Underwater Inpsection of Offshore Structures

Underwater Inspection and
Repair for Offshore Structures

Underwater Inspection and Repair for
Offshore Structures
John V. Sharp
Cranfield University
Cranfield
UK
Gerhard Ersdal
University of Stavanger
Stavanger
Norway
This edition first published 2021
© 2021 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted,
in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as
permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at
http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.
The right of John V. Sharp and Gerhard Ersdal to be identified as the authors of this work has been asserted in
accordance with law.
Registered Offices
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA
John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester,West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK
Editorial Office
The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester,West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK
For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit
us at www.wiley.com.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print-on-demand. Some content that
appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty

While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations
or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim
all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular
purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials or promotional
statements for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/
or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the information or
services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make. This work is sold with
the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies
contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate.
Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when
this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any
other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Sharp, John V., 1936- author. | Ersdal, Gerhard, 1966– author.
Title: Underwater inspection and repair for offshore structures / John V.
Sharp and Gerhard Ersdal.
Description: First edition. | Hoboken, NJ : Wiley, 2021. | Includes
bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2020042682 (print) | LCCN 2020042683 (ebook) | ISBN
9781119633792 (cloth) | ISBN 9781119633822 (adobe pdf) | ISBN
9781119633815 (epub)
Subjects: LCSH: Offshore structures–Inspection. | Offshore
structures–Maintenance and repair.
Classification: LCC TC180 .S46 2021 (print) | LCC TC180 (ebook) | DDC
627/.980288–dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020042682
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020042683
Cover Design: Wiley

Cover Images: Underwater and above water © SEAN GLADWELL /Getty Images, Oil and gas platform with
offshore vessel transporting cargo © Danial_Abdullah / Getty Images, U.S. Navy Diver © Stocktrek Images /
Getty Images, A diver inspecting airplane parts in the hold of the Japanese aircraft transport, Fujikawa Maru
© A Cotton Photo / Shutterstock, 3d Rendering of a Subsea ROV Inspecting the Seabed © Vismar UK / Shutterstock
Set in 9.5/12.5pt StixTwoText by SPi Global, Pondicherry, India
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
v
Contents
Preface xiii
Definitions and abbreviations xv
1 Introduction to Underwater Inspection and Repair 1

1.1 ackground 1
B
1.2 Why Do We Inspect and Repair Structures 3
1.3 Types of Offshore Structures 6
1.3.1 Fixed Steel Structures 6
1.3.2 Floating Structures 8
1.3.3 Concrete Platforms 9
1.4 Overview of this Book 10
1.5 Bibliographic Notes 11
References 11
2 Statutory Requirements for Inspection and Repair of Offshore Structures 13

2.1 Introduction 13
2.2 Examples of Country Statutory Requirements 14
2.2.1 Introduction 14
2.2.2 Regulation in the US Offshore Industry 15
2.2.3 Regulation in the UK Offshore Industry 16
2.2.4 Regulation in the Norwegian Offshore Industry 17
2.3 Standards and Recommended Practices for Steel Structures 17
2.3.2 API RP-2A and API RP-2SIM (Structural Integrity Management) 18
2.3.3 API RP-2FSIM (Floating Systems Integrity Management) 21
2.3.4 ISO 19902 22
2.3.5 ISO 19901-9 23
2.3.6 NORSOK N-005 23
2.4 Standards and Recommended Practices for Mooring Systems 24
2.4.2 API RP-2MIM (Mooring Integrity Management) 25
2.4.3 IACS Guideline for Survey of Offshore Moorings 26
vi Contents
2.5 tandards and Guidance Notes for Concrete Structures 27

S
2.5.2 ISO 19903—Concrete Structures 27
2.5.3 Department of Energy Guidance Notes 31
2.5.4 NORSOK N-005—Concrete Structures 32
2.6 Discussion and Summary 33
References 34
3 Damage Types in Offshore Structures 37

3.1 Introduction 37
3.1.1 General 37
3.1.2 Corrosion 38
3.1.3 Cracking Due to Fatigue 40
3.1.4 Dents, Bows and Gouges Due to Impact 41
3.1.5 Cracking Due to Hydrogen Embrittlement 42
3.1.6 Erosion, Wear and Tear 42
3.1.7 Brittle Fracture 43
3.1.8 Grout Crushing and Slippage 43
3.2 Previous Studies on Damage to Offshore Structures 43
3.3 Previous Studies on Damage to Fixed Steel Structures 44
3.3.1 MTD Underwater Inspection of Steel Offshore Structures 44
3.3.2 MTD Review of Repairs to Offshore Structures and Pipelines 46
3.3.3 PMB AIM Project for MMS 47
3.3.4 HSE Study on Causes of Damage to Fixed Steel Structures 50
3.3.5 Single-Sided Closure Welds 51
3.3.6 MSL Rationalization and Optimisation of Underwater Inspection
Planning Report 52
3.3.7 Studies on Hurricane and Storm Damage 54
3.4 Previous Studies on Damage to Floating Steel Structures 57
3.4.1 D.En. Studies on Semi-Submersibles 57
3.4.2 SSC Review of Damage Types to Ship-Shaped Structures 57
3.4.3 Defect Type for Tanker Structure Components 59
3.4.4 Semi-Submersible Flooding Incident Data 59
3.5 Previous Studies on Damage Types to Mooring Lines and Anchors 61
3.5.1 Introduction and Damage Statistics for Moorings 61
3.5.2 API RP-2MIM Overview of Damage Types to Mooring Lines 62
3.5.3 HSE Studies on Mooring Systems 63
3.5.4 Studies on Corrosion of Mooring Systems 64
3.5.5 Studies on Fatigue of Mooring Systems 64
3.6 Previous Studies on Concrete Structures 66
3.6.1 Concrete in the Oceans Project 66
3.6.2 Durability of Offshore Concrete Structures 67
3.6.3 PSA Study on Damage to Offshore Concrete Structures 68
3.7 Previous Studies on Marine Growth (Marine Fouling) 70
3.8 Summary of Damage and Anomalies to Offshore Structures 72
3.8.1 General 72
3.8.2 Damage Types Specific to Steel Structures 72
3.8.3 Damage Types Specific to Concrete Structures 75
Contents vii
3.8.4 Summary Table of Damage to Different Types of Structures 75

References 76
4 Inspection Methods for Offshore Structures Underwater 79

4.1 Introduction to Underwater Inspection 79
4.2 Previous Studies on Inspection 81
4.2.2 SSC Survey of Non-Destructive Test Methods 81
4.2.3 Underwater Inspection / Testing / Monitoring of Offshore Structures 84
4.2.4 HSE Handbook for Underwater Inspectors 85
4.2.5 MTD Underwater Inspection of Steel Offshore Structures 85
4.2.6 Department of Energy Fourth Edition Guidance Notes on Surveys 86
4.2.7 HSE Detection of Damage to Underwater Tubulars and Its
Effect on Strength 87
Planning Report 89
4.2.9 Projects on Testing of Inspection Methods and Their Reliability 93
4.2.10 Concrete in the Oceans Programme 96
4.3 Inspection and Inspection Methods 100
4.3.2 Visual Inspection 100
4.3.3 Ultrasonic Testing Methods 103
4.3.4 Electromagnetic Methods 104
4.3.5 Radiographic Testing 106
4.3.6 Flooded Member Detection 106
4.3.7 Rebound Hammer 108
4.3.8 Chloride Ingress Test 108
4.3.9 Electro-Potential Mapping 109
4.3.10 Cathodic Protection Inspection 111
4.4 Deployment Methods 112
4.4.2 Divers 113
4.4.3 ROV and AUV 114
4.4.4 Splash Zone Access 116
4.4.5 Summary of Inspection Methods and Their Deployment 117
4.5 Competency of Inspection Personnel and Organisations 117
4.5.2 Regulatory Requirements on Competency 119
4.5.3 Requirements on Competency in Standards 119
4.5.4 Certification and Training of Inspectors 121
4.5.5 Trials to Study Inspector Competency 121
4.5.6 Organisational Competency 122
4.6 Reliability of Different Inspection Methods Underwater 124
4.7 Inspection of Fixed Steel Structures 126
4.8 Inspection of Concrete Structures 128
4.9 Inspection of Floating Structures and Mooring Systems 133
References 137
viii Contents
5 Structural Monitoring Methods 141

5.1 Introduction 141
5.1.1 General 141
5.1.2 Historical Background 142
5.1.3 Requirements for Monitoring in Standards 145
5.2 Previous Studies on Structural Monitoring Methods 146
5.2.1 MTD Underwater Inspection of Steel Offshore Installations 146
5.2.2 HSE Review of Structural Monitoring 146
5.2.3 HSE Updated Review of Structural Monitoring 148
5.2.4 SIMoNET 150
5.3 Structural Monitoring Techniques 151
5.3.2 Acoustic Emission Technique 151
5.3.3 Leak Detection 152
5.3.4 Global Positioning Systems and Radar 152
5.3.5 Fatigue Gauge 153
5.3.6 Continuous Flooded Member Detection 153
5.3.7 Natural Frequency Monitoring 153
5.3.8 Strain Monitoring 154
5.3.9 Riser and Anchor Chain Monitoring 155
5.3.10 Acoustic Fingerprinting 155
5.3.11 Monitoring with Guided Waves 155
5.4 Structural Monitoring Case Study 155
5.5 Summary on Structural Monitoring 157
References 159
6 Inspection Planning, Programme and Data Management 161

6.1.1 General 161
6.1.2 Long-Term Inspection Plan 162
6.1.3 Approaches for Long-Term Inspection Planning 163
6.1.4 Inspection Programme 167
6.1.5 Integrity Data Management 170
6.1.6 Key Performance Indicators 173
6.2 Previous Studies on Long-Term Planning of Inspections 173
Planning Report 174
6.2.3 HSE Study on the Effects of Local Joint Flexibility 175
6.2.4 HSE Ageing Plant Report 176
6.2.5 Studies on Risk-Based and Probabilistic Inspection Planning 176
6.2.6 EI Guide to Risk-Based Inspection Planning 180
6.3 Summary on Inspection Planning and Programme 180
6.3.2 Fixed Steel Platforms 181
Contents ix
6.3.3 Floating Steel Structures 182

6.3.4 Concrete Platforms 183
References 184
7 Evaluation of Damage and Assessment of Structures 187

7.2 Previous Studies on Evaluation of Damaged Tubulars 189
7.2.1 Remaining Fatigue Life of Cracked Tubular Structures 189
7.2.2 Static Strength of Cracked Tubular Structures 195
7.2.3 Effect of Multiple Member Failure 199
7.2.4 Corroded Tubular Members 201
7.2.5 Dent and Bow Damage to Underwater Tubulars and Their
Effect on Strength 205
7.2.6 Studies on Assessment of System Strength 208
7.2.8 MSL Significant JIP for MMS 211
7.2.9 MSL Assessment of Repair Techniques for Ageing or Damaged Structures 214
7.3 Previous Studies on Evaluation of Damaged Plated Structures 215
7.3.2 SSC Studies on Residual Strength of Damaged Plated Marine Structures 216
7.4 Previous Studies on Evaluation of Damaged Concrete Structures 218
7.4.1 Department of Energy Assessment of Major Damage to the Prestressed
Concrete Tower 218
7.4.2 Department of Energy Review of Impact Damage Caused by
Dropped Objects 220
7.4.3 HSE Review of Durability of Prestressing Components 220
7.4.4 HSE Review of Major Hazards to Concrete Platforms 220
7.4.5 Department of Energy Review of the Effects of Temperature Gradients 221
7.4.6 Concrete in the Oceans Review of Corrosion Protection of
Concrete Structures 221
7.4.7 Norwegian Road Administration Guideline V441 222
7.5 Practice of Evaluation and Assessment of Offshore Structures 223
7.5.1 General 223
7.5.2 Fixed and Floating Steel Structures 225
7.5.3 Concrete Structures 230
References 232
8 Repair and Mitigation of Offshore Structures 239

8.1 Introduction to Underwater Repair 239
8.2 Previous Generic Studies on Repair of Structures 242
8.2.1 UEG Report on Repair to North Sea Offshore Structures 242
8.2.2 MTD Study on Repairs of Offshore Structures 242
8.2.3 UK Department of Energy Fourth Edition Guidance Notes 247
8.2.4 DNV GL Study on Repair Methods for PSA 248
8.3 Previous Studies on Repair of Tubular Structures 250
x Contents
8.3.1 Grout Repairs to Steel Offshore Structures 250

8.3.2 UK Joint Industry Repairs Research Project 252
8.3.3 UK Department of Energy and TWI Study on Repair Methods for Fixed
Offshore Structures 254
8.3.4 UK Department of Energy–Funded Work on Adhesive Repairs 257
8.3.5 Residual and Fatigue Strength of Grout-Filled Damaged Tubular Members 260
8.3.6 Fatigue Life Enhancement of Tubular Joints by Grout Injection 261
8.3.7 ATLSS Projects on Repair to Dent-Damaged Tubular Members 261
8.3.8 ATLSS Projects on Repair to Corrosion Damaged Tubulars 263
8.3.9 MSL Strengthening, Modification and Repair of Offshore Installations 265
8.3.10 MSL Underwater Structural Repairs Using Composite Materials 266
8.3.11 HSE Experience from the Use of Clamps Offshore 267
8.3.12 MSL Study on Neoprene-Lined Clamps 269
8.3.13 MSL Repair Techniques for Ageing and Damaged Structures 270
8.3.14 MMS Studies on Hurricane Damage and Repair 273
8.3.15 BOEME Report on Wet Weld Repairs to US Structures 274
8.4 Previous Studies on Repair of Concrete Structures 276
8.4.2 Repair of Major Damage to Concrete Offshore Structures 277
8.4.3 Scaling of Underwater Concrete Repairs 278
8.4.4 Assessment of Materials for Repair of Damaged Concrete Underwater 280
8.4.5 Effectiveness of Concrete Repairs 285
8.5 Previous Studies on Repair of Plated Structures 286
8.6 Repair of Steel Structures 289
8.6.2 Selection of Mitigation and Repair Methods 290
8.6.3 Machining Methods (Grinding) 295
8.6.4 Re-Melting Methods 297
8.6.5 Weld Residual Stress Improvement Methods (Peening) 297
8.6.6 Stop Holes and Crack-Deflecting Holes 298
8.6.7 Structural Modifications 300
8.6.8 Underwater Welding 301
8.6.9 Doubler Plates 305
8.6.10 Removal of Structural Elements 305
8.6.11 Bonded-Type Repairs 306
8.6.12 Structural Clamps and Sleeves 307
8.6.13 Grout Filling of Members 310
8.6.14 Grout Filling of Tubular Joints 312
8.6.15 Installation of New Structural Elements 312
8.6.16 Summary of Steel Repairs 313
8.7 Repair of Corrosion and Corrosion Protection Systems 316
8.7.2 Repair of Damaged Coatings 318
8.7.3 Replacement of Corroded Material 318
8.7.4 Repair or Replacement of the Corrosion Protection System 318
8.8 Repair of Mooring Systems 319
8.9 Repair of Concrete Structures 320
Contents xi

8.9.2 Choice of Repair Method 322
8.9.3 Concrete Material Replacement 323
8.9.4 Injection Methods 325
8.9.5 Repair of Reinforcement and Prestressing Tendons 326
8.9.6 Summary of Concrete Repairs 327
8.10 Overview of Other Mitigation Methods 328
References 329
9 Conclusions and Future Possibilities 337

9.1 Overview of the Book 337
9.2 Emerging Technologies 338
9.3 Final Thoughts 340
References 341
Index 342
xiii
Preface
All structures deteriorate and experience damage with time, particularly due to fatigue cracking, corro-
sion and damage from extreme and accidental events. This requires inspections, monitoring and appro-
priate repair of these structures to be performed to avoid an unsafe condition. Significant research and
development work have been undertaken related to typical damage types, inspection and monitoring
methods, evaluation of damage, and the need and methods for repair. This book aims at giving the
reader an overview of this research and development work in addition to providing current practice in
these areas, both to inform the reader about the existence of this work and to avoid unnecessary repeti-
tion of research and development.
Since early 1980 the first author of this book, John V. Sharp, has been active in the majority of these
research programmes through his role initially in managing the relevant UK Department of Energy
research work and later as Head of Offshore Research for the UK HSE. Since early 2000 the second author,
Gerhard Ersdal, has had similar roles in managing several research programmes funded by the Norwegian
Petroleum Safety Authority. Both authors have specific relevant expertise and have published a number
of papers on inspection and repair of offshore structures and both are now actively involved in these
areas at the universities of Cranfield and Stavanger, respectively, as Visiting (part-time) Professors.
The authors have had the benefit of working closely with John Wintle, Visiting Professor at the
University of Strathclyde and Consultant Engineer at TWI, in preparing this book and his contri-
butions have made significant improvements to the final text.
This book has mainly been written by using online web-conferencing and in its later stages this
has been forced upon us because of the Covid-19 lockdown in the UK, Norway and many other
parts of the world.
The opinions expressed in this book are those of the authors, and they should not be construed
as reflecting the views of the organisations the authors represent. Further, the text in this book
should not be viewed as recommended practice but rather as an overview of important issues that
are involved in the management of inspection and repair.
The authors would particularly like to thank Mostafa Atteya, Eirik Duesten and Rolf Hanson for
carefully reviewing the document and providing many valuable comments. We also want to thank
Mick Else and Fu Wu for their efforts in enabling copyrights for essential illustrations. Further, the
authors would like to thank Stinger (stinger.com), OceanTech (oceantech.com), BSEE, KBR Energo,
Fugro and Atkins (MSL) for allowing us to use their illustrations and Magnus Gabriel Ersdal for draft-
ing some of the figures and valuable input on artificial intelligence and machine learning. The authors
would also like to thank the helpful and patient staff at Wiley.
Microsoft Teams, East Hendred, Oxfordshire and Stavanger, July 2020
John V. Sharp
Gerhard Ersdal
xv
Definitions and abbreviations
Accidental limit state Check of the collapse of the structure due to the same reasons as described for the
(ALS) ultimate limit state but exposed to abnormal and accidental loading situations
Acoustic emission The production of sound waves by a material when it is subjected to stress
ACFM Alternating Current Frequency Modulated (type of inspection)
ACPD Alternating Current Potential Drop (type of inspection)
Admixture Material added during the mixing process of concrete in small quantities related
to the mass of cement to modify the properties of fresh or hardened concrete
Ageing Process in which integrity (i.e., safety) of a structure or component changes with
time or use
AIM project A project undertaken by the US Mineral Management Services (MMS) for
assessment, inspection and maintenance, providing guidance on managing the
integrity of existing fixed steel platforms in the Gulf of Mexico.
Anomaly In-service measurement (damage, deterioration, defect, degradation, etc.) that is
outside the threshold acceptable from the design or most recent fitness for service
assessment
As-built Documentations that includes as-built documentation collected during in-service
documentation
Asset integrity AIM is the means of ensuring that the people, systems, processes and resources
management (AIM) that deliver integrity are in place, in use and will perform when required over the
whole life cycle of the asset
Barrier A measure intended to either identify conditions that may lead to failure or
hazardous and accidental situations, prevent an actual sequence of events
occurring or developing, influence a sequence of events in a deliberate way, or
limit damage and/or loss
Bilge The area on the outer surface of a ship’s hull where the bottom shell plating meets
the side shell plating
Caisson Major part of fixed concrete offshore structure, providing buoyancy during
floating phases and the possibility of oil storage within the structure, also used for
pipework from topside to underwater typically water lift (intake of firewater,
cooling water, etc.) and outlet of wastewater
CFRP Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer
xvi Definitions and abbreviations
Clamp A fabricated steel construction encompassing an existing tubular member or a nodal

joint. A clamp consists of two or more parts that are bolted together. There are a number
of clamp variants depending on whether or not the clamp parts are compressed against
the existing member/joint and on whether there is a medium (grout or neoprene) placed
between the clamp steelwork and the member/joint. A clamp should not be confused
with a guide, which can appear to be superficially similar
Collapse Total loss of the load bearing capacity of the platform through failure of one or
more structural components
CP Cathodic Protection
Curing Action taken to maintain favourable moisture and temperature conditions of
freshly placed concrete or cementitious materials during a defined period of time
following placement
CVI Close visual inspection (type of inspection)
Defect An imperfection, fault or flaw in a component
Design service life Assumed period for which a structure is to be used for its intended purpose with
anticipated maintenance but without substantial repair from ageing processes
being necessary
DFI resume A document summarising key information concerned with the design, fabrication
and installation
Discontinuity A lack of continuity or cohesion; an intentional or unintentional interruption in
the physical structure or configuration of a material or component
Duty holder A UK term for the operator in the case of a fixed installation (including fixed
production and storage units) and for the owner in the case of a mobile
installation
DVI Detailed visual inspection (type of inspection)
EC, ET Eddy current testing (type of inspection)
Evaluation The process of evaluating whether identified changes, defects or anomalies need
repair, further inspection or a more detailed assessment
Fairlead A device to guide a mooring line and to stop it moving laterally before it enters the
vessel
False indication An indication that is interpreted to be caused by a discontinuity at a location
where no discontinuity exists
Fatigue limit state Check of the cumulative fatigue damage due to repeated loads or the fatigue crack
(FLS) growth capacity of the structure
Fatigue Utilisation FUI is the ratio between the effective operational time and the documented
Index (FUI) fatigue life
FCAW Acronym for Fluxed Cored Arc Welding
Fixed structure Structure that is bottom founded and transfers all actions on it to the sea floor
Flaw An imperfection or discontinuity that may be detectable by non-destructive
testing
FRP Fiber Reinforced Polymer
FSU Floating storage units
FSO Floating storage and offloading units
FPSO Floating production, storage and offloading units
Flooded member Inspection technique that relies on the detection of water penetrating a member
detection (FMD) by using radiographic or ultrasonic methods
GMAW Gas Metal Arc Welding
Definitions and abbreviations xvii
Gross errors Significant errors, mistakes and omissions in the form of anomaly or defects that
may lead to local or global failures
Grout A mixture of cementitious materials and water, with or without aggregate, to fill
cavities and components to form a solid mass when set
GTAW Gas Tungsten Arc Welding
GVI General visual inspection (type of inspection)
HAZ Heat affected zone related to welding
Hazard Situations with potential for human injury, damage to the environment, damage
to property, or a combination of these
High Strength Steels Steels with yield strengths in excess of 500 MPa
(HSS)
Hydrogen induced The process by which hydride-forming metals such as steel become brittle and
cracking (HIC) or fracture due to the introduction and subsequent diffusion of hydrogen into the
hydrogen induced metal
stress cracking
(HISC)
Inspection Scope of work for the offshore execution of the inspection activities to determine
programme the condition and configuration of the structure
Integrity The state of the structure, ideally being fit for service, and with an acceptable level
of safety against failure
Integrity Continuous process to manage all changes that will occur during operational life
management that may affect the integrity of structures and marine systems
Jack-ups Mobile offshore unit with a buoyant hull and legs that can be moved up and down
relative to the hull
JIP Joint Industry Project, usually in research and development
Kenter shackle A device for joining two chain links as a repair
KPI Key performance indicator, measurement of performance against targets
Life extension The use of structures beyond their originally defined design life
Limit state A state beyond which the structure no longer fulfils the relevant design criteria
Management of A recognised process that is required when significant changes are made to an
change (MoC) activity or process which can affect performance and risk
Marine fouling Seaweed, bacteria and other living organisms in the seawater typically adhering to
(growth) immersed surfaces such as offshore structures, which may build up to significant
thicknesses
Metocean Syllabic abbreviation of meteorology and (physical) oceanography
Microbiologically A form of degradation that can occur as a result of the metabolic activities of bacteria
induced cracking in the environment. The bacteria that cause MIC can accelerate the corrosion process
(MIC) because the conditions that apply already have elements of a corrosion cell
MIG Metal Inert Gas
Mitigation Limitation of negative consequence or reduction in likelihood of a hazardous
event or condition
MMA Manual Metal Arc
MPI Magnetic Particle Inspection (type of inspection)
Mudmat A structure used to prevent offshore structures from sinking into soft
unconsolidated soil on the seabed.
NDE Non-Destructive Examination
NDT Non-Destructive Testing
xviii Definitions and abbreviations
Node Joining point for brace members in a jacket-type structure

Non-redundant Structure that fails when the first primary structural member fails
OPB Out-of-Plane Bending
Partial safety factor (for materials) factor that takes into account unfavourable deviation of strength
from the characteristic value and inaccuracies in determining the actual strength
of the material
(for loads) factor that takes into account the possible deviation of the actual loads
from the characteristic value and inaccuracies in the load determination
Passive fire protection Coatings used on critical areas that could be affected by a jet fire. There are several
(PFP) different types, which include cementitious and epoxy intumescent based
Peening Process of working a metal’s surface to improve its material properties, usually by
mechanical means
Performance Statement of the performance required of a structure, system, equipment, person
standards or procedure and that is used as the basis for managing the hazard through the life
cycle of the platform
Pre-stressing tendons High strength tendons required to maintain the structural integrity of a concrete
structure, particularly in the towers (shafts). These tendons are placed in steel
ducts, which are grouted following tensioning
Primary structure All main structural components that provide the structure’s main strength and stiffness
Progressive collapse The sequence of component failures (from an initial local failure) that will
eventually lead to the collapse of an entire structure or large part of it
Push-over analysis Non-linear analysis for jacket structures used for determining the collapse /
ultimate capacity
PWHT Post Weld Heat Treatment
Redundancy The ability of a structure to find alternative load paths following failure of one or
more components, thus limiting the consequences of such failures
Reserve strength ratio The ratio between the design loading (usually 100-year loading) and the collapse /
(RSR) ultimate capacity
Residual strength Ultimate global strength of an offshore structure in a damaged condition
Return period An engineering simplification representing the probability (q) of an event by an
assumed average period between occurrences of an event or of a particular value
being exceeded. For q less than 0.1 this corresponds approximately to a return
period of 1/q years
Risk based inspection Inspection plans developed from an evaluation of the likelihood and
consequences of failure associated with a structure to develop the inspection
scope and frequency
Robustness Measure of the ability of the structure to be damage tolerant and to sustain
deviations from the assumptions to which the structure originally was designed
ROV Remotely Operated Vehicle
RT Radiographic testing (type of inspection)
Safety critical Systems and components (e.g., hardware, software, procedures) that are designed
elements (SCE) and to prevent, control, mitigate or respond to a major accident event (MAE) that
Safety and could lead to injury or death. This was further extended in the 2015 version of the
environmental critical UK safety case regulation to include environmental critical elements
elements (SECE)
SCF Stress Concentration Factor
Scour Erosion of the seabed around a fixed structure produced by waves, currents and ice
Secondary structure Structural components that, when removed, do not significantly alter the overall
strength and stiffness of the global structure
Definitions and abbreviations xix
Serviceability limit A check of functionalities related to normal use (such as deflections and
state (SLS) vibrations) in structures and structural components
Sleeve A sleeve is a concentric tubular surrounding a leg or brace member that is several
diameters long. The annular gap between the sleeve and member is normally
grouted. In the case of an existing member, the sleeve is necessarily split
longitudinally and the two halves are joined during installation using short bolts
SMR Strengthening, Modification and Repair
SMYS Specified Minimum Yield Stress
S-N curve A relationship between applied stress range (S) and the number of cycles (N) to
fatigue failure (regarding fatigue failure, see fatigue limit state)
Splash zone Part of a structure close to sea level that is intermittently exposed to air and
immersed in the sea
SSC Ship Structures Committee
SPT Sacrificial pre-treatment technique (used in adhesive repair)
Station keeping System capable of limiting the excursions of a floating structure within prescribed
system limits
Stress concentration Factor relating a nominal stress to the local structural stress at a detail
factor (SCF)
Structural integrity A state of being intact and fit for purpose, with an acceptable level of safety against
failure
Structural integrity Means of demonstrating that the people, systems, processes and resources that
management (SIM) deliver structural integrity are in place, in use and will perform when required of
the whole life cycle of the structure
Structural reliability Method used to analyse the probability of limit state failure of structures
analysis (SRA)
Stud (chain) Crossbar in the centre of a link of a chain, either welded or mechanically fixed
Studbolt A threaded rod, generally used in stressed clamps
Subsidence Settlement of the structure that results, primarily from extraction of reservoir
hydrocarbons
Surveillance All activities performed to gather information required to assure the structural
integrity, such as inspection of the condition and configuration, determining the
loads, records, and document review (such as standards and regulations)
Testing Testing or examination of a material or component in accordance with a
guideline, or a standard, or a specification or a procedure in order to detect, locate,
measure and evaluate flaws
TIG Tungsten Inert Gas
Topsides Structures and equipment placed on a supporting structure (fixed or floating) to
provide some or all of a platform’s functions
Ultrasonic testing A family of non-destructive testing techniques based on the propagation of
ultrasonic waves in the object or material being tested
Ultimate limit state A check of failure of the structure of one or more of its members due to fracture,
(ULS) rupture, instability, excessive inelastic deformation, etc.
Vibration monitoring Natural frequency monitoring to measure stiffness
Watertight integrity The capability of preventing the passage of water through the structure at a given
pressure head
Wave-in-deck Waves that impact the deck of a structure, which dramatically increase the wave
loading on the structure
1
Introduction to Underwater Inspection and Repair
The way you learn anything is that something fails, and you figure out how not to have it
fail again1.
—Robert S. Arrighi
Repair is an exacting, technical matter involving five basic steps: (1) finding the deterioration,
(2) determining the cause, (3) evaluating the strength of the existing structure, (4) evaluating
the need for repair and (5) selecting and implementing a repair procedure2.
—Sidney M. Johnson
Before anything else, preparation is the key to success3.

—Alexander Graham Bell
1.1 Background
Offshore structures for the production of oil and gas have a long history. The early offshore oil and
gas exploration started in the 1940s in the Gulf of Mexico (GoM) and the Caspian Sea4. This was fol-
lowed by the development of the North Sea and Brazil in the 1960s and later activities in the Persian
Gulf, Africa, Australia, Asia and other areas. More recently offshore structures for wind energy pro-
duction have been developed, initially in Denmark in the early 1990s followed by significant growth
in several European countries, particularly the UK.
1 Source: Robert S. Arrighi, “Pursuit of Power: NASA’s Propulsion Systems Laboratory No. 1 and 2”, 2020.
2 Source: Sidney M. Johnson, “Deterioration, Maintenance, and Repair of Structures Modern Structure Series”,
1965, McGraw-Hill.
3 Source: Alexander Graham Bell.
4 According to the 2020 web-version of the Guinness book of records, the earliest offshore platform was the Neft
Daslari in the Caspian Sea 55 km off the coast of Azerbaijan. Construction began in 1949 and it began oil
production in 1951. However, other sources report that production in the Gulf of Mexico began in 1946 by the
Magnolia Petroleum (now ExxonMobil) platform 18 miles off the Louisiana coast.
Underwater Inspection and Repair for Offshore Structures, First Edition.

John V. Sharp and Gerhard Ersdal.
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
2 Underwater Inspection and Repair for Offshore Structures
These offshore structures are continuously exposed to:

●● a sea-water environment, which can cause corrosion and erosion;
●● active and environmental loads, which may cause fatigue cracking and buckling; and
●● incidents and accidents causing physical damage such as dents and bows.
Damage of these kinds can cause loss of integrity of the structure and decrease the margin of
safety. In addition, many oil and gas structures and the earliest of the wind structures are now age-
ing and many have been through a life extension process. Nevertheless, there is a continuing
requirement to demonstrate that these installations remain safe for the personnel that oper-
ate them.
Unfortunately, there have been a number of accidents over the years with considerable loss of
life resulting from structural failures related to inadequate inspection or failure to mitigate anoma-
lies. A typical example is the semi-submersible Alexander L. Kielland accident in 1980 resulting in
the loss of 123 lives. The cause of the accident was the loss of a brace member from fatigue and
fracture leading to overturning and sinking. Fatigue failure initiated at a fabrication defect as a
result of a combination of poor welding and lack of in-service inspection, which led to a cata-
strophic failure.
Other accidents with serious loss of lives have occurred in which structural failure played
a part. In the shipping industry the MV Erika and MV Prestige accidents are examples of
structural failures in storms where anomalies in these vessels failed to be detected and miti-
gated. It is clear from these accidents that in-service inspection and repair of structures are
vital for the safety of structures. In addition, these are also normally required by regulators
and class societies (i.e. ship classification societies, also known as ship classification
organisations).
There are numerous incidences of damage and deterioration that had they not been detected
by inspection and subsequently repaired or remediated could have led to serious accidents and
loss of life. As later shown in this book these types of damage and deterioration include severe
corrosion, fatigue cracks, dents and bows from impact loads, and severed members that could
have resulted in more widespread structural failure and ultimate collapse of the structure.
While these instances are well known to the companies involved and the relevant regulators,
they are not necessarily well reported in the public domain. However, they show the impor-
tance and value of undertaking inspection and repair in a timely way for the prevention of
escalation and maintaining safety. In addition, many offshore structures are now in an ageing
phase where inspection and repair are likely to be more important. The authors believe that
this is an opportune time to review this previous work on inspection, evaluation, repair and
mitigation of such structures.
There are few books on underwater inspection and repair and those that exist are now
significantly out of date. However, a significant amount of previous work is available from
research and technology developments on the topic providing an extensive expertise
accumulated in inspection and repair of structures through many years of offshore
operational experience. Unfortunately, many of these reports are presently unavailable in the
public domain.
This book is intended to indicate the current practice in these fields for those involved in keeping
offshore structures safe, including practicing engineers involved in structural integrity manage-
ment and also for students in the field.
Introduction to Underwater Inspection and Repair 3
1.2 Why Do We Inspect and Repair Structures
Although we intend to design, fabricate and install structures for safe operation during their design
life, the environment, cyclic loading and accidental events will cause anomalies5, which if not
detected and repaired have the potential to cause failure of the structure. Ageing increases the
likelihood of such anomalies being present.
Figure 1 shows the drivers for why structures are inspected. These include factors such as the
balance between minimizing the life cycle cost and ensuring safe and functional structures (safe
operation) by means of inspection and repair. These two drivers will often be in conflict but will
also in some cases coincide as failures that lead to major repairs, loss of functionality or in the
worst case, collapse of structures will have a major impact on cost also. An optimal integrity man-
agement that ensures safe and functionality at a minimum cost is hence often an important goal
in planning inspection and repair of a structure.
Inspections and surveys also provide a means to determine the current condition of a structure
and if necessary, timely undertake appropriate and cost-effective mitigation and repair measures
to preserve the integrity of the structure. This will be discussed further in the book, especially in
Chapter 6 on long-term inspection planning. In addition, regulatory and code requirements need
to be met and these may define a minimum inspection level.
The diagram also illustrates the different changes and uncertainties in the current condition of
the structure that can be detected by different types of inspection and surveys. The primary goal is
to identify any changes, damage and anomalies to the structure but inspections that indicate that
no anomalies are present are also important. Such information is vital in reducing uncertainty
Minimize life Ensure safe

cycle cost operation
Detect degradation Regulatory

Why
early to enable and code
remedial action inspect? requirements
Identify changes and reduce

uncertainty regarding the
safety of the structure
Corrosive Variable and As-is condition

Accidental
environment and environmental (subsidence, tilt,
damages
fatigue cracking loading etc.)
Figure 1 The elements of why we inspect structures.
5 Anomalies are in this book used for any deviation in condition (degradation, deformations, defects, damage and
deterioration), configuration (change in layout, geometry and weight), design regime (new or updated
requirements or practices) and design actions (changes to, e.g., metocean data leading to, e.g., insufficient strength
and fatigue life) that may affect the integrity of the structure.
about the condition of a structure and, hence, providing the owner and the responsible engineer
with confidence in that the operations remain safe and assumptions are valid when no significant
or unexpected anomalies are detected.
The decision to undertake any form of repair or mitigation of an anomaly, detected by inspection,
needs to be based on a thorough evaluation and often a more detailed inspection of the anomaly
and its effect on the structural safety, based on established standards and knowledge. If repair or
mitigation is required, the necessary decisions need to be made on how this can be achieved effec-
tively. Failure to repair or mitigate critical anomalies could cause structural failure with the pos-
sibility of significant consequences. Thus, this emphasises the important role of inspection,
evaluation, mitigation and repair in maintaining a safe structure.
Structural failures have occurred offshore with significant loss of life. The first of these was the
Sea Gem incident in 1965 in UK waters with the loss of 13 lives. The resulting inquiry concluded
metal fatigue in part of the suspension system linking the hull to the legs was to blame for the col-
lapse. Fatigue cracking and lack of in-service inspection were significant in the Alexander
L. Kielland capsize in 1980 killing 123 people, as already mentioned.
Offshore structures in the Gulf of Mexico have also failed during hurricanes. For example,
Hurricane Andrew in 1992 caused significant damage to twenty-two of the offshore regions, with
older structures sustaining significant damage. Inspection was needed to determine the extent of
the damage and in many cases this information led to the need for repair in order to resume opera-
tion. Several examples of hurricane damage in the GoM are reviewed later in this book.
Other offshore accidents have also occurred. Not all of these failures were a result of an anomaly
that could be identified by inspection. Some were the results of under-design, underprediction of
loading, accidental damage and gross errors. Such failures typically initiate significant subsequent
research work providing a better understanding of the cause of failure and appropriate inspection
requirements. An example of such is the intensive work that was initiated on fatigue and crack
inspection after the Alexander L. Kielland accident.
The reasons for inspection and repair can change over the life of a structure. Ersdal et al. (2019)
review the statistics of failure for older offshore structures and show that these structures have a
significant failure rate, particularly for floating structures. Figure 2 shows the types of damage to
critical hull members; this includes cracking of the hull, corrosion, vibration and other types. This
figure also shows the trend for increasing damage with age. This is to be expected knowing that
these structures will degrade and accumulate damage, which requires regular inspection and often
subsequent repair and mitigation.
As shown in Figure 2, damage rate increases with age, which is also indicated in a traditional
bathtub curve as shown in Figure 3. In addition, structures are also known to experience some so-
called burn in failures at an early age. These two increases in failure rate are often reflected in a
typical bathtub curve as shown in Figure 3. The phases in the life of a structure related to the
bathtub curve can be described as:
●● an initial phase where anomalies arise from the design, fabrication and installation;
●● the maturity phase representing the useful operating life; and
●● the ageing and terminal phases representing the first and second part of the end of life.
It is important to recognise that frequency, purpose and method of inspection depend on the
phase in the bathtub curve (HSE 2006). In the initial phase, anomalies arising from gross errors in
the design, fabrication and installation should be detected by early inspections (baseline inspec-
tion). The purpose of these early inspections is to determine the existence of gross errors and to
Hull member -Total member

Number of Damages
Corrosion
Crack
Vibration
Other
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Age
Figure 2 Damage to hull structural members by different causes and ship age for all ship types. Sources:
Based on SSC (1992) “Marine Structural Integrity Programs (MSIP)”, Ship Structure Committee report no 365,
1992; SSC (2000). SSC-416 Risk-Based Life Cycle Management of Ship Structures, Ship Structure Committee
report no 416, 2000.
Baseline inspection Periodic inspection Special inspection

in initial stage to in maturity stage to required to determine
determine gross determine increasing # of defects
defects operational defects and rate of ageing
Failure rate
Time
Initial Maturity Ageing Terminal
Ageing mechanisms increasingly influence structure
Figure 3 Typical bathtub curve. It should be noted that ageing may set in earlier if the structure is not
managed properly. Source: Based on HSE (2006). Plant ageing—Management of equipment containing
hazardous fluids or pressure, HSE RR 509.
provide confidence about the state of the structure. Any anomalies detected are expected to be
rectified and the structure should at the end of this period “enter” the maturity phase.
In the maturity phase a lower failure rate is expected and the purpose of the inspection is to
confirm that changes to the structure’s condition, configuration and loading are in line with
expectation.
In addition, identification of unexpected and unforeseen anomalies and damage is needed, such
as unexpected early fatigue cracks and corrosion damage and unforeseen accidental damage and
load changes. Inspection in the maturity phase will often be periodic and can be calendar-based,
condition-based or risk-based. These strategies for inspection are discussed further in later
chapters.
In the ageing and terminal phases the failure rate is expected to increase, although this is seldom
recognised by structural integrity engineers. The purpose of inspection in these phases is to pro-
vide the basis for evaluation and the need for and prioritisation of repairs to ensure that the struc-
ture is still fit for purpose. Standards in some cases also require special inspections to be performed
in these phases. The frequency of inspection is expected to increase compared to that in the matu-
rity phase and even more so in the terminal phase.
1.3 Types of Offshore Structures
Inspection and repair depend on the type of structure and the material used. The types of plat-
forms primarily used in the offshore industry are fixed with some variation and floating platforms.
Examples of offshore structures are shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5.
Fixed platforms typically are of the type:
●● fixed steel structures (jacket structures), which are mostly pile supported or suction anchor
supported;
●● concrete gravity-based structures;
●● jack-ups; or
●● monopile.
Floating platforms are in general dependent on their watertight integrity and station keeping in
addition to their structural integrity to function. The most used types of floating structures in the
offshore industry include:
●● semi-submersible platforms (mostly in steel, but one in concrete exists);
●● tension leg platforms (mostly in steel, but one in concrete exists);
●● ship-shaped platforms and barge-shaped platforms (mostly in steel, but a few in concrete have
been made); and
●● spar platforms.
Structures must adhere to regional regulations (stationary structures) or to flag state regulations
in combination with class society rules (mobile units). So-called mobile offshore units (MOUs) are
typically at a location for a limited time and inspection and repair are often performed at a yard at
regular intervals. These yard periods allow for inspection and repair to be performed in controlled
circumstances, often in dry conditions or benign conditions. In comparison, inspection and repair
of stationary structures requires inspection and repair to be performed in an offshore environment
and often underwater by an ROV. Hence, inspection and repair are rather different for these two
types of structures, both with regards to the regulatory regime and the environment in which the
inspection and repair is performed.
1.3.1 Fixed Steel Structures

Fixed steel structures (jackets) consist of a steel spaceframe piled to the seabed (Figure 4 b), sup-
porting a deck with space for drilling rigs, production facilities and crew quarters. Fixed steel
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 4 Examples of types of offshore structures: (a) is a jack-up placed alongside a jacket structure, (b)
is a jacket structure, (c) is a concrete gravity-based structure and (d) is a semi-submersible unit. Source:
Sundar, V. (2015), Ocean Wave Mechanics: Application in Marine Structures, © 2015, John Wiley & Sons.
structures are also used as a substructure for wind turbines. Steel jackets are usually made of tubu-
lar steel members. A typical six-legged steel platform is shown in Figure 4 b. Historically, the piles
were driven directly through the legs and into the seabed. In more recent platforms the piles are
typically connected to the legs by pile sleeves where the annulus between the sleeve and the pile is
grouted. In a few cases, a specialized suction pile (bucket foundation) has been used, for example
the Norwegian platforms Draupner 16/11-E and Sleipner T. In addition to the basic structure there
are frames for the conductors, j-tubes, risers and caissons needed for production and operation.
J-tubes are typically used to enable small diameter flowlines, electrical cables or pipeline bundles to
be connected to the topside facilities. Steel structures are subject to ageing processes such as fatigue
and corrosion and hence life extension is a key issue with regard to the structure itself.
Grounded systems: Floating systems:
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g)
Water depth: < 30 m 30–60 m > 60 m
Figure 5 Various forms of wind turbine substructures: (a) suction pile caisson, (b) gravity-based concrete
foundation, (c) monopile, (d) tripod, (e) fixed steel structure (jacket), (f) tension leg platform, (g) spar buoy.
Source: Bhattacharya, S. (2019), Design of Foundations for Offshore Wind Turbines © 2019, John
Wiley & Sons.
Jack-ups (Figure 4 a) are self-elevating units with a buoyant hull and several legs which when on
location can be lowered to the seabed and raise the deck above the level of the sea thus creating a
more stable facility for drilling and/or production. During operation in an elevated situation, jack-
ups behave like a fixed platform. Jack-up rigs have been primarily used for exploratory drilling, but
there are a few instances where they have also been used for production.
Monopiles (Figure 5 c) support the deck on a single pile / tower. These types of structures are
particularly used for offshore wind energy production.
1.3.2 Floating Structures

Semi-submersible units (Figure 4 d) have hulls, together with columns and pontoons, with suffi-
cient buoyancy to enable the structure to float. Semi-submersible platforms change draft by means
of ballasting and de-ballasting (changing the water level in seawater tanks). They are normally
anchored to the seabed by mooring systems, usually a combination of chain and wire rope.
However, semi-submersibles can also be kept on station by dynamic positioning (DP), commonly
used for semi-submersibles as drilling units and flotels in deep water. The hull supports a deck on
which various facilities for drilling and production can be installed. Semi-submersible platforms
are also being used for wind energy production, such as on the Kincardine wind farm in Scotland.
A tension leg platform (TLP) is of similar form to the semi-submersible platform but is vertically
moored by tension legs, which decrease the vertical motion significantly. A TLP is designed with
excess buoyancy to ensure that the tension in the legs remains in all operational conditions.
A spar platform consists of a single moored large-diameter vertical cylinder that is supporting
the topside or a wind turbine. The cylinder is ballasted in the bottom (often by solid and heavy
material) to provide stability. Spar-type of structures are increasingly being used for floating wind
energy production.
A ship-shaped structure is a floating vessel similar in shape to a conventional ship, primarily
used by the production and processing of hydrocarbons. These are often called a floating storage
unit (FSU), a floating storage and offloading unit (FSO) or a floating production, storage and
offloading unit (FPSO). The steel hull typically consists of plates in a main deck, side shells,
turn-of-bilge and a bottom shell in addtion to tank tops and longitudinal bulkheads (wing tank
bulkhead and centreline bulkhead) and transverse bulkheads. These main platings together
form the ship beam. In most cases these plates are stiffened by girders and stiffeners. The plates
are exposed to the loading from hydrostatic and dynamic pressure, which is transferred to the
stiffeners and girder beams and into the structure. Ship-shaped structures are usually moored to
the seabed by chains or wire ropes, although they can also be held on station using a dynamic
positioning system. These mooring systems will require underwater inspection and possi-
bly repair.
Most of the details of floating structures can be inspected from the inside in near dry conditions
and are, as such, not a part of this book. However, underwater inspection and repair of the moor-
ing, anchors, outer skin, valves and attatchments are relevant and hence included in the book.
1.3.3 Concrete Platforms

Concrete is used in several different types of offshore structures, which include:
●● gravity-based structures, or GBS (for example, the Norwegian platforms Statfjord A-C and UK
platform Brent C);
●● tension leg platforms, or TLP (the Norwegian platform Heidrun);
●● spar platforms, particularly for wind energy production,
●● semi-submersible platforms (the Norwegian platform Troll B);
●● Jarlan walls enclosing concrete tanks (the UK platform Ninian and the Norwegian platform
Ekofisk Tank);
●● steel-concrete hybrid (the UK platform Ravenspurn); and
●● articulated tower (used as a loading column on Maureen).
The first concrete structure to be installed in the Norwegian sector was the Ekofisk tank in 1973
and the first to be installed on the UKCS was Beryl Alpha in 1975. At the time of writing, there are
22 concrete gravity-based platforms, together with one concrete tension leg platform (Heidrun),
one concrete semi-submersible platform (Troll B) and one concrete base for a steel upper section
(Harding).
Due to the dominance of GBS-type structures, this book will mainly focus on these, but some
aspects will apply for all types of concrete structures. The main parts of a concrete gravity-based
structure (GBS) are:
●● legs, towers and shafts;
●● storage cells (caissons);
●● steel-to-concrete transition;
●● shaft-to-base junction;
●● prestressing anchorages;
●● splash zone;
●● foundations; and
●● cathodic protection system.
Most concrete structures rest on the seabed on a large caisson often with skirts that pene-
trate the seabed protecting the structure against horizontal and overturning forces (Figure 4 c).
The size of the caisson and skirts depends on local soil conditions. The topside steel structure
is usually supported on up to four concrete columns/shafts extending from the caisson

through the sea surface. The caisson can be divided into cells, which may be used as compart-
ments for oil storage or as ballast. One or two of the columns are usually drill shafts support-
ing conductor frames and well-conductors. Some of the shafts, which may be water filled or
dry, are normally outfitted mechanically.
1.4 Overview of this Book
In this book the important issues discussed so far are addressed by the following topics as indicated
in Figure 6:
●● regulatory requirements for inspection and repair (Chapter 2);
●● where and when a structural inspection is needed (Chapter 6);
●● what tools and methods can be used to inspect structures and how inspection tools are deployed
(Chapter 4);
●● types of damage that are found on offshore structures (Chapter 3);
●● what tools and methods can be used to monitor structures (Chapter 5);
●● how is the information maintained about the design, fabrication and installation in addition to
the history of operation and inspection results (Chapter 6.1.5);
●● when is an anomaly in a structure acceptable and when is mitigation or repair needed
(Chapter 7); and
●● which repair schemes are appropriate and what is the strength and fatigue life of a repaired
component (Chapter 8).
In all these areas, the book aims to provide an overview of previous studies relevant to each topic
along with what is considered good practice.
Design
Safe
operation
Repair and Plan

mitigate inspection
Inspection
Evaluate
execution
Data
management
Figure 6 The management process for safe operation by inspection and mitigation.
An earlier book by Ersdal, Sharp and Stacey (Ersdal et al. 2019) addressed the topic of ageing
and life extension of offshore structures, which provides a useful addition to this book. The main
types of changes identified in this previous book are:
●● physical changes (ageing, degradation, loading, etc.);
●● technological changes (including compatibility and obsolescence);
●● changes to knowledge and safety requirements; and
●● structural information changes (e.g., accumulation of inspection data, loss of design data).
The focus of this book is on physical changes. However, the additional changes will also influ-
ence the safety of a structural system.
As already mentioned, there has been a significant amount of previous work, including research
on each of these key elements related to inspection, evaluation and repair for offshore structures,
which are in some cases unavailable to the public. These key reports have been reviewed by the
authors and presented in this book with the aim of providing the reader with an awareness of this
background, which is important in the context of structural integrity management.
It is important to recognize that choices made in the design will significantly influence inspec-
tion and repair of an offshore structure (the need for inspection and how it can be performed).
Such choices include:
●● the existence of any preinstalled monitoring systems;
●● access for inspection and repair;
●● cathodic protection system design and coatings;
●● material selection;
●● design margins, design fatigue life, robustness, redundancy; and
●● operational restrictions given by the design.
In addition, the book will discuss the competency requirements for inspectors, structural engineers
involved in integrity management and the organisational requirement for integrity management.
1.5 Bibliographic Notes
Section 1.3 is partly based on Ersdal, Sharp and Stacey (2019).
References
Bhattacharya, S. (2019), Design of Foundations for Offshore Wind Turbines, Wiley, 2019.
Ersdal, G., Sharp, J.V. and Stacey, A. (2019), Ageing and Life Extension of Offshore Structures: The
Challenge of Managing Structural Integrity, Wiley, 2019.
HSE (2006). “Plant Ageing—Management of Equipment Containing Hazardous Fluids or Pressure”,
HSE RR 509.
SSC (1992) “Marine Structural Integrity Programs (MSIP)”, Ship Structure Committee report no
365, 1992.
SSC (2000). “SSC-416 Risk-Based Life Cycle Management of Ship Structures”, Ship Structure
Committee report no 416, 2000.
Sundar, V. (2015), “Ocean Wave Mechanics: Application in Marine Structures”, John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd.
13
Statutory Requirements for Inspection and Repair

of Offshore Structures
It takes less time to do things right than to explain why you did it wrong1.
—Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
Integrity—the state of being whole and undivided, the condition of being unified or sound in
construction2.
—Oxford dictionary
2.1 Introduction
A number of different regulatory regimes exist for offshore installations for different parts of the
world. The regulatory regimes in USA, UK and Norway in many ways took the lead in the develop-
ment of these, although well-developed regulations can now be found in, for example Brazil,
Canada and Australia. ln the North Sea, the major change has been the development of risk-based
regulations, initially in Norway and since the mid-1990s in the UK. These regulations specify high-
level safety requirements (goals) to be achieved through the design, fabrication and operational
stages. These regulations are further supported by recognised standards. Some regulatory regimes
are more prescriptive with respect to the standards to be used.
Inspection and repair of offshore structures are often regulated as a part of the structural integ-
rity management (SIM) requirements. The purpose of SIM is to identify all types of changes rel-
evant to the safety of a structure in operation, to evaluate the impact of these changes and mitigate
(e.g. repair) the impact of these if found necessary. Such changes include anomalies detected
during inspections or condition monitoring, changes in loads and configuration and changes to
requirements from improved standards. Mitigation will typically be various forms of repair, load
reduction or operational restrictions.
A standard or recommended practice for integrity management should guide the responsible
party to manage all aspects of safety and functionality for the structure. This will typically be
achieved by a major hazard approach based on an established risk picture, describing what can
go wrong and how one can protect the structure if such failures should occur. Hence, the struc-
tural integrity management should be based on an understanding of the possible hazards to the
1 Source: Henry Wadsworth Longfellow.

