders, stairs and handrails should also be • The above water inspections used to supplement the IWIs
surveyed to ensure these items provide adequate support would generally consist of the following activities:
and protective barriers to personnel. These items should be • Drop cell CP readings along hull exterior and in way of
visually inspected for signs of deterioration such as material moonpool (i.e., between the turret and hull);
loss or damage. Also marking conditions on the hull and hull • Thickness measurements within the water ballast tanks
thruster space plating, plating around water intake riser When tanks are inspected internally, the inspections would
connections and sea chests; be mostly GVI and CVI, looking for potential damage or
• Thickness measurements of the bottom and side shell deterioration which might not be identified via the monitoring
plating from within the water ballast tanks; and inspection conducted outside the tank during normal
• CVI of sea chests conducted from within hull by way of operations. Additionally, some of the internal inspection
blanking. activities could be conducted via adjacent tanks.
5.2.4 Internal Tank Inspections The following provides a general summary of the scope for the
internal tank inspections:
The scope required for each tank will vary depending on the
factors outlined in the RBI methodology. Full details of the • GVI of primary membrane looking for any signs of
specific tank inspections scopes would be included in the indentations or damage;
workbooks however the following two subsections provide • CVI of areas prone to sloshing and pitting;
a high level description of the proposed activities for hull • GVI of liquid and gas dome structure;
compartments and LNG/LPG containment systems. • CVI of pump tower structure and connections to the liquid
dome and bearing support;
5.2.5 Hull Compartments • Inspections conducted within the adjacent void tanks
including:
The scope of an internal hull inspection should predominantly • GVI of liquid and gas dome structure;
consist of general and close visual inspections. Condition of the • CVI of injection points and injection valves;
coatings should be surveyed throughout the tanks, around the • CVI pressure relief valves;
connections, penetrations and regions prone to breakdown. • Inspections conducted within the adjacent cofferdams
Close Visual Inspections (CVIs) should be conducted on critical will include the CVI of cargo hold bilge
structures and those connections or areas with lower strength alarm, pumping arrangement and bilge well.
or fatigue reliability. Generally, thickness measurements
should be conducted on the hull bottom and side shell or in Inspection summary sheets for each critical location points
regions where coating breakdown has occurred. If there is no should be included in the workbooks specifying the inspection
observed coating breakdown within the internal structure, no work scopes including required thickness measurements and
significant measurement campaigns would be required. inspection techniques i.e. GVI, CVI, ACFM (if required) and
general NDE requirements. These sheets should be used in
The following provides a general summary of the scope for conjunction with the inspection drawings which should also
internal tank inspections: be included in the workbooks to aid in the planning of the
offshore inspection programmes.
• GVI of sounding tubes, piping, manway hatches, bolts
and coaming; 5.3 Diagnosis and Prognosis
• GVI of the landings and ladders, as necessary, to ensure
the secondary structure provides adequate support and Documentation, data, records & knowledge management is an
meets safety requirements; essential part of Risk Based Inspection as accurate records
• GVI of interior surfaces including outer shell plating, and information are essential to identify, assess and manage
bulkheads, transverse framing, horizontal girders and integrity.
stiffeners;
• GVI of condition of coatings and anodes (as applicable) in Data Analysis and planning gives operators the information
condensate and water ballast tanks; required to determine and monitor the degradation mechanisms
• CVI of internal support structures such as flare gantry or associated with hull integrity with the emphasis on detection
water intake riser support structures, as well as other and mitigation. This ability to carry out the diagnosis and
internal critical structure (e.g., hopper connections, etc.) as prognosis analysis can be divided into two key areas:
applicable for the specific tank;
• CVIs of connections or areas with lower strength or fatigue • Data Management & Reporting;
reliability (i.e., relative to other regions of hull). • Annual Report & Master Inspection Register.
5.2.6 LNG/LPG Containment System 5.3.1 Data Management & Reporting
Inspection of a containment system would be predominately On the completion of the workbooks the project integrity team
conducted inspecting the outside of the LNG/LPG tanks. should review all inspection reports and confirm accuracy
of results. The team would be responsible for collation and meeting should be conducted to review the findings which
registration of all inspection reports associated with each should include the technical support personnel and class the
workbook. surveyor for the vessel. The purpose of the meeting would be
to review the previous year’s inspection results, anomalies
All the relevant data should be input into an appropriate and any outstanding (e.g., any pending repairs or outstanding
software analysis tool and an effective assessment, analysis inspections or actions items).
and evaluation of the inspection data should be performed.
An updated integrity status should be issued for the given During the review meeting, the next year’s inspection plan
inspection location/ area and future inspection criteria should be discussed and agreed upon. The meeting will
confirmed. provide a forum for all parties involved to discuss the in service
inspection plan to confirm all results have been appropriately
Detailed report reviews should be undertaken by the assigned reviewed and incorporated in future inspections as well to
project integrity engineer who would be responsible for determine if any modifications to the plan are warranted.
updating the RBI with the results. All relevant data should be Escalation to Lloyd’s Register.
input into the RBI and detailed analysis and evaluation of the
impact on the hull integrity should be performed by a Senior 5.4 Escalation to Lloyd’s Register
Naval Architect and if applicable Senior Corrosion Engineer
as part of the workbook closeout process. The Senior Naval It may become necessary for an operator to amend or update
Architect would be responsible for the final sign off of all the plan to reflect changes (replacement items or repairs
reports including anomaly categorisation. to existing items) to the structure, equipment or even the
operating requirement. These issues should be discussed with
To complete the RBI plan and ensure inspection efforts are and escalated to Lloyd’s Register.
adequate and focused on the latest known condition of the
structure, reviews of monitoring activities and inspection
results should be carried out as inspection data is collected. ■ Section 6
The data should be reviewed, assessed (as required) and any
Review
anomalies addressed as part of the integrity management
program with class approval.
6.1 General
5.3.2 Annual Report & Master Inspection Register
This section provides an overview of the final stage of the RBI
process: Review (as illustrated in Figure 1). It defines both the
Using the inspection interval ranges, described above a Master
Operator activity and the Lloyd’s Register activity throughout.
Inspection Register should be developed and maintained
• Operator activity:
throughout asset lifecycle. The Master Inspection Register
• Maintenance of records
will be a high level summary of the entire hull inspection
• Internal audit to evaluate effectiveness of RBI plan
program for the operating life of the asset and will indicate
• Lloyd’s Register activity:
when particular tanks inspections are to be conducted as well
• Annual audit of RBI documentation and survey reports
as the inspection methods and can be used to summarise
anticipated future work scopes.
6.2 Data Maintenance
It is important to note that the in service inspection plan
(ISIP) may change as inspection data is collected over the Each operator choosing to implement an RBI scheme should
life of the asset. As a result the Master Inspection Register establish and maintain procedures to control all documents
will be a dynamic or “living” document and should detail the and data which are relevant to the scheme.
current inspection conditions and status, plus identifying the
forthcoming annual requirements for inspection. The register The operator should ensure that valid documents are available
should also provide a mechanism to capture and document at all relevant locations; changes to documents are reviewed
the summarised results of the previous inspections plus key and approved by authorized personnel; and obsolete
findings such as anomalies and the integrity status for each documents are promptly removed.
component pertaining to the hull and containment systems.
The documents used to describe and implement the RBI
In addition to this ongoing inspection review process, at the scheme may be referred to as the Risk Based Inspection
end of each calendar year an annual integrity status report and Manual. Documentation should be kept in a form that the
statements should be produced and subsequently a review operator considers most effective. Each unit should carry on
board all documentation relevant to that unit.
6.3 Audit
An audit of the operator’s data maintenance procedure forms

