You are on page 1of 12


Structural Integrity - Introduction

Orginator: Ole Tom Vårdal
Presentation: Espen Kalland
The key question!

• How can we be sure that the facilities are sufficiently safe?

• We need to be sure that no accidents occur.

Can we trust;
a) the structural analyses ?
b) the fabrication quality ?
c) the technical documentation?
d) the inspection process ?

Detect -> Compensating measures

Integrity Management
Inspection Management

Integrity Eng. Inspection

Condition Perform
Assessment – inspection –
The process of The process
What to be done
of How to do

Integrity Engineering and Inspection

working together on-site, on-shore and off-shore.

Page 7
Operational part of SIM
• Supervice inspection
• Adjust program
• Define and secure proper repair and modification
• Deliveries:
a) Inspection reports
b) Insp.eng- reports
c) Integrity reports
d) Design of modification
e) M&R reports (Modification & Repair )

Operational Data  Condition Data  Reduced uncertainties

Validation Studies – The Benefit of
• Studies for Philips Petroleum, bp, TFE, PSA-N and HSE-UK in the period 1995-1999,
• 3 published reports by HSE-UK and more than 10 papers
• Detailed assessment of more than 500 fatigue cracks

Main Conclusion
• Traditional follow-up regime
– 20-40% of the detected cracks are in accordance with the initial fatigue analyses
– Crack growth does mainly occur at details given poor fabrication quality
– All units given comparable amount of inspections
• Refined Follow up and RBI (level 3 and partially level 2)
– The calculations are based on As-Is description
– 70-80% of the fatigue crack growth are according the calculated crack growth
– The scope of inspection varies from 30 to 200% of a traditional follow up scope
Competance at Site
Unit 1 - As-Is description and improved follow-up regime for
inspection, repair, modifications and weld improvement

• Upon 10 years operation

– 73 fatigue cracks of 1 at weld improved area i.e. hot spot given ultra high
fatigue loads

Unit 2 - Traditional site team for inspection, repair and

• Upon 5-years operation
– 180 fatigue cracks at 143 different locations
– All cracks at hot spot given high fatigue loads
– Main reason: Poor workmanship for weld improvement and local
Benefits of level 3
• Avoid non required re-inspections
• Details are improved before failure occur, hit rate: 25% versus 80%
• Avoid or reduce On-shore inspection
• Avoid or reduce the need for re-construction
• Prepared for life time extension and utilization of capacity beyond the design
• Competence at site secure effective closing of findings
– detect – recommend – get approval - implement

The cost of failure vs. the cost required to avoid failure

• AIMS developed in cooperation with the rig owners that have experienced
the cost of failure
Main Challenges - 1:

• The old “How to do culture” i.e.

To Maintain the given design ≠ Integrity Management

• Insufficient ownership for the Condition Data and Condition

Assessment i.e.
– Gross errors related to look ahead of present findings
– Gross errors in the Condition Data and basis for
Condition Assessment
– Follow the procedure without sufficient ownership of
Integrity element

Continuous Improvement of Follow-up Scheme

Page 15
Main Challenges - 2:

• The theoretical approach and neglection of As-Is i.e.

Theoretical predictions ≠ The reality

• The inspection and repair history is the Key Book i.e.

– Identify shortcomings and application area for the
theoretical predictions
– Identify inspection program for validation
– Based on observation obtain reasonable conclusion of
the safety for structural integrity

Page 16
Main Challenges - 3
Activity and Competence
• Inspection
• Report inspection results and apply acceptance criteria
• How to close (design) and secure closing (construction) of
• The Life Cycle Documentation; a) Structural analyses
results and design data, b) Inspection, operation and
construction data
• Condition assessment and program for inspection and
• Reporting to PSA, Client and Owners