2 Source: Oxford dictionary.

structure and marine systems (for floating structures) and the severity of the consequence of
these types of damage. A standard should further include good methods for planning the neces-
sary inspections and surveys to establish an understanding of any change or anomaly influenc-
ing the safety of the structure.
Ersdal, Sharp and Stacey (2019) stressed that changes to structures and marine systems may
be physical, technological, knowledge based, related to safety requirements in regulations or
standards and changes to information about the structure. Although all these changes can be
important, physical changes will often dominate the SIM work. The detection of these physical
changes results from rather costly offshore structural inspections, structural monitoring,
weight monitoring and metocean observations. The other types of change should not be over-
looked and these will often include document review, updated engineering methods and
standards and maintaining a proper database containing all necessary information about the
structure (see Section 6.1.5).
The general principles for the management of physical assets were introduced in PAS 55
(BSi 2008). Although this standard is not sufficiently detailed for structural integrity manage-
ment, its principles include keeping the asset (in this context structure and marine system)
unimpaired and in sound condition throughout the life cycle, whilst protecting health, safety
and the environment. This type of integrity management approach has been incorporated in
some of the latest structural integrity management standards and recommended practices such
as API RP-2FSIM (API 2019a), API RP2-MIM (ISO 2019b), ISO 19901-9 (ISO 2019a) and
NORSOK N-005 (Standard Norge 2017b), as discussed later in this chapter.
A major hazard approach is relevant to all types of structures, but for marine systems related to
floating structures, many of these hazards and controls relate to factors such as ballast controls and
weight distribution, which can change on a daily basis.
UK HSE commissioned Atkins to prepare a report providing an overview of the required struc-
tural integrity management for fixed offshore structures (HSE 2009). The aim of the programme
was to develop a comprehensive framework, as illustrated in Figure 7, for the structural integrity
management (SIM) of fixed jacket structures based on HSE’s technical policy in this area. The
framework was seen as a mechanism for communicating good industry practice and hence to
encourage continual improvement in performance. The inspection strategy and programme, infor-
mation management, evaluation and sub-sea intervention feature prominently.
In addition, the report provided guidance on how to implement the framework. The document
had been developed largely on the basis of existing standards and industry published documents
including ISO 19902 (ISO 2007), API RP-2SIM (API 2014b) and PAS 55-1 (BSI 2008).
2.2 Examples of Country Statutory Requirements
2.2.1 Introduction
The US took a lead in the development and regulation of the offshore industry, as the Gulf of
Mexico was well developed as early as the 1960s when the first edition of API RP-2A was issued.
When other countries were developing offshore structures there was a lack of appropriate local
design standards. As a result, API RP-2A became the default used as the basis for design of such
structures around the world. By the end of the 1970s, some local standards and codes were intro-
duced. The most notable of these were the issue of the UK Department of Energy Guidance
Notes and the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate Rules.
Statutory Requirements for Inspection and Repair of Offshore Structures 15
SIM policy
SIM strategy
Subsea Evaluation and Inspection

intervention assessment strategy
Information Inspection
management programme
Audit, review
and continual
improvement
Figure 7 Elements of Structural integrity management, based on HSE (2009). Source: Based on HSE (2009),
HSE RR684 - Structural integrity management framework for fixed jacket structures, Health and Safety
Executive (HSE), London, UK.
In addition, several ship classification societies became involved in the offshore industry and
released appropriate rules, some based on API RP-2A. These included American Bureau of
Shipping, Det Norske Veritas and Lloyds Register. Many mobile offshore structures have a class
certificate provided by one of these leading Classification Societies, where inspection has been an
important part of the class system and regulation, which has been developed over many years of
experience by owners, regulators and class societies.
2.2.2 Regulation in the US Offshore Industry

The oil and gas activities in the US are regulated by the governmental organisation Bureau of
Safety and Environmental Enforcement, BSEE (previously Mineral Management Service, MMS
and for a short period, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement,
BOEMRE). In general, these have relied heavily on recommended practices by the American
Petroleum Institute (API).
API issued in 1969 its first recommended practice of RP-2A for the design of offshore structures
(API 1969), with the first set of design procedures for the offshore industry. This recommended
practice has been continuously updated since with respect to wave criteria (e.g. moving from a
25-year criterion to a 100-year return period) and design formulae for tubular joints.
The 22nd edition of API RP-2A (API 2014a), issued in 2014, saw the introduction of a supple-
ment named API RP-2SIM (API 2014b) aimed at structural integrity management, which addressed
the ongoing integrity management of the structures, an increasingly important matter. In 2019 API
in addition published recommended practises on the integrity management of floating systems
API RP-2FSIM (API 2019a) and mooring systems API RP-2MIM (API 2019b).
2.2.3 Regulation in the UK Offshore Industry

From 1974 until June 1998, the UK certification regime required the issue of a certificate of fitness
every five years by legislation Sl 289, enacted in 1974 (Department of Energy 1974). This was the
basis for the regulation of the safety of offshore structures in the UK sector of the North Sea. It was
supported by published Guidance Notes, which included specific sections on design, construction,
surveys and repairs (Department of Energy 1990). Most of the structures in the North Sea were
designed, fabricated, installed and operated in this regime until 1996. The 4th edition of the
Guidance Notes had extensive sections on both surveys and repairs. These are reviewed later in
this book.
Following the Cullen report on the Piper Alpha disaster (Cullen 1990), a major change in the
regulatory regime affecting structural integrity and safety issues for offshore installations was
implemented in 1995 with the introduction of the Safety Case Regulations (HSE 2005) in 1995 and
the Design and Construction Regulations (DCR) in 1996 (HSE 1996). As a result, all installations
operating in the UK sector of the North Sea are now required to have an accepted safety case which
needs to demonstrate that all hazards with the potential to cause a major accident have been iden-
tified, that the risk has been evaluated and that measures have been or will be taken to reduce the
risk to a level that is as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP).
Hazards can arise for structures as a result of inadequate design, poor fabrication or potential
failure of materials (e.g. brittle fracture and fatigue) and hence good design and fabrication, as
well as effective materials selection, are part of the risk reduction process. ln addition, there is a
requirement for the provision of a safety management system which demonstrates that the key
factors for health and safety management—as identified in, for example, HSG65 (HSE 2013)—are
in place.
The DCR introduced the concept of lifetime integrity. An important requirement is to ensure
that as far as reasonably practicable, in the event of reasonably foreseeable damage, the installation
will retain sufficient integrity to enable action to be taken to safeguard the health and safety of
persons on or near it. The retention of residual integrity in the case of damage, such that evacua-
tion can proceed as required, is an important aspect of this. Certain elements in the structure are
safety critical and hence are deemed to be “safety critical elements” (SCEs) in the modified Safety
Case Regulations HSE (2005).
For North Sea structures on the UK continental shelf (UKCS), preparation of an inspection plan
is now a requirement of Regulation 8 of the DCR. This requires that the duty holder ensures that
suitable arrangements are in place for maintaining the integrity of the installation, through peri-
odic surveys and assessments and carrying out any remedial work in the event of damage or dete-
rioration. Previously, the guidance (Department of Energy 1990) provided recommendations for
the frequency of surveys during the five-year period of the certificate of fitness, including its
renewal, on the UKCS. This renewal period tended to determine the inspection schedule.
The Department of Energy Guidance (Department of Energy 1990) and also API RP-2A
(API 2014a) have been important sources of design information for a wide range of structural
components. From 1998, however, the Department of Energy Guidance is no longer being main-
tained by HSE and an ISO standard for offshore structures, ISO 19902 (ISO 2007), is now the rec-
ognised standard for the UK. The ISO standard includes a substantial new section on structural
integrity management and in-service inspection which provides an international framework for
this subject. The ISO procedure covers both in-service inspection and structural integrity manage-
ment, including collation of platform and inspection data and their evaluation to develop an
inspection plan.
2.2.4 Regulation in the Norwegian Offshore Industry

The petroleum activities on the Norwegian continental shelf are regulated by the Petroleum Safety
Authority, PSA (previously Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, NPD), in the Framework,
Management, Facility and Activities Regulations (PSA 2019). Very generic requirements are given
to structures in these regulations, mostly indicating the safety level that should be met (structures
should be able to withstand all loads at an annual probability of 10-4). The Activities Regulation
specifies that the use of structures shall be in accordance with requirements stipulated and any
additional limitations identified. Further, the Activities Regulation states that the structures should
be maintained so that they are capable of carrying out their required functions in all phases of their
life. Maintenance as a term in the PSA regulations includes activities such as monitoring, inspec-
tion, testing and repair.
In the guidance to the PSA facility regulation (PSA 2019) reference is made to NORSOK stand-
ards N-001 (Standard Norge 2012), N-003 (Standard Norge 2017a) and N-004 (Standard Norge 2013)
for how to fulfil design requirements for structures. Further, the PSA regulation refers to NORSOK
N-005 (Standard Norge 2017b) for requirements to in-service integrity management and NORSOK
N-006 (Standard Norge 2015) for assessment of existing structures.
NORSOK N-001 (Standard Norge 2012) specifies general principles and guidelines for safety of
structures. The standard is valid for all types of structures and covers the use of several types of
materials such as steel, concrete and aluminium. NORSOK N-001 (Standard Norge 2012) further
refers to the following accompanying standards in the NORSOK N-series of standards for spe-
cific topics:
●● NORSOK N-003 (Standard Norge 2017a) provides the principles and guidelines for calculating
loads and load effects;
●● NORSOK N-004 (Standard Norge 2013) presents methods for the design and strength evalua-
tions of steel structures;
●● NORSOK N-005 (Standard Norge 2019) presents requirements for integrity management and
in-service integrity management of structures during operation;
●● NORSOK N-006 (Standard Norge 2015) gives recommendations for assessing structures in oper-
ation, including recommendations for life extension.
2.3 Standards and Recommended Practices for Steel Structures
2.3.1 Introduction
The SIM process is often defined as; the collection of necessary information about the structure,
its condition, its loadings and its environment to enable sufficient understanding of the perfor-
mance of the structure to ensure that loading limits are not exceeded and that safe operation is
assured.
The most recent SIM standards are based on a major hazard approach to the integrity manage-
ment of structures and other assets, as exemplified in API RP 2FSIM (API 2019a), API RP 2MIM
(API 2019b), ISO 19902 (ISO 2007), ISO 19901-9 (ISO 2019a) and NORSOK N-005 (Standard
Norge 2017b), which are further discussed in this section. This approach is based on methodology
that seeks to understand the hazards to which the structure is exposed, the possible consequences
of these and how these should be mitigated. This includes ensuring that suitable safety measures
(often called barriers) to protect against the hazards turning into unfavourable consequences are
established and maintained throughout the life of the facility. A key element of the major hazard and
barrier management regimes is the prioritisation of activities, including inspection and repair for the
important safety systems and barriers. Several standards and reports have been published on the
principles of SIM, such as HSE RR684 (HSE 2009). These identify a number of key processes which
are considered good practice in SIM, together with an appropriate management scheme and
documentation.
Inspection is a key element of the surveillance activities and will include in-service inspection of
the structure to identify deterioration, degradation and damage. The process of identifying such
anomalies will often be the most extensive and costly part of the surveillance activity (both strategy
and programme).
Repair is the necessary mitigation activities in order to retain the safety of the structure if inspec-
tion has revealed anomalies of significant concern. The repair method of choice is typically based
on output from a structural evaluation or assessment.
Several standards have recently been developed to guide the operators of floating facilities in
their integrity management including inspection, such as ISO 19904-1 section 18 (ISO 2006) and
NORSOK N-005 appendices F, G, H and I (Standard Norge 2017b). Further, a document prepared
by Oil & Gas UK (O&GUK 2014) on the management of ageing and life extension for floating pro-
duction installations provides detailed information relevant for inspection of ageing floating instal-
lations. Inspection features as a key control measure in managing the ageing mechanisms such as
fatigue and corrosion, although little detail is given on the actual recommended inspection tools
and technique. The main topics in the Oil & Gas UK (O&GUK 2014) are the integrity management
and inspection of:
●● hull (structural and watertight integrity);
●● marine system, including ballast system, control system, cargo system, inert gas system and
marine utilities (pumps, generators, etc.);
●● station-keeping systems (mooring and DP).
NORSOK N-005 (Standard Norge 2017b) builds upon this Oil & Gas UK (O&GUK 2014) report,
breaks down the non-structural systems into a number of components and identifies whether
inspection based on class rules or based on generally accepted maintenance standards such as
NORSOK Z-008 (Standard Norge 2011) is appropriate.
Standards and recommended practices for SIM are given in API RP-2SIM (API 2014b), API
RP-2FSIM (API 2019a), API RP-2MIM (API 2019b), ISO 19902 (ISO 2007), ISO 19901-9 (ISO 2019a),
NORSOK N-005 (Standard Norge 2017b) and HSG65 (HSE 2013). These do to a large extent include
the SIM process described above.
2.3.2 API RP-2A and API RP-2SIM (Structural Integrity Management)

API RP-2A has since 1969 been providing guidance for offshore structure, including surveys
(inspections) during operation. The required surveys range from a minimal annual inspection
(level I) to more extensive inspections at longer intervals (levels II–IV), depending on manning
levels and exposure (API 1993). This approach has since been taken up by other standards. A brief
overview of the required surveys required for manned and unmanned platforms is shown in
Table 1.
API RP-2SIM (API 2014b) was developed from the API RP-2A (API 2000), ISO 19902 (ISO 2007)
and industry best practices. The aim was to provide a stand-alone recommended practice (RP) for
structural integrity that clarified the link between platform data, risk categorisation, fitness-for-
purpose (FFP) assessment and inspection. The risk categorisation depends on the likelihood of
Table 1 Inspection Intervals According to API RP-2A (API 1993).
Interval years for Interval years for

manned platforms unmanned platforms
Level I inspection Annual Annual

●● Effectiveness of CP system
●● Above water visual survey
In the event of suspected underwater damage,

a level 2 survey was stated to be required.
Level II inspection 3–5 years 5–10 years
●● General underwater visual survey
●● Damage survey
●● Debris survey
●● Marine growth survey
●● Scour survey
●● Anode survey
●● Cathodic potential
The detection of significant structural damage is

stated to be the basis for a level 3 survey.
Level III inspection 6–10 years 11–15 years
●● Visual inspection of preselected areas or areas
with known or suspected damage
●● Cleaning of marine growth
The detection of significant structural damage is

stated to require a level 4 survey
Level IV inspection Dependant on outcome Dependant on outcome
●● Underwater NDT of preselected areas or areas of level III inspection of level III inspection
with known or suspected damage
●● Detailed inspection and measurement of
damaged area
failure and the consequences from failure, in terms of manning level and environmental exposure.
The risk categories are expressed as L-1 to L-3, with L-1 being the higher risk platforms (typically
manned or high environmental consequence).
The RP builds upon the required survey intervals as shown in Table 1 and includes a simplified
risk-based methodology for inspection planning. Further, the RP details engineering practices for
the evaluation, assessment and inspection of existing fixed offshore structures to demonstrate their
fitness-for-purpose.
The RP describes the recommended SIM process, with details of each aspect of the process, as
shown in Figure 8. As can be seen, the damage evaluation, assessment process, risk reduction (e.g.
repair), the inspection plan and scope are of particular relevance to this book.
The RP requires a baseline underwater inspection to be undertaken to determine the as-installed
platform condition. The baseline underwater inspection should include a visual survey of the platform
for structural damage and the presence and condition of anodes and installed appurtenances. Further,
the RP requires routine underwater inspections to be conducted to provide the information necessary
to evaluate the condition of the platform and appurtenances. A plan for these routine inspections,
depending on the risk evaluation, is provided in API RP-2SIM (API 2014b) giving the intervals and
scope for the inspections, the tools and techniques to be used and the methods of deployment.
Data Platform data
Evaluation Risk categorization
Damage evaluation
Assessment process
Fitness-for-purpose assessment
Risk reduction
Strategy Inspection plan
Inspection scope
Risk reduction
Decommissioning
Program Data collection
Risk reduction
Figure 8 Main SIM process of API RP 2SIM (API 2014b) and follow-on steps. Source: Modified from API
(2014b), API RP-2SIM Recommended Practice for Structural Integrity Management of Fixed Offshore
Structures, American Petroleum Institute, 2014.
A simplified risk-based approach to inspection was introduced in API RP 2SIM (API 2014b).
Intervals for level II inspection were stated depending on risk levels (manning level and likelihood
of failure). The risk-based inspection programme should also specify if level III or level IV inspec-
tions are required. Damage or deterioration found during a level II inspection may trigger a level
III or level IV inspection. This risk-based approach is used to redefine the inspection intervals as
shown in Table 1, allowing for longer intervals for low likelihood of failure L-1 platforms but also
requiring shorter intervals for high likelihood of failure L-2 platforms. The setting of inspection
intervals for level II inspections greater than 10 years for L-1 platforms requires the operator to
demonstrate a number of factors, including that the platform is unmanned and that the annual
level I CP readings are performed and are acceptable.
API RP-2SIM (API 2014b) states that flooded member detection (FMD) can provide an accepta-
ble alternative to close visual inspection of preselected areas in a level III survey. Engineering judg-
ment should be used to determine the optimum use of FMD and close visual inspection of joints.
Close visual inspection of pre-selected locations for corrosion monitoring should be included as
part of the level III survey.
Inspection tools and techniques are covered in general terms in API RP-2SIM (API 2014b),
including details of the standard methods as covered in Chapter 4 of this book. Evaluation of dam-
aged components and repair is addressed in the recommended practice in line with Chapters 7and
8 of this book. The standard also addresses the structural assessment process, outlining a series of
approaches. Four different levels of assessment are developed, which include:
●● simple methods, e.g. comparison with a similar platform;
●● design methods, e.g. linear (elastic) methods to check the platform member-by member, similar
to the approach used for the design of new platforms;
●● ultimate strength method, e.g. using a non-linear or equivalent linear method to determine plat-
form performance on a global basis;
●● alternative methods, e.g. using historical performance of the platform or explicit probabilities of
survival of the platform for the assessment.
Personnel qualifications are listed for personnel responsible for conducting the evaluation and
developing the inspection strategy, as further discussed in Section 4.4.5.
2.3.3 API RP-2FSIM (Floating Systems Integrity Management)

API RP-2FSIM (API 2019a) is a Recommended Practice (RP) intended to be used by owners and
engineers in the development, implementation and delivery of a process to maintain system integ-
rity of floating production systems (FPSs), which includes tension leg platforms (TLPs). The speci-
fications, procedures and guidance provided within the RP are based on internationally recognized
industry standards and on global industry best practices. This RP does not cover moorings, which
are separately covered by API RP-2MIM (API 2019b).
API RP-2FSIM (API 2019a) states that an inspection plan should define the scope and frequency
of inspection, the tools and techniques to be used and the deployment methods. This plan should
be developed for the FPS structural and system components. The main objectives of the inspection
plan are to identify areas of corrosion, coating deterioration, damage due to overloading, impact or
abrasion, as well as areas affected by marine growth and debris. The plan should also measure or
confirm the CP potentials, sensors and alarms, marine system functions and mooring equipment
functions. The inspection plan should consist of a set of scheduled work scopes to be performed
over the service life of the FPS. In addition, unscheduled surveys should follow an unexpected
event such as exposure to a near-level design event (e.g. hurricane).
API RP-2FSIM (API 2019a) states that underwater surveys should be performed on the sub-
merged areas of the hull and this should include external marine system components and the
mooring system hull attachments. These surveys should also confirm that the corrosion protection
system of the external hull is functioning adequately. It is recommended that external hull surveys
can be performed on a continuous cycle where a specified percentage of the hull is inspected over
a period and at the end of the period all of the hull is covered. A default inspection program for the
hull structure is included with calendar-based intervals and the extent of structure to be inspected
by different inspection methods (GVI, CVI, ultrasonic testing and weld inspection).
Monitoring of the structure and marine systems are recommended in API RP-2FSIM (API 2019a)
in addition to inspection. Typical monitoring methods for floating structures are further discussed
in Chapter 5.
API RP-2FSIM (API 2019a) describes an assessment process and acceptance criteria, similar to
other relevant API RPs, including the assessment of fatigue damage. The fatigue assessment should
assess the fatigue loading behaviour and analyse the remaining fatigue life of critical locations such
as welded joints and details in highly stressed areas. If the predicted fatigue life exceeds allowable
levels, API RP-2FSIM (API 2019a) states that improvement options may be considered, including
local structural modifications, increased inspection frequency, change of loading conditions and
using improved inspection techniques.
Methods for the repair of damage and modifications are described in API RP-2FSIM (API 2019a),
including completely renewing a locally damaged area by means of a structural repair. This may
involve the addition of a new structure (e.g. stiffening to reinstate the capacity in a damaged area).
Modification of the structural details may be used to minimise the potential for future damage,
particularly fatigue (e.g. by grinding).
2.3.4 ISO 19902

The development of the international standard ISO 19902 (ISO 2007), concerned with fixed off-
shore structures began in 1993, including a section on structural integrity management in the early
drafts. This standard was first issued formally in 2007, but the early drafts were used as the basis
for structural integrity management in the period from 1993 to 2007. In 2019 the SIM part of this
standard was transferred to a new ISO standard, ISO 19901-9 (ISO 2019a), which focused on struc-
tural integrity management and assessment of existing structures.
The ISO 19902 (ISO 2007) took into account all the issues and methods that had been used to
inspect, monitor, evaluate and assess fixed offshore steel structures over the previous years. ISO
19902 (ISO 2007) described four different types of inspection of the structure as shown below:
●● baseline: inspection soon after installation and commissioning to detect any defects arising from
fabrication or damage during installation;
●● periodic: inspection to detect deterioration or damage over time and discover any unknown
defects;
●● special: inspection required after repairs or to monitor known defects, damage or scour;
●● unscheduled: inspection undertaken after a major environmental event such as a severe storm,
hurricane, earthquake or after an accidental event such as a vessel impact or dropped objects.
ISO 19902 (ISO 2007) stated that “the purpose of in-service structural inspection is to determine,
with a reasonable level of confidence, the existence and extent of deterioration, defects, or damage.
Data collected during an inspection are needed to verify the integrity of the structure”.
ISO 19902 (ISO 2007) described the process of managing the integrity of structures with four
major elements as shown in Figure 9, where inspection is the key element of both the long-term
surveillance plan and particularly the surveillance execution. The remaining two processes
include the storage of inspection data and the evaluation of possible anomalies found during
inspection.
Assessment was introduced in ISO 19902 (ISO 2007) as an option following engineering evalua-
tion if anomalies identified during inspection require a more detailed analysis.
A possible outcome of the evaluation or the assessment is the implementation of prevention
measures which include structural strengthening and reduction of loads on the structure or
Long-term
Engineering Surveillance
Data surveillance
evaluation execution
plan
Managed system for Evaluation of Overall surveillance Detailed work scope

archival and retrieval structural integrity strategy and criteria for surveillance
of surveillance data and fitness for for in-service activities and
purpose and surveillance execution
development of
remedial actions
Figure 9 Structural integrity management cycle (surveillance includes inspection of the condition,
determination of loading, review of documents, etc., needed to determine changes that may affect the
safety of the structure). Source: Based on ISO (2007), ISO 19902:2007 Petroleum and natural gas
industries—Fixed steel offshore structures, International Standardization Organization.
mitigation actions; these might include measures such as operational restrictions and possible
de-manning.
2.3.5 ISO 19901-9

This relatively new standard (at the time of writing) focusses on structural integrity management
(ISO 2019a) based on other standards such as ISO 19002 (ISO 2007) and NORSOK N-005 (Standard
Norge 2017b) and N-006 (Standard Norge 2015). It includes a section on developing an inspection
strategy (plan) to be prepared from the engineering evaluation which should determine the likely
existence and extent of any deterioration and damage. The inspection strategy should periodically
be reviewed and updated throughout the service life based on new data and information being
received from, for example inspection reports and structural evaluation and assessments. The
types of inspection proposed follow that in other standards (e.g. API RP-2A) with both scheduled
and unscheduled inspections. The scope of work should include standard inspection methods
such as GVI, CVI, FMD and NDE. Selection of appropriate inspection methods should be deter-
mined by qualified personnel based on knowledge and availability of the different methods.
Inspection intervals for periodic inspections are selected according to the structural integrity strat-
egy using a risk-based approach. However, if an operator does not want to use a risk-based
approach, an alternative is a consequence-based method developed from world-wide experience
which provides pre-determined inspection intervals.
The ISO standard also addresses inspection methods and identifies specific areas for inspection,
including underwater cathodic protection, coatings and air gap. The survey should include dimen-
sional measurements to measure such quantities as damage size and geometry, member out-of-
straightness, crack length and depth and depth of corrosion. Focussed inspection is proposed for
several failure modes and degradation mechanisms such as impact damage from ships, debris and
dropped objects, fatigue failure and damage to protective devices such as riser guards. The stand-
ard notes that structures are usually designed with a corrosion allowance in the splash zone, which
should be monitored.
At the time of writing, this standard is in the process of being updated as a result of concerns
expressed about its approach, particularly on the assessment part of the standard. In addition,
structural integrity management is a rapidly evolving field given the pressures of the extending life
of many platforms and the subsequent cost of inspection and repair.
2.3.6 NORSOK N-005

NORSOK N-005 (Standard Norge 2017b) was published in an updated version in 2017 and incor-
porated a major hazard-based approach to the integrity management of structures. This approach
is also implemented in other newer standards for structural integrity management such as ISO
19901-9 (ISO 2019a). The approach is based on risk analysis methodology, understanding the haz-
ards the structure is exposed to and minimising the likelihood of these hazards and possible unfa-
vourable consequences occurring. In major hazard management this will typically include
implementation of suitable safety measures (often called barriers or safety critical elements) and
are established and maintained throughout the life of the facility. This current approach to SIM is
based on the Norwegian and UK Major Hazard regulatory regimes.
As-is surveillance as described in this standard includes activities to determine anomalies
and changes of all types relevant for the safety of the structure. The most important of these
surveillance activities is the inspection of the structure’s condition and the determination of
Integrity management policy

Overall intention and direction and including
QA, independent verification
Regulations and standards Major hazard management

Hazid and barrier management
Integrity management strategy
Overall plan for SIM, performance and
acceptance criteria, operational limitations and
emergency preparedness
Operate in accordance with performance requirements and operational limitations
As-is surveillance
Long-term
Surveillance SIM Data Engineering Integrity Surveillance Surveillance
surveillance
reporting management Evaluation assured? planning execution
programme
Integrity Emergency
assessment response
Mitigating
measures
including repair
Figure 10 An example of a typical SIM process based on a major hazard approach.
loadings. The in-service inspection process described in this standard is very similar to the
process described in Figure 10.
2.4 Standards and Recommended Practices for Mooring Systems
2.4.1 Introduction
Several recommended practices and standards address inspection and integrity management of
mooring systems. API RP-2I (API 2008) and API RP-2SK (API 2005) have developed over many
years and have been the industrial standards over this period. Recently, API issued a separate rec-
ommended practice (RP) for integrity management of mooring systems, API RP-2MIM (API 2019b),
which extends the guidance from these earlier RPs. NORSOK N-005 (Standard Norge 2017b) and
ISO 19901-7 (ISO 2013) also address inspection of mooring systems.
Inspection intervals for chain mooring systems for floating structures are recommended in, for
example API RP-2I (API 2008) and NORSOK N-005 (Standard Norge 2017b). The maximum inter-
val between major inspections is linked to the age of the chain in years. For relatively new chains
(i.e. 0–3 years) the recommended interval is 3 years; for slightly older chains (4–10 years) it is 2
years and for chains older than 10 years the interval is reduced to only 8 months. This short inter-
val is very demanding and costly and hence chains are normally replaced before they reach the
10-year criterion. Inspection of mooring systems can be undertaken visually by an ROV, but this
has significant limitations. A more detailed inspection, e.g. by MPI, requires removal of the moor-
ing and dockside inspection with significant cost and operational implications. More details of
mooring line inspection are given in Section 4.9.
ISO 19901-7 (ISO 2013) is accepted as the recommended code for offshore moorings in many
parts of the world. HSE (HSE 2019) states that the following aspects of Annex B.2 of ISO 19901-7
(ISO 2013) are considered important by HSE and should be met where this is reasonably practicable:
●● increased wear and corrosion allowances in splash zone for permanent moorings;
●● assessment of a simultaneous double failure (two-line failure) for permanent moorings; and
●● increased safety factors which take account of the operational state of the installation when con-
nected to risers or when in proximity to other structures.
The Norwegian Maritime Directorate (NMD) has issued local regulations, including the
Anchoring Regulations (NMD 2009), concerning positioning and anchoring systems on mobile
offshore units. The 2013 version of Annex B.2 of the ISO 19901-7 (ISO 2013) has been updated to
reflect in part the NMD regulation (2009). A Canadian section is included in Annex B, which states
the same technical requirements as for Norway.
The following codes and standards are now widely accepted in the offshore industry:
●● API RP RP-2SK (API 2005);
●● DNVGL-OS-E301, which superseded POSMOOR ’96 (DNVGL 2018);
●● Lloyds Register Rules for Classification Floating Units at Fixed location – Part 3 (Lloyds
Register 2019).
2.4.2 API RP-2MIM (Mooring Integrity Management)

API RP-2MIM (API 2019b) is a recommended practice (RP) providing guidance for the integrity
management of mooring systems connected to permanent floating production systems (FPS). The
scope covers the system from the anchor to the connection to the floating unit. The guidance pro-
vided covers inspection, monitoring, evaluation of damage, fitness-for-service assessment and
mitigation planning. This RP includes guidance from API RP-2I (API 2008) and API RP-2SK
(API 2005) and expands on both of these. The RP allows risk-based principles to be used to develop
an appropriate strategy, with higher risk moorings requiring more frequent inspections than lower
risk moorings.
The integrity management plan defines two approaches, which are prescriptive and risk based.
For the prescriptive method the operator is referred to the requirements specified in API RP-2I
(API 2008) or API RP-2SK (API 2005). A risk-based approach should be developed in terms of the
potential risk of damage to the component being inspected. The inspection plan outlines the
frequency and scope of the inspections, the tools to be used and how these will be deployed.
Inspection techniques are listed in an annexe to the RP and include a comprehensive set covering
all aspects of the mooring system, including the anchor, CP system, chain, coatings. The tech-
niques listed include GVI, CVI, high resolution 3D photography, physical measurements and the
use of an inclinometer.
API RP-2MIM (API 2019b) recommends monitoring of the mooring system to continouosly
verify its condition and performance. This may include direct measurements of the mooring
response (e.g. line tension, strains) or measures than can indirectly predict mooring response such
as vessel offset. Data from a position-monitoring system can be used to ascertain that the mooring
system is meeting design requirements. Environmental monitoring may also be used to provide
metocean data to support the position monitoring. Monitoring for individual line performance is
also useful to detect a line failure or loss of tension in the mooring system.
API RP-2MIM (API 2019b) recommends determining assessment initiators, based on a change of
condition outside the limits of the original design basis or from a recent in-service assessment.
Possible assessment initiators could result from, for example, damage, changes in station-keeping
performance and stability. To demonstrate an acceptable risk level for the mooring system, the likeli-
hood of failure can be estimated by the use of a suitable risk assessment method for several different
cases. These range from as-originally-designed to the as-is-condition using current design criteria.
For the risk acceptance criteria, pre-requisites are listed including defining mooring system failures
and acceptable risk levels and demonstrating acceptable levels for the as-is or planned configurations
using the results from the previous analyses. If a mooring system does not pass the fitness for service
criterion, risk reduction measures that reduce risk to an acceptable level are required. These meas-
ures can include changed operational procedures and modifications to the system. In addition, modi-
fications to inspection and monitoring programs can be implemented to identify any further
deterioration and reducing the likelihood of any undesired consequences.
Unlike other integrity management standards, API RP-2MIM (API 2019b) addresses emergency
response planning based on unexpected failures of a mooring system. Single line failure can esca-
late to multiple line failure quickly, requiring a range of options to be considered to develop a
response plan. API RP-2MIM (API 2019b) recommends that at least a short-term emergency
response plan should be in place before operations commence. In addition, there is a requirement
for an immediate operational response plan. This immediate response plan needs to provide opera-
tors with a set of operating procedures that address a range of reasonably foreseeable situations
that could occur both under normal and severe weather conditions. Actions arising from the plan
could include ceasing production or limiting operations with defined limits.
API RP-2MIM (API 2019b) recommends that a conservative approach is adopted until the nature
of the failure is understood and any escalation ruled out. Inspections can be undertaken to provide
information of the degradation mechanism to be identified. This then allows an assessment to be
made of the potential for multiple degradation mechanisms to exist, which would affect the emer-
gency response planning.
The short-term plan should include procedures to address situations of substantial or imminent
loss in mooring capacity, requiring emergency repairs to be made to the degraded mooring system
sufficient to create the necessary time for a more permanent repair.
The medium-term emergency response could entail a complete repair of the mooring system,
eliminating the recorded degradation mechanism. It is recognised that there may be an inter-
vening period between the inspection finding and the short-term repair response during which
the mooring system could operate in a degraded state, where accepted procedures for stopping
operations and production shutdowns depending on the observed degree of degradation
are needed.
Overall, API RP-2MIM (API 2019b) is a comprehensive document relating to the integrity man-
agement of mooring systems and the only (to the knowledge of the authors) integrity management
standard that includes a proper guidance for incident response planning and execution.
2.4.3 IACS Guideline for Survey of Offshore Moorings

A set of guidance for surveys of the moorings of floating units has been produced by IACS (2010).
It states the minimal requirements for an annual survey, the scope of which are mooring compo-
nents adjacent to the winch or windlass. It should be conducted with the vessel at operational draft
with the position mooring system in use. This is to be supplemented by a more extensive survey if
typical damage is present such as:
●● chain: reduction in diameter exceeding 4%, missing studs, loose studs in grade 4 chain;
●● wire rope: obvious flattening or reduction in area, worn cable lifters causing damage to the rope,
severe wear or corrosion, broken wires.
Special periodical surveys are also required at approximately 5-year intervals. These special sur-
veys are quite demanding and should include the following:
●● close visual examination of all chain links, with cleaning if required;
●● enhanced NDE sampling of:
–– 5% of the chain
–– 20% of chain which has been in the proximity of fairleads in the last 5 years
–– all connecting links
●● dimensional checks, including lengths over five links;
●● checking looseness and pin-securing arrangements of joining shackles;
●● measurement of thickness (diameter) of approximately 1% of all chain links distributed through
the working length of the chain; and
●● dismantling and MPI of all Kenter-type shackles which have been in service for more than 4 years.
2.5 Standards and Guidance Notes for Concrete Structures
2.5.1 Introduction
The international recognised standard for designing, fabricating and maintaining offshore concrete
structures is the ISO 19903 (ISO 2019b), originally introduced in 2006 and updated in 2019. The ISO
standard was based on the Norwegian standard NS 3473 with input from other relevant standards.
Previously, the Department of Energy introduced a set of Guidance Notes for offshore concrete
structures in 1974 which was significantly updated in the fourth edition, published in 1990
(Department of Energy 1990) and supported by a background document on concrete (HSE 1997).
The emphasis of these documents, however, was on design and construction of offshore concrete
structures with limited sections dealing with inspection and repair. In addition, the Norwegian
standard NORSOK N-005 (Standard Norge 2017b) has some international status. NORSOK
N-005 includes a special annexe covering inspection of concrete structures. The relevant sections of
ISO 19903, the Department of Energy Guidance Notes and NORSOK N-005 are discussed below.
2.5.2 ISO 19903—Concrete Structures

ISO 19903 (ISO 2019b) includes an inspection programme for concrete structures similar to that in,
for example, ISO 19902 for steel structures, requiring an initial (baseline), periodic and special
inspection to be performed. The initial inspection is required as soon as possible after installation
to verify the original design and that all the major parts of the installed structure have no obvious
defects. Following this initial inspection, inspection and condition monitoring of the structure
shall be carried out regularly in accordance with the established programme. Special inspections
should be conducted after direct exposure to an accidental or design environmental event (wave,
earthquake, etc.). These inspections should encompass the critical areas of the structure. However,
following an accidental event such as a boat collision and a dropped object, the inspection may, in
certain circumstances, be limited to the local area of damage. In addition, the standard requires
that measures should be taken to maintain the structural integrity appropriate to the circumstances
in an event such as change of use, life extension, major modifications and when inspection has
revealed damage or deterioration.
Similar to the standards already discussed for steel structures, assessment of the condition of the
structure should be carried out following the inspection activities. This assessment should include
a summary evaluation being prepared at the end of each programme for inspection. It is also stated
that the data gathered from each periodic inspection should be compared to data gathered from
previous inspections, with the purpose of establishing any data trends that can indicate time-
dependent deterioration processes.
The typical inspection methods used for a concrete structure include:
●● GVI to detect obvious or extensive damage such as impact damage, wide cracks, settlements and
tilting. Prior cleaning of the inspection item is not needed for this type of inspection.
●● CVI to detect less extensive damage. CVI requires direct access to the inspected area and prior
cleaning of the item to be inspected is normally needed.
●● Non-destructive testing involves close inspection by electrical, electrochemical or other methods
to detect hidden damage such as delamination. Prior cleaning of the inspection item is normally
required.
●● Destructive testing such as core drilling which is used to detect hidden damage or to assess the
mechanical strength or parameters influencing concrete durability.
In the standard, structural monitoring methods are proposed to be used in areas with limited
accessibility or for monitoring of, for example, action effects and corrosion development. The sen-
sors needed for this monitoring, such as strain gauges, pressure sensors, accelerometers, corrosion
probes should preferably have been fitted during construction.
The structure may also have been instrumented in order to record data relevant to pore pressure,
earth pressure, settlements, subsidence, dynamic motions, strain, inclination and possibly tem-
perature in oil storage. These monitoring systems are required by the standard to be tested and
inspected regularly.
Required locations for inspection on a concrete structure include a survey of the atmospheric
zone, the splash and the tidal zones and the important areas of immersed concrete. It is generally
recognised that the splash zone is most vulnerable to corrosion. To determine the extent and fre-
quency of inspection for different structural parts it is recommended that the exposure or vulner-
ability to damage is considered. ISO 19903 (ISO 2019b) states that the inspection of the internal
parts of the structure (e.g. inside the legs) should focus on:
●● detecting any leakage;