part of Lloyd’s Registers Annual Survey of the unit as per
the Rules for Offshore Units Part 1, Chapter 6, Section 4,
paragraph 4.3.
Lloyd’s Register EMEA
71 Fenchurch Street
London EC3M 4BS, UK
T +44 (0)20 7709 9166

F +44 (0)20 7488 4796
www.lr.org
Working together
for a safer world

LR Risk Based Inspection For Hull Structures Guidance Notes August 2015 050815

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

LR Risk Based Inspection For Hull Structures Guidance Notes August 2015 050815

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guidance Notes

A guide to the Guidance Notes

Guidance Notes for

Risk Based Inspection of Hull Structures

2 Abbreviations and Definitions 3

4 Preparation and Planning 7

5 Inspections and Surveys 17

© Lloyd’s Register Group Limited 2015. All rights reserved.

Risk Based Inspection of Hull Structures Section 1

1.3 Overview of the Process

It explains how an RBI methodology allows a company to

Some of the major benefits of a well-structured RBI

Risk Based Inspection of Hull Structures Section 1

No Use traditional time

Approval Process for RBI Plan

No Use traditional time

Inspections & Surveys Execute Inspection Plan

Escalation to Lloyd’s Register

Review Data maintenance

Lloyd’s Register activity

Figure 1: Risk Based Inspection Process

Risk Based Inspection of Hull Structures Sections 2 & 3

■ Section 3 3.3.1 To assess if an RBI approach should be used a

Risk Based Inspection of Hull Structures Section 3

Risk Based Inspection of Hull Structures Section 3

Deck transverse girder/web frame

Inner Hull Longitudinal BH

Hull Side structure (Inner skin panel)

Side structure (Inner skin panel)

Figure 3: Hierarchical breakdown of hull components

Risk Based Inspection of Hull Structures Section 3

Risk Based Inspection of Hull Structures Sections 3 & 4

■ Section 4 corrosion and so on. Where a failure may lead to a potentially

Risk Based Inspection of Hull Structures Section 4

monitoring systems or manual inspection measurements as 4.2.1.4 Inspection data analysis

Risk Based Inspection of Hull Structures Section 4

4.2.2.3 Corrosion Study 4.2.4 Class Limits

Risk Based Inspection of Hull Structures Section 4

Risk Based Inspection of Hull Structures Section 4

This is to follow LR System

Remaining Life Estimation for Class Limits for each Damage

Criticality Matrix Development.

Probability of Reaching Class Limits.

Inspection Plan for Tank based

Design Was Tank exposed to operation Yes

Implement Inspection Plan.

Reassess Criticality. Analyse Inspection Results.

Figure 4: Flowchart of RBI process for units in operation

Risk Based Inspection of Hull Structures Section 4

This is to follow LR System

Models MDR Containing Fluid

Remaining Life Estimation for Class Limits for each Damage

Criticality Matrix Development.

Probability of Reaching Class Limits.

Inspection Plan for Tank based

Design Was Tank exposed to operation Yes

Implement Inspection Plan.

Reassess Criticality. Analyse Inspection Results.

Figure 5: Flowchart of RBI process for new units

Risk Based Inspection of Hull Structures Section 4

For RBI to be implemented successfully the chance of a

Risk Based Inspection of Hull Structures Section 4

a number of consequences may be determined. At the same