Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
OFFSHORE INSTALLATIONS
Praba Karunakaran (Integrity Engineer),
Mark Wilson (Principal Structural Engineer)
iicorr Asia Sdn Bhd
61 Jalan PJS 11/9, Bandar Sunway
46150 Petaling Jaya, Selangor
Tel: +60 (0)3 5635 5002
Fax: +60 (0)3 5635 5004
praba.karunakaran@iicorr.com
ABSTRACT
Experience has demonstrated that about 25% of subsequent inspection and maintenance
expenditure during the operating life of an offshore installation results from the defects
that happen during the fabrication stage. These defects are related to materials, corrosion
protection & coatings, welds, and QA/QC aspects. It is therefore important that the events
causing these defects and work practices are understood so that the best, most optimised
Inspection, Repair and Maintenance (IRM) plan can be devised.
iicorr has substantial experience in design review, fabrication review and Risk Based
Inspection (RBI) planning of offshore installations. The ultimate aim of these reviews
and RBI planning is for the optimisation of long term inspection and maintenance and the
reduction of Operational Expenditure (OPEX) over the life of the field.
This paper outlines the lessons learned from the design review, fabrication surveillance
and baseline survey works performed on offshore installations fabricated in South East
Asia (SEA). It also intends to demonstrate the importance of the fabrication surveillance
in ensuring the integrity of offshore installations.
INTRODUCTION
iicorr have to-date performed fabrication
surveys on 10 steel jacket structures and
three topsides, at three different
fabrication yards. In the interest of
protecting our client, names of the
installations or fabrication yards are not
revealed in this paper.
Typically, fabrication surveys would
include the following to identify future
(when operational) integrity and
inspectability issues:
Static Loading
Fabrication Defects
Fatigue
Past Inspection
Service Defects
Vessel Collision
Material
Marine Growth
Corrosion
Dropped Objects
Material (3 cases)
Welds (5 cases)
Corrosion (6 cases)
Inspection (3 cases)
MATERIALS
discussed
concerning
Case
2
indicates
the
typical
communication breakdown from one
stage of the project to another.
Assumptions and requirements made
during the design stage are not
communicated accordingly to the
fabrication stage.
Case 3 emphasises the importance of
having adequate information in material
certificates.
WELDS
Case 4 Temporary Attachments
During the fabrication survey, a review
of weld documents is performed. This
involved checking weld summary
reports and the corresponding NDT
records.
by
CORROSION
Fabrication surveys include checking
of external paint systems to see if
they are being applied at the right
locations and to correct procedures.
Also, areas of potential corrosion
problem are observed.
Case 9 details a specific problem
well documented in the North Sea
relating to caisson corrosion.
Case 10 explains how pitting
observed at fabrication stage can
avoid unnecessary future integrity
concern.
Case 10 Pitting
Case 9 Unprotected
surface of caisson
internal
Under
for
INSPECTABILITY
Part of the surveillance scope is to
identify areas of future inspection
constraints.
CONCLUSION
The 17 cases presented in this paper are
key issues, which improvements or
eliminations could result in significant
savings in inspection.
There are other cases that resulted from
the fabrication surveys, which are not
presented in this paper.
It is evident that even with a good QA
system, procedures and third party
inspections during the fabrication of
offshore installations, defects are
deemed to occur.
A proactive approach to manage the
fabrication defects and integrity of
offshore installation is to be involved at
early stages of a new project, i.e. design
stage.
Person or team within operators
responsible for integrity when the
installation comes operational should
perform design reviews and fabrication
surveys to eradiate or reduce potential
problem areas.
Also, fabrication information should be
systematically collated for the benefit of
performing effective RBI planning or
any further analyses.
Although there is an initial cost
implication for doing this, the
operational cost (OPEX) in the long run
can be considerably reduced.
REFERENCES
QCL ref: 1357/RT12334 Phase 3 report:
Topsides Structure and Process, 28th
October 2002.