●● biological activity;
●● temperature, composition of sea water and pH values in connection with oil storage;
●● detecting any corrosion of reinforcement; and
●● concrete cracking.
Special areas for inspection:
●● Splash zone; it can experience damage from impact of supply vessels and is also sensitive to cor-
rosion of the reinforcement. It can also deteriorate from ice formation with ensuing spalling in
surface cavities where concrete has been poorly compacted. Ice abrasion and freeze-thaw cycling
can also lead to early deterioration even with high quality concrete. This deterioration can lead
to subsequent loss of cover over the reinforcement steel leading to potential steel corrosion. ISO
19903 (ISO 2019b) recommends that repairs to these damaged surfaces should be made as soon
as possible to prevent further deterioration and structural overload.
●● Construction joints in the concrete structure; these represent potential structural discontinuities
where water leakage and corrosion of reinforcement are possible negative effects. As a mini-
mum, the monitoring programme should identify construction joints located in high stress areas
and monitor the performance with respect to evidence of leakage, corrosion staining or local
spalling at joint faces (which indicates relative movement at the joint). In addition, evidence of
poorly placed and compacted concrete, such as aggregate pockets and delaminations and joint
cracking or separation, are areas for investigation.
●● Embedment plates; these may create a path for galvanic corrosion to the underlying steel rein-
forcement. The main concerns are corrosion and spalling around the plates. Galvanic corrosion
is a serious possibility where dissimilar metals are in a marine environment and could lead to
deterioration of the reinforcing steel, which is in contact with the embedment plates.
●● Repair areas and areas of inferior construction; ISO 19903 (ISO 2019b) states that concern is
associated with areas that provide a permeable path through which a flow of seawater can take
place as the continuous flow of saline and oxygenated water can cause corrosion of the rein-
forcement. In addition, attention is recommended to be given to the surface and the perimeter of
patched areas for evidence of shrinkage cracking and loss of bond to the parent concrete surface.
●● Penetrations; these are areas of discontinuity and are therefore prone to water ingress and
spalling at the steel to concrete interface. Any penetrations added to the structure during the
operational phase are particularly susceptible to leakage resulting from difficulties in achieving
high-quality concrete in the immediate vicinity of the added penetration. ISO 19903 (ISO 2019b)
states that all penetrations in the splash and submerged zones require frequent inspections (but
not specified).
●● Steel transition ring to concrete interface; this interface is the main load transfer point between
the concrete towers and steel topsides. ISO 19903 (ISO 2019b) recommends that the steel transi-
tion ring should preferably be examined annually. The examination should include the load
transfer mechanism (flexible joints, rubber bearings, bolts and cover) and the associated ring
beam. In addition, the concrete interface should be inspected for evidence of overstress and cor-
rosion of embedded reinforcing steel. Corrosion-potential surveys can be used to detect ongoing
corrosion that is not visible by visual inspection alone.
●● Debris; it can cause structural damage through impact, abrasion or by accelerating the
depletion of cathodic protection systems. It can also limit the ability to inspect various parts
of the structure (e.g. tops of storage cells). Drill cuttings can build up on the cell tops and/or
against the side of the structure and should be assessed for lateral pressures exerted by the
cuttings, and whether they cause an obstruction to inspection. As a result of this assessment
the removal of drill cuttings needs to be assessed accordingly.
●● Scour; this is the loss of foundation-supporting soil material and can be induced by current
acceleration round the base of the structure or by “pumping” effects caused by wave-induced
dynamic rocking motion. It can lead to partial loss of base support and unfavourable redistribu-
tion of actions. GVI is the recommended method.
●● Drawdown (differential hydrostatic pressure); a level of drawdown in many concrete structures
is necessary for structural integrity. Structural damage or equipment failure can lead to ingress
of water and loss of hydrostatic differential pressure. Special inspection may be required if loss
of drawdown is detected.
●● Temperature of oil sent to storage; the storage cells are designed for a maximum temperature
differential. In cases where differential temperatures have exceeded these design limits, special
inspections may be required.
●● Sulphate-reducing bacteria (SRB); these can occur in anaerobic conditions where organic mate-
rial is present (such as hydrocarbons). The bacteria produce H2S (hydrogen sulphide) as their
natural waste which could cause a lowering of pH value of the cement paste in the concrete.
Favourable conditions for SRB growth can be present in unaerated water in, for example, the
water-filled portion of shafts and cells. An acidic environment can cause concrete softening and
corrosion of reinforcement. However, it is recognised that an inspection of a concrete surface
likely to be affected by SRB activity is difficult to undertake. Some guidance can be obtained by
adequate monitoring of SRB activity and pH levels (HSE 1990).
●● Post-tensioning; the tendons are usually contained within ducts which are grouted. Post-
tensioning anchorage zones are commonly areas of complex stress patterns. Because of this,
considerable additional reinforcement steel is used to control cracking. Anchorages for the post-
tensioning tendons are generally terminated in prestressing pockets in the structure, which are
also vulnerable. Inspection of tendons is, however, very difficult using conventional inspection
techniques. In many cases, the reinforcing steel is very congested and this condition can lead to
poor compaction of concrete immediately adjacent to the anchorage. The recess is fully grouted
after tensioning. These conditions expose the critical tendon anchors to the marine environ-
ment, causing corrosion of the anchor and additional spalling and delamination of concrete and
grout in the anchorage zone. Regular visual inspection of the anchorages is recommended.
Experience has shown that the anchorage zones are vulnerable to distress in the form of local-
ized cracking and spalling of grouted anchorage pockets. Where evidence exists for this type of
damage, ISO 19903 (ISO 2019b) recommends a more detailed visual inspection supplemented by
impact sounding for delamination. The visual inspection should focus on corrosion staining,
cracking and large accumulations of efflorescence deposits.
Partial loss of prestress is generally recognised as leading to local concrete cracking resulting
from redistribution of stress. This should be investigated upon discovery. In addition, design docu-
ments should be reviewed by the inspection team to establish the arrangement and distribution of
cracking that could be expected to result from partial loss of prestress.
Durability of concrete and the corrosion protection system are addressed in terms of inspection
and focus on:
●● Concrete: factors that may change with time and may need to be surveyed regularly, such as
chloride profiles, chemical attacks, abrasion depth, freeze and thaw deterioration and sulphate
attack in petroleum storage areas.
●● Corrosion protection: Periodic examination with measurements should be carried out to verify
that the cathodic protection system is functioning within its design parameters and to establish
the extent of any material depletion of the anodes. Cathodic protection is also provided for the
protection of the reinforcing steel, which is important for the structural integrity of the concrete.
In this respect the level of adequate potential should be monitored. In general examination shall
be concentrated in areas with high or cyclic stress utilization, which need to be monitored and
checked against the design basis. Heavy unexpected usage of anodes should be investigated.
Examination of any coatings and linings is normally performed by visual inspection to deter-
mine the need for repairs. A close visual examination will also disclose any areas where degrada-
tion of coatings has allowed corrosion to develop to a degree requiring repair or replacement of
structural components.
It is noted in ISO 19903 (ISO 2019b) that several techniques have been developed for the detec-
tion of corrosion in the reinforcement in land-based structures. These are mainly based on
electro-potential mapping, for which there is an ASTM standard (ASTM 2015). These techniques
are useful for detecting potential corrosion in and above the splash zone but have limited applica-
tion under water because of the low resistance of sea water. ISO 19903 (ISO 2019b) also notes that
it has been established that under many circumstances underwater corrosion of the reinforcement
does not lead to spalling or rust staining. The corrosion products are of a different form and can be
washed away from cracks and hence leave no evidence on the surface of the concrete (see
Section 3.5). However, when the reinforcement is adequately cathodically protected, any corrosion
should be prevented. In cases where cathodic protection of the reinforcement is limited, the
absence of spalling and rust staining at cracks in the concrete cover should not to be taken as evi-
dence for no corrosion.
2.5.3 Department of Energy Guidance Notes

The “Survey” section of the fourth edition Guidance Notes (Department of Energy 1990) focussed
mainly on steel structures with regard to the requirements for re-certification. At the time of pre-
paring the fourth edition Guidance Notes, concrete structures were relatively new and a comment
was made that experience to date had shown little requirement for maintenance and repair.
However, specific mention was made of the lower elements of a GBS-type structure, which were
only likely to suffer significant damage if erosion or uneven settlement had taken place. It was
noted that many units of this type have built-in instruments to record the state of the foundations.
With regard to corrosion of the steel reinforcement, it was noted that this is less likely in perma-
nently submerged areas than in the splash zone. Hence, if the splash zone was found to be in good
condition, then only a limited number of checks needed to be made at lower levels, except where
there were sudden changes of section or high stress concentrations.
The Background document to the Guidance Notes (HSE 1997) supported the limited problems to
date but commented that this was probably a result of limited life, particularly for evidence of any
corrosion of the steel reinforcement. Some problems with draw-down had been found which were
mentioned, due both to failure of the draw-down system and accidental impact damage. Several
platforms had suffered ship impact or impacts from dropped objects, with several cases where the
damage had been minimal. Where damage had occurred, it had resulted in holes in cell roofs or a leg
and in each case a repair had been undertaken. It was noted that the degree of marine growth had
varied substantially between structures, some structures with almost no growth, others with exten-
sive growth requiring cleaning.
The “Repairs” concrete section of the Guidance Notes stated that the accepted materials for repair
offshore were concrete, cement grouts and mortars and epoxy resins. The importance of the ability
of the repair material to bond to concrete, reinforcement or pre-stressing ducts needed to be consid-
ered. The Guidance Notes also noted that when selecting a repair material for protection of the
reinforcement against corrosion, the properties of the material to be considered should include
permeability to water, presence of chloride ions and resistivity. An important factor is the durability
of the repair material in the marine environment.
Repair of cracking in a concrete structure was addressed, with low viscosity epoxy resins being
the usual material and the repair procedure should be established by trials.
Repairs to steel reinforcement were considered where the reinforcement has been damaged or
cut away. The new reinforcement should either be lapped on to the existing reinforcement with a
full bond length or connected by a suitable coupler.
Repairs to prestress were also addressed making the point that it is very difficult to establish the
effectiveness of any damaged prestress, as this is to a large extent dependent on the bond with the
grout in the cable duct. The effectiveness of any repairs to tendons which have been broken would
require re-stressing of the new or repaired tendons, which is not easy in a repair situation.
Repair of cracking in a concrete structure should utilise low viscosity epoxy resins, and the repair
procedure should be established by trials.
2.5.4 NORSOK N-005—Concrete Structures

NORSOK N-005 (Standard Norge 2017b) has a special annexe covering inspection of concrete
structures. This standard makes the point that concrete structures are normally damage tolerant
because of their large dimensions and planning of inspections should take this into account.
However, it also points out that ageing concrete structures in air may experience increasing amount
of chloride ingress that may lead to corrosion of reinforcement in areas of poor-quality concrete.
Specific requirements for data collection and management relating to concrete structures
include:
●● operational criteria for caisson cells operated with differential hydrostatic pressure (drawdown)
or normal hydrostatic pressure in cells;
●● operational criteria for cells used for oil storage and/or water ballast;
●● any reported repairs or discontinuities in the concrete from the fabrication phase. Specifically,
repair of reported leakages in the concrete;
●● description of mechanical systems for operating the ballast water, oil filling and draw down sys-
tems in the storage cells; and
●● settlement and tilt monitoring.
Regarding evaluation of changes NORSOK N-005 (Standard Norge 2017b) states that the follow-
ing items are noted for concrete structures:
●● the condition of the concrete surface. Particularly the concrete surface above seawater level, due
to weather exposure and chloride penetration, including core testing or dust samples of the
concrete;
●● condition of coatings and linings, if present;
●● the cathodic protection of the concrete reinforcement; and
●● monitoring of crack development in highly utilized areas (e.g. near topside footings/bearings).
NORSOK N-005 (Standard Norge 2017b) notes that the probability of failure of concrete struc-
tures is most often related to corrosion and less to fatigue damage. In addition, failure below the
waterline is minimised by the presence of anodes providing corrosion protection to the steel rein-
forcement. As a result, large areas of a concrete structure such as caisson walls and shaft walls
below water have relatively low probability and consequence of failure. Hence it is considered that
a lower level of inspection for these structural components may influence the level and content of
the inspection programme.
NORSOK N-005 (Standard Norge 2017b) states that special attention should be given to areas of
major importance for the structural integrity and for the atmospheric and splash zones, particu-
larly where the risk of deterioration is highest. Areas of major importance are listed as complex
connections such as wall-dome connections, cell wall joints, columns to caisson connections and
load bearing areas in the top of shafts. Construction joints, penetrations and embedments should
also be considered.
NORSOK N-005 (Standard Norge 2017b) notes that for inspection planning the potential failure
mechanisms listed below should be taken into consideration. These can lead to typical types of
failure, which include reinforcement corrosion, cracking, spalling and delamination and damaged
coatings and abrasion:
●● construction-related imperfections;
●● cracks due to formwork adhesion;
●● lack of reinforcement cover;
●● lack of concrete compaction;
●● unplanned construction joints;
●● chloride ingress;
●● corrosion of reinforcement behind cast-in plates;
●● subsidence and seabed scouring;
●● internal defects in conjunction with oil storage such as leakage and biological activity;
●● leakage;
●● impact damage; and
●● freeze/thaw damage and ice abrasion.
In executing inspection of concrete structures NORSOK N-005 (Standard Norge 2017b) states
that programmes should be developed after the DFI resume has been delivered and updated peri-
odically. A general statement is made that inspection planning should focus on verification of the
condition of the structural components so that structural integrity can be maintained. It also states
that taking into account the likely types of defects and damage which may develop, appropriate
inspection methods should be developed. An example is given indicating that because delamina-
tion is often not visible on the concrete surface, hammer tapping may be needed to detect such areas.
NORSOK N-005 (Standard Norge 2017b) notes that corrective maintenance should be imple-
mented to prevent minor damage escalating into major damage. It is important to maintain steel
reinforcements and pre-tensioning to ensure structural functionality during the lifetime of the
structure.
2.6 Discussion and Summary
As shown in this chapter, the first standards and recommended practices relating to structural
integrity management were developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s. These standards were
in practice inspection standards and often included inspection plans based on routine intervals
inspired by ship rules. The parts of the structures that were regarded as major or important
were inspected typically every fifth year. The offshore industry began to consider more cost-
effective and optimised inspection strategies in the late 1980s and methods for condition-based
and risk-based inspection planning were developed and started to be used in practice. A broader
view on integrity management was included in the development of the international standard
ISO 19902 (ISO 2007), which commenced in 1993 and included a section on structural integrity
management in early drafts. This standard was first issued in 2007, but the early drafts were
used as the basis for structural integrity management in the interim. The process of inspection,
data management, evaluation of findings and assessing the safety of the structure were
included.
HSE report RR 684 (HSE 2009) states that an inspection strategy should be:
●● consistent with the structural integrity strategy and SIM processes including structural evalua-
tion, assessment, maintenance and information management requirements;
●● able to determine with reasonable level of confidence the existence and extent of deterioration,
defects and damage;
●● able to address the motives for inspection listed by ISO 19902 (ISO 2007);
●● developed and maintained by a competent person, using appropriate experience, data and,
where required, analysis
●● able to specify the tools and techniques to be used; and
●● documented.
The report (HSE 2009) further states that an inspection programme should be developed from
the integrity management policy and strategy. It requires schedules, budgets, personnel profiles,
inspection procedures for implementation. Guidance on developing an inspection programme is
given in ISO 19902 (ISO 2007) and API RP-2SIM (API 2014b).
A structural integrity management framework is proposed as shown in Figure 10, based on what
the authors consider to be the best practice from the various standards reviewed in this chapter.
Each element of the process is to varying degrees included in each of these standards and recom-
mended practices. Inspection is a major feature of “as-is surveillance” and repair is a key factor in
“mitigating measures”.
Most standards in detail include the middle “as-is surveillance” process with the six sub-pro-
cesses and also include guidance on “integrity assessment” and “mitigation measures”.
However, very few of the standards give guidance on hazard identification and establishing the
risk picture of the structure and marine system. Two exemplary exceptions are API RP 2MIM
(API2019b), which includes an annex on “causes of failure” and API RP 2FSIM (API 2019a), which
includes an annex on “Damage and failure modes”, both with valuable information for hazard
identification and risk management.
Many standards and recommended practices also implicitly include information and guidance
on operational limitations, such as the design events, the size of vessels assumed to be visiting the
platform and the importance of knowing the weight of the topside and the inventory. However, the
standards and recommended practices do not necessarily give guidance on its importance for the
operation of the platform or how to operate in situations outside the operational limitations. For
floating structures, several relevant issues are often included in the marine operational manual.
Emergency preparedness and emergency response planning should be performed for reasonably
foreseeable situations that may occur in normal and in severe conditions. This seems to be an area
where the structural and marine engineers rely on the traditional emergency response discipline
to understand structures and marine systems. As a result, only one standard is providing guidance
on this topic. This exemplary exception is API RP-2MIM (API 2019b), which includes an annex on
“incident response planning”.
As a result, it can be concluded that for some of the important factors, the standards and recom-
mended practices have limited information. This book attempts to bridge these gaps.
References
ABS (2017), “Inspection Grading Criteria for the ABS Hull Inspection and Maintenance Programme
(HIMP)”, American Bureau of Shipping, 2017.
API (1969), RP-2A Recommended Practice for Planning, Design and Constructing Fixed Offshore
Platforms. API Recommended practice 2A, 1st edition, American Petroleum Institute, 1969.
API (2005), API RP-2SK Design and Analysis of Stationkeeping Systems for Floating Structures, Third
Edition, American Petroleum Institute, 2005.
API (2008), API RP-2I In-service Inspection of Mooring Hardware for Floating Structures, Third Edition,
American Petroleum Institute, 2008.
API (2011), API RP 2FPS Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Floating
Production Systems, American Petroleum Institute, 2011.
API (2014a), API RP-2A Recommended Practice for Planning, Design and Constructing Fixed Offshore
Platforms. API Recommended practice 2A, 22nd Edition, American Petroleum Institute, 2014.
API (2014b), API RP-2SIM Recommended Practice for Structural Integrity Management of Fixed Offshore
API (2015), API RP-2T Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Tension Leg
Platforms, Third Edition, American Petroleum Institute, 2015.
API (2016), API RP 579-1 / ASME FFS-1, Fitness-For-Service, Third Edition, American Petroleum
Institute 2016.
API (2019a), API RP-2FSIM Floating System Integrity management, American Petroleum
Institute, 2019.
API (2019b), API RP-2MIM Mooring Integrity Management, American Petroleum Institute, 2019.
ASTM (2015), ASTM C876-15 Standard Test Method for Corrosion Potentials of Uncoated Reinforcing
Steel in Concrete, ASTM International.
BSI (2008), PAS55 Asset Management, British Standardisation Institute.
Cullen, The Hon Lord (1990). The Public Enquiry into the Piper Alpha Disaster, HMSO, London, UK
Department of Energy (1974), The Offshore Installations (Construction and Survey) Regulations, HMSO,
London, UK.
Department of Energy (1990), Offshore Installations: Guidance on Design, Construction and
Certification, Fourth Edition, HMSO, London.
DNVGL (2018), DNVGL-OS-E301 Position Mooring, DNVGL, Høvik, Norway.
HSE (1990), Effect of Bacterial Activity on North Sea Concrete, Undertaken by Khoury G.A, Sullivan
P.J.E., OTH 90 320, HSE Books, London, UK.
HSE (1996). The Offshore Installations and Wells (Design and Construction, etc) Regulations, Health and
Safety Executive (HSE) SI 1996/913.
HSE (1997) “Guidance for Concrete structures – Background Report”, HSE OTO Report 96 050.
HSE (2005), Offshore Installations (Safety Case) Regulations, Health and Safety Executive (HSE), HSE
Books, London, UK.
HSE (2009), “HSE RR684—Structural Integrity Management Framework for Fixed Jacket Structures”,
Health and Safety Executive (HSE), London, UK.
HSE (2013), “Managing for Health and Safety, HSG 65”, Health and Safety Executive (HSE),
London, UK.
HSE (2019), “HSE Offshore Information Sheet 4/2013 Offshore Installation moorings Rev.3”, Health
and Safety Executive (HSE), London, UK.
IACS (2010). “Guidelines for the Survey of Offshore Chain Cable in use, No. 38, 2010”, International
Association of Classification Societies (IACS).
ISO (2006), “ISO 19904:2006 Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries—Floating Offshore Structures”,
International Standardisation Organisation, 2006.
ISO (2007), “ISO 19902:2007 Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries—Fixed Steel Offshore Structures”,
International Standardisation Organisation.
ISO (2013), “ISO 19901-7:2013 Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries—Specific Requirements for
Offshore Structures—Part 7: Stationkeeping Systems for Floating Offshore Structures and Mobile
Offshore Units”, International Standardisation Organisation, 2013.
ISO (2019a), “ISO 19901-9 Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries—Specific Requirements for Offshore
Structures—Part 9: Structural Integrity Management”, International Standardisation
Organisation, 2019.
ISO (2019b), “ISO 19903 Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries—Fixed Concrete Offshore Structures”,
Lloyds Register (2019), “Lloyds Register Rules for Classification Floating Units at Fixed location—Part
3”, Lloyd Register. London. UK.
NMD (2009), “Anchoring Regulations of 10 July 2009, No.998”, Norwegian Maritime Directorate.
O&GUK (2014) “Guidance on the Management of Ageing and Life Extension for UKCS Floating
Production Installations”, Oil and Gas UK, London, UK.
PSA (2019), Framework, Management, Facilities and Activities Regulations, Stavanger, Norway:
Petroleum Safety Authority.
Standard Norge (2011), “NORSOK Z-008 Risk Based Maintenance and Consequence Classification - Rev.
3, June 2011”, Standard Norge, Lysaker, Norway.
Standard Norge (2012), “NORSOK N-001: Integrity of Offshore Structures, Rev. 8, September 2012,”
Standard Norge, Lysaker, Norway.
Standard Norge (2013), “NORSOK N-004: Design of Steel Structures, Rev. 3, February 2013”, Standard
Norge, Lysaker, Norway.
Standard Norge (2015), “NORSOK N-006 Assessment of Structural Integrity for Existing Offshore
Load-Bearing Structures, Edition1; March 2009”, Standard Norge, Lysaker, Norway.
Standard Norge (2017a), “NORSOK N-003: Actions and Action Effects, 3e,” Standard Norge,
Lysaker, Norway.
Standard Norge (2017b), “NORSOK N-005 In-Service Integrity Management of Structures and Maritime
Systems, Edition 2, 2017”, Standard Norge, Lysaker, Norway.
37
Damage Types in Offshore Structures
If you don’t know what it is you’re looking for you’re never going to find it.
You have to be clear on what it is you’re seeking1.
—Germany Kent
3.1 Introduction
3.1.1 General
Damage of various types occur in all offshore structures as a result of the environment in which
they operate and accidents occurring. The types of damage that the structure is likely to experience
will to some extent depend on the type of structure and the material involved. Cracks, corrosion
and accidental damage such as dents, bows and gouges dominate in fixed and floating steel struc-
tures. Whereas for concrete structures, corrosion of the steel reinforcement leading to spalling and
cracking in addition to accidental damage dominate. In mobile structures also the mooring system
is exposed to wear, fatigue cracking and corrosion.
A main role of inspection is to detect, locate and characterise damage with respect to its type and
size in order to enable actions to be taken if required. A good understanding of the possible causes,
likely locations and form of these damage types is essential to select the appropriate inspection
technique. Examples of causes, types and effects are illustrated in Figure 11.
This chapter aims to provide an overview of the types of damage, causes and effects. Due to
the prevalence offshore of steel structures compared to concrete structures, the number of
damage types that have occurred is dominated by damage to steel structures. However, this
chapter attempts to give a balanced review of damage to both steel (fixed and floating) and
concrete structures, giving due regard to previous work on these topics.
The most common damage types for steel structures are corrosion, cracking (most often from
fatigue) and various forms of impact damage. For concrete structures, the reinforcement corrosion
often leading to spalling and impact damage are dominant. These are introduced below and along
with several other damage types are briefly explained below.
1 Source: Germany Kent, “You Are What You Tweet: Harness the Power of Twitter to Create a Happier, Healthier
Life”, Star Stone Press, LLC, 2015.

Damage types
• Cyclic loading • Increased susceptibility to further
• Corrosive environment cracking and fracture
• Collisions and dropped objects • Cracking • Reduced section area
• Severe weather • Corrosion • Wall and plate thinning
• Marine growth • Spalling of concrete • Changes to material properties
• Subsidence • Dents, bows and gouges • Geometric changes
• Scour • Plastic deformation and rupture • Geometric discontinuities
• Separated and severed members • Changes in boundary conditions
• Buckling
• Unsupported piles
Damage causes Damage effects
Figure 11 Examples of damage cause (why the damage occurs), types (what they look like) and effects
(their consequence on strength).
3.1.2 Corrosion
Corrosion is a result of a chemical or electrochemical reaction between a metal and its environ-
ment that leads to a generalized or local loss of material and sometimes degradation of its proper-
ties. The following basic conditions must be fulfilled for corrosion to occur:
●● a metal surface is exposed to a potentially damaging environment (e.g. bare steel in physical
contact with seawater);
●● presence of a suitable electrolyte able to conduct an electrical current (e.g. seawater containing
ions); and
●● an oxidant able to cause corrosion (e.g. oxygen, carbon dioxide).
External corrosion of steelwork can occur in seawater with the presence of absorbed oxygen
leading to loss of material and reduced load-carrying capacity. The rate of corrosion is dependent
on the level of oxygen and the temperature of the seawater. To make it more complex, the oxygen
solubility decreases with increased temperature.
In the splash zone there is a plentiful supply of oxygen which together with the presence of sea-
water can lead to high corrosion levels. In the North Sea the seawater at all depths is normally satu-
rated with oxygen at approximately 6 ml per litre. In contrast, in more temperate regions such as
the Gulf of Mexico the temperature will be higher which could result in more severe corrosion. In
areas with less mixing of water masses through the depth, the oxygen level in deep water may be
much less and corrosion would be inhibited.
External corrosion is usually mitigated by the use of a cathodic protection (CP) system usually
involving sacrificial anodes and in some cases by the use of external corrosion coatings. The
design of the CP system is dependent on the design life of the structure and the type and quality
of the external coating system. There are typically recommended levels of cathodic protection in
the range between –800 to –950 mV vs Ag/AgCl. On some installations there are more negative
levels of protection and this over-protection can lead to the production of hydrogen with
embrittlement and other adverse effects on the steelwork. High-strength steel (with yield
strength greater than 500 MPa) are more susceptible to this and more stringent requirements are
Damage Types in Offshore Structures 39
recommended for the level of cathodic protection (HSE 2003). The CP system in not effective in
the splash zone and alternative means of protection are required, typically coatings and a corro-
sion allowance. A number of coating systems have been used offshore with epoxy-based systems
more typical. Bahadori (2014) is a useful guide to corrosion protection systems for the oil and
gas industry.
Coatings are applied for corrosion control as they act as barriers that isolate the steel from the
corrosive environment. Coatings can be applied in the construction yard or offshore although the
latter is more expensive and often less efficient. Typical coatings used offshore include coal tar
epoxy (as noted later for the West Sole WE platform) and epoxy resins. Coatings should be a part
of the inspection plan and programme and may require repair or replacement depending on the
level of damage. Coatings and CP systems are also a feature of corrosion protection for ballast
tanks in floating structures. Breakdown of these coatings can lead to localised corrosion and loss
of watertight integrity. Proper re-instalment of coatings in such areas is an important mitigating
measure.
As a result, a key objective of the inspection process is checking:
●● the state of the corrosion protection system, whether CP readings are within the accepted range;
●● the condition of anodes;
●● the condition of coatings; and
●● any evidence of corrosion.
If the inspection reveals anomalies related to any of these factors, then evaluation or possibly
mitigation measures are required. The types of structure and the material involved will determine
what corrosion can occur and at which location in the structure.
During the first decades of oil and gas production, fixed steel structures (jacket structures) were
primarily used. Below water these were protected with both coatings and cathodic protection sys-
tems. Although many of these structures have been in operation far beyond their original design
life, there has been a minimum of corrosion experienced underwater. At present, jacket structures
are designed in accordance with recognised standards where a cathodic protection system under-
water and coatings both above and below water are required. In addition, a corrosion allowance
(extra thickness of steel) should be included in the splash zone.
In concrete offshore structures the continuing integrity of the steel reinforcement is an essential
requirement. The steel which is embedded in concrete should normally be protected from corro-
sion for long periods, provided there is a good depth of high-quality cover over the steel (typically
70 mm in the splash zone and 45 mm in the underwater zone). Concrete is a permeable material
and hence the chlorides in seawater will penetrate to the steel reinforcement in the longer term.
Activation of the reinforcement with loss of passivity can occur when sufficient chlorides reach
the steel surface and if sufficient oxygen is available this will usually lead to corrosion. This is
usually the case for the splash and air zones, where over a period of time, corrosion will progress
leading to expansive products which usually cause spalling of the concrete cover. Following
spalling of the cover corrosion usually occurs more rapidly unless repaired. This type of corrosion
is very typical of many marine structures.
Semi-submersible platforms and tension leg platforms are normally built without corrosion
allowances, except in the splash zone. The coating system needs to be inspected and maintained
during the operation phase and in some cases it can be demanding to obtain adequate corrosion
protection.
The first FPSOs were in use in the 1980s and the use of these production vessels increased
throughout the 1990s. These were often designed without a corrosion allowance and were
therefore vulnerable to thickness loss resulting from corrosion (DNVGL 2019). The ballast tanks
were typically protected with both a coating and cathodic protection, where the latter is only effec-
tive for areas underwater. It has been found that the coating and the workmanship in some cases
were not of sufficient quality. Consequently, there has been some corrosion in ballast tanks on
FPSOs. Storage tanks for oil have been less susceptible to corrosion as they are exposed to a less
corrosive medium. It has been common to apply coatings at the bottom and top of the tank to pro-
tect against corrosion from water accumulating at the bottom and condensation at the top. In
general, the experience for storage tanks is good (DNVGL 2019). The degree of corrosion damage
varies as the corrosion process is sensitive to temperature and the concentration of, for example,
sulphates. When referring to corrosion of steel connectors and components, six levels of corrosion
are described by ABS (2017), which are shown in Table 2, and are useful for describing and evalu-
ating corrosion. The design of FPSOs has changed since the 1990s and FPSOs are now designed
with a corrosion allowance in hulls, tanks and decks, which gives additional robustness.
A decommissioned offshore installation allows the state of anodes to be examined in more
detail. One example was the recovery of the West Sole WE platform in 1978 after 11 years in the
sea. A detailed examination of components was undertaken including the anodes, as shown in
Figure 12. Weight loss of the anodes was found to be only 40%, less than the expected value.
Protection potentials were measured before recovery and were in the range –0.87 to –0.93 V
(compared with Ag/AgCl), which is more positive than set at the design stage. The splash zone
coating was a coal tar epoxy and it was found that this protection had broken down from wave
and spray action. It was noted that this could have been minimised by more painting during
operation. Isolated pitting and metal wastage were seen on members in the splash zone, up to
a depth of 3 mm in places, which could have become more serious if the platform had been in
the sea for a longer period.
3.1.3 Cracking Due to Fatigue

Fatigue is characterised by cumulative material damage caused by numerous loading cycles dur-
ing the structure’s life, resulting in crack initiation and propagation. Fatigue cracks often occur
from discontinuities and pre-existing defects in areas with cyclic stress. Welded joints with high
stress concentrations are the areas where fatigue cracks typically initiate, after which they will
grow incrementally. In design standards and recommended practises, fatigue failure is normally
Table 2 Levels of Corrosion (ABS 2017).
Level Description
1 More than 90% of primer paint is intact, surface rust local to primer damage. No loss of material
2 Surface rust over more then 50% of H link with no loss of material on plates or hardware
3 Level 2 corrosion on plates, but with also significant degradation or loss of securing hardware
such as spacer pins, handling shackles
4 Deep local rist blooms on H-link plates and /or securing hardware
5 Widespread loss of material on main plates. Gauging of plates show losses to be within ABS
allowances
6 Widespread loss of material on main plates. Gauging of plates shows losses exceeding ABS
allowances
Figure 12 Aluminium anode recovered from West Sole WE platform showing less wastage than expected,
with an average weight loss of 40%. Source: JV Sharp.
considered to have occurred when a crack has grown through the wall thickness. However, as will
later be described in this book, there is often still a certain amount of life remaining until severance.
Fatigue cracking is a time-dependent and accumulative degradation mechanism and hence
cracks normally should be expected to occur late in the life of a structure. However, there is
also evidence that cracking can occur at a much earlier stage. Evidence of this has been seen
when significant defects from the original fabrication that were missed at the fabrication
inspection remain when the structure enters service. This is even a greater likelihood of sig-
nificant defects occurring and missed by fabrication inspection when modifications and
repairs are performed after the structure has entered service. An example of this is the fatigue
crack that formed in the Alexander L. Kielland flotel and eventually caused the capsize of this
semi-submersible in 1980 from a defect.
Fatigue failure is a significant hazard to offshore structures subjected to cyclic loading in
harsh environmental conditions, typically identified by sea-states such as those found in the
North Sea and similar regions. As a result, a key element of the inspection process in such
regions should include checking for any signs of fatigue cracking. If the inspection reveals
any cracks or analysis indicates insufficient remaining fatigue life, then evaluation or pos-
sibly mitigation measures, such as repairs, are required.
3.1.4 Dents, Bows and Gouges Due to Impact

Impact by ship collision, dropped objects and swinging loads during lifts by cranes consti-
tutes an important hazard scenario for damaging offshore structures. Offshore structures as
Figure 13 Dented member. Source: Courtesy of KBR Energo.
a result accumulate dent and bow damage during service. In some cases, cracks are also a
result of these impact incidents in addition to the dent and bow damage.
Figure 13 shows a typical dented member. Such dents and often associated bows can have a
significant effect on the ultimate capacity. Similarly, the presence of cracks associated with dents
and bows could have a significant impact on the fatigue life of the structure.
3.1.5 Cracking Due to Hydrogen Embrittlement

Hydrogen embrittlement (HE), or hydrogen-induced stress cracking (HISC), is the result of ingress
of hydrogen atoms into the metal. When these hydrogen atoms re-combine in voids in the metal
matrix to form hydrogen molecules, they create pressure from inside the cavity and this pressure
can reduce ductility and tensile strength up to a point where cracks open. In marine environments
the principal sources of hydrogen in steel are from corrosion and cathodic protection (CP). Welding
can also cause high hydrogen contents if sufficient care is not taken during welding, for example,
by applying preheat and drying consumables. HE is a less common mode of failure in offshore
structures than corrosion fatigue, but it was found to be the cause of cracking that occurred in the
leg chords and spud cans of jack-up drilling rigs operating on the UKCS in the late 1980s (HSE 1991).
High-strength steels structures are particularly vulnerable to cathodic over-protection leading to
HE. For such structures, a strict monitoring of the CP levels is required during inspection.
3.1.6 Erosion, Wear and Tear

Erosion can be defined as physical removal of surface material due to numerous individual
impacts of solid particles, liquid droplet or implosion of gas bubbles (cavitation). One example of
erosion is the result of the interaction between a structure and moving ice floes in arctic waters.
Erosion is a time-dependent degradation mechanism but can sometimes lead to very rapid fail-
ures. In its worst form, considerable material loss can occur. Loss of material will reduce strength
and increase potential for fatigue cracking. As a result, inspection should include determining
any signs of erosion.
Wear has been observed to cause substantial degradation in mooring chains. Significant loss
of material can occur, sometimes in short periods of time measured in months, as a result of the
rubbing of chain link surfaces. There is a subsequent loss of load-bearing capacity as the cross-
sectional area of mooring chain links becomes too low to carry the applied load. Chains and
wire ropes are vulnerable to erosion and wear due to contact at the fairlead, contact between
individual chain links and also due to impact damage occurring on the seabed, particularly if
the seabed is rocky (see Figure 21). The corrosive nature of seawater may lead to synergistic
wear rates that are higher than the sum of wear and corrosion as independent processes. Wear
can remove protective deposits enhancing the rate of corrosion and corrosion may then again
increase surface roughness.
Wire ropes are more subject to seabed damage and for this reason the seabed section of a moor-
ing line is usually chain, which is less vulnerable. Erosion and wear can reduce the diameter of
chain links and the outer wires of a wire rope, in both cases reducing overall strength. Loose studs
can also arise from localised erosion.
3.1.7 Brittle Fracture

Brittle fracture is in general not an issue with structural steels. However, with the increasing
need to develop mooring lines to handle larger loads as vessel sizes increase, higher strength
steels have been used. For example, R5 chain has a 30% increase in yield stress compared to the
earlier R4 chain. R5 is typically a quenched and tempered steel with a yield stress of typically
~760 MPa. This is classified as a high-strength steel in most definitions. When first introduced,
this high-strength chain had some brittle fracture failures in service, but more careful manufac-
turing methods have led to a decrease in this problem.
3.1.8 Grout Crushing and Slippage

Grouted connections are used in fixed offshore structures and in offshore wind turbines to connect
parts of the structure. Offshore wind turbines typically consist of a mono-pile connected by a
grouted connection to the upper tower section. Similarly, in a fixed offshore steel structure the
piles are connected to the jacket structure by a grouted pile-sleeve connection. Fixed offshore steel
structures in very deep waters have also used grouted connections to combine an upper and lower
section of the jacket. In addition, grouted connections are also used for repairs.
Loss of friction capacity between the grout and the steel sleeve can lead to slippage and loss of
strength in the connection. As a result, weld beads are often used to increase the capacity of such
connections. However, crushing of the grout between adjacent weld beads can also occur and will
lead to insufficient capacity of the connection.
This type of damage has been observed in offshore wind turbines but less so for fixed offshore
steel structures. This slippage, should it occur, is very difficult to detect and repair.
3.2 Previous Studies on Damage to Offshore Structures
Many studies on damage to offshore structures and their frequency of occurrence have taken
place. Many of these have been reviewed in this section to provide the reader with appropriate
background on damage to offshore structures and their likelihood of occurrence. These studies
include more details than reported here and should be visited for further information. Table 3 gives
an overview of the reviewed reports and their relevance to the types of offshore structures.
Table 3 Overview of Previous Work on Damage to Offshore Structures.
Fixed steel Floating Concrete

Report Sect. structures structures structures
MTD Underwater inspection of steel offshore 3.3.1 X

structures
MTD Review of repairs to offshore structures and 3.3.2 X X
pipelines
PMB AIM project for MMS 3.3.3 X
HSE Causes of damage to fixed offshore structures 3.3.4 X
Single-sided closure welds 3.3.5 X (X)
MSL Rationalization and optimisation of underwater 3.3.6 X
inspection
Studies on hurricane and storm damage 3.3.7 X
D.En. Defects in semi-submersibles 3.4.1 X
SSC reports on damage types to ship-shaped 3.4.2 X
structures
TSCF Defect types for tanker structure components 3.4.3 X
Semi-submersible flooding 3.4.4 X
API RP-2MIM 3.5.2 X
HSE Studies on mooring systems 3.5.3 X
Corrosion of mooring systems 3.5.4 X
Fatigue of mooring systems 3.5.5 X
Concrete in the ocean 3.6.1 X
Durability of offshore concrete structures 3.6.2 X
PSA Ageing of Offshore Concrete Structures 3.6.3 X
Marine growth reports 3.7 X X X
3.3 Previous Studies on Damage to Fixed Steel Structures
3.3.1 MTD Underwater Inspection of Steel Offshore Structures

A report was produced in 1989 by MTD (1989) from a joint industry-funded project, involving a
wide range of industrial participants and the Department of Energy. The review lists detected
anomalies and damage to 21 platforms in the North Sea installed between 1971 and 1978 and
based on records of inspections up to 1984. It is likely that the data as presented in Table 4 are
focussed on issues to do with design since they were taken primarily from a UEG report (UEG 1978)
on underwater inspection prepared to give advice to designers.
As can be seen from Table 4, cracks were reported in 12 of the platforms and dents in 15. The
most common causes were reported to be:
●● direct design deficiencies such as incorrect estimation of wave loading and hot spot stresses;
●● indirect design deficiencies such as insufficient access for proper fabrication;
Table 4 Summary of Underwater Inspection Findings for 21

Steel Platforms in the North Sea.
Number of platforms
Type of defect with the defect
Crack confirmed 12
Propagating crack 3
Dented member 15
Deflected member 11
Low CP potentials 10
Missing anode 9
Defective anode 4
Loose anode 7
Pitting corrosion 20
General corrosion 2
Burn mark 4
Heavy marine growth 13
Wire chafe 18
Scour 1
Debris 21
●● construction deficiencies such as faulty weldments; and

●● accidental events such as collisions and dropped objects.
The review also noted that pitting corrosion was reported in 20 cases (most of the platforms) and
it noted some surprise given the age of the platforms. However, there was no indication whether
these were underwater or on the topsides (which is more likely). Debris from drill cuttings was
reported for all 21 platforms and these accumulated around the base of the platform applying
additional loads to the members at or close to the seabed. The review commented that insufficient
attention had been paid during design for the disposal of these cuttings. One case was reported
where member collapse had resulted from the loads from this type of debris.
The report highlighted corrosion and fatigue and for corrosion four types were noted:
●● general corrosion (spread evenly over a steel surface);
●● pitting corrosion (localised and deep corrosion that may be obscured by corrosion products);
●● galvanic corrosion (occurs when two different metals are placed in contact in an electrolyte such
as seawater with the chemically more reactive one corroding); and
●● corrosion fatigue (simultaneous occurrence of cyclic loads and corrosion, pitting or localised
corrosion were reported to have had the most effect on fatigue life).
The report noted that corrosion should not be a significant problem with offshore installations
as generous corrosion allowances were designed into members, particularly in the splash zone and
the underwater section of the structure was protected by a CP system. However, problems had
occurred when the system proved inadequate or had broken down. Table 4 shows 20 incidents of
missing, defective or loose anodes and also 10 cases of low potentials. The report also noted that
metallic debris, such as scaffold poles in contact with the structure on the seabed, could place an
increasing demand on the CP system as well as creating a hazard for divers.
The number of these incidents seems to be surprisingly high and may reflect the early stage of off-
shore industry in UK waters. However, also in more recent studies (MTD 1990) issues with corrosion
protection have been reported, although in the overprotection range. The survey showed that 65% of
the platforms surveyed had potentials more negative than the recommended level of –900 mV (Ag/
AgCl), and 30% of those surveyed had operating potentials more negative than –1050 mV (Ag/AgCl).
This highlights the difficulty in getting the corrosion protection system to be efficient in operation and
avoiding both under- and overprotection.
The MTD (1990) review also noted that steels with high hardness microstructures were more
susceptible to corrosion. This could arise from poor welding conditions such as low preheat, low
heat input welding or uncontrolled post-weld cooling.
For fatigue the review noted that fatigue damage was linked to areas of high stress concentra-
tion. It also noted that early North Sea structures suffered from poor fatigue design and lack of
fabrication control, which led to premature cracking. The location of fabrication defects was more
likely to occur at weld repairs, closure welds and welds with poor access. The report also noted
several fatigue cracks being found at single-sided butt welds which occurred mainly at brace-to-
stub connections or chord-to-can connections (see Section 3.3.5). Fatigue problems at these loca-
tions are difficult to detect as the fatigue crack can grow from inside of the member outwards if not
designed correctly. The design of these closure welds was improved by the 1990s, but the problem
remains in many earlier designs.
3.3.2 MTD Review of Repairs to Offshore Structures and Pipelines

One of the first major reviews of damage to fixed offshore structures requiring repair was under-
taken by MTD (MTD 1994). This report analysed both steel and a smaller number of concrete
platforms over the period up to 1991 for structures on the North-West European continental shelf.
The types of damage to both steel and concrete structures requiring repair are shown in Table 5.
It should be noted that this list of damage does not necessarily include all the damage to platforms
in this time period. In particular, there would have been damage not needing repair and therefore
Table 5 Damage to Steel and Concrete Structures Requiring Repair.
Steel platforms Concrete platforms
Damage No. incidents Damage No. of incidents
Fatigue 39 Corrosion of steel components 3

Vessel impact 36 Fatigue of steel components 1
Fabrication fault 12 Construction fault 3
Installation fault 12 Dropped objects 2
Design upgrade 11 Vessel impact 1
Corrosion 10 Design fault 1
Design fault 9 Other 2
Operating fault 4
Other or unknown 11
not included. Details of the repairs which were undertaken for these damage are further discussed
in Chapter 8.2.2.
For concrete structures, corrosion to steel components and construction faults were the most
frequent causes of damage. Accidental damage due to dropped objects and vessel collisions also
occurred with a significant frequency over the period. Particular examples of damage to offshore
concrete structures include:
●● vessel impact requiring repair on the Brent C installation with a 2500-tonne supply ship;
●● impact from a 0.5 tonne crane block on the cell roof of Beryl A platform, which damaged only
the concrete protective layer; and
●● an oil storage cell on a concrete platform was penetrated by a section of steel pipe in 1981 which
fell as a result of a lifting tackle failure; this led to loss of draw-down pressure and loss of produc-
tion and required repair.
3.3.3 PMB AIM Project for MMS

The US Mineral Management Services (MMS) undertook a project to develop a methodology to man-
age the integrity of existing fixed steel platforms in the Gulf of Mexico that were reaching the latter
part of their design lives. The project was carried out in four phases by PMB Engineering Group as a
Joint Industry Project (PMB 1987, 1988 and 1990). The reports from this project include assessments
of the effects of damage on ultimate strength and evaluation of relevant repair measures required to
preserve safety. The aim of the Joint Industry Project was to develop a documented procedure to
address the performance of existing platforms, the potential for life extension, current inspection
procedures and repair procedures.
Phase I of the programme developed a general engineering approach to requalifying platforms.
Phase II (PMB 1987) focussed on two particular platforms, a 5-legged K-braced fixed steel platform
in 42.7 m water depth installed in 1963 (A) and a fixed jacket structure installed in 1959 (B). At the
time of this phase taking place, the unmanned platform A was shown to have a wide variety of
damage and defects following inspection as seen in Table 6 and Figure 14, but it had a remaining
economic life of 12 years. Platform B was also unmanned and had a remaining economic life of 5
years and a condition survey had shown limited damage.
K-braced fixed steel structures as shown in Figure 14 are rarely used at present and X-braced and
XH-braced configurations as shown in Figure 78 are more commonly used at the time of writing
this book.
This phase II report applied the phase I requalification (assessment) approach to these existing plat-
forms. Part of this involved engineering analyses of platform capacities and ultimate limit state resist-
ances. Assessments were made on the basis of calculations of platform failure rates and a cost-benefit
analysis. For platform A four options were investigated including leave as-is, repair all damage to the
platform, repair damage and grout legs and finally raise the deck and carry out all the repairs. On a cost-
benefit analysis the most attractive solution was to leave the damage in place but inspect on a more
regular basis. Assessing both initial and future costs, the most effective alternative was to repair and
raise the deck. For platform B several different options were evaluated including repair, but on a cost
analysis the most attractive solution was to remove boat landings and periodically remove marine growth.
The phase II report (PMB 1987) concentrated on structural assessment and cost-benefit analyses
with less emphasis on detailed inspection and repair options. A particular problem identified was
the lack of a process for justifying and communicating acceptability of platforms for suitability of
service, with special concerns for the public regulatory process.
Table 6 Damage to Platform A.
Item no. Location Damage
1 Vertical interior diagonal B2 at –27.5’ (−8.4 m) to Missing

centre leg at –65’ (–19.8 m)
2 Vertical interior diagonal B1 at −27.5’ (−8.4 m) Completely separated from leg at B1
to centre leg at –65’ (−19.6 m)
3 Vertical face diagonal Row B midpoint B1 to B2 Completely separated from horizonal
at –27.5’ (–8.4 m) to B1 at –65’ (–19.8 m) member B1 to B2 at –27.5’ (–8.4 m)
4 Vertical face diagonal Row B midpoint B1 to B2 Completely separated from horizonal
at –65’ (–19.6 m) to B1 at –102.5’ (–31.2 m) member B1 to B2 at –65’ (–19.6m)
5 Vertical interior diagonal A2 at –27.5’ (–8.4 m) to Cracked at A2 from 12:00 to 5:00.
centre leg at –65’ (–19.8m) Crack length = 40” (1016 mm)
6 Horizontal interior diagonal –65’ (–19.8 m) B2 to Cracked at B2 from 9:30 to 2:30.
centre leg Crack length = 14” (355.6 mm)
7 Horizontal interior diagonal –28’ (–8.5 m) B2 to Cracked at B2 from 4:00 to 8:30.
centre leg Crack length = 12.75” (323.9 mm)
8 Horizontal interior diagonal –28’ (–8.5 m) A2 to Cracked at A2 at 4:30. Crack length
centre leg = 12.5” (317.5 mm)
9 Horizontal face member row B, B1 to B2 at –65’ Cracked at B2 at 3:00, 5:00, 9:00.
(–19.8 m) Crack length 7.25” (184 mm) total
Source: Based on PMB (1987) AIM II assessment inspection maintenance, Published as MMS TAP report 106ak.
MWL
Se
g
d
pa
te
Cr ssin
d
ra
ra
ke
pa
te
Mi
ac
d
Se
d
te
ra
pa
Se
Figure 14 Illustration of location of damage to platform A in Table 6. Source: Based on PMB (1987) AIM II
assessment inspection maintenance, Published as MMS TAP report 106ak.
The problems inherent in the platforms studied in phase II (PMB 1987) such as inadequate origi-
nal design standards, damaged members and a need for life extension are typical of many early
generation platforms still in operation.
Phase III (PMB 1988) of this project studied the damaged condition of an eight-legged platform
installed in 1970. The typical damage types that were assessed included:
●● bent and dented members near waterline caused by workboat impacts;
●● completely severed members near the base of the jacket caused by dropped objects from topside
operations;
●● damage to interior horizontal braces and transverse diagonals near platforms’ midpoints;
●● general corrosion and localised corrosion damage in the splash zone; and
●● under-driven piles.
The consequences of these damage types were also evaluated as shown in Section 7.2.6.
Phase IV of this study included an assessment of damage types resulting from inspections. An
additional task was to identify any trends. These trends were then used in a later task to review
inspection approaches. The findings were based on 40 reported incidents from the Gulf of Mexico
representing significant damage. The number of cases of a particular damage type is shown in
Figure 15. As can be seen, cracks were the most frequent damage type followed by holes and then
dents and bows. Surprisingly, corrosion only appeared as a type of damage in three cases. However,
as indicated in Figure 16 which shows the causes of damage, corrosion and fatigue and accidental
damage dominate.
The failure database review confirmed that many platform failures could have been predicted by
a simple engineering review of the wave criteria and deck elevation. This was particularly relevant
to those structures designed prior to the use of the 100-year design wave.
Figure 15 Frequency of damage types. Source: PMB Damage type

(1987) AIM II assessment inspection maintenance, 14
Published as MMS TAP report 106ak. 12
10
8
6
4
2
0
s
er
nd
on
ck
be
be
le
th
ra
si
be
Ho
em
em
O
ro
C
d
or
m
an
C
g
nt
re
in
De
iss
ve
Se
Figure 16 Frequency of causes of damage. Source: Cause of damage

PMB (1987) AIM II assessment inspection 12
maintenance, Published as MMS TAP report 106ak.
10
8
6
4
2
0
ue
nt
ad
n
ct
io
ig
w
de
tig
rlo
je
no
s
es
ro
ci
ob
Fa
ve
nk
Ac
or
O
ed
U
C
pp
ro
D
3.3.4 HSE Study on Causes of Damage to Fixed Steel Structures

There are a number of sources providing an overview of damage types and causes to offshore
structures. The key ones are briefly reviewed in Section 3.3. As an example, an overview of major
structural damage to fixed structures in the UK sector of the North Sea was reported by Sharp
et al. (1995). This information had been taken from a database developed by one of the UK cer-
tification societies. This contained information on 170 incidents in the period 1972 to 1991 from
a review of 174 platforms. The following data were included; severances, known and suspected
through-thickness cracks, dents deeper than 50 mm and bows with a maximum deflection
greater than 100 mm.
Analysis of the data showed that:
●● out of the total of 179 damages, 105 repairs were undertaken;
●● 19 severances were reported of which 10 were caused by boat impact, 6 by fatigue and 3 by
dropped objects. Six of the severances were on non-redundant members, but only 3 members
were repaired;
●● 79 through-thickness cracks were reported of which 21 were on non-redundant members and
15 members were repaired;
●● 58 damages were by fatigue, 12 of which were due to fabrication defects; and
●● 71 damages were caused by boat impact.
The frequencies and causes of the various types of damage recorded in the database are sum-
marised as shown in Table 7 and Figure 17.
Further analysis of the data in Table 7 showed that there is large variability in the interval
between the discovery of major damage and repair. Large intervals indicate that the structure
may be at risk during this interval. Further, the review indicated that not all ‘major damage’
found was considered to have significant consequences and only approximately 50% of the major
damage was repaired. This implies that the definition used for major damage was too broad. The
damage shown in Table 7 may place the structure at risk but did not necessarily lead to struc-
tural collapse.
Table 7 Cause and Frequency of Damage to Fixed Offshore Structures.
Damage Type
CAUSE Severance Through crack Dent Bow Tear Hole Crease Total
Boat impact 10 13 22 23 1 2 - 71
Cyclic loading (fatigue) 5 41 - - - - - 46
Cyclic loading (fatigue) from 1 11 - - - - - 12
fabrication defect
Installation - 10 2 2 - 2 1 17
Dropped object 3 2 6 - 1 - - 12
Mud cuttings mound - 1 - - - - - 1
Unknown - 1 13 1 1 4 - 20
Total 19 79 43 26 3 8 1 179
Damage types
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Severance Through Dent Bow Tear Hole Crease
crack
Boat impact Fatigue Fabrication defect
Installation Dropped object Unknown
Figure 17 Cause and frequency of damage to fixed offshore structures.
3.3.5 Single-Sided Closure Welds

A number of joints in offshore structures have been fabricated using single-sided welds (also called
circumferential butt welds). Typically, a brace in a fixed steel offshore structure should be con-
nected to the leg by a double-sided weld to obtain optimal fatigue life. However, due to the lack of
access during construction, a short stub or can close to the leg is often used allowing a double-
sided weld to the leg. This requires that the brace is then welded to the stub or can by a single-sided
closure weld. A possible mitigation is to cut out an access or closure window to allow for internal
double-sided welding of the brace to stub or can connection. However, this access window has to
be closed using single-sided welding.
The potential for root defects during single-sided welding is high and there is a greater possibility
of these root defects remaining undetected during fabrication because of the difficulties of inspec-
tion. This inspection is limited to methods such as UT and radiographic testing which are less
successful than more conventional methods used for detecting external surface defects.
There have been several cases of fatigue failure of offshore members containing single-sided
closure welds. Failure at single-sided closure welds was, for example, detected on the Chevron
Ninian platform in the mid-1980s (Stacey et al. 1997). Wet radiography and ultrasonic methods
were used to perform NDE at the access windows. These indicated that fabrication defects were
present and that fatigue cracks had initiated at some of these defects. As a result, a horizontal
member fractured and two through-thickness cracks were also detected at similar access windows.
These members were repaired in 1984 and 1985. In many of these cases cracking has initiated
inside the member propagating outwards and when discovered externally, the crack had developed
to a through-thickness crack.
A review of these welds was undertaken by Stacey et al. (1997), which included an assessment
of fabrication procedures for two platforms. The review further investigated the types of defects
left after inspections, mainly using MPI and UT. In one of the platforms inspected also by radiog-
raphy, 55% of the defects were found to be located at the weld root, whilst in the second platform
inspected only by UT and MPI, only 7% were found. This difference was attributed to the use of
radiographic inspection for the first structure, providing more efficient inspection than the use of
MPI and UT.
The use of backing strips for the closure weld was also addressed by Stacey et al. (1997) with a
lower percentage actually needing repair at the fabrication stage. Access windows were also
inspected underwater after installation on the Chevron Ninian Southern platform and compared
to the results obtained during its fabrication. It was found that the underwater inspections tended
to slightly underestimate the defect height (depth).
The paper also reported on fatigue testing at The Welding Institute, Cambridge, UK, (TWI) on
three single-sided butt-welded pipes. This included checking the inspections made during their
fabrication using CVI, UT and radiography. It was found that both UT and radiography proved the
most successful in detecting root defects.
The capability of inspection methods to locate root defects is limited, at the time of writing.
Stacey et al. (1997) recommended that research was needed to develop PoD and POS data for the
detection of root defects using ultrasonic methods. This requirement still remains although some
work was done by TWI in detecting defects at internal ring stiffeners using ultrasonics.
3.3.6 MSL Rationalization and Optimisation of Underwater Inspection Planning Report

A Joint Industry Project titled ‘Rationalisation and optimisation of underwater inspection
planning consistent with API RP2A section 14’ (MSL 2000) was undertaken for the Mineral
Management Services and several US offshore companies. The aim of the project was to provide
industry with the data to enable optimised inspection-planning without compromising safety,
based on both ISO 19902 (ISO 2007) and API RP-2A (API 2014) practices. As a result, an industry-
wide database was compiled from the inspection data amassed by the industry over the period
1950 to 1999. The objectives of this investigation were also listed as answering the following
questions:
●● What defects were found on platforms in the Gulf of Mexico?
●● Where were these defects occurring and what components were affected?
●● What were the causes of the defects?
●● Which platforms were susceptible to defects and why?
This database contained platform, inspection and anomaly (damage) data from over 2,000
Gulf of Mexico platforms in water depths ranging from less than 6 m to over 600 m, collated
from the 12 major operators involved. Overall details of almost 3,000 underwater inspections
were catalogued and ~5,000 anomalies were recorded. Sixty-four percent of the platforms had
been designed either to versions of API RP-2A (API 2014) before 1972 or prior to the introduc-
tion of this standard.
The database of anomalies found in GoM platforms could be divided into four categories,
as shown in Figure 18 and the break-down of these categories is shown in Table 8. It can be
seen that mechanical damage consisting of dents, bows, gauges and separated members was
responsible for over half of the damage recorded. The dominating type of mechanical damage
was dents.
It was found that 29% of the platforms surveyed had some form of mechanical damage and of
these, 3% had major damage (dent depth greater than 30% of the nominal member diameter or 10
times the nominal wall thickness). For those defects where the cause was known, 53% were from
vessel impact and 47% from dropped objects.
Mechanical defects (57%)
Corrosion (20%)
Weld defects (9%)
Appurtenance defects (14%)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Figure 18 Reported defects by category. Source: Based on MSL (2000). Rationalisation and optimisation of
underwater inspection planning consistent with API RP2A section 14. Published as MMS TAP report 345aa.
Table 8 Categories of Platform Defects.
Mechanical damage Corrosion Weld and joint defects Appurtenance defects
Dents Uniform (general) Crack indications Anodes

Bows Pitting Fabrication defects Risers and conductors
Gouges Holes Overload defects Boat landings
Separated members Crevice Intake caissons
Fretting Other
Source: MSL (2000). Rationalisation and optimisation of underwater inspection planning consistent with API RP2A
section 14. Published as MMS TAP report 345aa.
The JIP database indicated that weld and joint defects were responsible for 9% of the reported
defects. These included crack indications, fabrication defects and defects resulting from overload.
These defects were more prominent in platforms installed before 1980.
Corrosion damage observed consisted of pitting, holes, crevice corrosion, fretting and general
uniform corrosion. Pitting corrosion and holes were the most common corrosion defects recorded.
Most of it was observed in or above the splash zone. Inspection data showed that CVI was a reliable
indicator of the general corroded state of the platform. It was also noted that the more heavily cor-
roded platforms had an increased susceptibility to general fatigue damage.
The report shows the number of platforms (208) with ineffective cathodic protection systems (at
the time of their inspection) based on anode surveys and dropped cell measurements. Also shown
is the number of platforms within the MMS damage database reported to be unprotected at the
time of inspection.
As the drop cell readings were available for each of the platforms in the database it was possible
to identify those platforms where at least 40% of the recorded readings were outside the range
–850 mV to –1150 mV. These were then analysed in connection with fatigue crack indications. It
was found that none of the platforms designed to modern versions of API RP-2A had any fatigue
cracks. For those platforms designed to earlier versions of the API recommended practice eight
platforms had fatigue crack indications. The figures appear to indicate that excessive corrosion
increased a platform’s susceptibility to fatigue cracking for the early-RP-2A vintage platforms.
However, these platforms were also older and hence fatigue and corrosion would have been more
likely. Fatigue damage in early-RP-2A platforms was dominated by damage to the conductor guide
frame at the first elevation below the water surface.
It was found that marine growth measurements in excess of the API recommended design levels
were widespread in the Gulf of Mexico, mainly in water depths above 12 m. It was noted that the
marine growth thickness established a stable level after a few years but with annual and seasonal
variations in thickness. Measured thicknesses indicated that a variable marine growth profile was
preferable during design to the constant thickness of 3.8 cm (1.5”) beyond a water depth of 46 m,
as recommended in API RP-2A (API 2014).
It was further found that seabed scour was not a concern for the large majority of Gulf of Mexico
platforms due to the generally cohesive nature of the soils. However, there was evidence that tem-
porary seabed movements occurred during severe storms or hurricanes.
The JIP reported that flooded members were generally the result of through-thickness fabrica-
tion flaws, corrosion, mechanical damage and fatigue. The database contained records from almost
300 FMD surveys containing over 5,500 FMD readings on 244 platforms. As would be expected,
the number of platforms with positive flooded member readings increased with the age of the
platform. For the earliest platforms (designed to earlier versions of API RP-2A), 33% of those sur-
veyed showed member flooding. The percentage was even higher for those platforms designed
prior to API RP-2A with 62% showing positive readings using FMD. For the platforms designed to
the more modern versions of API RP-2A only 5 of the 44 platforms (11%) surveyed showed positive
readings for flooded members.
The JIP findings supported the existing industry position on Flooded Member Detection as
stated in API RP-2A (API 2014) that the appropriate use of FMD generally provides an acceptable
alternative to close visual examination and may sometimes be preferable.
Debris typically results from objects dropped or discarded overboard during operations and
throughout the service life. Debris surveys are routinely carried out during API level II platform
inspections. The database contained over 14,000 items of debris that had been recorded. Of these
less than 4% were ever recovered or removed from the structure. The database indicated that
debris associated with platforms was not generally detrimental to the structural integrity. One
exception to this was where discarded wires, cables and grout-lines were found, which could
lead to fretting corrosion. In addition, metallic objects in contact with the structure could also
interfere with the corrosion protection system. The report noted that these types of debris should
be removed.
3.3.7 Studies on Hurricane and Storm Damage

Most structural failures have occurred in the Gulf of Mexico (GoM) during hurricanes. A
review of hurricane damage to fixed offshore structures and wellhead platforms was per-
formed for the HSE (1995). A database of hurricane damage was developed, which contained
information on a total of 295 incidents: 131 incidents for jackets (of which 50 have toppled)
and 164 satellite, wellhead or caisson platforms (of which 36 have toppled).
Hurricane and storm damage will typically result in plastic deformation, buckling, cracks and
ruptures, severed members in the worst cases leading to leaning or global collapse of the plat-
forms. However, due to the de-manning procedures in place in the Gulf of Mexico where the plat-
forms are evacuated before the hurricanes arrived, very little loss of life occurred. An example of a
leaning platform is shown in Figure 19 and an example of a damaged leg is shown in Figure 20.
A summary of platforms damaged by hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico is presented in PMB
Figure 19 Gulf of Mexico platform leaning damaged in a hurricane. Source: photo provided to
Gerhard Ersdal.
Engineering (1993), HSE (1995), Puskar et al. (2004), Energo (2006), Energo (2007), Energo (2010)
and Ersdal et al. (2014). The main conclusions of these studies were that:
●● fixed structures designed before 1977 were less resistant to hurricane loading than those designed
after 1977 (the early structures were designed using the 9th or an earlier edition of API RP 2A
with only a 25-year design wave recipe);
●● the majority (85%) of the failures have occurred from Hurricane Andrew in 1992 and after.
Several platform and satellite and wellhead structures of more modern design (post 9th edition
of API RP 2A) were damaged by Hurricane Andrew and the later hurricanes, indicating the sever-
ity of these later hurricanes. Most damage to platforms in the later hurricanes resulted in leaning
(between 1o and 45o) or toppling (collapse), as a result of member or joint failures and in many
cases multiple component failures.
Sharp et al. (1995) reported that the number of fixed platforms damaged by Hurricane Andrew
in August 1992 included both platforms and satellites that were toppled or leaning as illustrated in
Table 9.
A later study by Kareem et al. (1999) included similar numbers to those in Table 9 and indicated
that 43 platforms suffered irreparable structural damage and 100 platforms suffered significant but
repairable damage.
Of the ten platforms that were completely toppled, only one had been designed post-1977.
However, failure of this more modern structure was initiated by collision with a drifting mobile
platform. The remainder were found to be leaning significantly or to have sustained significant
topside’s damage, which would have placed offshore workers at significant risk if evacuation had
not taken place prior to the hurricane.
Table 9 Damage Caused by Hurricane Andrew (from Sharp

et al. 1995).
Damage Quantity
Platforms toppled 10
Platforms leaning 26
Satellites toppled 25
Satellites leaning (total) 120
Satellites leaning (< 5o) 77
Pollution events 11
Fires 2
Drifting rigs 5
Pipeline segments damaged 454
Offshore: Risk & Technology Consulting Inc. (2002) carried out a study for MMS on damage to
MODUs in Hurricane Lily and earlier hurricanes (including Andrew). It is reported that in
Hurricane Andrew, 5 MODUs broke adrift and 2 fixed platforms were toppled as a result of drifting
MODUs. The storm snapped seven of the eight anchor chains on one of the MODUs and drove the
unit some 40 miles to the north. After breaking loose from its location, it collided with 2 platforms.
The anchors from another MODU dragged along the bottom for approximately 4 miles and rup-
tured a large pipeline resulting in a significant oil spill. In addition, there were 16 pipeline failures
from the anchors of MODUs which drifted from their initial position during the storm.
MMS commissioned a review of damage types after each of the major hurricanes, in particular
the damage from Andrew in 1992 (PMB Engineering 1993) and onwards to Hurricane Ike in 2008
(Puskar et al. 2004, Energo 2006, Energo 2007, Energo 2010). Particular examples of damage from
hurricanes include destruction to platforms, and buckled braces, cracked joints, cracked legs pri-
marily due to strength overload.
The general types of platform damage below water both to the main structure and the secondary
structure were as follows (Energo 2007):
●● braces: buckles, dents, holes, cracks, tears, out-of-plane bowing, severed members;
●● legs: buckles, dents, holes, cracks, tears, pancake leg severance;
●● joints: cracks at welds, cracks into chords, cracks into braces, punch-through of braces, pull out
of braces (including a piece of the leg material, leaving a hole in the leg);
●● conductor trays: cracks at joints (typically at 6 and 12 o’clock), conductor torn loose from
guide; and
●● risers: broken water caissons, broken riser standoffs.
In several hurricanes pancake leg severances have been observed and according to Energo (2010)
this type of damage has been reported to have occurred in 21 cases. This type of damage has been
called “pancake leg” due to the flattening of the leg in the damaged area, see Figure 20. The damage
is believed to develop as a result of the significant stiffness change between the thin-walled section
of the jacket leg and the thicker joint-can section at the horizontal elevations. According to Energo
(2010) in most cases it occurs for D/t ratios over 60 and an average thickness transition between
join-can and nominal leg of 1.6 mm. The majority of the platforms that experienced this type of
damage were older 60s and 70s vintage platforms.
Local Buckle
Nominal Leg
Pile Longitudinal Seam Weld
Joint Can
Figure 20 Pancake leg damage—fully severed leg and initial damage configuration. Source: Courtesy of
US Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE).
3.4 Previous Studies on Damage to Floating Steel Structures
3.4.1 D.En. Studies on Semi-Submersibles

A review of defects detected in semi-submersibles is reported by the Department of Energy (1989a).
Eleven rigs conforming to four basic designs were considered. The ages of the structures ranged
from 3 to 17 years and defects were found in all of the structures, necessitating repairs and in some
cases, major structural modifications. The defect data enabled the identification of the weld details
with the highest propensity for fatigue cracking. It was found that the majority of defects were
associated with particular weld details, namely:
●● bracing to column joints;
●● abrupt profile gusset terminations on bracings; and
●● fillet welded ring reinforced penetrations on bracings.
It was noted that there is a lack of ‘consistent systematically recorded survey data’ and conse-
quently this causes difficulties with the interpretation of the data. A further consideration is the
lack of information on fabrication defects which may have been missed during inspection and
hence were part of the initial damage in the structure.
3.4.2 SSC Review of Damage Types to Ship-Shaped Structures

In the Ship Structure Committee review SSC-337 (SSC 1990), case studies of failures of ship struc-
tures were undertaken, with the aim of determining the modes of serious damage in ship struc-
tures. Fatigue cracking was observed or reported in 11 of the 16 cases examined. In addition,
fatigue cracking followed by brittle failure was found in nine of these cases. Overall brittle fracture
was seen in 11 of the 16 cases, all of these originating at design or fabrication anomalies. Most of
the brittle factures examined were in steel grades A and B (as given in typical classification society
rules). Arrest of brittle facture was due to riveted construction in three cases and in one case this
was due to available redundancy. Overall, the main conclusion from the studies reported was that
fatigue and corrosion were the most common types of damage seen in ship structures.
The SSC-381 report (SSC 1995) attempted to review damage to ship structures for the purpose of
evaluating their effect on residual strength. Data were collected based on literature reviews, interviews
with ship owners and operators and searches in available databases. However, SSC (1995) reports that
the majority of the ship owner and operators were reluctant to release or disclose damage records of
their fleet. The focus of the review was on the impact the damage had on the overall residual strength
of the structure as a function of its extent, mode of failure and its relative shipboard location. As an
example, it was recognised that small cracks (also named nuisance cracks) often will hardly have any
effect on the overall strength, while cracks of considerable length on the main deck or side shell can
seriously affect the structure’s residual strength. Further, a structure experiencing a brittle failure
hardly possesses any reserve strength and the failure can lead to total collapse of the structure.
Although it is recognised that the primary causes of failure to ship-shaped structures were corrosion
and fatigue cracking, this report primarily evaluated damage and its effect on structures (i.e. not incor-
porating corrosion). The modes of failure mentioned in SSC 391 is listed in Table 10.
Table 10 Modes of Failure for Ship-Shaped Structures.
Type
of failure Extent Possible locations Remarks
Yielding Local At discontinuities and joints. In May not be damaging unless it occurs
plating under pressure. Near repeatedly.
concentrated loads.
Global In structures under axial tension Resulting gross distortions cannot be
such as beams or grillages under accepted at loads below collapse load.
lateral load. Energy absorption will also depend on
ductility.
Buckling Local In thin plating between stiffeners Elastic local buckling may not be damaging
such as deep webs in shear or unless it overloads the remaining structure.
compression and pillars.
Global In stiffened panels in compression Will generally involve yielding, hence,
or shear. unacceptable permanent distortions. Final
collapse strength may also depend on
ductility.
Fracture Local Unlikely in view of the high strains required.
- ductile Global Unacceptable. Design will be governed by
general yielding load, but safety depends on
ultimate tensile strength.
Fracture Local At discontinuities or where ductility Undesirable though not serious if
- brittle is reduced by triaxial stresses or propagation prevented by fail-safe devices
metallurgical damage. and remaining material is sufficiently tough.
Global Unacceptable but hardly calculable. Good
material properties, detail design and
workmanship must be ensured.
Fracture Local At stress concentrations such as Undesirable but not serious if material
- fatigue joints. prevents development of a brittle crack.
Generally unacceptable in longitudinal
material.
Global No known cases. Preventive action should be
possible2 before crack propagates generally.
Source: SSC (1995), SSC-381 Residual strength of damaged marine structures, Ship Structure Committee,
Washington, D.C., US. © 1995, SHIP STRUCTURE COMMITTEE.
2 It should be noted that this SSC report predates the MV Erika and MV Prestige accidents (1999 and 2002
respectively).
The report (SSC 1995) evaluated a total of 41 instances of damage where a complete description of
the damage in terms of location, cause, mode of failure, extent of damage and more was seen as rel-
evant for the project. The evaluation of this damage indicated that for tankers (which is assumed to
be most relevant for offshore structures) the side shell longitudinal and secondary connecting struc-
tures (16%), brackets (13%) and flat bar stiffeners (10%) were found to be the components most often
damaged. Among primary longitudinal members the side shell longitudinals (33%) and the main
deck plating and associated longitudinals (33%) were found to be most often damaged. Among primary
transverse members the web frames (55%) were found to be the most affected due to the presence of
lap joints. Among secondary connecting structures, brackets accounted for 50% of the damage. For
tankers most of the longitudinal damage occurred in the middle cargo block. However, transverse
damage was found to be evenly distributed among the port, starboard and the centerplane areas.
The predominant form of local failure was found to be fracture (mostly fatigue but also brittle).
The Ship Structure Committee report SSC-416 (2000) states that the primary damage types for ship
structures were fatigue and corrosion and these, if not properly repaired or rectified, could potentially
lead to catastrophic failure. However, also general wear and tear and deformation defects were men-
tioned. The review indicates that for the commercial fleet classified by the Japanese classification
society Nippon Kaiji Kayokai (NKK), corrosion damage accounted for more than half the total damage.
3.4.3 Defect Type for Tanker Structure Components

The SSC report “SSC-421 Risk-informed inspection of marine vessels” (SSC 2002) provides an
overview of:
●● current inspection methods and degradation mechanisms of ship structures;
●● proposed methodology and guidelines for risk-informed inspection;
●● demonstration of these guidelines and the methodology using a case study and examples; and
●● a software development plan.
The typical degradation mechanisms of ship structures are also assumed to be relevant for float-
ing offshore structures and particularly for ship-shaped offshore structures. A summary of tanker
structural elements and their components that are prone to damage categories is presented in
Table 11 based on the TSCF (Tanker Structure Cooperative Forum) 1997, “Guidance Manual for
Tanker Structures” (TSCF 1997).
3.4.4 Semi-Submersible Flooding Incident Data

HSE undertook a study (HSE 1999) to record and review incidents that had led to semi-submersi-
bles losing stability or buoyancy. These events were caused by either internal or external factors.
The internal events included:
●● accidental flooding of normally dry spaces or tanks;
●● loss of control of the ballast system;
●● failure of pumps or valves;
●● mal-operation; and
●● cracks leading to leakage.
The external events included:
●● damage by anchors;
●● collision;
Table 11 Typical Defect Types for Tanker Structural Components (SSC 421).
Category of damage susceptibility
Corrosion Fatigue cracking Buckling
Longitudinal ●● Upper deck plating and ●● Discontinuities ●● Upper deck plating

elements longitudinals ●● Openings & notches and longitudinals
●● Welds between structural ●● Connections with ●● Bottom plating and
elements (especially deck transverse elements longitudinals
longitudinals to deck plating) ●● Longitudinal
●● Scallops & openings for drainage bulkhead plating
●● Webs of longitudinals on (middle & upper)
longitudinal bulkheads (high ●● Deck & bottom
rates & localized ‘grooving’) girders
●● Flanges of bottom longitudinals
(pitting)
●● Bottom plating (pitting, erosion
near suctions)
●● Longitudinal bulkhead plating
(relatively thin)
Transverse ●● Upper part, connection to deck ●● Connections with ●● Web plate (shear
web frames ●● Just below top coating longitudinal buckling)
●● Flanges of bottom transverses elements ●● Brackets, flanges
●● Scallops in and cross-ties
connection with
longitudinals
●● Bracket toes
●● Holes & openings
●● Crossing face flats
Transverse ●● Upper part, connection to deck ●● Connections with ●● Horizontal stringers,
bulkheads ●● Stringer webs longitudinal web plate (shear)
●● Close to openings in stringers elements ●● Girder/stringer
●● Highly stressed regions (e.g. ●● Connections brackets
around bracket toes) between girder ●● Vertical girders, web
systems plate (shear
●● Bracket toes buckling)
●● Corrugated
bulkhead plating
Swash ●● Upper part, connection to deck ●● Connections with ●● Horizontal stringers,
bulkheads ●● Stringer webs longitudinal web plate (shear)
●● Close to openings in bulkhead elements ●● Vertical girders, web
plating ●● Connections plate (shear
●● Highly stressed regions (e.g. between girder buckling)
around bracket toes) systems ●● Girder/stringer
●● Bracket toes brackets
●● Openings in ●● Openings in
bulkhead plating bulkhead plating
Source: SSC (2002), SSC421 Risk-informed inspection of marine vessels, Ship Structure Committee, Washington,
D.C., US. © 2002, SHIP STRUCTURE COMMITTEE.
Table 12 Incident Frequencies for Semi-Submersibles for the Period 1970–1997 (HSE 1999).
Area Country No. incidents Rig years Incident frequency per rig year
North Sea UK 20 918 0.022

Norway 7 493 0.014
Other 3 25 0.12
Total, North Sea 30 1463 0.021
Outside North Sea 13 2610 0.005
Total 43 4073 0.011
Source: Modified from HSE (1999). Semi-Submersible Flooding Incident Data, Report OTO 99 016, Health and
Safety Executive (HSE), HMSO, London, UK.
The total also includes numbers for The Netherlands.
●● grounding; and
●● severe weather.
The study (HSE 1999) confirmed the significant presence of fatigue cracks in semi-submersible
structures. To the knowledge of the authors, more than 100 cracks had been detected yearly requiring
repair in these worst cases for older floating offshore structures. In such extreme cases permanent
repair teams would be required on site. This has to be expected for the oldest platforms if these are
to be kept in operation.
The trawl of data sources resulted in 43 relevant incidents world-wide in the period 1970–97.
Fourteen of these were caused by external impact or from other external events and the remaining
29 were caused by internal failures. Thirty of the incidents were recorded from operations in the
North Sea. The report includes details of the individual incidents, as indicated above.
The report included details of damage and incident frequencies for different parts of the world
as shown in Table 12. The review was mainly concerned with the variability in available data-
bases and noted that the data for incident frequencies depended on which database was used,
with UK values varying by a factor of two. One recommendation was for a common database to
be set up. The report makes no comment on the differences in the data for different locations,
with, for example, the incident frequencies being four times higher for the North Sea compared
to those for operations outside the North Sea.
3.5 Previous Studies on Damage Types to Mooring Lines and Anchors
3.5.1 Introduction and Damage Statistics for Moorings

Typical floating production systems have a spread mooring system where the mooring lines are
often a combination of chain, wire rope and synthetic rope. Chains are most frequently used in
shallow waters. In deeper waters wire rope and synthetic rope are used due to their lower self-
weight compared to chain. Synthetic ropes (e.g. high modulus polyethylene) are often combined
with chains to minimise contact of the synthetic rope with the seabed. These ropes are often pro-
vided with a protective outer sheath. A mooring system usually consists of a minimum of six lines.
Mooring line failures have occurred on a fairly regular basis at intervals substantially less than the
design life of most units. Deterioration of the lines due to fatigue, corrosion, abrasion and wear over
time can increase the likelihood of single or multiple line failures. An illustration of a mooring line and
the typical locations of different types of damage is given in Figure 21.
Fairlead:
MWL Bending and tension
Top-section:
Corrosion
Highest tension
Impact zone:
Impact damage and abrasion
Anchor zone:
Sulfide reducing bacteria Fatigue and wear
Seabed
Figure 21 Mooring line elements and typical damage zones.
Figure 22 Partially loose stud, from corrosion or

mechanical damage (HSE 2017b). Source: HSE (2017b).
HSE RR1091 Remote Operated Vehicle (ROV) inspection
of long-term mooring systems for floating offshore
installations - Mooring Integrity Joint Industry Project
Phase 2. Prepared by the Joint Industry Project Steering
Committee for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
HMSO, London, UK.
Multiple line failures have resulted in a floating production unit drifting creating a likelihood of the
unit causing a collision and unless disconnected from the wells a possibility of serious oil leakage and
a blow-out. There are examples where FPSOs have suffered a line failure without it being discovered for
a period of at least several weeks (HSE 1999). During this time the installation could suffer further line
failures and possibly more severe consequences.
Mechanical damage can occur in chains and wire ropes either from poor handling, use of anchor
chasers or from problems at the fairlead. This damage can lead to loose studs (see Figure 22), bent
links or gouges. All of these reduce the load-carrying capacity of a mooring line. Mechanical damage
to wire ropes can result in twisted or loose strands, reducing strength.
3.5.2 API RP-2MIM Overview of Damage Types to Mooring Lines

The recommended practice API RP-2MIM (API 2019) provides an analysis of causes of failure of
mooring lines. On the basis of an industrial survey the recommended practice (RP) notes that the
failure rate per line has remained approximately constant at ~0.015 failures per exposed year. This is
significantly above the assumed design reliability of 1 x 10-3 per year, which is implicit in codes. The
RP also lists failure causes for both chain and wire rope as shown in Table 13. Fatigue and corrosion
dominate for chains, making up 64% of the total. For wire ropes installation is apparently the highest
cause of damage with fatigue coming second. API RP-2MIM (API 2019) also shows the vulnerability
of different types of mooring system components to potential causes of failure. The two causes
addressed are brittle fracture and ductile failure.
Table 13 Causes of Failures for Both Chains and Wire Ropes

(API 2019).
Chain Wire rope
Causes of failure % %
Corrosion 20
Design 6 8
Fatigue 17 19
Fatigue/corrosion 19
Out-of-plane bending fatigue 8
Installation 8 38
Manufacturing defect 8
Mechanical 8 12
Multiple causes 3 4
Unknown 3 15
Overload 4
Source: Modified from API (2019), API RP-2MIM Mooring Integrity

Management, American Petroleum Institute, 2019.
API RP 2MIM (API 2019) also shows the location of damage. For chains the fairlead/chain stop-
per dominates as the location for damage whereas for wire ropes the dominant location is near
the socket.
API RP 2MIM (API 2019) details inspection objectives for different causes divided into three
categories. These are spiral strand wire rope (unjacketed), wire rope (spelter socket termination)
and chain. For each of these three categories the typical anomalies that can be detected during
inspection are listed together with causal mechanisms, known locations and potential degrada-
tion rates.
3.5.3 HSE Studies on Mooring Systems

HSE report RR219 (HSE 2004) was the result of a Joint Industry Project and lists causes of failure
of moorings. For chains it is stated that the primary cause of line failure is with the connecting
shackles or with links that have been mechanically damaged. Common causes of chain failure are
given as:
●● mechanical damage to links;
●● missing or loose studs;
●● failure of connecting links; and
●● brittle fracture of links (less common with better manufacturing control).
For wire ropes the three main causes listed are:
●● mechanical damage to the wire;
●● corrosion and wear; and
●● fatigue.
HSE report RR444 (HSE 2006) lists the main causes of line failure as:
●● overload and overstress;
●● fatigue in a catenary, at a sheave or connection;
●● brittle fracture;
●● corrosion;
●● wear and abrasion; and
●● mechanical failure of the mooring line handling system.
As can be seen, there are differences between the causes listed in API RP-2MIM (API 2019) and
HSE reports RR219 (HSE 2004) and RR444 (HSE 2006). This is particularly the case for wire ropes,
where installation dominates in API RP-2MIM (API 2019). It is possible that poor installation led
to the causes listed in RR219 (HSE 2004).
3.5.4 Studies on Corrosion of Mooring Systems

Chains are vulnerable to corrosion in seawater reducing strength as cathodic protection (CP) is nor-
mally not implemented on mooring chains and connecting components. However, cathodic protec-
tion systems on the floater itself can reach some way down the chain. The reach will depend on the
electrical resistance between chain links and hence the level of protection will decrease with dis-
tance from where the chain is electrically connected to the floater.
Corrosion rates are approximately proportional to the level of dissolved oxygen in the water. The
oxygen content is influenced by temperature and the degree of mixing. As earlier mentioned, in the
North Sea the oxygen level in seawater is typically close to the saturated level due to the constant
mixing at all depths. A corrosion allowance (additional sacrificial thickness) is usually part of the
design specification. Currently industry practice is to increase the chain diameter by 0.2 mm to
0.4 mm per service year in the splash zone where oxygenated water tends to accelerate corrosion.
ISO 19901-7 (ISO 2013) states for chain in the splash zone or in contact with a hard bottom seabed,
the diameter should be increased by 0.2 mm to 0.8 mm per year of the planned design service life.
Bare steel surfaces are more anodic (more prone to corrosion) than surfaces covered with depos-
its and biofilms. Formation of calcareous deposits on the steel surface (see Figure 23) is considered
to be one of the strongest features to limit the corrosion rate. Deposits of corrosion products (such
as iron hydroxides) will also contribute to limiting corrosion rates. Thus, damage to surface depos-
its can lead to enhanced corrosion and possibly tendencies to pitting corrosion.
Corrosion pitting has also been observed, with consequent reduction in strength. Pitting in shack-
les has been observed in the North Sea which was higher than expected and believed to be due to
galvanic corrosion (dissimilar metals) or sulphate-reducing bacteria (HSE 2006). Chain links with
studs can suffer corrosion at the junction of the stud with the link itself, particularly if the stud is
welded in place. In addition, loose studs have been implicated in crack propagation and fatigue.
Wire ropes are also subject to corrosion and protective coatings are normally used to minimise cor-
rosion. However, if corrosion occurs, it can reduce the rope strength and discard criteria for wire ropes
are usually based on the degree of outer corrosion of individual wires (HSE 2006), see Figures 24–26.
3.5.5 Studies on Fatigue of Mooring Systems

Chain links can suffer from fatigue with cracking. For studded links the location of maximum
tensile cyclic loading is a position on the inner shoulder of the link where cracking has been
observed (see Figure 27). For non-studded links the location of maximum cyclic tensile loading is
Figure 23 General corrosion on a recovered floating

production unit mooring line after 16 years’ service
(HSE 2006). Source: HSE RR444 Floating production
system - JIP FPS mooring integrity. Prepared by Noble
Denton Europe Limited for the Health and Safety
Executive (HSE). HMSO, London, UK.
Figure 24 Example of moderately severe corrosion in wire rope (HSE 2006). Source: HSE RR444 Floating
production system - JIP FPS mooring integrity. Prepared by Noble Denton Europe Limited for the Health and
Safety Executive (HSE). HMSO, London, UK.
Figure 25 Rope in Figure 23 after thorough cleaning (HSE 2006). Source: HSE RR444 Floating production
system - JIP FPS mooring integrity. Prepared by Noble Denton Europe Limited for the Health and Safety
Executive (HSE). HMSO, London, UK.
Figure 26 Example of moderately severe external wear in wire rope (HSE 2006). Source: HSE RR444
Floating production system - JIP FPS mooring integrity. Prepared by Noble Denton Europe Limited for the
Health and Safety Executive (HSE). HMSO, London, UK.
at the crown where neighbouring links are joined together (see Figure 28). Fatigue cracking can
lead to failure of the link and the chain itself.
Fatigue at the links close to a fairlead is a typical problem for mooring lines which is easily
solved by moving the line at suitable intervals such that the same section is not exposed to the
bending stresses for longer periods.
3.6 Previous Studies on Concrete Structures
3.6.1 Concrete in the Oceans Project

Concrete in the Oceans (Department of Energy 1989b) was a major UK programme started in 1976
and completed in 1986. It was initiated due to the lack of knowledge on several important aspects
of offshore concrete, given the development of several offshore concrete installations at that time.
It was jointly funded by the UK Department of Energy & the offshore industry and coordinated by
the Underwater Engineering Group (UEG) of CIRIA. The total cost was £1.31M. It included
19 individual projects in 2 phases, covering:
●● corrosion;
●● structural aspects and design;
Axial Tension
Bending Tension
Ha wn
Cr
lf
o
Co
m
pr
Axial Tension
es
si
Bending Comp
on
Ten
sio
Tension
Crown
n
Comp
STUD
Figure 27 Load regimes for a studded link showing failure locations, terminology and areas of high tensile
stress around the link. Source: HSE (2017a). HSE RR1093 An assessment of proof load effect on the fatigue
life of mooring chain for floating offshore installations - Mooring Integrity Joint Industry Project Phase 2.
Prepared by the Joint Industry Project Steering Committee for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). HMSO,
London, UK. Licensed under Open Government License.
Figure 28 Fatigue damage at the crown of a

Fatigue crack non-studded chain (HSE 2017a). Source: HSE RR1093
An assessment of proof load effect on the fatigue life
of mooring chain for floating offshore installations
- Mooring Integrity Joint Industry Project Phase 2.
Prepared by the Joint Industry Project Steering
Committee for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
HMSO, London, UK.
●● fatigue; and
●● inspection & maintenance.
Several test facilities were used, including deep water (Loch Linnhe in Scotland), splash zone
(Portland on the south coast) and also tank testing.
Several actual concrete structures were surveyed in the programme. These included:
●● Tongue Sands Tower (World War II fort in Thames estuary, 35 years old at the time of survey);
●● Mulberry Harbour Unit from World War II, situated at Portland (36 years old at time of survey);
●● Royal Sovereign Lighthouse (11 km south east of Eastbourne, 10 years old at time of survey); and
●● Shoreham Harbour Breakwater on the Sussex coast (22 years old at time of survey).
More information on these surveys is given in the chapter on inspection. A large number of
reports were published, including a coordinating report OTH 87 248 (Department of Energy 1989b).
The Concrete in the Oceans project collected information on defects, damage and deterioration
from actual offshore concrete structures and provided photographic examples of these. These
areas are listed in six groups which are covered in detail in Section 4.2.10.
The major types of deterioration listed were:
●● impact damage;
●● cracks in the concrete cover (structural cracks);
●● corrosion of reinforcement and spalling of the cover;
●● deterioration of surface treatment; and
●● abrasion and erosion.
3.6.2 Durability of Offshore Concrete Structures

The Norwegian Research Council initiated a review of the durability of concrete structures in
the late 1990s. Part 2.4 of this review concerned offshore concrete structures (Norges
Byggforskningsinstitutt 1999). The review used the results of visual inspections, measurement of
concrete cover, electro-chemical potential and core tests to map the chloride ingress and other
anomalies on 6 offshore concrete structures in and above the splash zone. Four of these were GBS,
one semi-submersible and one concrete tank. All these were provided with a cathodic protection
system to protect mechanical equipment. An overview of the identified damage types featured in
this report is shown in Table 14.
Table 14 Overview of Identified Damage on Concrete Structures.
Year of Year in operation at

Structure installation inspection
Statjord A 1977 16 Was provided with an epoxy membrane on the

outer surface of the shafts which seemed to have a
significant effect in reducing the chloride ingress
Gullfaks A 1986 7 Moderate chloride ingress (0.1% at 10 mm depth)
Gullfaks C 1989 5 Moderate chloride ingress (0.1% at 25 mm depth)
Oseberg A 1988 8 and 9 Moderate chloride ingress (0.1% at 25 mm depth)
Troll B 1995 2 Low chloride ingress (0.1% at 6–10 mm depth)
Ekofisk Tank 1973 17 and 20 High chloride ingress (0.1% at 40–45 mm depth)
When measuring chloride ingress there is a difference whether the amount is quoted as a per-
centage by weight of cement or concrete. The critical level of chloride ingress is in the Concrete in
the Oceans project given as 0.4% by weight of cement, while in this report it is reported as 0.1% of
weight of concrete.
Visible rust stains were identified in areas with low concrete cover for all structures, particularly
for Oseberg A. A very low degree of carbonation was seen on all structures.
3.6.3 PSA Study on Damage to Offshore Concrete Structures

As part of PSA’s initiative on ageing and life extension a study was undertaken by Ocean Structures
(Ocean Structures 2009) to investigate ageing aspects for concrete structures. The typical damage
types and defects reported were:
●● deformations and structural imperfections;
●● cracks typically occurring in tension stressed areas;
●● corrosion of reinforcement due to inadequacy in the corrosion protection system (loss or deple-
tion of anodes);
●● damage to coatings;
●● damage at post-tension cable anchor points;
●● effects due to alternating wetting and drying of the surface (splash zone);
●● freeze and thaw damage (splash zone);
●● spalling and de-laminations normally due to corrosion of the reinforcement;
●● local impact damage due to vessel collisions and dropped objects; and
●● strength loss of the concrete material due to sulphate-producing bacteria (storage cells).
In addition, as for offshore steel jacket structures, changes to the seabed and foundations will
influence the capacity of a structure. These include:
●● scouring of the seabed under, or in the immediate vicinity of the installation;
●● build-up of cuttings or sediments particularly if such build-up covers significant parts of the
structure;
●● movement in bottom sediments; and
●● settlement.
The various parts of a concrete structure typically have their own particular damage types.
●● The legs, towers and shaft of a concrete offshore structure are characterised by very large general
featureless areas. The typical damage in these areas arises from corrosion of the reinforcement,
impact damage from ships or possibly chemical deterioration.
●● For storage cells the most likely form of damage is spalling of the concrete from dropped objects.
●● The pre-stressing anchorages and tendons are required to maintain the structural integrity of a
concrete offshore structure. These tendons are placed in ducts which are usually grouted follow-
ing tensioning. The degree to which grouting was effective, given the long ducts and in some
case their horizontal orientation, has led to concerns that seawater can penetrate into the ducts
and cause corrosion of the very high strength tendons. A review of the durability of prestressing
components (HSE 1997) concluded that the first tranche of concrete offshore structures (up to
1978) was more vulnerable to corrosion of the prestressing tendons, as later platforms benefited
from improved grouting materials and procedures. It was also considered that there would need
to be significant loss of prestress (~40%) in a leg before it would fail under typical design wave
loading. These failures would also need to be in the same section area to be a danger. In land-
based structures failures have tended to occur near anchorages or construction joints.
●● Foundations of most offshore concrete structures are massive, as they are gravity-type struc-
tures. At the installation stage the foundation is usually grouted to the seabed, providing a solid
base. As structures age, this grouting may be damaged by scour.
●● Cathodic protection (CP) systems in most offshore concrete structures are primarily present
to protect the attached steelwork and also protects the reinforcement. In the early structures
there were attempts at the construction stage to isolate the reinforcement from this system.
In most cases this failed as there was unintended electrical connectivity to flowlines and
pipelines as well as to other external attachments. This led to a higher than planned drain on
the sacrificial anodes, and in some cases, these had to be replaced. However, the availability
of cathodic protection has the advantage that it protects the reinforcement to some extent,
minimising the level of corrosion in situations where seawater has permeated to the steel.
Current design criteria for CP systems recommend or require a minimum of 1 mA/m2 for the
reinforcing steel. Inspection and maintenance of the CP system is therefore a basic require-
ment to minimise the corrosion reaction. This is usually carried out both visually and by
monitoring the CP potentials using a probe operated from an ROV.
The several forms of deterioration listed above can affect different parts of the structure. Table 15
shows the correlation between these parts and the primary degradation mechanisms.
Table 15 Damage Types and Typical Locations in Offshore Concrete Structures (Ocean Structures 2009).
Legs / Towers
/ shafts Storage Steel concrete Shaft / base Prestressing Splash
– general cells transition junction anchorages zone Foundations
Chemical ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
deterioration
Corrosion of ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
steel
reinforcement
Corrosion of ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
prestressing
tendons
Fatigue cracking ✓ ✓
Damage from ✓ ✓ ✓
ship impact
Damage from ✓ ✓
dropped objects
Bacterial ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
degradation
Cracking from ✓ ✓
thermal effects
Loss of pressure ✓ ✓
control
Loss of air gap ✓
Scour & ✓
Settlement
3.7 Previous Studies on Marine Growth (Marine Fouling)
Offshore installations in general, unless protected by effective ant-fouling measures, will become
fouled with marine growth. As part of the MTD report on underwater inspection of steel offshore
installations (MTD 1989) a review of marine fouling was included. The effects of fouling can be
described as shown in Table 16.
Corrosion associated with marine fouling was stated to be not clearly understood, as fouling can
both act as a barrier to oxygen to a steel surface and hence reduce corrosion but could also prevent
the CP anodes working properly. Marine growth can also provide conditions in which microorgan-
isms capable of damaging steel can survive. The most important of these are the sulphate-reducing
bacteria (SRB) which are present in seawater but only become active in anaerobic conditions, such as
below marine fouling. In addition, the environment below layers of drilling mud, particularly oil-
based mud, can be conducive to rapid growth of SRBs. The presence of an active SRB population on
a steel surface can lead to biological corrosion, which could create pitting. The most likely forms of
fouling to lead to active SRBs and potential corrosion at the steel surface are kelps, hydroids, mussels
and barnacles (MTD 1989).
Robinson and Kilgallon (HSE 1998) reviewed the effects of the presence of SRBs on steel sur-
faces underwater. The surface of steel when exposed to seawater quickly develops a thin biofilm.
This film will grow as marine fouling species develop and can restrict the access of dissolved oxy-
gen in the seawater to the metal surface. These biofilms and fouling can provide anaerobic condi-
tions at the metal surface and under these conditions SRBs can grow. Hydrogen uptake by steel in
a seawater environment has been shown to be strongly influenced by the combined effects of
cathodic protection and the presence of SRBs. The CP process generates hydrogen on the steel
surface and its absorption is then enhanced by biogenic sulphides which are produced by the bac-
teria. The absorbed hydrogen can lead to hydrogen embrittlement and enhanced rate of fatigue
crack growth, particularly in high-strength steels. The problem increases as more protective poten-
tials are being used and hence there should be a prescribed limit for CP of high-strength steels to
–0.8V vs Ag/AgCl.
Corrosion on a section of a steel chain mooring due to SRBs close to or below the seabed has
been reported by Gabrielson et al (2018). The main corrosion was observed on chain in the top 2m
of sediment on the seabed, with an observed corrosion attack of 3-4mm depth of varying size from
Table 16 Effects of Fouling on a Structure.
Effects of fouling: Description
Obscured surfaces There is a need to remove fouling before detailed inspection is possible.
Static loading Fouling may add weight to a structure and the most likely types of fouling to
add to weight are those with hard calcareous shells, plates or tubes as the soft
fouling is mostly self-buoyant. The most important fouling to contribute to
weight are mussels.
Hydro-dynamic Both soft and hard growths contribute to hydro-dynamic loading by
loading increasing member dimensions, added mass of members and increasing the
surface roughness.
Physical damage to Cleaning work to remove growth can potentially lead to damage of the steel
steel surface.
Corrosion Corrosion under fouling may occur potentially from sulphate-reducing
bacteria.
a few millimetres to larger areas. The presence of these pits was seen to reduce the fatigue capacity
of the chain.
As a general rule, the development of fouling and its ultimate thickness decrease with increas-
ing distance from the shore and with increasing depth. Marine fouling limits the opportunity to
inspect either a steel or concrete offshore structure. There are many different types of fouling,
both hard and soft. Typical groups of fouling are listed below. Table 17 shows an overview of com-
mon marine fouling species and their characteristics. Examples of marine fouling are easily avail-
able on the internet.
Table 17 Growth Characteristics of Common Marine Fouling Species (HSE 2002).
Typical Typical Typical Depth range

Settlement growth coverage terminal (relative to
Type season rates (%) thickness MSL) Comments
Hard fouling
Mussels July to 25 mm in 100% 150 to 0 to 30 m But faster growth rates are
October 1 year 200 mm found on installations in the
50 mm in southern North Sea
3 years
75 mm in
7 years
Solitary May to 30 mm (in 50–70% About 0 to mudline Coverage is often 100%,
tube August length) in 10 mm especially on new structures
worms 3 months (tubeworms 1 to 2 years after installation.
lay flat on Tubeworms also remain as a
the steel hard background layer when
surface) dead
Soft fouling
Hydroids April to 50 mm in 100% Summer: 0 to mudline A permanent hydroid ‘turf’
October 3 months 30 to 70 mm may cover an installation
winter: and obscure the surface for
many years
20 to 30 mm
Plumose June to 50 mm in 100% 300 mm –30 m to –120 m Usually settle 4 to 5 years
anemone July 1 year (0 to –45 m on after installation and
platforms in can then cover surface very
southern rapidly. Live for up to 50
North Sea) years
Soft coral January to 50 mm in 100% About –30 m to –120 m Often found in association
March 1 year 200 mm (0 to –45 m on with anemones
platforms in
southern
North Sea)
Seaweed fouling
Kelp February 2 m in 3 60–80% Variable, but –3 m to May be several years before
to April years up to 3 m –15 m colonisation begins but
tenacious holdfast when
established. Present on some
installations in northern and
central North Sea
Source: HSE (2002). OTO 01 010 Environmental considerations. Health and Safety Executive (HSE), HMSO,
London, UK. Licensed under Open Government License.
Seaweed requires sunlight for existence and is therefore confined to surface zones, typically
limited to about 15 m below sea level. Examples include brown kelp which can reach lengths of
more than 3 m but can be removed by cutting through the stalk that attaches the kelp to the
surface.
Hard fouling possesses a hard external skeleton protecting the fleshy body within. The most
important of these are mussels, which usually settle in the intertidal zone offshore and are there-
fore limited to shallow depths. Other hard fouling includes shallow water barnacles, which are
found offshore from the splash zone to a depth of about 20 m. Barnacles tend to settle close to each
other creating a dense area, limiting inspection. Deep-water barnacles are also typical of most
offshore platforms typically in the depth range from 30 m to deep water. The third group are tube-
worms, which live in hard calcareous tubes cemented to the surface. These are found throughout
the depth range of the North Sea. These can require vigorous cleaning to remove.
Soft fouling has no hard external skeleton. The most common type offshore is the hydroid, which
forms soft plant like growths. Different types can reach lengths from 50 mm to 150 mm. These are
also found throughout the depth range of the North Sea. They are one of the first species to foul an
installation. On older platforms the fouling may change in character and hydroids can be replaced
by other species. Below 100 m hydroids may continue to form the dominant species as others pre-
fer shallower waters.
Anemones tend to dominate in the mid depth range from 30 to 100 m. The anemone is anchored
by a disc attached to the substrate. There are also sea squirts which can be found in deep waters.
They prefer sheltered conditions such as protected areas on offshore platforms.
3.8 Summary of Damage and Anomalies to Offshore Structures
3.8.1 General
The studies listed in section 3.2 provides a significant review of the damage that has occurred for
different types of offshore structures and their causes. These types can be divided into several dif-
ferent categories, depending on whether the installation is a fixed steel structure, a floating plat-
form or a concrete platform.
Although it is recognized that some of these studies are now old, it is expected that the type and
pattern of damage will still be similar. With the continued improvement of design and fabrication
standards for offshore structures, it would be expected that the likelihood of these types of damage
now should be less. However, no studies at time of writing have confirmed this to date.
In addition, a brief overview of damage types to offshore structures is given in Section 3.1, covering
fatigue, corrosion, impact damage, hydrogen embrittlement, erosion, wear and tear, brittle fracture
and mechanical damage.
3.8.2 Damage Types Specific to Steel Structures

The previous studies presented in Section 3.3 provide a good overview of damage types and effects
for steel structures. The conclusions to be drawn for these studies are given below.
For fixed steel structures the main damage types are shown in Table 18. In addition, in severe
hurricanes and storms the damage can be more severe and include toppling (collapse) and leaning.
For floating steel structures the main damage types are also shown in Table 18. Fatigue cracking
to hull structures is generally more frequent compared to fixed steel structures, particularly in
Table 18 Categories of Potential Causes of Damage for Three Different Types of Structure.
Fixed steel and hull Floating platforms

Cause of damage structures - mooring Concrete platforms
Fatigue Fatigue cracks particularly Fatigue crack in chain Fatigue of reinforcement

in welded structures with link, link failure, loss of (infrequently observed)
potential for through- mooring line, drifting
thickness cracks, member units
severance (separation) and
missing members
Corrosion General corrosion will Corrosion of chain link Spalling and delamination
result in reduced wall or wire strand, loss of (above water) as result of
thickness and in some mooring line, drifting reinforcement corrosion as
cases patch corrosion with units well as potential loss of
potential for holes, reinforcement area
flooding, member Seepage of corrosion products
severance and missing at cracks under water as result
members of reinforcement corrosion
Corrosion pits leading to Chloride ingress above water
flooding and potential for (Reinforcement corrosion and
fatigue initiation potential loss of
reinforcement area)
Corrosion of steel
attachments (e.g. pre-tension
cable at anchorages, steel
support attachments) and
potential loss of prestressing
capacity
Overload Buckles, dents, holes, Damage to links, To the knowledge of the
(hurricanes and cracks at welds and into snapping of anchor authors not many instances of
major storms) chords, tears, out-of-plane chains, drifting units, major storm damage have
bowing, severed members, dragging of anchors been recorded to the concrete
tears, pancake leg structure itself. Run-up of
severance, punch-through Drifting units and waves resulting in damage to
of brace, pull out of brace, dragging of anchors may lower decks of topside has
conductor torn loose from impact other structures been reported.
guide, broken water and pipelines
caissons, broken riser
standoffs.
Overload and Buckling in plates and Mechanical damage Local impact damage to
accidental members from seabed impact, towers resulting in reduction
damage (vessel wear and bending over in concrete section area and
impact and the fairlead and handling possible water ingress
dropped object) Dented and bowed of anchor chains and Local impact damage to tops
member, member wire ropes. of storage cells from dropped
severance and missing objects resulting in reduction
member. in concrete section area and
possible water ingress
Wear and tear General loss of thickness Abrasion/wear of link or Abrasion (local wear) and
rope erosion resulting in minor
Lost stud (chain) reduction in concrete section
area
(Continued)
Table 18 (Continued)
Fixed steel and hull Floating platforms

Cause of damage structures - mooring Concrete platforms
Marine growth Increased loading and Increased loading and Increased loading
potential overload damage. potential overload
Possibility for sulphate- damage. Possibility for
reducing bacteria resulting sulphate-reducing
in corrosion. bacteria resulting in
corrosion.
Settlement and Platform settlement and N.A. Platform settlement and
subsidence subsidence may lead to subsidence may lead to
change in loading pattern change in loading pattern and
and exposure condition. exposure condition.
Scour and Scour around the platform Loss of holding power to Scour around the base of the
build-up of drill exposing the piles with the anchors platform possibly leading to
cuttings potential for pile failure. instability
Drill-cuttings can bury or
bear onto lower frames and
result in damage.
Material Cracking from hydrogen Brittle fracture of chain Loss of the concrete material
deterioration embrittlement particularly links due to aggressive agents
for high strength steel (e.g. (sulphate, chloride)
Jack-ups) Cracking due to shrinkage
(after construction)
Cracking, scaling and
crumbling due to freeze and
thaw (above water)
Strength loss of the concrete
material due to sulphate
producing bacteria (primarily
in oil-storage tanks)
Fabrication Lack of penetration or Brittle fracture has been Defective construction joints,
fault excessive undercutting that reported in the high minor cracking, surface
could lead to unexpected strength steel due to blemishes, remaining metal
fatigue cracks, failure to manufacturing issues. attachments, patch repairs
provide vent holes for from construction, low cover
intended flooded members to the reinforcement possibly
could lead to implosion, leading to spalling in the
inferior material, incorrect splash zone and possible
member sizes, incorrect water ingress
member positions,
omissions.
Under-design Member buckling, joint Damage to links and Cracking due to low
failure, tearing, fatigue failure of anchor chains reinforcement or prestressing,
cracking possibly leading to crushing of concrete in rare
drifting units. Under- cases, failure in the junction
designed anchors (soil between shafts and cells.
strength) could lead to
dragging of anchors.
transverse brace to column joints, end terminations. It should be noted that floating structures are
normally damage tolerant with respect to fatigue cracking in many areas of the structure unless
water ingress occurs. Floating structures are also more exposed to corrosion problems due to cor-
rosion in internal tanks. The main damage effects from corrosion include loss of wall thickness,
potential loss of watertight integrity leading to buoyancy and stability issues.
3.8.3 Damage Types Specific to Concrete Structures

For concrete structures the main damage types are shown in Table 18. The splash zone is particu-
larly vulnerable due to, for example, the availability of chlorides and oxygen, wave motion and
temperature variations.
The degree of erosion and abrasion is very dependent on the quality of the concrete, which is
usually high for offshore structures with controlled permeability and a high depth of cover.
Cracked sections or areas of low quality are more vulnerable to erosion. Ice abrasion and freeze-
thaw cycling can, as mentioned in ISO 19903 (ISO 2019), also lead to early deterioration even
with high-quality concrete. The main effect of local erosion of the concrete cover is earlier cor-
rosion of the steel reinforcement with potential loss of strength.
As indicated in ISO 19903 (ISO 2019), debris can cause impact and abrasion damage and can
limit the ability to inspect various parts of the structure (e.g. tops of storage cells). Drill cuttings
can build up particularly on the cell tops.
The production of acids from sulphate-reducing bacteria (SRB), which attack the concrete, can
occur in concrete structures containing both water and oil. Significant loss of material has been
shown in laboratory tests to occur when sufficiently acidic conditions exist (Department of Energy
1989). This type of environment can exist in the concrete storage tanks, which are present in sev-
eral concrete offshore structures. SRBs are known to grow rapidly under certain acidic conditions,
which can cause loss of material which reduces the wall thickness. Unfortunately, the storage
tanks are very difficult to inspect due to very limited access and hence the level of damage from
SRBs is difficult to assess. The thick coating that is expected to exist on the inner walls of the tanks
due to the presence of waxes in the oil may be a mitigating factor.
The storage of hot oil in the concrete tanks at the base of many concrete installations can lead to
thermal stresses that can produce cracking of the concrete. Concrete is vulnerable to significant
temperature differences, which in this case arise from the hot oil on one side of the wall and cold
seawater on the other. Tests have shown that temperature differences of up to 45 ºC can be sus-
tained with the correct design details (Department of Energy 1989). However, if the coolers fail
(the oil is cooled before storage) or unusual conditions occur, oil with temperatures of up to 90 ºC
can be diverted into the storage cells, with potential cracking of the walls. Over a long period of
operation these effects could accumulate, leading to cracking of the concrete and overstress of
steelwork, in and around the walls and roofs of the storage cells, including the critical junction
with the legs.
3.8.4 Summary Table of Damage to Different Types of Structures

In Table 18 an overview of potential causes of damage for different types of structures is pro-
vided, partly based on observed damage in these studies and the authors’ experience with off-
shore structures. It can be seen that some of the categories are common to each type of structure,
e.g. corrosion. These damage categories will be developed in more detail later in this book,
particularly relating to inspection and repair. For each category there will be particular inspec-
tion and repair methods which are also detailed later in the book.
Parts of Section 3.1 are based on Ersdal et al. (2019).
References
API (2014), API RP-2A Recommended Practice for Planning, Design and Constructing Fixed Offshore
Platforms, API Recommended practice 2A, 22nd Edition, American Petroleum Institute, 2014.
API (2019), API RP-2MIM Mooring Integrity Management, American Petroleum Institute, 20e19.
Bahadori, A. (2014), Cathodic Corrosion Protection Systems—Guide for Oil and Gas Industries, Gulf
Professional Publishing, Elsevier Waltham, Massachusetts, US.
Department of Energy (1989a), Fatigue Correlation Study Semi-Submersible Platforms, OTH 88 288,
HMSO, London, UK, 1989.
Department of Energy (1989b), OTH 87 248 Concrete in the Ocean Programme—Coordinating Report
on the Whole Programme, HMSO, London, UK.
DNVGL (2019), “Reparasjonsmetoder for bærende konstruksjoner“, Report for the Norwegian
Petroleum Safety Authority, DNVGL, Høvik, Norway (in Norwegian).
Energo (2006), “Assessment of Fixed Offshore Platform Performance in Hurricanes Andrew, Lili and
Ivan“, MMS Project no 549, Energo 2006.
Energo (2007), “Assessment of Fixed Offshore Platform Performance in Hurricanes Kartina and Rita“,
MMS project no 578, Energo 2007.
Energo (2010), “Assessment of Fixed Offshore Platform Performance in Hurricanes Gustav and Ike“,
MMS project no 642. Energo 2010.
Ersdal, G., Sharp, J.V., Stacey, A. (2019), Ageing and Life Extension of Offshore Structures, John Wiley
and Sons Ltd., Chichester, West Sussex, UK.
Gabrielson, O., Liengen, T. and Molid S. (2018), “Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion on Seabed
Chain in the North Sea“, In the Proceedings of OMAE2018, Paper OMAE2018-
77460, Madrid, Spain.
HSE (1991), OTH 91 351 Hydrogen Cracking of Legs and Spudcans on Jack-Up Drilling Rigs—A
Summary of Results of an Investigation, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London, 1991.
HSE (1995), MSL Engineering Hurricane Damaged Fixed Platforms and Wellhead Structures, Report
No. C155R002 Rev. 2, July 1995.
HSE (1997), Durability of Prestressing Components in Offshore Concrete Structures, Gifford and
Partners, OTO 97 053, HMSO, London, UK.
HSE (1998), OTH 555 A Review of the Effects of Sulphate-Reducing Bacteria in the Marine Environment
on the Corrosion Fatigue and Hydrogen Embrittlement of High-Strength Steels, Prepared by Marine
Technology Centre at Cranfield University (M.J. Robinson and P.J. Kilgallon) for the Health and
Safety Executive (HSE), HMSO, London, UK.
HSE (1999), Semi-Submersible Flooding Incident Data, Report OTO 99 016, Health and Safety Executive
(HSE), HMSO, London, UK.
HSE (2002), OTO 01 010 Environmental Considerations, Health and Safety Executive (HSE), HMSO,
London, UK.
HSE (2003), Review of the Performance of High Strength Steel Used Offshore, Health and Safety
HSE (2004), HSE RR219 Design and Integrity Management of Mobile Installation Moorings, Prepared by
Noble Denton Europe Ltd. for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), HMSO, London, UK.
HSE (2006), HSE RR444 Floating Production System—JIP FPS Mooring Integrity, Prepared by Noble
Denton Europe Limited for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), HMSO, London, UK.
HSE (2017a), HSE RR1093 An Assessment of Proof Load Effect on the Fatigue Life of Mooring Chain for
Floating Offshore Installations—Mooring Integrity Joint Industry Project Phase 2, Prepared by the
Joint Industry Project Steering Committee for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), HMSO,
London, UK.
HSE (2017b), HSE RR1091 Remote Operated Vehicle (ROV) Inspection of Long-Term Mooring Systems for
Floating Offshore Installations—Mooring Integrity Joint Industry Project Phase 2, Prepared by the
Joint Industry Project Steering Committee for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), HMSO,
London, UK.
ISO (2007), ISO 19902:2007 Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries—Fixed Steel Offshore Structures,
International Organization for Standardization, 1998.
ISO (2013), ISO 19901-7:2013 Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries—Specific Requirements for
Offshore Structures—Part 7: Stationkeeping Systems for Floating Offshore Structures and Mobile
Offshore Units, International Organization for Standardization, 2013.
ISO (2019), ISO 19903 Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries—Fixed Concrete Offshore Structures,
International Organization for Standardization, 2019.
Kareem, A., Kijewski, T., Smith, C.E. (1999), “Analysis and Performance of Offshore Platforms in
Hurricanes“, In Wind and Structures, Vol. 2, No. 1 (1999), pp. 1–23.
MSL (2000), Rationalisation and Optimisation of Underwater Inspection Planning Consistent with API
RP2A Section 14, Published as MMS TAP report 345aa.
MTD (1989), Underwater Inspection of Steel Offshore Installations: Implementation of a New Approach,
Report MTD publication 89/104, London, UK.
MTD (1990), Design and Operational Guidance on Cathodic Protection of Offshore Structures, Subsea
Installations and Pipelines, Marine Technology Directorate Ltd (MTD), Report 90/102.
MTD (1994), Review of Repairs to Offshore Structures and Pipelines, Publication 94/102, MTD,
London, UK.
Norges Byggforskningsinstitutt (1999), Bestandige Betongkonstruksjoner—Delprosjekt
2 Konstruksjoner—Rapport 2.4 Erfaring fra offshore konstruksjoner, Norges Byggforskningsinstitutt,
Blindern, Oslo, Norway (in Norwegian containing an English summary).
Ocean Structures (2009), Ageing of Offshore Concrete Structures—Report for Petroleum Safety
Authority Norway, Laurencekirk, Scotland.
Offshore: Risk & Technology Consulting Inc. (2002), “Post Mortem Failure Assessment of MODUs
during Hurricane Lilli”, Report Published as MMS report 469AA.
PMB (1987), “AIM II Assessment Inspection Maintenance“, Published as MMS TAP report 106ak.
PMB (1988), “AIM III Assessment Inspection Maintenance“, Published as MMS TAP report 106ap.
PMB (1990), “AIM IV Assessment Inspection Maintenance“, Published as MMS TAP report 106as.
PMB Engineering (1993), “Hurricane Andrew—Effects on Offshore Platforms—Joint Industry Project,
PMB Engineering, Inc, San Francisco, California, October 1993.
Puskar, F.J., Ku, A.P. (2004), “Hurricane Lili’s Impact on Fixed Platforms and Calibration of Platform
Performance to API RP 2A“, OTC paper 16802, OTC 2004.
Sharp J.V., Stacey A. and Birkinshaw M. (1995), “Review of Data for Structural Damage to Offshore
Structures“, 4th Intern. ERA Conference, London, Dec.1995.
SSC (1990), “SSC-337 Ship Fracture Mechanisms Investigation“, Ship Structure Committee,
Washington, DC, US.
SSC (1995), “SSC-381 Residual Strength of Damaged Marine Structures“, Ship Structure Committee,
Washington, DC, US.
SSC (2000), “SSC-416 Risk-Based Life Cycle Management of Ship Structures“, Ship Structure
Committee Report no 416, 2000.
SSC (2002), “SSC421 Risk-Informed Inspection of Marine Vessels“, Ship Structure Committee,
Washington, DC, US.
Stacey, A., Sharp, J.V. and Nichols, N.W. (1997), “Fatigue Performance of Single Sided Circumferential
and Closure Welds in Offshore Jacket Structures“, OMAE Conference, Japan, 1997.
TSCF (1997), Tanker Structure Cooperative Forum Guidance Manual for Tanker Structures, Issued by
Tanker Structure Co-operative Forum in Association with International Association of
Classification Societies, Witherby & Co. Ltd.
UEG (1978), “Underwater Inspection of Offshore Installations—Guidance for Designers”, CXJB
Underwater Engineers Report UR10, CIRIA Underwater Engineering Group, London, UK.
79
Inspection Methods for Offshore Structures Underwater
The stuff you see beneath the water often seems like a wild parody of the stuff you see above it1.
—Douglas Adams
When you want to know how things really work, study them when they’re coming apart.
—William Gibson
You cannot inspect quality into a product. The quality is there or it isn’t by the time it’s
inspected2.
—W. Edwards Deming
4.1 Introduction to Underwater Inspection
Many different inspection methods are available to determine the in-service condition of a struc-
ture underwater or in the splash zone. They all have their strengths and limitations related to the
type of anomaly (degradation, deterioration and damage) that the inspection is aiming at revealing
and the availability to access the site. In addition, the choice of inspection method and tool will be
dependent on the information required, such as the extent to which an anomaly has to be sized and
characterised (e.g. size of cracks).
Underwater inspection commenced in the GoM with the early structures in place there. Busby
(1978) reported that up to the date of his review the only requirements for inspection of offshore
structures in the GoM were those which the platform operator or owner elected to impose upon
themselves. Some statutory requirements were also implemented in 1953 (US Geological Survey)
and 1970 (Occupational Safety and Health Administration). The early recommended practices
tended to concentrate on design and fabrication. Inspection at the fabrication stage was often
included but not inspection in the operational stage.
1 Sources: Kath Jordan, “Ks3 Success Workbook English 4-7”, 2007, Letts and Lonsdale.
2 Sources: Rafael Aguayo, “Dr. Deming: The American Who Taught the Japanese About Quality, A Fireside book”,
1991, Simon and Schuster.

The development of the North Sea offshore industry in the late 1960s and 70s led to the British
and Norwegian governments to establish underwater inspection requirements and schedules to
which the platform owners had to comply, primarily by referring either to the UK Department of
Energy Guidance Notes or to the rules of classification societies such as DNV, Lloyds Register,
Germanischer Lloyds, Bureau Veritas (BV) and American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). At the time,
only DNV and BV had published requirements for inspection (Busby 1978), typically based on
routine intervals as found in ship rules and regulations. As a result, the parts of the structures that
were regarded as important in integrity terms were inspected typically every fifth year.
Underwater inspection was mainly undertaken by divers up to the 1980s. Visual inspection
using photographic and TV documentation was the primary method (Busby 1978). Inspection
included preliminary cleaning of structures which was often found to be more time consuming
than the inspection itself. The diving industry was formed in the 1950s and 60s as the need for com-
mercial diving grew as a result of the oil and gas industry moving offshore (Michel 2003).
Companies were formed primarily by navy divers utilizing their technology and grew larger and
developed new technologies as well as companies involving civilian divers.
While the early offshore structures were small and located in shallow water that allowed
for a wide working inspection window, the structures in the mid- to late 1970s were more
massive, complex and in significantly more severe environments, especially in the North Sea.
The complexity of the structures led to an increased amount of inspection and the demanding
environmental conditions led to an increase in fatigue cracking that produced a need for
enhanced inspection methods. As a result, many inspection companies started to use NDT
instrumentation underwater. These included magnetic particle inspection (MPI), ultrasonic
testing (UT), radiography and corrosion potential measurements. These were reported to
have been used underwater in 1978 (Busby 1978).
The interest in developing NDT tools for underwater inspection was growing fast in the 1970s,
especially in the North Sea region, where the use of such tools was required by regulators. This
included research and development in, for example, the following areas (Busby 1978):
●● maintenance, inspection and repair techniques (Strathclyde University);
●● review of NDT equipment, procedures and operators’ qualifications (DNV); and
●● underwater inspection (CIRIA 1978; two studies).
Remotely operated vehicles (ROV) started to be developed as an alternative to inspection by
divers in the mid-1970s and military ROV technology was introduced to the offshore industry in
the Gulf of Mexico (Michel 2003). ROVs were at that time evaluated and found to be capable of
producing high-quality video and photographic inspection and could also bring some form of
cleaning device (e.g. wire brush, clipping hammers) to the inspection site (Busby 1978). At that
stage NDT techniques were becoming available, but as reported by Busby (1978), were not
regarded as a suitable tool for operation by an ROV manipulator.
In the late 1970s improved ROV designs became available with more advanced inspection tools,
sometimes supported by diving spreads. At this stage, ROVs suffered from reliability issues and
time on site was often limited to a few hours each day. With the ever-increasing growth in offshore
oil and gas activities in the early 1980s, the workload for underwater inspection increased and this
supported the development of larger and more complex ROV units. As a result, the ROV industry
grew and ROVs became more reliable and greatly improved their performance.
In the mid-1980s there was a certain downturn in the oil and gas industry due to a lower oil
price; development funds became limited and research and development reduced (Michel 2003),
particularly in the US. However, the use of ROVs continued to grow. In the 1990s the oil industry
Inspection Methods for Offshore Structures Underwater 81
encouraged ROV applications to expand, particularly as deeper waters were involved and the safety
of divers started to be recognised as an issue. With the increasing reliability and performance of
ROVs the industry began to design ROVs for specific project work offshore. More recent develop-
ments in ROV technology include larger, more powerful and capable systems, with an increasing
array of tools capable of more onerous and difficult tasks. The growth of sub-sea systems for oil
production has led to the need for ROVs with a greater capability for sub-sea work such as the
operation of sub-sea valves.
In more recent years, autonomous underwater vehicles (AUV) technology was developed for
surveying and data-gathering activities and have started to be used for offshore oil and gas inspec-
tion and maintenance. A key driver for improvements in underwater inspection and maintenance
has been the need to reduce costs, particularly as oil prices have been variable.
Current industry practice now includes a range of non-destructive inspection methods for
use underwater such as general and close visual inspection (GVI and CVI), ultrasonic testing
(UT), magnetic particle inspection (MPI), eddy current inspection (EC), radiographic testing
(RT), leak detection testing (LT) and flooded member detection (FMD). These methods are
described in more depth in Section 4.3. In addition, a good overview of most inspection tech-
niques is given in NORSOK N-005 Annex B (Standard Norge 2017).
It should be recognised that there are potential negative consequences from undertaking
inspection underwater. Firstly, the cleaning process (brushes or water jetting) may introduce
damage which could lead to crack initiations. Further, the use of ROVs and AUVs has led to
collisions with the structure itself potentially causing damage such as dents, crack initiators or
damage to coatings. These potential consequences need to be addressed in the programme for the
execution of the inspection in order to minimise their likelihood.
4.2 Previous Studies on Inspection
4.2.1 Introduction
Since 1953 there have been a number of relevant studies on inspection, particularly in the UK and
the US in the 1980s and 90s. The authors’ intention of including these reports is to make the reader
aware of relevant previous work and thereby avoid unnecessarily repeating research work.
These reports provide a very useful background and insight into the development of this topic.
They have also provided data that are now used in current standards. A brief overview of these
studies, as summarised in Table 19, is provided in this section.
4.2.2 SSC Survey of Non-Destructive Test Methods

The Ship Structure Committee carried out a study into non-destructive testing (inspection meth-
ods) as early as 1953 (SSC 1953), providing an insight into the available inspection methods in the
early years of the offshore oil and gas industry. The non-destructive test methods described in this
report as being applicable for flaw detection in welds in ship structures were radiography (RT),
magnetic particle (MPI), ultrasonic (UT) and fluid penetrants, where radiography was reported to
be most extensively used. The ultrasonic method was reported to offer considerable potential and,
if developed, to be more expedient than radiography. The magnetic particle method was reported
to be established to the point where it serves as a useful inspection tool. The methods were reviewed
with respect to their use both in shipbuilding and repair.
Table 19 Overview of Previous Studies on Inspection Methods.
Performing Reliability of
Section Inspection methods inspections inspection methods
Inspection methods (SSC 1953) 4.2.2 X

Risk-based life cycle management 4.2.2 X X
(SSC 2000)
Inspection of marine structures 4.2.2 X
(SSC 1996)
Underwater inspection / testing / 4.2.3 X X
monitoring (Busby 1979)
Handbook of underwater 4.2.4 (X) (X) (X)
inspection (HSE 1988)a
Underwater inspection of steel 4.2.5 X X X
offshore structures (MTD 1989)
Fourth edition Guidance Notes 4.2.6 X X
(Department of Energy 1990)
Damage to underwater tubulars 4.2.7 X X
OTO 99 084 (HSE 1999)
Damage to underwater tubulars 4.2.7 X X
(Frieze et al 1996)
Data for structural damage to 4.2.7 X X
offshore structures (Sharp
et al 1995)
Underwater inspection planning 4.2.8 X X X
(MSL 2000)
Inspection methods and their 4.2.9 X
reliability (Department of
Energy 1984)
ICON - Inspection methods and 4.2.9 X
their reliability (Dover and
Rudlin 1996)
POD/POS Curves for non- 4.2.9 X
destructive examination
(HSE 2002)
Guidance Notes–type approval of 4.2.9 X
NDT equipment (BV 1998)
Concrete in the ocean 4.2.10 X X
(Department of Energy 1987a).
a) OTI 88 539 is now regarded as out of date
A later report by the Ship Structure Committee (SSC 2000) provides an overview of the scope for
inspection of oil tankers3, providing a useful overview of the planning requirements for the execu-
tion of inspections. The principles outlined in this list are also applicable to offshore structures.
3 Although tankers are outside of the scope of this book, the inspection requirements are similar to those for a
ship-shaped structure.
●● Objective of inspection:
–– detecting defects including fatigue cracks, buckling, corrosion and pitting;
–– reporting present condition of steel plate thickness reduction due to corrosion and the condi-
tion of coating and other corrosion protection systems;
–– detecting any other problems such as structural deformation, leakage.
●● Types of inspections:
–– mandatory inspections required by classification societies or flag state (annual, intermediate
and special surveys); and
–– owner’s voluntary inspections.
●● Scope of inspection in accordance with IACS Unified Requirements (IACS 2012):
–– locations to be inspected and extent of inspection for structural defects, corrosion, pitting and
coating.
●● Technical information needed for effective evaluation:
–– main structural plans (drawings);
–– extent of coatings and corrosion protection systems;
–– previous structural survey reports and thickness measurement reports;
–– previous maintenance and repair history;
–– classification society’s condition evaluation reports and status;
–– updated information on inspections and actions taken by ship’s personnel;
–– critical and high-risk areas for corrosion and structural fractures;
–– survey planning documents; and
–– loading history (cargo and ballast loading and trading route history).
●● Preparation for inspection:
–– emptying, cleaning, ventilation (to prevent gas hazard to the inspectors) and general lighting.
●● Methods of inspection:
–– access and possible hazards to inspection personnel.
●● Recording of inspection data (location, the affected structural member, the type and the size of
the defect):
–– structural defects such as crack, buckling and dents;
–– pitting and grooving corrosion including pitting intensity diagram;
–– thickness measurement of steel plates;
–– coating condition including percentage of breakdown, peeling, flaking and blistering;
–– condition of corrosion control systems (sacrificial anode or impressed current);
–– effectiveness of previous repairs;
–– crack growth if previously not repaired; and
–– drawings or photographs to supplement the above data.
The accuracy of inspections and the factors affecting inspection performance is reviewed in
more detail in SSC389 (SSC 1996). Knowledge of how likely it is that a flaw will be found during an
inspection is important to provide guidance in setting inspection intervals and to compare different
inspection technologies. Based on a review of the literature and interviews with inspectors and
others involved in tank inspections, a model of the factors that can influence the probability of
detection was developed. The following main groups of factors were identified as:
●● physical: the structure and the defects in the structure including structural layout, size, coatings,
structural details, condition and age and the type of defects (cracks, corrosion or buckling);
●● experience of the inspector including his training, workload and motivation and knowledge of
the specific structure; and
●● inspection environment including level of lighting and cleanliness, temperature, humidity and exter-
nal weather, degree of ventilation, access and inspection method, crew support and available time.
Many of these factors are relevant in determining the probability of successful detection (see
Section 4.2.9).
4.2.3 Underwater Inspection / Testing / Monitoring of Offshore Structures

In 1978 Frank Busby Associates undertook a project for the US Department of Commerce,
Department of Energy and the Department of the Interior to study underwater inspection, testing
and monitoring of offshore structures (Busby 1979). The purpose of the study was:
●● to identify and describe all actual or potential underwater inspection requirements (national and
international) for fixed concrete and steel structures promulgated by the governments of off-
shore oil and gas–producing countries and by the offshore operators themselves;
●● to identify and assess the state-of-the-art in underwater non-destructive testing, monitoring and
inspection of offshore structures;
●● to evaluate the capability of servicing and hardware producers to meet the inspection require-
ments identified; and
●● to describe and establish priorities for specific tasks for technology development that should be
undertaken to satisfy current and future requirements.
While this study concentrated on fixed offshore oil and gas structures, the results also reflected
the state-of-the-art at the time in underwater inspection and testing for other offshore structures
as well as floating power platforms, offshore terminals and deep-water ports.
The data for this study were collected in three stages, a literature review, telephone interviews
and personal interviews with individuals and companies active in the industry. It was found that
requirements for underwater inspection of these offshore structures and the techniques and tools
to conduct such inspections varied widely from country to country. In some instances, periodic
inspection was required by law. In a few cases there was no requirement whatever, once the struc-
ture had been installed. It was also seen that the instruments to conduct underwater inspections
varied and the cost of underwater inspection to the operator was high and would get higher as the
water depth and complexity of the structure increased.
It was found that general surveys consisted primarily of visual inspection to identify cracking
and pitting, corrosion, broken or bent members, corrosion protection system effectiveness, marine
fouling, debris accumulation and scouring at the platform base. Major surveys, as reported in this
review, included these items plus a detailed examination of selected parts of the structure (10% was
reported as a normal requirement). Cleaning of the structure was seen as a part of a major survey,
followed by an examination using MPI or a similar technique to determine the presence of cracking,
pitting or corrosion at pre-selected nodes. In practice the annual general surveys were organised
such that over a four- to five-year time period, visual inspections were complemented by elements
of a major survey. Thus, over the period the requirements of a major survey were met.
If the structure had been subject to ship impact, dropped objects or loading by severe weather, a
special survey would be required. Similarly, such surveys would be needed if changes in the condition
or operation of the structure had occurred, that might affect its safety or parts of the certification system.
The report notes that five underwater inspection techniques were being used in US waters and
the North Sea. These were visual inspection, MPI, UT (thickness and flaw detection), radiography
and corrosion potential measurements. Other specialised techniques were also being used includ-
ing a magnetographic method of crack measurement and acoustic holographic techniques for flaw
detection. All of these techniques were discussed with regards to types of defects that can be
detected, advantages and limitations. It was further noted that at the time of this review all testing
techniques required the structure to be cleaned of marine growth. Although brushing, chipping
and scraping would sometimes be sufficient, high-pressure water jetting was reported as often
being used but could be potentially dangerous to the operator if used by a diver. Cleaning could
constitute the major expenditure of underwater time involved in inspection.
Locating a site to be inspected to conduct the inspection test could be quite difficult, particularly
on complex nodes or in the interior of a steel structure. The splash zone was seen as a difficult area
to inspect due to sea motions where the periodical rise and fall of the sea surface could prevent the
surveyor from maintaining his position at the work site4. NDE equipment was reported to be
deployed using divers, manned submersibles, ROVs and one-atmosphere diving suits. Each of these
deployment methods had strengths and weaknesses for performing NDE. At the time of this review
it was claimed that nearly all NDE equipment was designed to be used by a diver. It was claimed that
manipulators on ROVs, manned submersibles and one-atmosphere diving suits did not have suffi-
cient capability for managing NDE equipment. However, it was noted that ROV capability was devel-
oping for NDE testing.
4.2.4 HSE Handbook for Underwater Inspectors

A handbook was published by the HSE for the Department of Energy in 1988 (HSE 1988) and
subsequently taken over by HSE; at the time of writing, it is still available on the HSE website. It
was compiled to collate all the information required for an Underwater Inspection Controller
training course, based on the 1987 CSWIP syllabus requirements for the 3.3U (Pilot-observer
inspector) and 3.4U (Underwater inspection controllers) qualifications (see Section 4.4.5). The
text follows the format of a typical training course at the time for candidates wanting to obtain the
relevant qualifications. Some parts of this handbook are now significantly out of date, particularly
the legislation and regulatory requirements and some aspects of diving practice. However, the
material on corrosion monitoring and NDE methods still has some relevance. The text on data
recording, inspection planning, intervention techniques and contractual aspects has limitations as
these topics have developed significantly with time. Training for CSWIP 3.3U and 3.4U continues
using more up-to-date material.
4.2.5 MTD Underwater Inspection of Steel Offshore Structures

As noted in Section 3.3.1, the MTD (1989) report included a review of underwater inspection
requirements, techniques available, significance of defects and different approaches to planning
inspections. The overall aim was to improve the effectiveness of underwater inspection, particu-
larly through the use of a more rational method of planning inspection operations. The report was
produced several years ago and some parts of it are now dated, but it is still useful, as it contains
some valuable background material.
The report contains sections on the following:
●● damage, deterioration and fouling;
●● management of inspection planning;
4 This implies that an operator (diver) inspects the splash zone, which is unlikely at the present time.
●● inspection and monitoring operations;

●● assessment of damage;
●● interaction between design and inspection;
●● statutory requirements, certification and guidance; and
●● principles of probabilistic techniques.
The major outcomes of this review included an overview of damage to structures and an exten-
sive guidance to the evaluation of this damage, based on knowledge at the time. As an example, the
report highlighted a crack growth model developed by the Southwest Research Institute as a
method for analysing part-though cracks (Hudak et al. 1984). This method has been superseded by
improved models, as further discussed in Section 7.5. Another major outcome of the review was a
suggested computerised approach for rational planning of inspection operations. At the time, com-
puterised systems to a limited extent were used in data management and inspection planning.
However, this revised approach did not appear to find wide acceptance in the industry at the time.
The review also included a chapter on the standard inspection methods available at the time,
which are all reviewed in Section 4.3. Cleaning methods were also reviewed, including high-
pressure water jetting, brushes and grinders. Intervention methods considered in the report include
diving, atmospheric diving suits, manned submersibles and ROVs. The review of ROVs identified
that at the time they were only capable of carrying out CP checking and thickness checking by
UT. Crack detection equipment available only enabled gross cracks to be detected. Atmospheric div-
ing suits and manned submersibles are no longer in widespread use for offshore inspection.
The section of the report on the interaction between design and inspection has a useful section
on designing for ease of inspection and monitoring, particularly concerned with diver inspection
access. Similar issues are to a large extent at the time of writing this book included in up-to-date
codes and standards.
The report also contains useful information on structural monitoring, which is reviewed in
Section 5.2.1.
4.2.6 Department of Energy Fourth Edition Guidance Notes on Surveys

The 4th Edition Guidance Notes (Department of Energy 1990) included a section on surveys, rec-
ognising that it related to the certification regime and the certificate of fitness, which applied until
1995. Renewal of the certificate required a major survey to ensure that the installation continued
to meet the requirements of the regulations. As part of this it is stated that a schedule of inspec-
tions and tests should be drawn up and agreed by the owner and certifying authority.
An installation (platform) with a certificate of fitness was required to have an annual inspection
which included a close visual inspection down to and including the splash zone of a fixed struc-
ture or to the water line at maximum freeboard of a floating unit. As the certificate of fitness was
valid for not more than five years, a major survey was required before it could be renewed. In
addition, the certifying authority may require additional surveys in the event of damage, deterio-
ration, repair, alteration or replacement to the installation, where the surveyor could require a
close examination to be made of, for example, any underwater repair work undertaken since the
last survey. An assessment should also be made of the thickness of marine growth on typical
members or areas of the structure.
The object of the major survey for recertification was to ensure that the offshore installation
continued to comply with the regulations, that any deterioration was within acceptable limits and
that the installation was fit to operate for such a period as the certifying authority may specify, not
exceeding five years from completion of the survey. It was noted that fixed structures in deep water
presented unacceptable hazards with respect to deep diving. As a result, consideration should be
given to using manned or remotely controlled submersibles or tools.
For floating and mobile installations, it was recommended that, where reasonably practicable,
they should be moved to a suitable location for a major survey, preferably to a dry dock, or to
sheltered waters. Where this was not possible the major survey could be carried out on location,
subject to acceptable survey procedures being agreed with the certifying authority.
4.2.7 HSE Detection of Damage to Underwater Tubulars and Its Effect on Strength

The report OTO 99 084 (HSE 1999) reviewed the effect of dent and bow damage to underwater
tubulars and the detection of these. The actual work was performed by MSL and the content of this
report was preceded by an earlier paper (Frieze et al. 1996) containing much of the same material.
The review clearly states that dent and bow damage can, if not detected, lead to significant reduc-
tion in member strength (see also Chapter 7).
A survey by interviews of staff was conducted of selected organisations performing jacket
inspection in UK waters. The objective was to gather information on inspection methods used for
identifying dented and bowed members, gather views on perceived accuracy of techniques and to
obtain data on dents and bows. According to the review, two techniques were identified as univer-
sally used, namely flooded member detection (FMD) and general visual inspection (GVI), both
deployed by ROVs. It was noted that anomalies could be identified by local loss of marine growth,
following an incident (impact, extreme storm damage, etc.). After the detection of the anomaly,
as much information as possible should be gathered by the ROV to allow for a preliminary evalu-
ation. This included flying over the anomaly to search for signs of damage to other members and
to locate a possible dropped object, perform a close visual inspection (CVI), photogrammetry and
to take still photos. Accurate dimensions of the damage were in the review described as being
needed both to establish the degree of loss of strength and also to plan repair techniques if
required. If a work class ROV was available, cleaning and varying the light intensity using two
light sources could be used to cause shadow movements to increase detection reliability. If further
information was deemed necessary to characterise the damage, divers would be used with tools
such as straight edges, gouges (pit dept), callipers (for measuring ovality of small members),
Deerman clamps (for measuring ovality and dents in larger-diameter members), photogramme-
try (more accurate with divers at the time), taut wire and spot laser ranging.
Although the data from Frieze et al. (1996) is actual data from offshore surveys, it will only give
limited information about the frequency of actual damage as the distribution of the damage will be
affected by the effectiveness of the inspection. These limits need to be reflected in the understand-
ing of the data but can also be used to give some indication of thresholds for the detection of these
types of damage.
Experience indicates that a significant part of this type of damage (dents and bows) to structures
will remain either undiscovered or unrepaired. For example, the review by Marine Technology
Directorate (MTD 1994) showed that concerning vessel and dropped object damage, 17% was
detected during routine inspection or by chance, rather than as a response to an event. Hence, a
key aim of periodic inspection is to ensure that any degradation that significantly affects the
strength of the structure is detected.
Data on actual offshore damage to offshore platforms were used in the review to establish an
overview of dent and bow magnitudes as shown in Figure 29 and Figure 30. The values indicated
in the range 0–1 mm relate to magnitudes generally described as negligible or as unknown. As it
can be seen from these figures, 44% of bows were reported to be associated with a dent, while only
20
18
16
14
12
Frequency
10
8
6
4
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 13 16 20 26 32 39 45 51 64 77 105 155 305
Dent depth (mm)
Dents Dents with associated bows Dents with associated crack
Figure 29 Dent depth and associated bows and cracks. Sources: Based on HSE (1999). Detection of
damage to underwater tubulars and its effect on strength. HSE Offshore Technology Report OTO 99 084,
HMSO, London, UK; Frieze P.A., Nichols N.W., Sharp J.V., Stacey A. (1996). Detection of Damage to Underwater
Tubulars and its Effect on Strength, OMAE Conference, Florence 1996.
4
Frequency
0
1 9 11 26 39 51 77 105 130 155 206 255 305 360 410 510 610
Bow magnitude (mm)
Bows Bows with associated dents Bows with associated cracks
Figure 30 Bows with associated dents and cracks. Sources: Based on HSE (1999). Detection of damage to
underwater tubulars and its effect on strength. HSE Offshore Technology Report OTO 99 084, HMSO,
London, UK; Frieze P.A., Nichols N.W., Sharp J.V., Stacey A. (1996). Detection of Damage to Underwater
23% of dents simultaneously were associated with a bow. The review indicated that this could sug-
gest that dents were easier to detect than bows, which would be consistent with the methods for
detection.
Figure 29 shows typical dent depths with associated bows and cracks based on Sharp et al. (1995)
and Frieze et al. (1996) from actual offshore data made available for the review from offshore main-
tenance programmes relating to the southern North Sea. The data show that dents found during
inspection can be up to 300 mm in depth but more typically dents are in the range 10–70 mm in
depth. Further, the frequency of dent depths is shown and many of the data points are associated
with bows resulting from accidental damage. This association adds to the complexity of the
evaluation of this type of damage. The figure further shows the frequency of dent depths associ-
ated with cracks. There is no obvious correlation between dents and cracks based on these data.
However, as shown in Figure 30, cracks are more correlated with bows.
Figure 30 shows the observed frequency of bows with associated dents and cracks. It can be seen
that bows of up to 610 mm are registered in this database. It is known that severe collision acci-
dents can create much larger bows. Further, it can be seen in Figure 30 that some very large bows
are recorded as having no associated dents. The reason for this is unclear. Figure 30 also shows the
frequency of bows with associated cracks and it can be seen that for the largest bows, cracking
often occurs and may add to the complexity of the evaluation as further fatigue crack growth may
occur. These cracks were reported as usually occurring at member ends associated with a joint.
This may require specific inspection and monitoring and possible repair.
Inspection for dent and bow damage will normally follow a known boat collision or dropped
object incident, but such damage may also be found during routine inspections. The review
indicates that nearly 20% of the dent and bow damage is not detected in inspections following
an incident. In light of the possible reduction of strength from such damage, the review indicates
monitoring approaches at that time needed reconsideration.
Routine GVI would appear to miss a number of larger dents and particularly bows. Figure 29
and Figure 30 can also provide some indication of inspection thresholds (the minimum damage
that can be expected to be found). Figure 29 shows that the first significant set of dent records is
around 12.5 mm (imperial measure half an inch) and then there is a second peak around 38 mm.
Frieze et al. (1996) suggest that these two peaks in frequency may be a result of two possible
thresholds for the visual inspections. The first seems to be around 12.5 mm and may be the thresh-
old for specific inspections following damage when dents are being specifically sought. It is sug-
gested that there is a second threshold of around 38 mm resulting from routine inspections where
such damage is less expected. Larger dent sizes have the most significant effect on structural integ-
rity; this emphasises that finding damage after a known incident is important.
Frieze et al. (1996) argues that for bows there are also two thresholds, as can be seen in Figure 30.
One of these (possibly around 11 mm) is assumed to be based on that smaller bows seem to be
detected only when a dent has also been detected. The second threshold (possibly around 130 mm)
is assumed to be the detection limit for the size of the bows when dents haven’t been detected.
In ageing structures, accidental damage can accumulate and the combined effect of multiple
dents and bows can be significant structurally. This combined effect is not covered in current codes
and standards and hence places pressure on operators to detect individual incidents of damage
during regular inspections. If these are not repaired, should further damage in a similar location
be detected later, appropriate analyses should be undertaken.
Typical repair techniques (as further described in Chapter 8) include grout filling of members
and grouted clamps for larger dents. Bows are more difficult to repair, unless by member replace-
ment, which is expensive.

Planning Report
The Joint Industry Project titled ‘Rationalisation and optimisation of underwater inspection plan-
ning consistent with API RP2A section 14’ was discussed in Section 3.3.6 (MSL 2000). The data-
base developed as part of the JIP contained platform, inspection and anomaly data from over 2,000
Gulf of Mexico platforms. This project reviewed several different NDE methods available at the
time, including visual inspection (GVI or CVI by diver or ROV), non-destructive examination
(NDE) focusing on crack detection and sizing (including MPI, EC, UT and ACFM), NDE focusing
on identifying members with cracks and other through-thickness damage (FMD) and continuous
monitoring methods such as acoustic emission. A brief description of each method was given in
the JIP report. Figure 31 shows the relationship between the different techniques, ranging from
those suitable for global inspection to those more suitable for local inspections.
The review also included a summary of the uses, limitations and comparative costs for four of
the different NDE methods (GVI, CVI, MPI and UT) commonly used in the offshore industry at the
time. Limitations were identified and showed that GVI and CVI had limits on what level of dam-
age could be found. The use of divers for GVI would not now be regarded as good practice com-
pared to an ROV, for safety reasons.
The JIP report also addressed the reliability of the different techniques. For visual inspection, the
report noted that:
●● GVI was a reliable method for detection of damage such as missing or separated members, large
dents or bows and large holes or cracks. For smaller types of damage, the reliability of detection
for GVI reduced depending on factors such as the degree of marine growth and the ambient
lighting level.
●● CVI reliability depended on the degree of cleaning and surface preparation, which was deter-
mined by the type of cleaning method used. The report states that cleaning with pressure was
necessary for reliable visual inspection.
The reliability of UT was also addressed, noting that a rough surface (e.g. severely corroded)
would reflect a significant proportion of the input energy making measurements difficult. With a
smooth surface UT could be effective in measuring wall thickness. Regions with large pits are also
difficult to make accurate measurements as the probe cannot make good contact with the member.
Since areas of pitting are those where thickness measurements are more likely to be required, the
report suggests that where possible, other methods such as the use of gauges should be preferred.
Further, the reliability of the MPI technique was reviewed in the JIP report. From the feed-
back from the operators involved in the JIP it was concluded that the mean length of the shortest
Low cost High cost
Large defects Small defects
Corrosion Large holes Chord side cracks Small cracks
Global Local
inspection inspection
UT
MPI
GVI FMD CVI
EC
Figure 31 Relationship between the different NDE techniques versus cost and detection ability. Sources:
Based on MSL (2000). Rationalization and optimisation of underwater inspection planning consistent with
API RP2A section 14. Published by MMS, USA as Project Number 345, November 2000.
crack that could reliably be detected was 2.8 cm (1.1″), which is several times the assumed
detectable size at the time. A series of studies conducted at the Underwater NDE Centre of
University College London (HSE 2002) have shown that a PoD of 90% was obtained for a crack
length of 0.2 cm. More recently DNVGL RP-C210 (DNVGL 2019) published PoD curves for
underwater use of MPI which are less than those indicated by Visser (HSE 2002). The 90% PoD
level for MPI reported by DNVGL is approximately 1.4 cm.
The point was made that before using MPI, CVI is necessary to check for evidence of weld under-
cut, inter-bead groves and other fabrication defects which are often mistaken for cracks. It was also
noted that successful use of MPI depended on the skill of the operator.
A comparison of reliability and costs for CVI and MPI for four different levels of cleaning is
shown in Table 20. The costs relate to the time of carrying out the study (MSL 2000). It was claimed
that after cleaning, MPI had the advantage compared to CVI that cracks down to 10 cm (4”) long
and 0.025 mm (0.001 inches) wide could be detected with reasonable confidence. As shown in
Table 20, this approach can be justified on a cost basis since the relative cost of MPI is only about
20% of the total inspection cost including cleaning.
The report also compares gamma ray and UT flooded member detection methods. In accordance
with the review the UT method can be used by both divers and an ROV and is the preferred method
for GoM inspection. However, it is claimed that there are limitations in using an ROV due to the
difficulty of placing the sensors. There are also safety issues in using divers. The gamma ray
Table 20 Reliability and Cost Estimate for CVI and MPI (MSL 2000). Sources: MSL (2000). Rationalization
and optimisation of underwater inspection planning consistent with API RP2A section 14. Published by
MMS, USA as Project Number 345, November 2000.
MPI
CVI CVI MPI Complete
Limited cleaning Complete cleaning Limited cleaning cleaning
(black oxide) (bare metal) (black oxide) (bare metal)
Detectable crack length 30 cm and 30 cm and greater 2.5 cm and 2.5 cm and
greater greater greater
Detectable crack width 0.15 mm and 0.05 mm and 0.025 mm and 0.025 mm and
greater greater greater greater
Detectable crack depth 0.75 mm and 0.75 mm and 0.75 mm and 0.75 mm and
greater greater greater greater
Cleaning time 32–54 min/m2 110–322 min/m2 32–54 min/m2 110–322 min/m2
Estimated relative cost per 1.0 1.8 1.2 1.9
length
Reliability L=10 cm 5% 20% 80% 90%
of detecting W=0.025 mm
crack D=0.75 mm
L=30 cm 75% 80% 90% 90%
W=0.25 mm
D=0.75 mm
L=60 cm 90% 90% 90% 90%
W=25 mm
D=9.5 mm
technique using an ROV has many advantages, including that cleaning is not normally needed and
is now seen as the preferred method.
The review indicated that FMD could be used as part of any underwater inspection as a supple-
ment to other inspection activities and provided general guidance for using FMD. It was recom-
mended that the use of FMD should be combined with a thorough general visual survey (GVI).
The combination of FMD and GVI helped to concentrate the visual inspection on the platform
nodes. It was shown that FMD could provide a safety net for any unknown damage occurring on
the jacket. A SIM engineer could consider rotating the locations for FMD inspections such that all
the major framing was inspected over a period of time. For robust structures, such as X-braced
framing, FMD was described as a good tool to check for defects that might have been missed by
other inspection techniques and could be used as one of the focused and main techniques of the
inspection. For less robust structures, such as single diagonal and K-braced framing, FMD was
considered an acceptable technique but should not be considered as the main inspection tech-
nique. FMD may miss small cracks that have yet caused member flooding but could develop into
larger, more significant cracks prior to the next inspection.
If FMD identified a flooded member, a more thorough CVI or NDE inspection was described as
required at each end of the flooded member. This would add to the total cost of inspection.
However, the criticality of that member should be taken into account before large efforts were
spent on identifying the cause of the flooded member. It was reported that FMD should be focussed
on the main diagonal framing with less emphasis on the horizontal framing as it contributed less
to the overall strength of the platform. The exceptions were the horizontals associated with sup-
porting the conductor guides and tray supports.
As noted above, a good candidate for FMD was the air-filled conductor guide framing. Conductor
guide frames are typically located near the water line and at intervals of greater depth. Near the
water line the effect of vertical wave motion and buoyancy on some types of conductor guide fram-
ing could lead to significant cracking, normally at the 12 o’clock and 6 o’clock joint locations.
Flooding may result from cracking both on the brace and chord side. The report also noted that
more modern platform designs have improved to minimise this problem. FMD was also claimed to
be useful for underwater areas that could be subject to dropped objects or vessel impact. Such areas
include critical members near the boat landing and areas used for off-loading.
Further, reliability of the gamma ray FMD method was reviewed based on the ICON FMD trials
(Dover and Rudlin 1996). The testing was undertaken on both horizontal and vertical members.
The test results were reported as being 100% accurate for both 50% and 100% flooding.
Based on the review by MSL (2000), Figure 32 shows how crack growth can progress and the
feasibility of different inspection methods to identify cracks based upon the remaining life. For
obvious reasons FMD would not find the crack until the member has flooded. In contrast, MPI and
EC would have found the crack well before it reaches the through-thickness stage. The use of FMD
needs to take this into account recognising that repair of a through-thickness crack is much more
expensive than a repair of a crack detected by MPI or EC. The safety of the structure also needed
to be addressed in accordance with the discussion on framing given above.
The reliability of a structure inspected by FMD was further discussed. At the time of the FMD
check, a member might have a crack that had not progressed to the through-crack stage, so it would
be regarded as not flooded. However, if the member is damaged, depending on the crack growth
rate, the damage may propagate to a more hazardous stage prior to the next inspection. In this case
FMD would have provided a false negative, giving the impression of a no damage condition.
The finding of the JIP supported the use of FMD as was the industry position at that time with
some limitations as discussed above. It was seen to provide an acceptable alternative to CVI and in
some cases may be preferable.
Typical crack growth curve
Typical FMD crack detection

Crack depth/
thickness
1.0
Typical MPI and EC detection
100 50 0
Remaining Life (%)
Figure 32 Ability to detect a crack in member for different NDE techniques. Sources: Based on MSL (2000).
Rationalization and optimisation of underwater inspection planning consistent with API RP2A section 14.
Published by MMS, USA as Project Number 345, November 2000.
4.2.9 Projects on Testing of Inspection Methods and Their Reliability

Many trials have been performed to establish the reliability of inspection methods. Many of these
are discussed in this section.
Work at the Centre for Non-Destructive Testing at University College London (UCL)
The Centre for Non-Destructive Testing at University College London (UCL), which was opened
in 1984 (Department of Energy 1984), was instrumental in developing reliability data for underwa-
ter non-destructive testing techniques. Much of the work was carried out with joint sponsorship
from the UK Department of Energy, the offshore industry and, in the case of the later ICON (Inter-
calibration of offshore non-destructive examination) programme, the European Union. Most of
the testing was on fatigue cracks as a result of testing tubular joints of realistic offshore dimensions.
The library of test specimens (Department of Energy 1984) which was developed over a period
included unstiffened tubular joints of seven basic types such as simple Y, simple K, complex T,
double YT, X and double K joints. In total there were 20 nodes with 80 individual joints. In addi-
tion, there were 20 coated specimens with defect indications. The defects varied in length from
2 mm to 600 mm and had depths up to 33 mm. Such an extensive library was necessary in order to
establish PODs with any confidence. To obtain a 95% confidence level, it was established that a set
of 29 defects with similar crack-lengths was needed.
One of the aims of the UCL NDT Centre (Department of Energy 1984) was to establish a set of
pre-cracked specimens, including welded tubular nodes, containing well characterised fatigue
cracks. The UCL work concentrated on four different types of techniques for underwater
inspection:
●● magnetic particle inspection (MPI);
●● eddy current methods;
●● ultrasonic creeping wave inspection; and
●● alternating field measurements (ACFM).
Defect characterisation comprised the process of determining the location, length and maxi-
mum depth of cracks in each individual joint.
The NDT facilities at UCL included a diving tank for simulating diver inspection trials and
fatigue testing equipment to fabricate the various fatigue defects. The diving tank was 5 m × 4 m
and had a maximum depth of 4 m. It had viewing ports for observing the divers in action. A num-
ber of divers were used in the trials, most of which had the 3.2U CWIP certification (see
Section 4.5.4). A controller was present to supervise the divers’ work.
University College London further studied the accuracy of inspection methods in the report
OTH 87 263 (Department of Energy 1987). This work included the preparation of 11 pre-cracked
tubular joint specimens for trials using several different inspection methods both in air and under-
water by divers. The inspection methods used included MPI, EC, UT TOFD and ACPD where for
the underwater trials MPI was used for crack detection and ACPD for crack sizing. Following the
inspections, the specimens were sectioned so that the size and depth of the defects could be estab-
lished for comparison. In general, the inspection methods tended to underestimate the crack
depths by approximately 10%, while the crack length was both over- and underestimated with an
average error of 8%. The diver trials showed acceptable results but not as good as the in-air results.
The two divers were able to find all the defect locations although there were problems in detecting
the extent of the cracks with up to 30% underprediction reported.
A further set of trials was undertaken by UCL and reported by HSE (2002), where accurate meas-
urements of defect size and length were also obtained by optical measurements and compared
with the test results for that defect. These tests showed that MPI only missed surface breaking
defects that were less than 3 mm in length and provided a satisfactory measure of length in the
majority of cases. The data showed that the eddy current and ACFM inspections gave a much
lower number of spurious (false positives) results than MPI. On the other hand, MPI and ACFM
inspections were much more reliable in determining defect lengths than the lengths obtained by
the eddy current inspection. The data from the UCL programme was later incorporated into the
European ICON programme.
These tests were valuable in that they enabled crack measurements from inspection to be com-
pared with true crack sizes from destructive sectioning. The errors reported were relatively small
and in addition these results can be used to adjust the crack size measurements obtained from
inspections.
The ICON Project
The ICON (Inter-Calibration of Offshore Non-destructive examination) project was a £4.4M
major programme funded by the European Union, HSE and several UK and European companies.
It provided at the time the most comprehensive database on sub-sea NDT equipment, operating
procedures and PoD values (Dover and Rudlin 1996). It incorporated data from the underwater
trials at UCL making use of their library of defective nodes. Further, it collected a vast amount of
information on NDE of tubular joints in a marine environment. The emphasis was on realistic
laboratory trials deployed by ROVs or divers in a laboratory tank. An important part of the project
was carried out offshore at a depth of 140 m from the Shell’s DSV (diving support vessel). Many
variables both in equipment and in the types of test specimens were tested in order to establish
PoD and PoS curves for surface breaking and crack-like defects. The tests were carried out at three
sites (UCL in UK, Ifremer in France and Technomare in Italy). Bureau Veritas audited the data and
provided certified performance.
ICON addressed many different aspects on underwater inspection. The main part of the work
was to test eight NDE methods on four different types of samples using both CAT (computer-
assisted tele-manipulator) and manual systems. The NDE methods were based on MPI, ACFM and
eddy current and the samples were tubular joints, welds between different metals, (corroded) tee
butt welds and coated specimens. For many investigations only a subset of the UCL model library
of nodes was used. Hence only in a few cases the number of data points is more than 30.
ICON also included tests of flooded member detection (FMD), reporting that at 50% or higher
filling of water, the probability of detection (POD) was 100%, but only 70% POD at 10% water fill
(HSE 2002, Mijarez 2006).
The final report (Dover and Rudlin 1996) contains much of the concluding results in the form of
graphs from this project. An ICON database was also provided which supplied a great deal of infor-
mation on equipment selection, procedures and PoD type data. ICON software produced by the
project included three interactive databases consisting of information on equipment, operating
procedures and PoD performance. It provided users with the capacity to compare data and NDT
systems for a given offshore task.
Work by Visser
A study by Visser funded by HSE (2002) undertook an assessment of published NDE PoD and
PoS data from six major test programmes both from above water and underwater testing. Two of
these underwater programmes were from the UCL test centre and the ICON programme. This
assessment has been used to develop standard PoD-type curves for different NDE methods. These
are now incorporated into codes and standards such as DNVGL RP-C210 (DNVGL 2019).
Work by Bureau Veritas
Bureau Veritas (BV), using ICON data, produced a type approval document, “Type Approval on
Non-Destructive Testing Equipment Dedicated to Offshore Structures Underwater Inspection”
(BV 1998). This described how manufacturers of NDT equipment could achieve approval for their
equipment (2 levels of approvals were issued, namely Type and Basic). Type tests were carried out to
determine whether the equipment was capable of meeting BV’s requirements for the specified appli-
cation. These Type tests were to be carried out using the ICON samples to evaluate performance. BV’s
minimum requirements for crack detection were as shown in Figure 33. For crack sizing, BV
indicates for a measured crack depth in the range 10–25 mm the required accuracy was –10% to +20%.
The reliability operating characteristic (ROC) defined by the amount of spurious indications
obtained during Type tests was compared to the total amount of characterised effects and the over-
all POD. For POD values >80% it was stated the ratio of spurious indications to detected defects
should not exceed 20%.
This type-approval also applied to flooded member detection (FMD) where tests would be carried
out on dedicated samples at various positions (vertical, horizontal and vertical diagonal) at various
levels of flooding from 0 to 100%. Results were expressed as a function of the minimum detectable
level of flooding (% in volume) by the equipment for each position.
100
80
PoD (%)
60
40
20
0
0–2 2–5 5–10 10–20 20–35 35–50 50–100 100+
Crack length range (mm)
Figure 33 Bureau Veritas minimum requirements for type approval, based on crack detection. Sources: BV
(1998). Bureau Veritas Guidance Notes Type approval of non-destructive testing equipment dedicated to
underwater inspection of offshore structures, NI 422 DTO R00 E, 1998. © 1998, BUREAU VERITAS MARINE &
OFFSHORE.
4.2.10 Concrete in the Oceans Programme

The Concrete in the Oceans (CiO) programme included projects on surveys to establish the condi-
tion of concrete structures which had been in the sea for long periods and to demonstrate the use
of different surveying techniques (Department of Energy 1987). The most relevant of these was the
survey of the Tongue Sands fort in 1977 which was built in the Second World War and placed in the
Thames estuary for the defence of London (see Figure 34). At the time of writing, it is still in place,
situated 7 miles north of Margate in a water depth of 8 m at LAT. Its details are as follows:
●● structure: two hollow circular reinforced towers 7.3 m in diameter, 18.3 m in height, on a con-
crete foundation, supporting a steel deck;
●● wall thickness 305 mm, wall reinforcement 25 mm mild steel, vertical 25 mm at 150 mm centres,
hoop 25 mm at 305 mm centres (lower 14.6 m, at 280 mm centres for upper 3.7 m);
●● cover to reinforcement, 32 mm;
●● cement OPC/RHPC, aggregate flint gravel; and
●● concrete specification, 1934 code, mix 2.
The structure had been built for short-term use in the Second World War, as noted above, and
hence long-term durability was not a main factor in design. Exposed to the weather and marine
environment for 35 years (at the time of the survey), it represented a small-scale version of an age-
ing offshore concrete structure. As the structure was of limited further practical use, destructive
examination was acceptable, including the taking of cores. The project involved extensive survey-
ing in all the environmental zones, including tidal, splash and underwater and also inside the hol-
low shafts. The underwater diver survey showed that the back of the base pontoon to the structure
had been severely broken midway between the two towers. This fracture had resulted in the deck
splitting away from the top of the towers, causing severe damage to the concrete in these regions.
It was concluded that this damage had been caused by scour, exacerbated by storm damage.
The survey involved the use of several different survey methods, both above and below water.
These included a detailed visual survey and the taking of 11 cores, of which four were below water,
for detailed physical and chemical analysis. Sulphate attack, carbonation and leaching of lime
were experienced in the splash zone, but even after 35 years of exposure, this was confined to a
depth of only 50 mm.
Figure 34 Tongue Sands Tower. Source: John V. Sharp.

In the splash zone the compressive strength of the concrete was found to be high, with the
strength varying between 65 and 92 N/mm2. The permeability of the concrete varied with an aver-
age value of 10–10 m/sec, which is a typical value for non-saturated site-produced concrete. The
analysis showed that carbonation had occurred but only to a depth of 50 mm. Chloride ingress had
occurred to the full depth of the cores examined (330 mm). Corrosion of the reinforcement could
have been initiated, but it had not resulted in extensive damage to the concrete cover. The excep-
tion was part of the tower which had been cast with a mortar mix; this mix was extensively deterio-
rated and the reinforcement in areas containing the mortar mix was extensively corroded.
In the tidal zone the concrete was generally found to be in a sound condition. The strength of the
concrete was 50 N/mm2, which is less than that in the splash zone. There was evidence that corro-
sion of the reinforcement had been initiated in some areas (indicated by rust stains) but high
corrosion rates had not occurred. It was suggested that this was due to the low rate of oxygen
ingress into the saturated concrete.
In the underwater zone the strength of the underwater concrete was approximately 61 N/mm2.
The permeability of this concrete was very low (5 × 10–13 m/sec) compared to the splash zone.
Corrosion initiation had deemed to have occurred in all underwater reinforcement (confirmed by
chloride levels) although no evidence of steel corrosion was found, which was considered to be due
to the slow rate of oxygen ingress, due to the low permeability concrete and also to the low oxygen
content in seawater. Localised corrosion was found on one sample which occurred on an exposed
steel surface within a void in the concrete.
In the internal zone, the upper section had been severely damaged by the deck splitting away
from the top of the towers and corrosion damage was evident. In general, the NDT results showed
that the concrete was in a sound state, except for those areas mentioned above. NDT measure-
ments indicated that the reinforcement was in an active state.
Figure 35 shows the variations in chloride levels with height (in relation to the high-water level). It can
be seen that the chloride level increases dramatically with height above high water level, reaching 6%
Internal zone
4
H W Level
0
Height (metres)
–2
–4 L W Level
–6
–8
–10
0 2 4 6 8 10
Chloride content (% by weight cement)
Figure 35 Chloride levels from cores taken from the Tongue Sands Tower vs height above LAT.
by weight of cement, which is six times greater than the surface level in the underwater zone. It was
concluded that this increase was likely to be due to the action of sea spray and subsequent water evapora-
tion. High chloride levels are an indication of the potential for corrosion of the reinforcement. However,
as noted above, these levels had not generally resulted in actual corrosion, except for the mortar zone.
Several NDT techniques to establish the state of the concrete were deployed. This included
Pundit, Gamma backscatter and the Schmidt (rebound) hammer. All three techniques were able to
show the presence of the mortar mix. The backscatter technique was most effective in detecting
the areas of delamination.
For assessing the state of the reinforcement, potential surveys were deployed. In addition, meas-
urements of resistivity and chloride contents provided data relevant to the potential for corrosion.
The several techniques established that the reinforcement was in a corrosively active state.
However, only in the areas of the mortar mix had this corrosion led to corrosion and serious
delamination to the concrete cover. In other areas, steel corrosion had, at the time of the survey,
not damaged the concrete cover. Potential measurements underwater were limited in value as only
an overall potential could be measured which was –630 mV compared with a copper sulphate
reference electrode. The exposure of significant amounts of steel due to the underwater fracture
affected these readings. The potentials in the tidal zone had a maximum value of –460 mV, which
was less than the value measured in the splash or internal zones.
Overall the report on the survey of the Tongue Sands tower concluded that deterioration of the
concrete and significant corrosion of the embedded reinforcement were restricted to limited areas
of the splash zone, where either the specified cover had not been met or the local use of an inferior
quality “mortar” mix had resulted in rapid ingress of both oxygen and chlorides and also carbona-
tion of the concrete cover. Despite 35 years of exposure, the concrete and steel throughout the
underwater and tidal zones and in most of the splash zone was in remarkably good condition,
considering the speed of construction and intended short-term use.
The CiO programme also involved surveys of other structures including a Mulberry Harbour
unit still in Portland Harbour and of similar age to Tongue Sands Tower. It was designed to be
floated in position on the Normandy beaches and sunk as part of the invasion of France in 1944. It
was a hollow rectangular reinforced concrete structure situated in relatively shallow water, only
200 m from the beach. In a second phase of the CiO programme an additional structure was cho-
sen for survey which was only 10 years old at the time of survey but enabled comparison with the
older structures in phase 1. This was the Trinity House lighthouse situated in the English Channel
11 km south east of Eastbourne. This structure also had some similarities with an offshore con-
crete structure as it had a reinforced concrete foundation supporting a hollow concrete tower. This
single tower comprised two hollow concrete cylinders 6 and 4.25 m in diameter in telescopic form,
which allowed the upper section to be raised into position once the base raft had been placed on
the seabed. The use of sulphate-resisting Portland cement in the wave zone was of interest.
The main objectives of the CiO surveys were to assess how the long performance in the sea
affected concrete durability, the effect of different exposure zones on the deterioration, how the
concrete properties had affected the corrosion protection given to the reinforcement and to deter-
mine, if possible, the cause and extent of any reinforcement corrosion.
In terms of corrosion of the reinforcement, the surveys of the two wartime structures can be
compared most easily. The Tongue Sands Tower had 25 mm diameter bars at fairly close centres
(150 and 300 mm) embedded in concretes with strengths in excess of 50 N/mm2 (at the time of the
survey), with a specified cover of 32 mm. The Mulberry Harbour unit had a similar size of bar at
very much wider centres in a concrete of a lower strength (37 N/mm2 at the time of the survey)
with normal covers from 25 to 30 mm. In the splash zone of the Tongue Sands Tower which had
the higher strength concrete, surprisingly corrosion had not resulted in any extensive damage to
the concrete cover although chloride levels measured at bar depth were such that it was believed
that the reinforcement had been activated many years previously. Corrosion of the reinforcement
and subsequent spalling were evident in both structures in areas of weak concrete without large
aggregates, at voids, and where covers were lower than 10 mm. The above-water area of the
Mulberry Harbour unit, with a lower strength concrete and a history of submergence and re-
emergence, showed more corrosion, and there was clear evidence of different types of corrosion
between the drier west side and the wetter east side. With an assumed plentiful supply of oxygen
on the west side and a medium moisture content, the formation of corrosion had led to spalling.
The Royal Sovereign Lighthouse was a much younger structure with a high concrete strength
(55 N/mm2 at 28 days), a low water/cement ratio (0.37) and covers of 50 and 75 mm. As the struc-
ture was in use, the cores were taken in such a way as to avoid cutting the reinforcement. No visual
evidence of corrosion was found on the surface of the concrete although the potentials were more
negative than –280 mV Ag/AgCl in some places. Because of bad weather, the survey programme
had to be limited and there was limited opportunity to inspect the reinforcement for corrosion. On
the east side, with a high moisture content possibly restricting the access of oxygen, soft or soluble
corrosion products were observed as rust stain exudation. In both structures very little corrosion
was observed where the concrete was water-saturated; this was assumed to be due to restricted
access of oxygen.
Sulphate attack, carbonation and leaching of lime were found in the Tongue Sands Tower, but
after 35 years this was confined to a depth of 50 mm. In contrast, little concrete deterioration other
than that due to reinforcement corrosion was noted in the Mulberry Harbour structure, in spite of
the lower concrete strength. It must be remembered, however, that most of the concrete area exam-
ined had previously been submerged for some 18 years. Deterioration was confined to the east side
where mechanical abrasion and scaling possibly due to frost damage had eroded the concrete sur-
face. The carbonation depth based on a phenolphthalein indicator was found to be consistently low
(less than 3 mm), particularly in areas that had been previously immersed in seawater.
No deterioration of the concrete was observed on the Royal Sovereign Lighthouse (Department of
Energy 1987), which was to be expected in this relatively young, high-quality structure. X-ray diffrac-
tion of material from core samples taken from a point 8 metres above datum showed that chloride
penetration, partial carbonation of lime and a minimal sulphate attack were all confined to the
surface of the concrete. In the tidal zone there was a higher proportion of soft marine growth (algae)
on the south-west side (exposed to the prevailing wind) than on the north-east side where hard
growth (e.g. barnacles) predominated.
Inspection techniques were selected for detection of materials deterioration and for detection of
corrosion of the reinforcement and included:
●● visual, above and below water;
●● ultrasonic pulse velocity (for cover quality), both above and below water;
●● gamma ray backscatter (for concrete density);
●● rebound hammer (for concrete surface quality); and
●● potential measurements (detection of corrosion of the reinforcement).
All the methods were successful in identifying areas of weak concrete and delamination, but the
correspondence between the levels (poor, good, etc.) was variable. The gamma ray backscatter
method was alone in identifying one area of delamination, subsequently confirmed by coring.
However, it was found that the technique had limitations in detecting delamination directly over
reinforcement as it led to false readings.
Since corrosion of the reinforcement is an electro-chemical process, its detection can be aided by
the measurement of the electrochemical potential of the reinforcement. Measurement of resistiv-
ity can also add value by measuring the ionic conductivity of the concrete in the cover zone, indi-
cating moisture content and quality of the concrete.
Potential measurements underwater were taken on the Tongue Sands Tower. However, the
results obtained were influenced by the potential of the reinforcement exposed in a major struc-
tural crack in the base of the structure and by the immersion of a steel diving cage. Another prob-
lem was the need for a connection to the embedded reinforcement underwater. A connection can
be made more easily above water, but electrical discontinuities between the reinforcement in the
splash zone and that underwater may have given false readings.
4.3 Inspection and Inspection Methods
4.3.1 Introduction
This section presents an overview of methods used for underwater inspection of offshore struc-
tures. Primarily, these are non-destructive methods in that the material and structure is not
intended to be damaged by the inspection. Such methods are often called non-destructive testing
(NDT) or non-destructive evaluation (NDE). A few destructive methods are also commonly in use,
particularly chloride ingress tests used for concrete structures which are also discussed in this sec-
tion. An overview of the different techniques described in this section is given in Table 21.
4.3.2 Visual Inspection

Visual inspection is inspection of a structure using primarily human senses, particularly vision but
also in some cases hearing and touch. Visual inspection may include non-specialized inspection
equipment such as magnifying lens, callipers, crack measuring ruler, radius gauge, mirrors, endo-
scopes, borescopes, fibre optics and TV cameras. Visual inspection requires good lighting: 500 lux
is required at the surface to be inspected, e.g. by DNVGL-CG-0051 (DNVGL 2015) and hence also
a light source and lux meter will be required in many cases.
Experience has shown that many defects can be found visually, also underwater and hence, vis-
ual inspection will be the initial inspection method in many cases. Visual inspection is used for the
entire structure from the seabed to the top of the flare tower. In addition to the structure itself,
visual inspection is also used to look at the seabed for scour and subsidence, the level of marine
growth on the structure and the state of cathodic anodes in the corrosion protection system.
A visual inspection of a steel sub-structure will normally include:
●● Weld inspections: After cleaning, the welds can be inspected for discontinuities on the weld and
in the heat-affected zone. Particularly, signs of cracking will be looked after, but also signs and
severity of corrosion and pitting in and around the weld is normally assessed and noted.
●● Damage: Along with the inspection of welds, the inspector will normally look for any type of
damage to the structure such as buckles, dents, bows, etc., as a result of storms, collisions and
dropped objects or other similar events.
●● Marine growth: The density and coverage of population, local density variations, types of marine
growth, indications of the presence of hard marine growth and possibly size of the average and
largest specimen.
●● Scour: Any signs and the amount of scour will normally be assessed and if necessary, a profile of
the seabed will be established (photogrammetry).
Table 21 Overview of Inspection Methods for Offshore Structures Underwater.
Methods Damage type that can be identified Brief description
Visual inspection Any damage that can be seen GVI includes a swim around for general
methods: visually, including missing assessment of condition. CVI can be
●● general visual members, large to medium cracks used for more details. Video and still
inspection (GVI) and damage, dents, bows, buckles, photography are typically used.
●● detailed visual
corrosion, corrosion products, GVI does not usually require cleaning,
inspection (DVI) spalling of concrete, coating and hence the cost of a GVI is minimal.
breakdown, depletion in anodes, DVI requires minimal cleaning and CVI
●● close visual
amount of marine fouling, seabed requires a cleaning process to remove
inspection (CVI) debris and scour etc. GVI can only the marine growth completely from a
detect major defects, DVI can give structure. Small defects may be missed
some more details and CVI can by CVI.
detect visible corrosion, pitting,
cracks and other damage.
Ultrasonic methods: UT, TOFD and PAUT can be used Ultrasonic methods use high-frequency
●● ultrasonic testing for thickness measurements and sound transmitted by a probe that passes
(UT) detection of internal defects in through a material to measure distances
●● time-of-flight-
steel structures. to reflecting surfaces, such as internal
diffraction (TOFD) defects and the back wall.
●● phased array The ultrasonic pulse velocity test
ultrasonic (PAUT) can be used to evaluate
●● ultrasonic pulse
uniformity and quality of
velocity test concrete, including the presence
of voids and cracks.
Electromagnetic Used to detect surface defects and MPI: Magnetic particles are used with
methods: near surface defects (e.g. cracks). induced magnetic fields to determine
●● magnetic particle Also capable of determining surface defects. Requires cleaning of the
Inspection (MPI) crack length and location. surface.
●● eddy current EC, ACPD and ACFM are also EC: A current field is introduced in the
inspection (EC) able to measure the depth of material and disturbances in the field
●● alternating current
defects to varying degrees of are measured.
potential drop accuracy.
ACPD: Electric current is passed
(ACPD) between two probes and the presence of
●● alternating current a surface breaking defect between the
field measurements probes can be detected.
(ACFM) ACFM: Electric current is induced in the
material, the associated electromagnetic
field is measured and the presence of a
defect is detected by disturbances in the
associated magnetic field. ACFM is a
non-contacting method capable of
detecting anomalies through coatings.
Radiographic testing Voids, thickness losses, e.g. due to X-rays or gamma rays are used to
(RT) corrosion, corrosion under determine thickness or density
coating, insulation or passive fire differences.
protection coating
Flooded member Any damage such as cracking, Check water filling level in members,
detection (FMD) corrosion, denting, local rupture primarily tubular members
●● radiographic and anode failure resulting in
testing water ingress to dry members
●● ultrasonic testing
(Continued)
Methods Damage type that can be identified Brief description
Rebound hammer Delamination and cavities in A “hammer” that strikes a concrete

concrete structures surface and the extent of the rebound
provides a measure of surface quality
Chloride ingress tests Measure the ingress of chloride Samples of concrete powder are
●● dust samples in concrete, which may give an extracted and analysed for chloride ion
indication of the likelihood of concentration and cement content
reinforcement corrosion (laboratory)
Electro-potential Corrosion of the reinforcement in Mapping of potential variation on a
mapping concrete structures concrete surface using probes
Cathodic potential Loss of cathodic potential Measuring the cathodic potential
measurement capacity compared to a standard cell
●● Condition of coatings: Where coating is used, signs of breakage or blisters in the coating will
normally be reported.
●● Cathodic protection system: Anodes will normally be measured to assess the amount of anode
material that has been used. If impressed current system is used, cables and insulation will
normally be inspected.
Visual inspection is often divided into general visual inspection (GVI), detailed visual inspection
(DVI) and close(-up) visual inspection (CVI). No general definition of when a visual inspection is
called close, detailed or general exists and it also will depend on the item that is being inspected.
However, definitions typically are based on the level of cleaning of the surface of the structure and
the nearness of the inspector to the structure. For example, the definition in IACS UR Z 7.1.2.4
(IACS 2002) for close-up visual inspection is “... a survey where the details of structural components
are within the close visual inspection range of the surveyor, i.e. normally within reach of hand”.
For underwater ROV-based inspection, the following are often used:
●● General visual inspection (GVI) is inspection of the structure without any cleaning and is applied
to detect large-scale anomalies and to confirm the general condition and configuration of the
structure. A benefit of GVI is that large parts of the structure can be inspected in a short
time period.
●● Detailed visual inspection (DVI) is inspection of the structure after cleaning away the marine
growth by brush, water jetting or scraping. DVI will enable the inspector to determine more
details of the structure and hence detect smaller anomalies. The cleaning of, for example, a node
on a jacket structure for marine growth is reported to take up to 1 or 2 days.
●● Close visual inspection (CVI) is inspection of the structure after cleaning and grit blasting the
surface. CVI provides a more detailed examination of structural components and is able to deter-
mine the existence of cracks, corrosion and damage to the structure. A benefit of CVI is that a
certain level of detailed inspection can be achieved for a reasonable time and cost compared to
techniques such as MPI and EC.
Visual inspection has for many years made use of photos and videos and are now also using 3D
real-time imaging methods, such as photogrammetry and multi-beam sonar. These visual systems
can provide a high-resolution 3D image in real time of the surfaces of structural parts underwater,
depending on the level of cleaning. Images of cleaned structural parts are highly relevant in detecting
damage and anomalies but also for preparing accurate digital models suitable for designing clamp
and sleeve repairs.
CVI above water and internally inside dry compartments in floating structures is performed by
a qualified inspector. Dye penetration can be used to enhance the presence of cracks under dry
conditions.
Visual inspection was responsible for the discovery of 36 of the 40 cases of damage reported in the
AIM IV project (PMB 1990); see also Section 3.2.2. Visual inspection was expected to be the primary
tool for damage detection because it was the most frequently applied technique. Also, since signifi-
cant damage was the issue, visual inspection would be very successful in detecting the more obvious
damage types (holes, dents, severed or missing members). A review of the detailed reports showed
that in at least 28 of the cases no cleaning of the areas was performed for the initial inspection.
Inspection of concrete structures relies heavily on visual inspection (GVI and CVI using an
ROV) due to the very large areas on the shafts and cells. There are imperfections on the concrete
surface, some of which are important for further investigation. The CiO report (Department of
Energy 1987) described a classification of damage types on the surface of a concrete structure and
identified a range of different defects which could be found by visual inspection. More information
is given in Section 4.8.
4.3.3 Ultrasonic Testing Methods

Ultrasonic testing methods use a transmitter of high-frequency ultrasound that is passed through
the material and a receiver records the reflected sound.
Traditional ultrasonic testing (UT) uses a couplant between the transducer and the body of the
material being tested increasing the efficiency of the process by reducing losses in the transmis-
sion of the ultrasonic energy at the surface. Ultrasound is modified by reflecting from a surface
such as a flaw or a back wall. A probe is used to detect the received signal which can provide
information on the presence of flaws and the thickness of the specimen.
In the reflection (or pulse-echo) mode, the transducer can act to both send and receive the pulsed
ultrasound waves, or two separate transducers are used, as illustrated in Figure 36. Reflected ultra-
sound comes from an interface, such as the back wall of an object, or from an imperfection within
the object. The device displays these results in the form of a signal whose amplitude represents
both the intensity of the reflected sound and the distance to the defect or the back wall, character-
ised by the arrival time of the reflection.
In the through-transmission mode, a transmitter sends ultrasound through one surface, and a
separate receiver detects the amount that has reached it on another surface after travelling through
Transmitter Receiver
Thickness
Flaw Back wall echo
Figure 36 Ultrasonic testing both for thickness and detection of internal flaw.
a medium. Imperfections or other conditions in the space between the transmitter and the receiver
are revealed by reducing the amount of sound transmitted. Ultrasonic testing can be used under-
water by an ROV but is more usually used internally in hulls and compartments.
Ultrasonic testing (UT) in floating structures is primarily used for thickness measurements
and is particularly used for monitoring corrosion on components. In this mode the focus is on
measuring the time required to receive a signal reflected from the back wall.
Ultrasonic time-of-flight diffraction (TOFD) testing relies on the measurement of time differ-
ences between the signal travelling through known paths and being reflected from a defect. It
places little reliance on signal amplitude and so is less sensitive than amplitude techniques to the
condition of the steel surface and operator performance than the amplitude techniques (MTD 1989).
An ultrasonic pulse is introduced into the steel at one point and diffracted signals are received,
recorded and interpreted by a receiver. The technique is particularly useful for the sizing of known
defects such as surface-breaking cracks but can also be used with considerable benefit in a “search”
mode to locate unknown defects. In a TOFD system, a pair of ultrasonic probes sits on opposite
sides of a weld. One of the probes, the transmitter, emits an ultrasonic pulse that is picked up by
the probe on the other side, the receiver. In undamaged material, the signals picked up by the
receiver probe are from two waves: one that travels along the surface and one that reflects off the
far wall. When a crack is present, there is a diffraction of the ultrasonic wave from the tip(s) of the
crack. Using the measured time of flight of the pulse, the depth of a crack tips can be calculated
automatically by simple trigonometry.
Phased array ultrasonic testing (PAUT) is an advanced method of ultrasonic equipment, creating a
beam of ultrasonic pulses from many small ultrasonic elements (array of probes) which can be swept
electronically without moving the probe. Each element can be pulsed individually at a computer-
calculated timing. This forms a combined view that detects hidden defects or discontinuities inside a
structure or weld. Phased array UT is capable of producing precise and reliable images and can effec-
tively be used to inspect large parts of a structure. It is often used as an alternative to radiography.
An ultrasonic pulse velocity test is a non-destructive test to assess the uniformity and quality of
concrete. It can indicate the presence of voids and cracks. This test using two probes measures the
velocity of an ultrasonic pulse passing through a concrete structure, measuring the time taken by
the pulse to traverse the concrete specimen. Good quality concrete is indicated by higher velocities
and slower velocities could indicate concrete with cracks and voids. The test can also be used to
measure the effectiveness of concrete repairs. The degree of saturation of the concrete affects the
pulse velocity, and this factor must be considered when evaluating test results. Typical frequencies
used are in the range 40 to 50 kHz. It is also important to note that the pulse-velocity measured in
the vicinity of reinforcing steel can be higher than in plain concrete of the same composition. This
is because the pulse velocity in steel is up to double that in concrete. It is recommended to avoid
measurements close to steel parallel to the direction of pulse propagation. Ultrasonic pulse velocity
measurements can be combined with rebound hammer measurements to improve the accuracy of
the estimation of compressive strength. A commercial version of this equipment is available, called
“Pundit”. A standard exists for this test and is provided in ASTM- C597-16 (ASTM 2016).
4.3.4 Electromagnetic Methods

Magnetic particle inspection (MPI) is an electromagnetic method for use on a magnetic material
involving induced magnetic fields and magnetic powder to identify the presence of defects. Any
cracks or defects in the material will interrupt the flow of current and will alter the magnetic field
creating a “flux leakage field” at the site of the damage; see Figure 37. The flux leakage field will
Aggregation of
Magnetic Crack magnetic particles
field lines
N S
Figure 37 Magnetic particle method illustrated.
draw the magnetic particles to the damage site making it visible. MPI requires very careful surface
preparation. However, coatings of up to 50 μm may be accepted.
MPI is specifically useful for determining surface breaking cracks. MPI is capable of detecting
quite small cracks and the probability of detecting a crack according to DNVGL-RP-C210
(DNVGL 2019) is similar to that for EC inspection (typically 90% PoD for a crack depth of 12 mm
underwater). MPI often requires removal of coatings and it is often difficult to reinstate the original
corrosion protection. This may result in future corrosion attack, especially relevant for semi-sub-
mersible and ship-shaped structures.
Fluorescent magnetic particles are normally used for underwater MPI and an ultraviolet light is
used for illumination. MPI underwater is normally undertaken by divers because of the difficulty
of automatization of the inspection process for an ROV on typical structures. As a result of divers
being used less for underwater inspection, MPI is at present being replaced by other methods such
as ACFM.
Eddy current inspection (EC) is also an electromagnetic method involving the use of magnetic
coils to induce eddy currents in members such as steel. The presence of surface breaking cracks
distorts the current field, which can be detected by suitable probes. Eddy current inspections are
useful for searching for surface cracks and can determine length and depth of the crack.
Eddy current inspection (EC) is capable of detecting quite small cracks, and according to
DNVGL-RP-C210 (DNVGL 2019) there is a 90% probability of detecting a crack with a depth of
12 mm underwater and 3 mm in dry conditions. EC can also be used to measure stresses in a mate-
rial (Lotsberg 2016). EC can be used both in dry conditions and under water. Very careful surface
preparation is required for the method to be effective. EC underwater is usually performed by
divers, which has cost and safety implications.
The alternating current potential drop (ACPD) technique is where an electric current is passed
between two probes placed on the component. The presence of a surface breaking defect between
the probes increases the electrical resistance locally. This change is used to detect and size defects.
It requires cleaning to bare metal for the probes to be placed and also to be used by a trained diver.
Multiple measurements along the crack length may be required if good resolution is required.
Alternating current field measurements (ACFM) is an electromagnetic technique used for the
detection and sizing of surface breaking cracks in steel components. It was initially developed to
replace ACPD for underwater crack sizing and it was then found that it could provide many ben-
efits compared to ACPD. It combines the ACPD technique and eddy current testing in being able
to size defects without calibration and in its ability to work without electrical contact with the
surface. The method involves using a probe that introduces an electric current locally into the
component and measures the associated electromagnetic field close to the surface. The presence of
a defect disturbs the associated magnetic field. The ends of a defect can be identified to provide
information on defect location and extent. Accurate sizing of defects up to 25 mm in depth is
claimed. ACFM inspection is a non-contacting method and can be performed through paint and
coatings and therefore, it is considered to imply less cost and time compared to several other NDT
techniques requiring more thorough surface preparation (e.g. MPI).
ACFM inspections can be performed by an ROV. Weld inspection by ROV has been performed in
many applications such as structural node welds on jacket structures, welded plates, mooring sys-
tems including chains and spud cans.
4.3.5 Radiographic Testing

Radiographic testing (RT) uses either X-rays or gamma rays to examine the structure for any flaws
or defects. The test part is placed between the radiation source and film or a digital panel and any
thickness differences in the test piece will reduce the amount of radiation penetrating through the
specimen. This difference will be visible on the radiographic film or on the digital panel.
Radiographic testing is particularly good at detecting volumetric anomalies and can be used to
detect corrosion under coatings, insulation or passive fire protection coating (accuracy approxi-
mately ±0.3 mm). Planar anomalies cannot be detected reliably when the rays are parallel to the
anomaly and hence usually the technique is not seen as a good choice for determining fatigue cracks.
X-rays methods are normally viewed to be reliable for structural parts with thickness up to
approximately 60–75 mm. Gamma rays based on Cobalt 60 with an energy in excess of 1 MeV are
normally seen as the choice for larger sizes. ABS “Guide for Non-Destructive Inspection of Hull
Welds” (ABS 2018) indicates that X-rays and Iridium 192 can be used for materials up to 75 mm in
thickness and that Cobalt 60 should be used for materials in excess of that.
In general, during a radiographic test the area needs to be closed for access due to the radiation
danger. Radiographic testing is used for in-service inspection in special cases on floating structures
(semi-submersibles and ship-shaped structures).
Limitations related to this method include that access to both sides of the detail is necessary in
order to place the source and the detector opposite to each other. Also, the geometry of details will
often limit the use of radiographic testing.
Wet radiography has been used and, for example, subsea digital radiography is a useful method
for identifying corrosion and erosion, particularly in thicker sections and also root defects in welds.
A digital detector array produces a high-resolution radiographic image which can immediately be
relayed to the topside personnel using a fibre optic link. A marinised high-energy X-ray or gamma
source is used in an assembly which is used to position the radiation source and detector on the test
specimen, using preferably an ROV. Due to the safety hazards, the UK HSE requires notification to
be given for the use of offshore site radiography work (HSE 2010).
4.3.6 Flooded Member Detection

Flooded member detection (FMD) can be used to detect the presence of water in initially air-filled
submerged hollow members which would indicate a through-thickness crack, damage, corrosion
or a weld defect allowing water to enter the hollow member. FMD is primarily used on fixed steel
structures where the braces and conductor frames typically are air filled (the legs of a fixed steel
structure are normally water filled and FMD is of little use). FMD can only be used underwater and
does not necessarily require any cleaning of the member to be inspected. Historically, FMD was
initially developed as a diver-based inspection using ultrasonic methods, but at present FMD is
primarily performed by an ROV using a radioactive gamma source. A benefit of the method is that
it is possible to inspect large parts of the structure in a short time period (as many as 30 compo-
nents per hour is claimed to be possible by some suppliers). The technique is recognised as provid-
ing a relatively rapid inspection tool and, therefore, as cost effective.
Radiographic FMD uses a gamma ray source and a sensitive detector fixed on opposite forks
of a changeable yoke system on an ROV and deployed across the diameter of the member under
inspection. The method exploits the gamma ray absorption properties of different materials to
detect the presence of water in a member, usually resulting from through-thickness cracking or
other damage. Typical sources are cobalt-60 with a 1.2 MeV (million electron volts) gamma or
caesium-137. Operators of gamma FMD are normally required to be trained in radiation protec-
tion, as the gamma source has to be transferred from the protective canister used for transport
to the ROV.
The method requires access to both sides of a member with minimal surface preparation.
Calibration is essential, using the count rate both in air and in water without a member present.
There is a significant difference between the recorded count rate between a dry and water-filled
member facilitating the detection of water filling. However, intermediate count rates usually
require re-measurement and may indicate partial filling of a member. Vertical or angled members
require testing at different locations along the member to check for partial filling. To analyse the
results, the member size and wall thickness need to be known. In addition, the presence of any
internal ring stiffening or grout fillings would also affect the count rate. Particular problems are
tight cracks, cracks covered by coatings or sealed by marine growth and a general difficulty of
access to members particularly if drill cuttings are present.
In ultrasonic-based FMD, an ultrasonic pulse is transmitted through the member wall. The pres-
ence of a fluid provides an efficient acoustic conduction path, which otherwise does not exist, and
the detection of a return echo from the opposite side of the cylinder is used to confirm the presence
of water and hence through-wall damage (Hayward et al. 1993). Ultrasonic-based FMD usually
requires deployment by divers and an accurate placement of transducers (Mijarez 2006).
The FMD method was evaluated in the framework of the Inter-Calibration of Offshore NDE
(ICON) project, which aimed at testing NDE methods and equipment. The FMD method was
evaluated using clean 0.4 m and 0.5 m diameter tubes, filled with water to different levels. It was
reported that at 50% or higher filling of water the probability of detection (POD) was 100% but
was only 70% POD at 10% water fill (HSE 2002, Mijarez 2006).
A typical count rate in air is 3900 counts and via a water path only 47 counts. The FMD gamma
rays are typically calibrated both in air and in water to these typical numbers. Typical count rates
when performing the FMD test of structural members are (see also Figure 38):
●● 862 counts for a dry member;
●● 8 counts for a flooded member; and
●● 202 counts for partial flooding, as an example.
Hence, there is a clear difference between a dry and a flooded member.
At the time of writing this book, it is understood that developments have been made to allow
the frame to be adjusted by the ROV to match different member diameters, thus eliminating
the need for the ROV to surface for frame adjustment. However, for special diameters and
thicknesses, the radioactive source may need to be changed (Hanson 2020).
CASE: CASE:
Pre-survey Horizontal
calibration member
in open water 100% dry
47 862
Typical result Typical result
CASE: CASE:
Horizontal Horizontal
member member
100% flooded 17% flooded
8 202
Typical result Typical result
Figure 38 Count rates for different examples of flooding under water.
4.3.7 Rebound Hammer

A rebound hammer (also called a Schmidt hammer) test is a non-destructive testing method for
concrete on-site providing a convenient and rapid measure of the compressive strength of the con-
crete. The compressive strength of concrete depends on various factors such as aggregate size,
water-cement ratio, air content in concrete. The test involves the plunger of a rebound hammer
being pressed against the surface of concrete when a spring-controlled mass with a constant energy
strikes the concrete surface. The extent of the rebound is a measure of surface hardness and is
measured on a graduated scale. This value is designated as a Rebound Number (rebound index).
The objective of a rebound hammer test is to measure the compressive strength and the uniformity
of concrete and can be used to give indication of spalling and delamination, which will absorb
more energy, providing a lower rebound value. The test has been standardised by ASTM in their
standard ASTM C805 / C805M (ASTM 2018).
4.3.8 Chloride Ingress Test

During immersion of concrete in seawater, ingress of chlorides occurs over time due to the per-
meability of the concrete. The depth of penetration and the chloride content at depth are impor-
tant in the context of corrosion of the steel reinforcement. This depth is measured by core drilling
at sample locations to prescribed depths. Concrete rebar and prestressed cables are avoided by
controlling the location and depth of the drilling. Samples of concrete powder are collected from
various depths which are then taken to a laboratory for analysis of the chloride ion concentration
and cement content. Once results are obtained, depth profiles can be prepared showing the pen-
etration of the chlorides and hence the susceptibility of the reinforcement to corrosion. A typical
example of a chloride profile is shown in Figure 35, as a result of samples being taken from the
Tongue Sands fort.
4.3.9 Electro-Potential Mapping

When reinforcing steel in concrete corrodes, coupled anodic and cathodic reactions are taking
place simultaneously on its surface. At the corroding site (the anode), iron is dissolved and oxi-
dised to iron ions leaving electrons in the steel. In the cathodic reaction at the steel surface, oxygen
is reduced and hydroxyl ions are produced. In localised corrosion, the anodic and cathodic reac-
tions on the surface of the steel are usually spatially separated. Under these circumstances, a sig-
nificant amount of potential drop separates the anodic and the cathodic sites and therefore the
corrosion potential varies with position. Thus, surveys of corrosion potential can be used to locate
sites of active corrosion.
The corrosion potential is measured as a potential difference against a reference electrode (half-
cell). The numerical value of the measured potential difference between the steel in the concrete
and the reference electrode will depend on the corrosion condition of the steel in concrete. A typi-
cal reference electrode is the saturated copper-copper sulphate electrode, which is robust for on-
site work as well as being sufficiently accurate. However, errors may arise due to contamination of
the concrete surface with copper sulphate. The measured values are influenced by concrete cover,
concrete resistivity (moisture content) and oxygen availability. Typical potential values measured
against the copper-sulphate electrode (CSE) are shown in Table 22.
The corrosion potential of passive steel in concrete depends on the oxygen availability (moisture
content) and can vary over a wide range of potentials. Corroding steel in chloride-contaminated con-
crete (such as in offshore structures) shows potentials ranging from –0.6 V to –0.4 V CSE. The most
negative values of the half-cell potentials usually locate the local anode, but the absolute values of the
potentials measured are influenced by the cover depth and the resistivity of the concrete.
An electrical connection to the rebar is usually required. This may require drilling a hole into the
concrete above the rebar. Potential measurements can be performed with a single electrode (point
measurements) or with one or several wheel electrodes (potential mapping). Two techniques for
mapping are shown in Figure 39. In the upper part of Figure 39 a reference electrode scans the
surface, linked to an electrical connection to the reinforcement. This probe can be replaced with a
wheel for easier scanning. In the lower part of Figure 39 two CSE half-cells are used, one fixed and
the other to scan the surface. This second method does not require an electrical connection to the
reinforcement but only provides comparative information. As noted above, potential mapping is
usually performed with a wheel arrangement and a small grid size of approximately 0.15 m.
Table 22 Typical Ranges of Potential of Reinforcing Steel in Concrete

(RILEM 2010). Sources: Modified from RILEM (2010). Acoustic emission Report
TC212-ACD, 2010 International Union of Laboratories, Experts in Construction
Materials, systems and structures.
Condition Range volts CSE
Water saturated concrete without oxygen –0.9 to –1.0

Wet, chloride contaminated concrete –0.4 to –0.6
Dry concrete +0.2
(a) Circuitry for monitoring surface corrosion potentials of steel reinforcement in

concrete – Single half-cell method
Volt meter
V
Reference electrode
test - probe
Electrical
contact to
interconnected
steel
reinforcement
(b) Circuitry for monitoring surface corrosion potential variations across the steel reinforced
concrete surface – Two half-cell method
Volt meter
V
Fixed position
reference electrode
Moveable
reference electrode
Figure 39 Methods of potential mapping (Department of Energy 1987b).
Representation of half-cell potential data in order to locate areas with different potentials can be
performed by colour plots or equipotential contour plots. In an equipotential contour plot, lines of
constant potential are calculated and plotted through points of equal or interpolated equal values.
As can be seen from Table 22, areas with strongly negative values indicate areas of potential corro-
sion. However, there are several uncertainties in the readings obtained and further non-destructive
or destructive analyses are required to confirm areas of corrosion.
Use of the technique for underwater concrete is more difficult as the seawater provides a low
resistance electrical path, making potential measurements more complicated and the results more
uncertain. However, the technique is suitable for concrete in the splash zone. A standardised
approach to potential mapping is given in the ASTM procedure ASTM C876-15 (ASTM 2015) and
RILEM TC 154 (RILEM 2003).
4.3.10 Cathodic Protection Inspection

Cathodic protection systems for offshore steel and concrete platforms require significant survey,
monitoring and in some cases mitigation to ensure their effective performance throughout
their life.
Corrosion protection systems are designed at the beginning of the life of the installation, with an
expected life matching the design life. Life extension may require review of these systems, inspec-
tion and consideration of any mitigation required. Sacrificial anodes and impressed current are the
two underwater corrosion protection systems in use, with the former dominating.
Sacrificial anodes are designed with typically a 25-year life based on the expected current demand
of the system. Regular inspection of the anodes is a formal part of an API level 1 or 2 inspection as
well as part of an ISO 19902 level 1 periodic inspection. These inspections include checking the
condition of the anodes and measuring the potential usually by an ROV. The potential needs to be
measured in a number of locations on the platform using a half cell (typically Ag/AgCl). The meas-
ured potentials provide important information on the state of the CP system.
The cathodic protection system for offshore structures includes protection of the structure itself
in addition to subsystems depending on the type of the platform such as:
●● risers, conductors, pull-tubes and other submerged objects electrically connected to the main
structure of fixed offshore steel structures;
●● mooring lines, hull and marine systems for floating offshore structures; and
●● attached steel work and embedded steel reinforcement for concrete structures.
The initial survey of a platform is likely to be extensive but follow-on periodic surveys should
take account of previous results. As an example, for fixed steel structures the follow-on periodic
surveys should include:
●● each vertical and horizontal frame of the structure;

●● representative anodes of the main structure, selected based on previous results; and
●● known areas of possible or actual under-protection including conductor bays, pile guides, pile
sleeves, shielded areas.
Optimum protection for medium-strength steels requires potentials in the range –850 to
–1000 mV. Below –850 mV is considered to be under-protection with the possibility of corrosion
increasing as the potential becomes more positive. More negative results than –1000 mV (over-
protection) can lead to problems such as hydrogen embrittlement and damage to coatings.
Especially for high-strength steels, over-protection is a serious problem particularly for hydrogen
embrittlement and potentials are recommended to be in a narrower range from –730 to –830 mV
(DNVGL 2017), which is much more difficult to achieve in practice.
Some cathodic potential survey results have been published (MTD 1990). These show out of 38
platforms included in the survey, 6 platforms had individual results more positive than –850 mV
and 16 platforms surveyed had individual results more negative than –1000 mV, with 3 with
values more negative than –1050 mV, which is likely to indicate a more serious over-protection
problem. For the cases of under-protection, remedial actions were noted as a result of the survey,
which included retrofit of local anodes, 100% replacement of the anodes, coating of conductors
(to limit drain on the CP system) and more regular monitoring. The MDT report (MTD 1990)
does not suggest any mitigating actions for the over-protection cases. The problem of over-pro-
tection and its effect is more prominent than under-protection and the ensuing corrosion result.
As a result, over-protection is often accepted except for high strength steel. Problems of cracking
due to hydrogen embrittlement in high-strength steel in jack-ups has been reported (HSE 1993).
Figure 40 shows a series of drawings of sacrificial anodes with increasing loss of material (Ersdal
et al. 2019). At some stage, the severely pitted examples result in a less negative protection poten-
tial and therefore less efficient cathodic protection. At this stage anode replacement is required to
maintain efficient protection.
A decommissioning removal of an installation from the sea allows the state of anodes to be
examined in more depth. One example was the recovery of the West Sole WE platform in 1978 after
11 years in the sea. A detailed examination of the several components including the anodes was
undertaken, as shown in Figure 40. Weight loss of the anodes was found to be 40% less than the
expected value for the period in the sea. Protection potentials were measured before recovery of the
platform and were in the range –0.870 to –0.930 mV compared with Ag/AgCl, which is on the more
positive level than set at the design stage but nevertheless in an acceptable range. The West Sole
platform was also used to trial some structural monitoring systems (see Section 5.2.2).
The splash zone coating on the West Sole platform was a coal tar epoxy and it was found that the
protection had broken down from wave and spray action. It was noted that this could have been
minimised by more painting during maintenance. Isolated pitting and metal wastage were seen on
members in the splash zone, up to a depth of 3 mm in places, which could have become more seri-
ous if the platform had been in the sea for a longer period.
4.4 Deployment Methods
4.4.1 Introduction
As previously stated, underwater inspections can be performed by several different deployment
methods which are listed in Table 23 including the tasks that each method can perform. These
include diving, remotely operated vehicles (ROV) and autonomous underwater vehicles (AUV).
Figure 40 Examples of anode condition,

approximately 20% to 90% usage. Sources: Ersdal,
G., Sharp, J.V., Stacey, A. (2019). Ageing and life
extension of offshore structures. John Wiley and
Anode slightly pitted and with rounded edges Sons Ltd., Chichester, West Sussex, UK.
Anode moderately pitted, approximately 50% missing
Anode severely pitted where frame is visible

Table 23 Deployment Methods for Inspection and Repair.
Under water Splash zone
ROV
(observation ROV Rail
Tasks Divers class) (work class) AUV Rope access Aerial drones access ROV
Visual inspection X1 X X X X X X
NDT inspection X1 X X (X) X
FMD X X X
Cleaning X1 X X X
1
CP measurements X X X
Weld repair X X (X) X
1
Reinstate coating X X X X
Seabed inspection X X X
1
Normally not performed by divers but possible
4.4.2 Divers
Divers were used almost exclusively in the early days of the offshore oil and gas exploration, both
for air diving (up to a maximum depth of 50 m) and saturation diving for deeper waters. Offshore
diving is well regulated by governmental organisations such as HSE in the UK, BSEE in US and
PSA in Norway.
As offshore developments moved into deeper waters, saturation diving was required to enable
divers to work underwater at depths for longer periods. It requires specialised equipment such as
complex and expensive Diving Support Vessels (DSV). Saturation diving involves keeping up to 24
divers under pressure for prolonged periods. It is a diving technique that allows divers to reduce
the risk of decompression sickness (“the bends”) when they work at great depths for long periods
of time. Transfer to and from the pressurised surface living quarters to the equivalent depth is done
in a closed, pressurised diving bell. This may be maintained for up to several weeks. The diving bell
is linked to the surface vessel by an umbilical. Once saturated, decompression time does not
increase with further exposure. Saturation divers typically breathe a helium–oxygen mixture to
prevent nitrogen narcosis, but at shallow depths saturation diving has been done on a nitrox mix-
ture. To prevent hypothermia, hot-water suits are commonly used for saturation diving and the
breathing gas supply may be heated. Heated water is produced at the surface and piped to the bell
through the umbilical and then transferred to the divers through their own umbilical, which is
linked to the bell. These umbilicals also have cables for electrical power to the bell and helmet
lights and for voice communications and closed-circuit video cameras. Decompression from a sat-
uration dive is a slow process and controlled by the working depth and managed to minimise the
risk of decompression sickness.
Diving, particularly saturation diving, is recognised as having safety issues and there have been
several accidents and loss of life. For these reasons it is heavily regulated and as a result, ROVs are
used for underwater working where possible.
4.4.3 ROV and AUV

Early US ROVs were developed in the 1950s to recover torpedoes and mines. This was followed by
continuous improvement and development first for military use and later for offshore use.
ROVs have become more capable in the last decades of undertaking underwater tasks (particu-
larly the work-class ROVs). Similar to diving, ROVs also require support vessels. Most ROVs are
tethered to the support vessel using an umbilical (a cable with the necessary communication and
control information) and can operate in two different ways, over the side deployment or using a
moon pool. The over the side deployment method is generally considered to be most cost effective
and most frequently used. An A-frame is normally used to deploy the ROV into the water. The
moon pool technique allows an ROV to be deployed directly into the water. The stability of this
technique is better in comparison to over the side deployment, as the ROV enters the sea in a more
controlled way which reduces the likelihood of damaging the vehicle. The moon pool method is
also less weather dependant.
ROV’s are usually classified into the following (Michel 2003 and Christ and Wernli 2014):
●● observation class (from micro-ROVs to vehicles of around 100 kg which are depth limited to
approximately 300 m, minimal to no payload, power typically less than 15 kW, often used as
backup to divers or other ROVs or for shallow water inspection tasks);
●● light work class (ROVs from approximately 100 kg to 1000 kg which can be used at depth up to
1000 meters with moderate payload, power up to 55 kW);
●● work class (depth up to 3000 meters with heavy lift and payload for construction work, power up
to 75 kW); and
●● heavy work class (depth up to 5000 meters, ultra-heavy lift and payload, power more than 100 kW).
An example of an ROV (FCV 4000) with a seabed device in its manipulators about to enter the
water is shown in Figure 41.
ROVs may be instrumented with the necessary equipment to perform inspection work. The
ability of ROVs to perform NDE inspections is steadily improving, but there remains a difficulty
in inspection of welded nodes because of their complex geometry. Automatic controlling of an
inspection probe requires pre-programmed setup for each individual joint. In addition, the
Figure 41 ROV being deployed. Source: Courtesy of Fugro – www.fugro.com.

ROVs need to be fixed to the structure in order for the manipulator to move the head of the
NDE equipment over the weld with the necessary accuracy.
ROVs are also used to accommodate magnetic crawlers or robotised inspection tools as shown in
Figure 42. A magnetic crawler can move around on the structure on wheels that are magnetic ena-
bling attachment to a steel member or plate. These can crawl along horizontal and vertical surfaces
to inspect the integrity of a structure underwater. The unit is typically controlled from the topside or
a ship through a tether connection. Crawlers can be equipped with multiple operational attach-
ments such as pressure washer to remove debris, rust, scale or fouling in addition to various NDT
equipment and cameras. The crawlers can also be deployed by the use of rail systems as shown in
Figure 45 and further discussed in Section 4.4.4. For tubular members, specialized tools that grab
around and are able to crawl along or around the member are an option as shown in Figure 43.
Figure 42 ROV installation of Robotised Inspection Tool. Source: Courtesy of OceanTech, www.
oceantech.no.
Figure 43 RIT: Robotised inspection tool. Source: Courtesy of OceanTech, www.oceantech.no.

Figure 44 Two examples of AUVs. Source: Courtesy of Stinger—http://www.stinger.no/.
Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUV) systems, as illustrated for example in Figure 44, are
suitable for inspection and are operating remotely from a vessel without an umbilical and can run
either a preprogrammed or logic-driven course (Christ and Wernli 2014). AUV systems usually have
a dedicated docking station on the seabed which is connected to the topside facility. Such a system
can be continuously available and while docked, the AUV can be charged, data can be downloaded
from the AUV and future mission information can be uploaded to the AUV. Where tether length is
a limitation in undertaking inspection using an ROV, the solution could be to use an AUV.
To undertake CVI-type inspections, the AUV requires enhanced capabilities to be able to posi-
tion its cameras and lights close to the inspection target without damaging the structure. This
requires a manoeuvrability similar to that of an ROV. This hovering ability is a key capability
which is often used to distinguish bathymetry-class AUVs (used for monitoring the seabed) from
inspection-class AUVs.
4.4.4 Splash Zone Access

Carrying out inspection and repair in the splash zone is recognised as difficult and specialised
access techniques have been developed to enable this to take place. These include rope access and
more recently vertical access tools and drones. The main types of access methods are rope access
and more recently aerial drone access and various types of rail systems.
Rope access has been the accepted deployment method for splash zone inspection with personnel
requiring specialized training and work while suspended by a harness. The tasks typically include
riser, conductor, caisson, leg and brace inspection. Expertise includes the ability to take high-quality
photographic records and videos as well as being able to undertake ultrasonic testing and NDT.
Specialised companies have developed various splash inspection tools for cleaning and inspec-
tion. This includes the introduction of rail systems to deploy AUVs and ROVs where the rails are
attached to the structure in the splash zone. OceanTech’s Vertical Access Tool (VAT), shown in
Figure 45, is an example of such splash zone deployment by a rail system. Access to the splash zone
is dependent on weather conditions including wave and total states.
With the advancement in aerial drones and related technologies, drones are increasingly finding
their way into industries such as oil and gas. Companies are now relying on drones as a cheaper and
more effective alternative in assisting them with day-to-day operations. Visual inspection by an
unmanned drone is a quick and cost-effective inspection method of critical areas such as the splash zone.
In floating structures, inspection of internal structures and tanks can be performed using a method
applicable to structures above water. Cleaning and venting tanks are a significant prerequisite.
However, this type of “underwater” inspection is not the main topic of this book. For some floating
offshore structures re-ballasting to transit mode can allow for easier access to outer surfaces for
inspection personnel.
Figure 45 Rail installation (Vertical Access Tool) of Robotised Inspection Tool. Source: Courtesy of
OceanTech.
4.4.5 Summary of Inspection Methods and Their Deployment

As has been discussed in Section 4.3, a wide range of different inspection methods are available for
detecting, locating and characterising defects and anomalies. Further, their deployment methods
have been discussed in this section. These are summarised in relation to the various inspection
tasks and the relevant inspection methods as given in Table 24 with indications of cleaning needs
and deployment methods.
4.5 Competency of Inspection Personnel and Organisations

4.5.1 Introduction
Demonstration of both individual and organisational competency is increasingly being recognised
as very important for managing safety by minimising gross errors where humans and organisa-
tions are involved. Competency of organisations can have a significant effect on the ability of indi-
viduals to control hazards to structural safety. The competence of individuals at all levels in an
organisation is vital, from the inspector, the inspection supervisor and the operator’s site repre-
sentative to the onshore structural engineer and the management.
The area of competency is recognized to be part of the wider topic of human factors. HSE’s
report HSG 48 “Reducing Error and Influencing Behaviour” (HSE 1999b) provides guidance aimed
at managers with health and safety responsibilities, health and safety professionals and employee
safety representatives. The report’s message is that proper consideration of ‘human factors’ is a key
ingredient of effective health and safety management. The guidance in the report provides practi-
cal help on how to tackle some of the important issues, e.g.:
●● human error and behaviour can impact health and safety;
●● human behaviour and other factors in the workplace can affect the physical and mental health
of workers;
Table 24 Methods for Inspection with Indication of Cleaning Needs and Deployment Method.
Inspection task
(damage type to Cleaning Deployment
identify) Description Methods used required method
General Swim around to identify General visual NO ROV

assessment of general damage inspection (GVI)
structural Debris survey to note and Video and still
condition record debris on the photography
installation
Seabed survey to measure
and record degree of scour
and debris
Measure distribution and
thickness of marine
growth
CP and coating Measure CP potentials, CP checking using NO ROV
survey assess depletion in anodes, reference cell,
check condition of any Visual inspection
coatings
Detailed Inspect for visible damage, Close visual Yes ROV
inspection of such as cracking, denting, inspection (CVI)
selected areas bows, pitting etc. using photography,
video, taut wire
measurement, profile
gauging,
photogrammetry, etc.
Identification of Check tubular members FMD method No ROV
member for water ingress due to (usually gamma ray)
flooding cracking, corrosion,
denting, local rupture,
anode failure
Crack detection Detailed NDT methods to ACFM No / Yes ROV / Diver
detect cracks MPI, Eddy current, Yes Diver / ROV
radiography, ACPD
Measure length Specialised NDT MPI (length), eddy Yes Diver / ROV
and depth of current, ACPD
identified cracks (length and depth)
Condition of Detection of reinforcement Electro potential Yes Rope access
concrete corrosion testing
material in Visual inspection for General visual Yes Rope access
splash zone corrosion products and inspection (GVI) and
spalling Close visual
inspection (CVI)
Delamination Rebound hammer Yes Rope access
●● practical ideas on what you can do to identify, assess and control hazards arising from the human
factor; and
●● illustrative case studies to show how other organisations have tackled different human problems
at work.
4.5.2 Regulatory Requirements on Competency

In the UK the Health and Safety at Work Act (HSE 1974) includes general requirements for com-
petency. HSE’s report HSG 65 “Managing for Health and Safety” (HSE 2013) states that the com-
petence of individuals is vital at all levels in an organisation but especially those with safety-critical
roles. It ensures they recognise the hazards in their activities and can apply the right measures to
control and manage the risk associated with these hazards. Further, it also provides a checklist of
factors which apply to activities when done effectively, badly or not at all (HSE 2013 Table 2). In
Norway the Petroleum Safety Authority (PSA) has issued similar requirements in their Activities
Regulation concerning competency.
The HSE’s Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulation (HSE 1998) specifically states that
it is necessary to ensure that persons involved in all areas of inspection need sufficient competency.
This includes those who determine the nature of inspections required and those who carry out
inspections. It is also stated that every employer (duty-holder, contractor, etc.) should ensure that
all persons have received adequate training for relevant equipment. This includes training in the
methods which may be adopted when using the equipment and any hazards involved and the pre-
cautions to be taken.
4.5.3 Requirements on Competency in Standards

For steel jacket structures, ISO 19902 (ISO 2007) covers in-service inspection and structural integ-
rity management which includes a separate section on personnel qualifications covering several
functions (including SIM engineer and the inspection team). This part of ISO 19902 (ISO 2007) has
recently been transferred to a new ISO 19901-9 (ISO 2019a) keeping more or less the same compe-
tency requirements.
For concrete structures, ISO 19903 states that personnel involved in inspection planning and
condition monitoring, as well as in assessment of the findings, shall have relevant competence
with respect to:
●● design of marine concrete structures,
●● concrete materials technology;
●● fabrication (execution) of concrete structures; as well as
●● specific experience in the application of inspection techniques and the use of inspection instru-
mentation and equipment.
These four requirements listed in ISO 19903 (ISO 2019b) do not incorporate important areas in
structural integrity management, for example, as listed in Table 25. Particularly experience in eval-
uation of findings and inspection planning which are normally regarded as important areas requir-
ing competent personnel are missing from this list.
Further, in ISO 19903 (ISO 2019a) it is recognised that because each offshore concrete structure
is unique, inspectors should familiarize themselves with the primary design and operational
aspects of that structure before conducting an inspection. In addition, inspectors should have ade-
quate training appropriate for supervisors, divers or ROV operators as specified in accordance with
national requirements where applicable.
NORSOK N-005 (Standard Norge 2017) is a Norwegian standard for integrity management of
offshore structure and marine systems. It should be noted that while ISO 19902 (ISO 2007) and
ISO 19901-9 (ISO 2019a) only cover fixed jacket structures, NORSOK N-005 covers all types of
offshore structures, including concrete structures, semi-submersibles and ship-shaped structures.
Table 25 Competency Requirements (Based on the SIM Standards Mentioned in This Section).
Function Application Competency requirement
Integrity Technical authority ●● Competent in offshore structural and marine

strategy for structural engineering;
integrity ●● Understand the hazards and failure modes of structures
and marine systems;
●● Understand how the structures and marine systems are
designed, operated and maintained to withstand these
hazards;
●● Be familiar with relevant information about the facility;
●● Have knowledge of ageing effects for structures and
marine systems;
●● Be aware of general in-service inspection findings in the
offshore industry.
Evaluation Engineer or ●● Familiar with relevant information about the specific
technicians structures under consideration;
●● Experienced in evaluation of inspection findings;
●● Knowledgeable about underwater corrosion processes
and control;
●● Knowledgeable in offshore inspection planning,
inspection tools and techniques and their limitations;
●● Cognisant of general inspection findings in the offshore
industry.
Data collection Engineer or ●● Competent in inspection recording protocols, database
and update of technicians administration and requirements for recovery of data;
database ●● Familiar with the typical data to be archived such as
structural arrangement, inspection techniques, analysis
techniques and interpretation of analysis results,
material specifications, certificates and welding
specifications and qualification practices.
(Long-term) Engineer or ●● Knowledgeable of the content of the overall integrity
Inspection technicians strategy;
programme ●● Experienced in offshore inspection and maintenance
planning of structures and marine systems;
●● Experience and technical expertise commensurate with
inspection tasks to be performed;
●● Knowledgeable of the structural arrangement,
inspection techniques, analysis techniques and
interpretation of analysis results, requirements for
inspector competency.
Offshore Supervisors, divers, ●● Qualified and accredited to international or equivalent
inspection ROV operators, etc. regional standards (underwater pre-qualification trials
execution are usually required for divers);
team ●● Competency in inspection methods and practice;
●● Competency in applying acceptance criteria during their
inspection, e.g. reporting of major damage and
potentially serious hazards.
●● Knowledgeable of how and where to look for damage
and situations that could lead to damage;
●● Familiarity with the structure owner’s data validation,
recording and quality requirements.
The guidance given for competency for the team of SIM engineers is, however, similar to the
guidance given in the ISO standards.
API RP2-SIM, 2FSIM and 2MIM (API 2014a, 2019a, 2019b) also detail competency requirements
associated with structural integrity management similar to those given in the ISO and NORSOK
standards.
In the commentary section to ISO 19902 (ISO 2007) additional information is given on the com-
petency requirements for the offshore inspection execution. This includes accreditation to recog-
nised schemes as discussed in the next section.
4.5.4 Certification and Training of Inspectors

Certification of inspectors should be according to recognised schemes such as the UK Certification
Scheme for Welding Inspection Personnel (CSWIP) (https://www.cswip.com/) or equivalent such
as ISO 9712:2012 (ISO 2012). Training is a required part of the preparation to achieve such certifica-
tion and also to retain the certification after the initial approval.
Regarding the execution of the inspection programme the UK CSWIP scheme is available for the
examination and certification of individuals to demonstrate their knowledge and competence. The
scheme covers both underwater and topsides inspection personnel. The different underwater
inspection categories are shown in Table 26.
CSWIP accreditation requires both written tests and for commercial divers, tests on suitable speci-
mens in an underwater habitat. The CSWIP 3.1U course includes theoretical instruction to an CSWIP
approved syllabus, which includes general underwater and close visual inspection, recording by
video and photography, cathodic protection measurements, ultrasonic digital thickness measure-
ments followed by an end-of-course assessment. The next level CWIP 3.2U course adds a capability
in advanced underwater NDT techniques such as magnetic particle inspection, weld toe grinding
and an overview of electromagnetic techniques. The ROV inspector is a further development of the
3.1U and 3.2U courses focussing on quality assurance, closed circuit television, calibration of equip-
ment, cathodic protection systems, interpretation and recording methods. The underwater inspector
controller is a follow-on to the ROV inspector with teaching in advanced NDT techniques, recording
and processing data, interpretation and recording methods, quality assurance, intervention tech-
niques, inspection, planning and briefing. The course material is available and provides a useful and
detailed source of background information to inspection methods (TWI 2006).
4.5.5 Trials to Study Inspector Competency

In inspection, operator competency is recognised as having a significant effect on performance.
Human factors are a recognised aspect for all manual inspection methods, but even mechanised
Table 26 CSWIP Categories.
Scheme Description
3.1U Underwater (diver) inspector* (visual, cathodic protection, and ultrasonics)

3.2U Underwater (diver) inspector* (as 3.1U plus MPI, weld toe grinding)
3.3U ROV inspector
3.4U Underwater inspector controller
*
Note: a concrete endorsement is available for grades 3.1U and 3.2U to cover inspection of concrete structures.
UT systems require interpretation and thus operator performance should be regularly checked.
The PISC (Programme for Inspection of Steel Components) was established in the 1980s. PISC-II
was set up to examine in more detail which techniques could provide the desired level of capability
in detection and sizing of defects in nuclear pressure vessel components. One aspect investigated
was human reliability. The work concentrated on Round Robin Testing (having the same specimen
tested by several different inspectors or organisations) of four thick plates of approximately 250 mm
thickness. In order to check human capability, manual UT inspectors with relevant experience
were observed by skilled observers. The Transportable Environmental Laboratory (TEL) enabled
different environmental conditions to be set for inspectors to work in. It was found a clear differ-
ence was demonstrated between skills, knowledge and working practices in these tests. The main
conclusions were (Nichols and Crutzen 1988):
●● variability of calibration was acceptably small;
●● flaw detection performance varied between 65% and 100% between inspectors;
●● variability for single inspectors was also found to be due to tiredness (a factor 2 is quoted); and
●● there were a significant number of reporting errors (left for right, etc.) when using ultrasonic testing.
Nichols and Crutzen (1988) made suggestions to increase the NDE effectiveness from human
errors which included:
●● some form of indication warning device from the NDE tool;
●● use of a UT simulator and training;
●● avoid long working periods, since they have an effect on performance; and
●● use of automated UT tools.
4.5.6 Organisational Competency

Measuring the capability of an organisation to perform an important process is a key factor in
ensuring that the objective of, for example, managing structural integrity is met. If used correctly
it can also be a relevant performance indicator. One such model, the Capability Maturity Model
(CMM) was developed by The Software Engineering Institute as a method for evaluating the matu-
rity of software companies. This model was used to enable their software projects to be carried out
on time, on budget and with the expected quality (Paulk et al. 1993). The CMM model focuses on
the processes that an organisation needs to carry out successfully to meet the project goals and
indicates which processes exist in successful organisations. The Capability Maturity concept is
widely used to measure organisational maturity in several industries and has been incorporated
into ISO 9004 (ISO 2000) as a measure of the maturity in quality assurance.
Generally, the following elements have been identified as important for the capability of an
organisation:
●● management (organization, materials, management documents, performance indicators);
●● leadership and involvement;
●● competence and technical knowledge;
●● communication;
●● quality assurance;
●● learning in the organization;
●● cultural aspects (participation, shared perception, trust, job satisfaction, training);
●● productivity versus safety; and

●● resource allocation.
It is important to notice that the maturity model is evaluating the organisations’ capability to
perform and not the product itself. For example, it is a method that looks at the structural integrity
management process rather than the integrity of the structure per se. It is based on an assumption
that if the integrity is managed properly, then the capability maturity model result can be used as
a leading indicator for the actual integrity.
The creation of the CMM descriptions allows organisations or auditors to establish the current
level of maturity for each of the particular characteristics associated with an activity. The five
basic levels used in CMM to describe an organization are given in Table 27. Further, it is used to
identify what steps are necessary to enable the organisation to progress to a higher level, building
on their strengths and improving on their weaknesses.
CMM-type models have been developed for several different offshore applications. These include
the design process (Sharp et al. 2002), asset integrity management (Energy Institute 2007), struc-
tural integrity (Poseidon 2007 and Sharp et al. 2011) and the management of ageing safety critical
elements (Energy Institute 2009).
Poseidon (2007) introduced a rating system for the assessment of structural integrity manage-
ment activities based on the CMM model. Key aspects of this model are inspection and repair,
which are the subject of this book. The seven main processes associated with managing structural
integrity identified by Poseidon are shown in Figure 46. These can be assessed using the above
described CMM model.
It is generally accepted that the minimum maturity level for an efficient organisation is level 3, a
level which is regarded as only just meeting the minimum regulatory requirements. However,
most regulators also require a certain level of continuous improvement, which indicates that a
level 4 would be preferred. Actual audits undertaken with several offshore operators (OMAE 49335
2011) showed only a range of maturity levels from 2 to 3, which indicates that the industry at that
time did not perform in an optimal way.
Table 27 Five Basic Maturity Levels Used in CMM.
Level Description of organisational capability at this level
1 At the initial level, processes are disorganised, even chaotic. Success is likely to depend
on individual efforts and is not considered to be repeatable because processes would not
be sufficiently defined and documented to allow them to be replicated.
2 At the repeatable level, basic project management techniques are established, and
successes could be repeated because the requisite processes would have been made
established, defined and documented.
3 At the defined level, an organisation has developed its own standard processes through
greater attention to documentation, standardisation and integration.
4 At the managed level, an organisation monitors and controls its own processes through
data collection and analysis.
5 At the optimising level, processes are constantly being improved through monitoring
feedback from current processes and introducing innovative processes to better serve the
organisation’s particular needs.
1: Develop overall philosophy & strategy for condition monitoring

Includes strategy and setting resources
2: Establish long term 3: In-service inspection

inspection programme & planning, execution
emergency preparedness and reporting
6: Integrity assurance & 7:

Internal 4: Data logging,
reporting, evaluation of
checking evaluation, analysis
effectiveness, upgrading
and audit & assessment
of plans
5: Implementation of repair and mitigation

measures
Figure 46 Seven CMM processes for maturity model for managing structural integrity.
4.6 Reliability of Different Inspection Methods Underwater
Accurate detection and characterisation of anomalies (such as fatigue cracks) is important in

determining the safety of an existing structure. This accuracy is normally measured in the meth-
od’s probability of detection (PoD5) and sizing (PoS6) and these have impact on:
●● the choice of the inspection method; and
●● the inspection planning.
As an example, when predicting the remaining fatigue life of a cracked welded tubular joint, an
accurate sizing of the existing crack is the key parameter to be determined, while in most cases
where no known defects exist, the probability of detection is the key parameter.
The probability of detection (PoD) is often illustrated as a function of the size of the defect as a
PoD-curve. For fatigue defects this is typically provided as a function of crack length and depth.
PoD is often seen as consisting of three parts, which are:
●● defects of a size below which they cannot be detected;
●● large defects which are always detected; and
●● a transition region.
5 Probability of detection (PoD) is defined as total number of successful inspections divided by the total number of
defects present. This definition is however not sensitive to the size of the database used. This is overcome by
defining a PoD with a confidence level which can be based on the number of test specimens. A typical confidence
level is 95% which, using a binomial distribution, arises when the tested database consists of 29 specimens. This is
usually defined as a PoD with a 95% level of confidence which is often used in the statistical analyses of inspection
data. PoD can be based on crack length or depth.
6 Probability of sizing (PoS) is the probability of correct sizing of a defect for acceptance or rejection. Although this
term is often used, it will reflect, in general, the accuracy of estimating the size of a defect.
The shape of the transition region is important for inspection planning. This type of information
is useful in being incorporated in probability-based inspection planning (see Section 6.2.5).
Probability of detection and sizing curves for different inspection methods have been determined
by trials using specimens with known defects in both offshore conditions and in a controlled labora-
tory environment. Several projects on the probability of detection for various inspection methods
have been initiated. As earlier mentioned, examples of such projects include SINTAP (Structural
INTegrity Assessment Procedures) and for offshore structures the ICON project (Dover and
Rudlin 1996, HSE 1996) and the TIP project (Rudlin and Austin 1996, Rudlin et al. 1996). For inspec-
tion methods underwater the tests undertaken by University College London and later in the
European part funded ICON project (see Section 4.2.9) provided the basis for establishing POD curves
for a number of inspection methods. The NDT facilities at UCL included a diving tank for simulating
diver inspection trials. The HSE study (HSE 2002) collected and analysed data from the most relevant
projects and developed POD and POS curves both for inspection in air and underwater. These were
later used as the basis for POD-type curves in recommended practices such as DNVGL RP C210
(DNVGL 2019).
Figure 47 shows the POD curve for EC, MPI and ACFM based on DNVGL RP C210
(DNVGL 2019). It can be seen that 90% probability of detection for all these inspection methods
is achieved for a defect depth of approximately 12 mm. Figure 48 shows the POD curve for CVI
for two levels of access difficulty, based on DNVGL-RP C210 (DNVGL 2019). For the moderate
level of access, 90% probability of detection is achieved for a crack length of 400 mm, whereas
for the difficult level of access, which is applicable underwater, the probability level of detec-
tion for a 400 mm length crack is only approximately 83%. These cracks are significant and the
depth of such a crack would typically be in the range of 30 mm. Hence, in many cases these
would be close to or through thickness, which demonstrates the difficulty on relying on CVI for
fatigue crack detection.
The MSL study (MSL 2000) showed that CVI reliability depended on the degree of cleaning and
surface preparation, which was determined by the type of cleaning method used. The report states
that cleaning with pressure was necessary for reliable visual inspection. Complete cleaning to bare
metal allowed a crack of 300 mm in length to be detected (without providing a level of
probability).
The reliability of flooded member detection was assessed in the ICON trials (Dover and
Rudlin 1996) and the reliability of the gamma ray FMD method was reported as being 100%
Figure 47 PoD curves for different NDT inspection 1

methods based on DNVGL RP-C210 (DNVGL 2019). 0.9
Probability of detection
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 4 8 12
Crack depth (mm)
EC, MPI, ACFM

1 Figure 48 PoD curves CVI inspection for two levels of

0.9 access difficulty based on DNVGL RP-C210
Probability of detection
0.8 (DNVGL 2019).
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Crack length (mm)
CVI-m CVI-d
accurate for both 50% and 100% flooding. The testing was undertaken on both horizontal and verti-
cal members. However, the reliability of detection of a through-thickness crack was only 70% at
10% water fill (HSE 2002). The DNVGL RP-C210 (DNVGL 2019) indicates that the reliability of
FMD is considered good and a probability of detection should be assumed to be 95%.
As already mentioned, the probability of sizing (PoS) is another important factor. However, very
few data appear to have been reported and no PoS curves are provided in recognised offshore
standards. Visser (HSE 2002) reported that the length accuracy could be summarised by the follow-
ing two statements:
●● the length accuracy for MPI is 20%; and
●● the length accuracy for EC and ACFM is 40%.
However, the data reported by Visser (HSE 2002) indicates that, not surprisingly, the sizing accu-
racy is much worse for small defects (less than 15 mm).
So-called “spurious indications” are indications obtained during the inspection which do not
correspond to actual defects (false positives). Such indications can be analysed in different ways,
normally as a percentage of the number of found defects. These false indications are a limitation
when carrying out inspections and can lead to unnecessary and expensive re-inspections and in
the worst cases repairs. Visser (HSE 2002) states that the rate of spurious indications should prefer-
ably not exceed 20%, which to the authors seems to be on the high side particularly for high val-
ues of PoD.
4.7 Inspection of Fixed Steel Structures
Fixed steel structures are normally inspected underwater, in the splash zone and above the splash
zone. This book is primarily about the inspection of the underwater and splash zone areas. Typical
inspection tasks on a fixed steel structure would include:
●● welded connections between legs and brace members and between connecting brace members;
●● member flooding;
●● leg and brace members for dents and bows;
●● conductor frames for cracks, dents and bows;
●● CP and the condition of the anodes;
●● caisson, j-tubes and risers and the status of their supports;

●● pile sleeves and the status of the grouting between pile sleeve and pile;
●● marine growth thickness; and
●● scour and potential build-up of debris (e.g. drill cuttings).
The underwater part of the fixed steel structure can be inspected by either divers or ROVs and
recently the emphasis is on ROVs because of the safety issues with using divers. Inspection of the
splash zone is more difficult and can be done by rope access or more recently by aerial drones or
by using fixed rails for deployment.
The current approach to underwater inspection of fixed steel structure is general visual inspection
(GVI), cathodic potential measurement, close visual inspection (CVI) and flooded member detection
(FMD). These have the key advantages of being relatively quick and hence less expensive and can
cover most of the installation below water in a short period. They are normally undertaken from an
ROV. NDT methods and wall thickness measurements may be required for further investigation if
the presence of damage or anomalies are identified.
FMD has the significant disadvantage of being able to detect only through-thickness cracks, since
it relies on the detection of water penetrating the member. As noted in Chapter 7, the remaining
life is short after detection of flooding. Hence, the efficient use of FMD relies on understanding the
criticality of individual joints. CVI and GVI also have limitations and as indicated earlier, the prob-
ability of detection of crack lengths less than 350–400 mm by CVI underwater is limited. GVI will
typically be expected to identify member severance or severe denting. In most cases jacket struc-
tures have sufficient redundancy to allow these inspection methods to be used without compro-
mising safety. However, this redundancy should be properly established for each individual fixed
steel structure. There are also concerns about relying on FMD for ageing structures where cracking
is more likely to occur. This may require more frequent inspections or the use of more detailed
NDE methods. Redundancy may also be reduced for ageing fixed steel structures as, for example,
widespread damage might be expected at some stage making these inspection methods less accept-
able. The topic of system strength is discussed in more detail in Ersdal et al. (2019).
The structural implications of the dent and bow damage are described in Chapter 7. Frieze et al.
(1996) indicated thresholds for the identification of dents based on visual inspection which were
determined to be 12.5 mm and 38 mm. Such dents led to typical strength reductions assessed to be
up to 6% and 17% for legs and braces respectively, based on the strength calculation formulae for
dented member available at the time. Corresponding values for strength reduction due to bow sizes
of 130 mm and 350 mm were as high as 37% and 68% respectively (Frieze et al. 1996). Such reduc-
tion in strength indicates that the structure could be compromised particularly in the cases where
the damage is not found following an incident. Frieze et al. (1996) concludes that for detection of
dents and bows, current North Sea inspection practice is not sufficiently effective.
The inspection of guide frames and support structures for risers, conductors and caissons has histori-
cally been included within the scope of structural inspection. In the early years a large amount of
fatigue cracking was found in the guide frames due to inadequate design. For some of these older struc-
tures this is still a problem area requiring inspections and possibly repair but less of a problem for newer
structures. For guide frames in or above the splash zone, corrosion will also be a major issue. These are
to some extent protected by different types of coating, and the integrity of these coatings needs to be one
of the items in an inspection programme.
Inspection of the corrosion protection system involving anodes attached to the structure is
undertaken by measuring local corrosion protection potentials, with respect to a standard elec-
trode using an ROV. More positive potentials may indicate high usage of the anodes, which can be
assessed visually and replacement may be needed.
Pile sleeve connections are a critical part of a structure. The foundation piles are usually
grout connected to the pile-sleeves. Recently there have been indications of such grouted con-
nections failing, especially related to wind turbines. Improvements to the design method for
grouted connections, as a result of these failures, have indicated that pile-sleeve connections
also on fixed steel structure are vulnerable. It is recognised that inspection of these grouted
pile-sleeve connections is difficult, but methods for monitoring and inspection of such grouted
connection are being developed and tested at the time of writing this book. The piles themselves
are also not easily accessible for inspection, but in a few cases the piles may be inspected internally
by specialized methods.
Underwater inspection will normally also include surveillance for scour around piles, location
of build-up of seabed materials, drill cutting and debris. Scour can reduce the pile efficiency as it
exposes the upper parts of the piles (introducing buckling and corrosion as potential failure
modes). Build-up of materials around the base of the structure reduces access to inspection of the
buried members and this may also introduce unexpected loads into these members. The inspection
of the degree of scour and build-up of materials around the base of the structure is normally per-
formed by a GVI using an ROV. Removal of built-up materials may be required if critical structural
members have been buried.
Standards for inspection of fixed structures have been developed to document the inspection and
integrity management processes, including ISO 19901-9 (ISO 2019), API RP 2A (API 2014a),
NORSOK N-005 (Standard Norge 2017) and earlier versions of ISO 19902 (ISO 2007) as discussed
in more detail in Chapter 2.
It should be recognised that some structural components are difficult or impossible to inspect
but may be vulnerable to degradation processes. This presents a particular problem as their current
condition is difficult to determine. Such components could be in very deep water or with difficult
access for an inspection tool. Examples are piled foundations where the circumferential butt welds
are very difficult to inspect and ring-stiffened joints where the internal stiffeners are also difficult
to inspect using conventional equipment. This aspect needs to be taken into account in the fatigue
assessment of older structures and the inspection of adjacent members and joints preferably with
correlated loading is used to achieve some level of information about an un-inspectable detail; see,
for example, NORSOK N-006 (Standard Norge 2015) for guidance.
Inspection methods appropriate to a range of damage causes and types specific to fixed steel
structures are shown in Table 28.
Structural monitoring methods are also available providing real-time data on the condition of
the structure (see Chapter 5).
4.8 Inspection of Concrete Structures
Concrete gravity-based structures (GBS) are massive compared to steel jackets. As noted earlier,
see Section 1.3.3, concrete gravity-based structures consist of one to four shafts (legs or towers),
caissons (storage cells), a steel-to-concrete transition between the concrete base and topsides, a
shaft-to-base junction (junction between a shaft and the base), prestressing including anchorages,
foundations and a cathodic protection (CP) system.
The probability of failure of concrete structures compared to steel structures is more related to
corrosion and less to fatigue. Below the water line the development of failure is effectively limited
by the presence of a corrosion protection system (anodes). Hence large areas of the underwater
concrete structure (caisson walls, upper dome surfaces and the walls of shafts) have a relatively
Table 28 Damage Causes and Suggested Inspection Methods for Fixed Steel Structures.
Cause of damage Damage or anomaly type Inspection method
Fatigue Surface cracks CVI, MPI, EC, ACFM

Internal cracks (e.g. full pen welds) Ultrasonic testing
Embedded defects (full penetration Ultrasonic testing, radiography,
welds) ACFM
Through-thickness cracks FMD, leak detection
Severance and missing members GVI (and FMD)
Corrosion General corrosion on members resulting GVI. Ultrasonic tests to
in reduced wall thickness determine remaining wall
thickness
Patch corrosion GVI, DVI and CVI. Ultrasonic
tests to determine remaining wall
thickness
Corrosion pits GVI, CVI, EC
Holes and severance (separation) FMD, GVI
Loss of corrosion protection system CP readings
Overload (hurricanes Buckles, dents, out-of-plane bowing, GVI and DVI possibly using
and major storms) severed members, pancake leg severance, straight-edge and mechanical
punch-through of brace, pull out of brace, measurements
conductor torn loose from guide, broken
water caissons, broken riser standoffs
Holes and tears FMD, GVI
Cracks at welds and into chords FMD, MPI and UT
Overload and Dented, bowed and buckled members GVI and DVI possibly using
accidental damage straight-edge and mechanical
(vessel impact and measurements
dropped object) Dented and bowed members with cracks FMD, MPI and UT
(fracture)
Severance of members GVI
Wear and abrasion Loss of material GVI, DVI and CVI possibly with
mechanical measurements.
Ultrasonic to determine
remaining wall thickness
Marine growth Increased loading and potential overload GVI
damage. Possibility for corrosion damage
from sulphate-reducing bacteria
Settlement and Platform settlement and subsidence may Global positioning systems (GPS)
subsidence lead to change in loading pattern and
exposure condition
Scour and build-up Scour around the platform exposing the GVI
of drill cuttings piles with the potential for pile failure.
Drill-cuttings can bury or bear onto lower
frames and result in damage
(Continued)
Cause of damage Damage or anomaly type Inspection method
Material Cracking from hydrogen embrittlement CVI and NDT methods.

deterioration particularly for high-strength steel (e.g.
jack-ups)
Fabrication fault Lack of penetration or excessive FMD, MPI and UT
undercutting that could lead to
unexpected fatigue cracks
Failure to provide vent holes for intended GVI and DVI
flooded members could lead to implosion,
incorrect member sizes, incorrect
member positions, omissions
Under-design Member buckling, joint failure GVI and DVI
Tearing, fatigue cracking GVI, DVI, CVI and FMD
low probability of corrosion failure unless the CP system is ineffective. However, accidents can
cause damage to shafts and the domes of caissons. Ageing concrete structures will experience
increasing amounts of chloride ingress in the splash zone that may lead to corrosion of the rein-
forcement in areas of poor cover.
Typical inspection requirements for the GBS type of platforms include the:
●● concrete shafts (towers or legs) both externally and internally;
●● caissons for oil storage;
●● steel concrete transition;
●● seabed scour, settlement and subsidence;
●● construction joints;
●● CP and anodes; and
●● marine growth.
The shafts and cell walls are characterised by very large general featureless areas. Typical dam-
age arises from corrosion of the reinforcement in the splash zone, impact damage from ships or
dropped objects and possibly chemical deterioration.
General Visual Inspection (GVI) is the normal inspection method, usually from an ROV. However,
many shafts can be inspected internally and GVI could identify evidence of water ingress or
possibly reinforcement corrosion. Delamination may not be visible on the concrete surface and
hammer tapping may detect such areas. The Concrete in the Oceans programme (Department of
Energy 1987a) reviewed typical features which could be found by inspection of shafts by an ROV.
These defect types on concrete structures are listed in six groups (numbers in brackets indicate
number in each group):
●● Group 1: defects from the construction process (34);
●● Group 2: redundant built-in items (15);
●● Group 3: concrete materials (12);
●● Group 4: repairs and surface treatments (13);
●● Group 5: superficial marks and stains (15); and
●● Group 6: physical damage and deterioration (26).
More details of the defects in the more significant groups 4, 5 and 6 are shown in Table 29.
Table 29 Examples of Defects on Concrete Structures in groups 4, 5 and 6 (Department of Energy 1987a).

Sources: Department of Energy (1987a). Offshore Technology Report OTH 87 248 Concrete in the Ocean
programme – coordinating report on the whole programme, HMSO, London, UK. © 1987,
H.M. Stationery Office.
Group Examples (numbers in brackets)
Group 4 (repairs and surface treatments) Making good (4)

Resin systems (2)
Epoxy/pitch epoxy paints (11)
Sprayed concrete (2)
Group 5 (superficial marks and stains) Stains (4)
Exudation (4)
Surface cleaning marks (1)
Group 6 (physical damage and deterioration) Impact damage (9)
Abrasion (5)
Structural cracks (9)
Deterioration of surface treatments (9)
Spalling (1)
Erosion (4)
Deterioration of repairs (2)
Deterioration of Jarlan-type breakwater wall (4)
Corroding reinforcement (2)
The 45 examples in group 6 are the more important and may particularly require follow-up, depend-
ing on severity. Typical examples of impact damage and structural cracks are shown in Figure 49.
For storage cells the most likely form of damage is spalling of the concrete on the tops of the
cells from dropped objects, as has been observed. This can be detected by GVI from an
ROV. However, some cleaning may be required as the tops of storage cells often accumulate debris
or drill cuttings. An example of this type of impact damage is shown in Figure 94.
In the splash zone the components of a concrete platform are the towers. Inspection of these
using GVI requires access, which can be by rope access or more recently by drone. The features of
interest are the same as those in Table 30. However, because of the higher oxygen content in the
splash zone, corrosion of the reinforcement is more likely and subsequent spalling of the concrete
cover. In addition, significant chloride ingress possibly resulting in reinforcement corrosion will
occur. As noted earlier, internal inspection of a tower and shaft could indicate evidence of water
ingress or reinforcement corrosion.
Most offshore concrete have massive foundations with skirts which penetrate the seabed as they
are gravity-type structures. At the installation stage the foundation is usually grouted to the seabed,
providing a solid base. As structures age, this grouting may be damaged by scour, which can be
detected by GVI using an ROV. The presence of debris may make this inspection difficult and
cleaning may be needed.
In most offshore concrete structures, the reinforcement is electrically connected to the
cathodic protection (CP) system which is present to protect the attached steelwork. In the early
structures there were attempts at the construction stage to isolate the reinforcement from this
system. In most cases this failed as there was unintended electrical connectivity to flowlines
Figure 49 Two examples of inspection of concrete structures underwater. The left-hand picture shows a
mild steel rod with a type of washer plate and wedge assembly for restraining shutter during construction.
The right-hand picture shows concrete cracking with a gap more than 2 mm on line of fracture probably
caused by structural movement (Department of Energy 1986). Source: Offshore Research Focus, No 51,
January 1986, ISSN: 0309-4189. Published by CIRIA for the Department of Energy, London, UK.
Table 30 Damage Types and Inspection Methods Specific for Concrete Structures.
Damage cause Damage type Inspection method
Corrosion at Spalling and delamination (above water) as GVI, CVI

construction result of reinforcement corrosion as well as Rebound hammer (compressive
joints (above potential loss of reinforcement area strength and uniformity of concrete)
water) Level of chloride ingress (see below)
Seepage of corrosion products at cracks GVI for evidence of corrosion
under water as result of reinforcement products associated with cracking
corrosion Cathodic protection levels
Rebound hammer (compressive
strength and uniformity of concrete)
Chloride ingress above water Drilled dust sampling to measure
(reinforcement corrosion and potential loss chloride ingress
of reinforcement area) Core extraction
Corrosion of steel attachments (e.g. GVI for evidence of corrosion
pre-tension cable at anchorages, steel products and spalling of concrete
support attachments) and potential loss of cover to anchorage
prestressing capacity
Corrosion at construction joints (above GVI for evidence of corrosion
water) products and spalling
Accidental Local impact damage to towers resulting in GVI (damage to concrete and
damage and reduction in concrete section area and reinforcement)
overload possible water ingress Ultrasonic testing to evaluate degree
of penetration
Local impact damage to tops of storage GVI (damage to concrete and
cells from dropped objects resulting in reinforcement)
reduction in concrete section area and Ultrasonic testing to evaluate degree
possible water ingress of penetration
Loss of Drawdown provides compression in towers, Monitoring of pumping system
drawdown resisting extreme weather, maintained by
pumping
Damage cause Damage type Inspection method
Wear and tear Abrasion (local wear) and erosion resulting GVI, Ultrasonic pulse velocity test
in minor reduction in concrete section area (thickness measure)
Marine growth Increased loading GVI (usually ROV) including
measurement of thickness
Settlement and Platform settlement and subsidence may GVI (usually ROV)
subsidence lead to change in loading pattern and
exposure condition
Scour Scour around the base of the platform GVI (usually ROV)
possibly leading to instability
Material Loss of the concrete material due to GVI (usually ROV)
deterioration aggressive agents (sulphate, chloride)
Cracking due to shrinkage (after GVI (usually ROV)
construction)
Cracking, scaling and crumbling due to GVI (usually ROV), rope access,
freeze and thaw (above water) drones
Loss of strength of the concrete material Difficult to inspect
due to sulphate-producing bacteria
(primarily in oil storage tanks)
Fabrication Defective construction joints, minor GVI, DVI and CVI
fault cracking, surface blemishes, remaining metal Rebound hammer for delamination
attachments, patch repairs from inspection
construction, low cover to the reinforcement
possibly leading to spalling in the splash
zone and possible water ingress
Under-design Cracking due to low reinforcement or GVI
prestressing, crushing of concrete in rare cases,
failure in the junction between shafts and cells
and pipelines as well as to other external attachments. This led to a higher than planned drain
on the sacrificial anodes and in some cases, these had to be replaced.
The availability of cathodic protection has the advantage that it protects the reinforcement to
some extent, minimising the level of corrosion in situations where chlorides have permeated to the
steel. Current design criteria for CP systems recommend or require a minimum of 1 mA/m2 for the
reinforcing steel. Inspection and maintenance of the CP system is therefore a basic requirement to
minimise the corrosion reaction. This is usually carried out both visually and by monitoring the CP
potentials using a probe operated from an ROV.
Table 30 shows the different inspection methods in use for the different types of damage for
concrete structures.
4.9 Inspection of Floating Structures and Mooring Systems
Parts of floating structures are inspected underwater, including the mooring, external skin of
the pontoons, ship hulls, sea-chests (sea-water intake) and the CP system. However, in most
cases the structures are brought into a transit mode to allow for above water access. Much of the
inspection can also be performed internally on floating structures, for example, pontoons,
columns and braces on semi-submersibles and hull, transverse and longitudinal bulkheads on
ship shaped structures.
A major component of floating structures is the mooring system, which to a large degree domi-
nates the underwater inspection programme. This needs to be monitored regularly to detect any
deterioration in its condition, typically inspected utilising a work class ROV which performs a fly-
by of the lines. Mooring lines and anchors for MODUs are on a regular basis recovered when they
move from one location to another which provides periodic opportunities to undertake a more
detailed in-air inspection. In contrast, floating units permanently used for production are in a fixed
position for a significant period of time without dry docking, which makes inspection and repair
more difficult. For these units it is possible to recover a mooring line part-way through a field life
for detailed inspection. However, the lines may be damaged either during recovery or re-installa-
tion and such inspection is rather costly.
There has been considerable effort to develop in-water inspection methods particularly for the
sections of moorings subject to the greatest deterioration forces (HSE 2006). These sections par-
ticularly include the seabed touchdown zone (impact zone) and vessel interface zone (e.g. around
fairlead); see Figure 21.
All lines need to be inspected, but a particular check for wear should be undertaken on the lee-
ward lines as these have been found to be most vulnerable to damage. Further, when inspecting
mooring lines at the touchdown zone, attention should include the potential hazards from rocks or
debris on the seabed as they can cause mooring line abrasion.
Underwater inspection of mooring lines has several issues. Mooring lines which have been in sea
water for extended periods accumulate varying levels of marine growth. It can typically be heavy,
depending on geography, water depth and season. In general, this growth needs to be removed so
that the underlying mooring components can be inspected. Cleaning options include ROV-deployed
high-pressure water or grit-entrained high-pressure water. Once marine growth is removed, it is
possible to conduct various levels of inspection including visual inspection (DVI and CVI), dimen-
sional measurement and assessment of mechanical fitness. Unfortunately, cleaning off marine
growth and scaling by high-pressure water jetting may accelerate corrosion by exposing fresh steel
to the corrosive effects of saltwater.
A number of in-water mooring chain size measurement systems for wear and elongation have been
developed with varying success. These range from simple diver-deployed manual callipers to a proto-
type stand-alone robotic system and ROV-deployed systems. The most established ROV-deployable
chain measurement system is effectively an ‘optical calliper’. It comprises multiple high-resolution
video cameras and lights on a deployment frame which is equipped with scale bars in pre-assigned
orientations and at set distances from each other and the cameras. The system measures the chain
parameters by calibrating from the tool scale bars and resolving dimensions and optical distortions
using offline image analysis software.
As well as checking of chain dimensions, it is also important to assess link integrity and condi-
tion. The overall condition of mooring components can give an indication of the types of deteriora-
tion processes that are present. For example, surface pitting may indicate pitting corrosion,
‘scalloping’ or indentations of wear (HSE 2006).
Detection of loose studs is another important part of the mooring inspection and these have
been implicated in crack propagation and fatigue. Accordingly, studded chain inspection requires
the assessment of the numbers of loose studs and degrees of ‘looseness’. However, there is no
agreed industry opinion with respect to loose stud rejection criteria. Traditionally, chains have had
to be recovered for detailed loose stud determinations and have relied on a manual test on land,
either moving the stud by hand or using a hammer to hit the studs. The resulting resonance
(a ‘ping’ or ‘thud’) is used to assess whether a stud is loose or not. A company has developed an
ROV-deployable loose stud detection system. The system uses an electronically activated hammer
to impact the stud and uses a hydrophone and a micro-accelerometer as sensors. A software pro-
gram is used to distinguish between ‘loose’ and ‘tight’ responses (HSE 2006).
As part of any in-water mooring line inspection, it would be prudent to identify and inspect all
kenters (joining links) and shackles to confirm that they appear to be intact and that all split pins
are present.
Underwater visual condition assessment by ROV is particularly difficult because of the inherent
flatness of video images from standard 2D inspection cameras. With these cameras it is very diffi-
cult to distinguish whether a visual artefact on a surface is merely a mark or a region from which
material has been lost (e.g. a pit). A number of 3D visualization systems have been implemented
and have proven very effective for the assessment of the surface condition and general geometry of
mooring components.
API RP-2MIM (API 2019b) provides accuracies of the different techniques relevant for mooring
systems; see Table 31.
Wire rope is particularly difficult to inspect and the results can be somewhat subjective.
Sheathed spiral strand wire is even more difficult to inspect since it is obscured by the sheathing.
In particular, it is difficult to assess if the sheathing has becoming damaged during installation,
for example going over the stern roller. If the sheathing is damaged letting in seawater, this could
result, over time, in accelerated undetected corrosion. In addition, abrasion could occur on the
seabed and this would also be difficult to determine. An in air–based wire rope inspection unit
has been developed using a magnetic head which can detect damage and has been tested in
practice on the Buchan FPS (HSE 2006).
Synthetic ropes are also difficult to inspect, relying mainly on GVI or CVI from an ROV for
detection of damage to the rope. The use of short sections of rope (inserts) as part of the mooring
lines for offshore installations, with periodic removal (e.g. every 2.5 years) for laboratory testing
Table 31 Typical Accuracies for Inspection Techniques (API 2019b). Sources: Modified from API (2019b), API
RP-2MIM Mooring Integrity Management, American Petroleum Institute, 2019.
Component Technique Accuracy
Anchor (scour survey) GVI ±500 mm (extent/depth)

Anchor GVI
CP system Potential monitoring ±10 mV
Anodes GVI Visual consumption within ±10% of
volume
Chain link (wear, High resolution photography ±0.1 mm
corrosion)
Chain elongation GVI ±5 mm
Coating survey GVI ±10% of local area being surveyed
Marine growth GVI ±10 mm on thickness, 15% of area
being examined
Structure Corrosion, pitting depth, Within ±2 mm typically
cracks
Trenching survey GVI Trench depth within ±1 m.
has also been in use. ABS (2011) outlines inspections requirements for synthetic ropes, which
include an annual survey, limited to above water and a periodical survey on a five-year basis. This
includes a checking of the terminations. Synthetic ropes are subject to creep and this survey
requires a review of the records of anchor leg re-tensioning caused by non-recoverable elonga-
tion. It is also necessary to check that adequate lengths of chain or wire rope segments are avail-
able for further re-tensioning, such that the fibre rope does not come into contact with the fairlead
and stays below the water surface. Specific guidance on the scope and frequency of inspections for
mooring lines is given in IACS (2010); see Section 2.4.3.
Offshore mooring failure detection systems are normally required by regulation to provide
real-time monitoring information in order to keep the line tension within operational limits
and alert on-board personnel to mooring line failures. The tension in mooring lines can be
measured directly by load cells or indirectly by changes in properties of the mooring line. Such
properties may be the eigenfrequency of the mooring line, typically between the fairlead and
the gypsy wheel, the elastic deformation of chain links in the mooring line and angle measure-
ment by using an inclinometer fitted on the mooring line.
A load cell will typically include the use of compression cells under chain stopper plates or
winch footings. The basic system to measure elastic deformation is usually an instrumented pin in
a shackle or other connecting link or it may be a specifically designed link so that a strain gauge is
measuring axially along the mooring line in the area of maximum strain. A number of load meas-
uring devices within the one unit can be included to allow for redundancy.
A hull or seabed-based sonar system can monitor the continued presence of all mooring lines. A
sonar head array on the seabed can provide simultaneous images of all mooring lines and also
provide information on catenary shape and location. As noted above, this can then be used to cal-
culate the mooring line tension as well as confirming that all the mooring lines are present. In
addition, deployment of cameras from time to time can provide a high confidence method of
checking that all the moorings are in place assuming a suitable deployment tube for the camera is
available.
An overview of inspection methods is given in Table 32.
Table 32 Damage Causes and Suggested Inspection Methods for Floating Structures.
Cause of damage Fixed steel and hull structures Underwater inspection method
Fatigue Fatigue cracks in hull structure CVI, MPI, EC, ACFM, but primarily
inspection would be performed from
inside in dry conditions
Fatigue crack in chain link, link failure, CVI, MPI, EC, ACFM
loss of mooring line, drifting unit Failure detection systems
Corrosion General corrosion will result in reduced GVI, DVI and CVI
wall thickness and in some cases patch Ultrasonic tests to determine
corrosion with potential for holes and remaining wall thickness. Internal
flooding leak detection would also register
Corrosion pits leading to flooding and through wall corrosion
potential for fatigue initiation
Corrosion of chain link or wire strand, loss Chain link size measurement
of mooring line, drifting unit (possibly by ROV). Video
surveillance
Failure detection systems
Cause of damage Fixed steel and hull structures Underwater inspection method
Overload (hurricanes Buckles, dents, holes, cracks at welds, tears GVI, DVI and CVI, but primarily
and major storms) in hull structure inspection would be performed from
Damage to links, snapping of anchor GVI, DVI and CVI
chains, drifting units, dragging of anchors Loose stud detection system. Failure
detection systems
Drifting units and dragging of anchors may Failure detection systems.
impact other structures and pipelines Operation. Station keeping system
monitoring (GPS).
Overload and Dents and buckles in hull structure GVI, DVI and CVI, but primarily
accidental damage inspection would be performed from
(vessel impact and inside in dry conditions
dropped object) Mechanical damage to mooring lines from GVI, DVI and CVI
seabed impact, wear and bending over the
fairlead and handling of anchor chains and
wire ropes
Wear and tear Abrasion/wear of link or rope GVI, DVI and CVI with high
resolution photography
Lost stud (chain) GVI.
Marine growth Increased loading and potential overload GVI
damage
Possibility for sulphate-reducing bacteria
resulting in corrosion
Scour and build-up of Loss of holding power to anchors Failure detection systems
drill cuttings Operation. Station keeping system
monitoring (GPS).
Material deterioration Brittle fracture of chain links GVI, DVI and CVI
Fabrication fault Lack of penetration, excessive undercutting GVI, but primarily inspection would
and misalignment that could lead to be performed from inside in dry
unexpected fatigue cracks, incorrect member conditions
sizes, incorrect member positions, omissions.
Under-design Buckling, tearing, fatigue cracking GVI, DVI and CVI, but primarily
inspection would be performed from
Damage to links and failure of anchor Failure detection systems
chains possibly leading to drifting units Operation. Station keeping system
Under-designed anchors (soil strength) monitoring (GPS)
could lead to dragging of anchors
References
ABS (2011), “Guidance Notes on the Application Fiber Role for Offshore Mooring”, American Bureau
of Shipping, Houston, Texas, US.
ABS (2018), “Guide for Non-Destructive Inspection of Hull Welds”, American Bureau of Shipping,
Houston, Texas, US.
API (2019a), API RP-2FSIM Floating System Integrity Management, American Petroleum Institute, 2019.
ASTM (2015), ASTM C876 Standard Test Method for Corrosion Potentials of Uncoated Reinforcing Steel
in Concrete, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, US, 2016 (www.astm.org).
ASTM (2016), ASTM C597-16 Standard Test Method for Pulse Velocity Through Concrete, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, US, 2016 (www.astm.org).
ASTM (2018), ASTM C805 / C805M Standard Test Method for Rebound Number of Hardened Concrete,
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, US, 2016 (www.astm.org).
Busby, F (1979), “Underwater Inspection/Testing/Monitoring of Offshore Structures”, Conducted by
R. Frank Busby Associates under Department of Commerce Contract No. 7-35336, NOAA/Office of
Ocean Engineering, Rockville, Maryland, US (also published as BSEE/MMS TAP report 001).
BV (1998), Bureau Veritas Guidance Notes Type: Approval of Non-Destructive Testing Equipment
Dedicated to Underwater Inspection of Offshore Structures, NI 422 DTO R00 E, 1998.
Christ, R.D. and Wernli, R.L (2014), The ROV Manual—A User Guide for Remotely Operated Vehicles,
Second Edition, Elsevier / Butterworth-Heinemann, Waltham, Massachusetts, US.
CIRIA (1978), Underwater Inspection of Offshore Installations, Guidance for Designers, Report URIO
CIRIA Underwater Engineering Group, February 1978.
Department of Energy (1984), “Offshore Research Focus, No. 42, 1984”, Published by CIRIA for the
Department of Energy, London, UK.
Department of Energy (1986), “Offshore Research Focus, No 51, 1986”, ISSN: 0309-4189, Published by
CIRIA for the Department of Energy, London, UK.
Department of Energy (1987a), Offshore Technology Report OTH 87 248: Concrete in the Ocean
Programme—Coordinating Report on the Whole Programme, HMSO, London, UK.
Department of Energy (1987b), Offshore Technology Report OTH 87 250: Repair of Major Damage to the
Prestressed Concrete Towers of Offshore Structures. A report by Wimpey Laboratories for the
Department of Energy, HMSO, London. UK.
Department of Energy (1987c), Offshore Technology Report OTH 87 263: Study of Calibration Procedure
for Accurately Quantifying Crack Sizes in Welded Tubular Joints, Prepared by University College
London (V.S. Davey) for the Department of Energy, HMSO, London, UK.
Department of Energy (1990), Offshore Installations: Guidance on Design, Construction and
Certification, Fourth Edition, HMSO, London, UK.
DNVGL (2015), DNVGL-CG-0051 Non-Destructive Testing, DNVGL, Høvik, Norway.
DNVGL (2017), DNVGL-RP-B401 Cathodic Protection Design, DNVGL, Høvik, Norway.
DNVGL (2019), DNVGL RP-C210 Probabilistic Methods for Planning of Inspection for Fatigue Cracks in
Offshore Structures, DNVGL, Høvik, Norway.
Dover, W.J. and Rudlin, J.R. (1996), “Defect Characterisation and Classification for the ICON
Inspection Reliability Trials”, Proceedings of the Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering, ASME.
Energy Institute (2007), Capability Maturity Model for Maintenance Management, (ISBN
978-0-85293-487-6), Energy Institute, London, UK.
Energy Institute (2009), Research Report: A Framework for Monitoring the Management of Ageing
Effects on Safety Critical Elements, (ISBN 978-0-85293-545-3), Energy Institute, London, UK.
Frieze P.A., Nichols N.W., Sharp J.V., Stacey A. (1996), “Detection of Damage to Underwater Tubulars
and its Effect on Strength”, OMAE Conference 1996, Florence, Italy.
Hanson, R (2020), Private communication with Gerhard Ersdal.
Hayward, G., Pearson, J. and Stirling, G. (1993), “An Intelligent Ultrasonic Inspection System for
Flooded Member Detection in Offshore Structures”, IEEE TUFFC, 40(5), 512–521.
HSE (1974), Health and Safety at Work etc Act, HMSO, London, UK.
HSE (1988), A Handbook for Underwater Inspectors, Edited by L.K. Porter, Published as HSE Offshore
Technology Information OTI 88 539, HMSO, London, UK.
HSE (1993), Offshore Technology Report OTH 91 351: Hydrogen Cracking of Legs and Spudcans on
Jack-up Drilling Rigs—A Summary of Results of an Investigation, Prepared by Techword Services by
K. Abertheny, C M Fowler, R Jacob and V.S. Davey for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), HSE
Books, Sudbury, Suffolk, UK.
HSE (1996), Offshore Technology Report OTN-96-150: Intercalibration of Offshore NDT (ICON),
Commercial in confidence PEN/S/2736, HSE, UK.
HSE (1998), Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulation 1998” (PU WER), HSE, UK.
HSE (1999), Detection of Damage to Underwater Tubulars and Its Effect on Strength, HSE Offshore
Technology Report OTO 99 084, HMSO, London, UK.
HSE (1999b), Health and Safety Guidance HSG 48 Reducing Error and Influencing Behaviour, HMSO,
London, UK.
HSE (2002), HSE Offshore Technology Report 2000/018 2002 POD/POS Curves for Non-destructive
Examination, Prepared by Visser Consultancy Limited for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
(ISBN 0717622975), HSE Books, Sudbury, UK.
HSE (2006), HSE RR444 Floating Production System—JIP FPS Mooring Integrity, Prepared by Noble
Denton Europe Limited for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), HMSO, London, UK.
HSE (2010), Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999—Notification of Offshore Site Radiography Work,
Operations notice 34, HMSO, London, UK.
HSE (2013), Health and Safety Guidance HSG 65: Managing for Health and Safety, HMSO,
London, UK.
Hudak, S.J., Burnside, O. H. and Chan, K. S. (1984), “Analysis of Corrosion Fatigue Crack Growth in
Welded Tubular Joints, OTC 4771”, Houston, US.
IACS (2002), IACS UR Z 7.1: Hull Surveys for General Dry Cargo Ships, International Association of
Classification Societies, London, UK.
IACS (2010), Guidelines for the Survey of Offshore Chain Cable in Use, No. 38, 2010, International
IACS (2012), Unified Requirements, International Association of Classification Societies and
International Association of Classification Societies Limited, London, UK.
ISO (2000), ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems—Guidelines for Performance Improvement,
ISO (2012), ISO 9712:2012 Non-Destructive Testing—Qualification and Certification of NDT Personnel,
ISO (2019), ISO 19901-9 Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries—Specific Requirements for
Offshore Structures—Part 9: Structural Integrity Management, International Standardisation
Organisation.
ISO (2019b), ISO 19903 Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries—Fixed Concrete Offshore Structures,
Lotsberg, I. (2016), Fatigue Design of Marine Structure, Cambridge University Press, 2016.
Michel, D. (2003), “A Short History and Overview of the Commercial ROV and AUV Industry”, In
Randall, R. and Ward, E.G. ROV/AUV “Capabilities—Proceedings and Final Workshop Report
Prepared for the Minerals Management Service (MMS)”, MMS Project Number 446, September 2003.
Mijarez, R. (2006), “A Remote and Autonomous Continuous Monitoring Ultra-Sonic System for Flood
Detection in Sub-Sea Members for Offshore Steel Oil Rigs”, Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Manchester, UK.
MSL (2000), “Rationalization and Optimisation of Underwater Inspection Planning Consistent with
API RP2A Section 14”, Published by MMS, US, as Project Number 345, November 2000.
MTD (1989), Underwater Inspection of Steel Offshore Installations: Implementation of a New Approach,
Report MTD publication 89/104, London, UK.
MTD (1990), Design and Operational Guidance on Cathodic Protection of Offshore Structures Subsea
Installations and Pipelines, Marine Technology Directorate Ltd., London, UK.
MTD (1994), Review of Repairs to Offshore Structures and Pipelines, Publication 94/102, MTD,
London, UK.
Nichols, R.W. and Crutzen, S. (1988), Ultrasonic Inspection of Heavy Section Steel Components: The
PISC II Final Report, (ISBN 1-85166-155-7), Elsevier Applied Science, Barking, UK, 1988.
Paulk, M.C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M.B. and Weber, C.V. (1993), “Capability Maturity Model SM for
Software version 1.1”, CMU/SEI-93-TR-24.
PMB (1990), “AIM IV Assessment Inspection Maintenance”, Published as MMS TAP report 106as.
Poseidon (2007), “Revised Structural Integrity Management Capability Maturity Model Incorporating
Sub-Processes for Life Extension”, Poseidon Group AS, POS-DK07-138-R01, December 2007.
RILEM (2003), “TC 154 Materials and Structures / Matériaux et Constructions”, Vol. 36, August–
September 2003, pp. 461–471.
RILEM (2010), “Acoustic Emission Report TC212-ACD”, 2010 International Union of Laboratories,
Experts in Construction Materials, Systems and Structures.
Rudlin, J.R. and Austin, J., “Topside Inspection Project: Phase I Final Report”, Offshore Technology
Report OTN 96 169 Nov. 1996.
Rudlin, J.R, Myers, P. and Etube, L., “Topside Inspection Project: Phase II Final Report”, Offshore
Technology Report OTN 96 169 Nov. 1996.
Sharp J.V., Stacey A., and Birkinshaw M. (1995), “Review of Data for Structural Damage to Offshore
Structures”, 4th Intern. ERA Conference, Dec.1995, London, UK.
Sharp J.V., Strutt J.E., Busby J., Terry E. (2002), “Measurement of Organizational Maturity in Designing
Safe Offshore Installations”, OMAE 2002-28421.
Sharp J.V., Wintle J. and Terry E. (2011), “A Framework for Managing Ageing Safety Critical Elements
Offshore”, OMAE 2011-49203.
SSC (1953), “The Present Status of Non-Destructive Tests Methods for Inspection of Welded Joints in
Ship Structures”, by R.J Krieger, S.A. Wenk and R.C. McMaster for Ship Structure Committee, Ship
Structure Committee report no 72, Washington, DC, US.
SSC (1996), “Inspection of Marine Structures”, Ship Structure Committee report no 389.
SSC (2000), “SSC-416 Risk-Based Life Cycle Management of Ship Structures”, Ship Structure
Committee report no 416, 2000.
Standard Norge (2015), NORSOK N-006 Assessment of Structural Integrity for Existing Offshore
Load-Bearing Structures, Edition1; March 2009, Standard Norge, Lysaker, Norway.
Standard Norge (2017), NORSOK N-005 In-Service Integrity Management of Structures and Maritime
Systems, Edition 2, 2017, Standard Norge, Lysaker, Norway.
TWI (2006), “Tuition Note for 3.2U Course (DIS 2)”, TWI, Cambridge, UK.
141
Structural Monitoring Methods
Strength and growth come only through continuous effort and struggle1.
—Napoleon Hill
What gets measured, gets managed2.

—Peter Drucker
By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail3.

—Benjamin Franklin
5.1 Introduction
5.1.1 General
Structural monitoring (also referred to as on-line monitoring or part of structural heath monitor-
ing) is the observation of a structure using sensors that continuously or periodically measure struc-
tural behaviour. This enables changes to material, geometric properties and boundary conditions
of a structure to be identified. Structural monitoring also includes use of analysis, such as statisti-
cal pattern recognition of the data, to identify changes that indicate damage or other changes to
the structure.
The most used methods of structural monitoring include:
●● natural frequency response;
●● air gap;
●● global positioning system (GPS);
●● mooring chain tension;
●● acoustic emission;
●● acoustic fingerprinting;
1 Source: Napoleon Hill.

2 Source: Peter Ferdinand Drucker, “The Changing World of the Executive Drucker Library”, 2010, Harvard
Business Press.
3 Source: Benjamin Franklin.

●● strain monitoring (e.g. strain gauges or optical fibres); and

●● leak detection.
An important aspect of structural monitoring is that it can complement existing inspection tech-
niques to provide greater confidence in structural integrity. In addition, in some instances it can
potentially reduce inspection costs by reducing inspection frequency. It can also assist in demon-
strating compliance with regulatory requirements. In combination with other methods it can be
used to demonstrate continued safe operation of a structure beyond its original design life. Other
typical applications include the monitoring of known local damage or a more critical part of a
structure.
On-line instrumentation has also been used to benefit the design of offshore structures. Projects
such as Shell’s Tern and BP’s Magnus have provided a much better understanding of the loading
on these platforms, enabling more efficient designs to be developed for future structures (HSE 2009).
Monitoring of cracks on offshore structures, such as using acoustic emission on the Ninian
Southern platform (Mitchel and Rodgers 1992), provided confidence that operations could con-
tinue whilst repairs were being planned and undertaken.
5.1.2 Historical Background

As a result of the research strategy developed by the Department of Energy’s Offshore Energy
Technology Board in 1977, which identified inspection and integrity monitoring as a priority area,
the Department funded a set of programmes on the vibration analysis of steel platforms with three
companies involved at a cost (at the time) of ~£1M. The platforms involved were Amoco’s Montrose
platform, Occidental’s Claymore platform and BP’s Forties field (Department of Energy 1977a). The
technique involved monitoring the structural vibrations caused by wave excitation with accelerom-
eters to detect changes in the vibration signature; the pattern being made up from vibrations from
individual members and any changes could indicate component failure. The three projects utilised
the same monitoring technique but used different methods of analysis. The research involved plac-
ing sensors on the structure, both topside and in some cases up to 30 m below the surface. On
Amoco’s Montrose platform six horizontal accelerometers were mounted level with the spider deck.
Two additional horizontal accelerometers were mounted on a major node at a depth of 11 m and,
two vertical accelerometers, above and below the splash zone, monitoring the vibrations of horizon-
tal braces. Occidentals’ Claymore platform had 12 high sensitivity accelerometers at 21 m above the
waterline and a number of lower sensitivity detectors above the waterline, 12 m and 30 m below the
waterline. BP Forties platform had four pairs of orthogonal, horizontal accelerometers mounted at
two levels, 13 m and 24 m above the waterline.
In addition, the Department commissioned Lloyds Register to assess the effectiveness of the
three systems using vibration measurements (Department of Energy 1977b). The aim was to
decide on the extent to which vibration monitoring could be relied upon to give warning of under-
water structural damage, thus limiting the requirement of divers to undertake underwater
inspection.
Identification of the various natural frequencies was achieved by comparison with a finite ele-
ment model of each platform (Department of Energy 1982). The long-term stability of the natural
frequencies was studied in detail. It was found that fundamental frequencies showed a variation of
up to 2% of their mean. Major changes in platform operating conditions were detected by the moni-
toring systems. As an example, the addition of a significant mass of drilling equipment on one
platform lowered the sway frequency by up to 5%. It was found both from the tests on the platforms
Structural Monitoring Methods 143
and from modelling that for a four-legged platform failure of a single member produced a frequency
drop in one or more modes which could be detected by the monitoring system. Analyses of an eight-
legged structure showed that detection of member loss was dependant on its location. For example,
loss of a diagonal member caused significant changes in natural frequencies. Loss of a horizontal
brace caused smaller changes which were less detectable. It was concluded that to distinguish
between changes in natural frequencies due to degradation of the structure or other effects it was
necessary to have continuous information on the operational changes on the platform.
The removal of the West Sole WE platform, shown in Figure 50, in 1978 proved an opportunity for
trials of vibration monitoring. Structural Monitoring Ltd performed tests before the platform was
removed, using wave loading as the excitation force (Department of Energy 1980). Two sets of eight
accelerometers were installed on the structure, one set above sea level, the other below. The platform
response was measured both before and after damage was inflicted purposely. A pre-selected diago-
nal member was progressively cut until it was completely severed and then a horizontal member was
flooded. It was found that the accelerometers placed above the water could only detect a completely
severed member. However, its location could be located using a theoretical model of the structure.
Those accelerometers located below the surface were able to detect every stage of the damage
sequence in the member severance. It is important to note that West WE platform was a “minimum”
structure with only four legs and hence more likely to be accessible to the benefits of structural
monitoring.
Figure 50 West Sole WE platform.

Source: John V. Sharp.
Overall this early government-funded research showed that meaningful results could be obtained
for low redundancy platforms (e.g. four-legged structures) but for larger eight-legged structures
any changes due to damage were likely to be within the natural day-to-day variation in frequen-
cies. However, improvements in accelerometers and computing analysis methods have made it
possible to detect damage more easily in structures.
Recognising the potential of acoustic emission as an inspection monitoring technique for off-
shore platforms, the UK Department of Energy funded several projects in the late 1970s to develop
the technique (Department of Energy 1979). Propagating cracks in metal structures were known
to generate ultrasonic stress waves which could be detected and characterised to provide informa-
tion on the nature and severity of the defects present. The initial work was funded at the Admiralty
Marine Technology Establishment at Holton Heath (AMTE) where work on the method had been
underway for over 10 years. As part of the work some nodes being tested as part of the UKOSRP
steel research programme (Department of Energy 1987) were monitored using the AMTE tech-
nique. It was found that fatigue cracks could be detected and located much earlier than they could
be seen. Further tests comparing the acoustic emission results with those from eddy current test-
ing showed promising results. Two additional projects were funded by the UK Department of
Energy aimed at further developing the equipment initially developed at AMTE. These involved
EMI Electronics and the Unit Inspection Company. Both of these developers mounted their own
development tests on the large-scale fatigue specimens being tested as part of the UK Offshore
Steels Research Project (Department of Energy 1987). The EMI technique used a minimum of four
transducers for good location of a growing crack. Tests on nodes at the National Engineering
Laboratory (NEL) showed that the equipment provided advance warning of node failure and that
there was good correlation between the observed emission characteristics and crack growth. At the
time EMI considered that the technique had application for offshore structures with transducers
mounted around nodes likely to be subjected to high stresses or where existing cracks were present.
The Unit Inspection Company (UIC), which was part of British Steel, also tested their version of
the equipment on a large-scale node with a 1.8 m diameter chord. Two arrays of acoustic sensors
were used around the node. The first sign of acoustic emissions occurred after 100,000 cycles, but
there was no evidence of cracking at the surface. However, ultrasonic examination revealed a
crack 110 mm long which was the source of the acoustic emissions. Further testing of the large
node showed that crack extension occurred for relatively short periods of time when the acoustic
signals were strong and regular and the amplitude of the emissions increased with increasing
crack depth. UIC claimed that the results showed useful potential for monitoring offshore plat-
forms. They also claimed that a four-sensor array was adequate for monitoring purposes and that
to monitor a complete platform satisfactorily 40 such arrays would be sufficient.
Later, the Department of Energy funded AVT (Acoustic and Vibration Technology) Engineering
Services Ltd (Department of Energy 1986) to develop further their acoustic emission system called
Vulcan 8, developed for both onshore and offshore. The Vulcan system had an array of up to eight
transducers capable of detecting acoustic emissions. For subsea applications the transducer cables
were gathered into a unit clamped or strapped to the node being monitored. The Vulcan system
has been evaluated in laboratory testing and in offshore trials. The former involved monitoring
cracks growing in full-scale nodes, comparing the results with those from other NDE methods
such as the ACPD technique. It was shown that correlation between the AE and NDE results was
good. Offshore experience involved monitoring welds in a column of a semi-submersible drilling
unit and a complex subsea node joint on a production platform. The developers claimed that the
AE method had proved capable of detecting and locating fatigue cracks at a stage when low-cost
repairs such as weld dressing were appropriate. The penalty of not detecting cracks at this early
stage is that much more expensive repairs such as clamps or hyperbaric welding would be required.
The first wave of interest in structural monitoring lasted up to the late 1980s. It was recognised
that the techniques at that time were only capable of detecting major damage and therefore the
interest in this methodology diminished. In more recent years the techniques and analysis meth-
ods to identify damage have improved, and the need for online monitoring has become greater,
particularly for ageing structures, leading to a significant increase in its use.
5.1.3 Requirements for Monitoring in Standards

A number of offshore standards and recommended practices make reference to structural condi-
tion monitoring. These include ISO 16587 (ISO 2004), ISO 19902 (2007), API RP2-SIM (API 2014),
NORSOK N-005 (Standard Norge 2017) and DNV-OSS-102 (DNV 2010). The references indicate
that structural condition monitoring in most cases can be used as an addition to normal inspection.
In API RP-2FSIM the monitoring of floating systems is reviewed and could involve purpose-
built systems such as:
●● tension monitoring;
●● inclinometers and underwater video;
●● environmental monitoring (wind, wave and current);
●● motion monitoring (heave, roll and accelerations);
●● measurement of rotation of turret;
●● vibration monitoring; and
●● global or local stress monitoring.
Given the recognised importance of structural monitoring, particularly for ageing structures,
there is a minimal level of reference to it in standards and recommended practices. The few men-
tions of structural monitoring are discussed below.
Air gap measurement is included in ISO 19902 (ISO 2007) in the section on in-service inspection
and structural integrity management. The commentary lists a range of inspection methods and on
measuring the air gap states: “Where air gap measurement devices are correctly set up, calibrated
and maintained, continuous records of wave heights and tide can provide very useful information
on environmental conditions. Where this can be combined with directionality data and ideally
some method of estimating actions (e.g. strain gauges), the data can be used in analyses and assess-
ment of defects and of remaining life, possibly reducing conservatisms. Satellite surveying tech-
niques can often be used to determine levels”.
For fatigue sensitive joints API RP2-SIM (API 2014) indicates that the monitoring of these joints
and reported crack-like indications may be an acceptable alternative to analytical verification.
ISO 16587 (ISO 2004) describes the performance parameters for assessing the condition of struc-
tures, including types of measurement, factors for setting acceptable performance limits, data
acquisition parameters for constructing uniform databases and internationally accepted measure-
ment guidance (e.g. terminology, transducer calibration, transducer mounting and approved
transfer function techniques).
NORSOK N-005 (Standard Norge 2017) includes in-service inspection methods. In the section
on selection of methods it is stated that monitoring can be used as a supplement to conventional
inspection methods, particularly for areas with limited accessibility. Monitoring may also be used
to verify structural behaviour, for example for novel design solutions. Particular examples of appli-
cations listed in NORSOK N-005 are:
●● strain monitoring of jacket structures, local and global hull structural components, risers and
mooring systems;
●● accelerometers to measure motion behaviour to detect any anomaly or survey any trends in, for
example, natural frequencies;
●● vibration sensors on shafts and pumps;
●● leak detection to determine leakage into brace-to-column transitions on semi-submersibles, ten-
dons of TLPs, tanks and compartments of floaters;
●● load cells to measure tension in tendons and mooring lines; and
●● pressure gauges to measure tank and foundation pressure.
The DNV-OSS-102 rules (DNV 2010) contain a section relating to extended fatigue life. It states
that a fatigue utilisation index (FUI) should be calculated (for mobile offshore units). An index
above 1.0 requires further steps to be applied in relation to thickness measurement, increased
inspection regularity and post crack-detection procedures. Included in these steps is the installa-
tion of a permanent flood detection system in critical sections.
5.2 Previous Studies on Structural Monitoring Methods
5.2.1 MTD Underwater Inspection of Steel Offshore Installations

In 1989 the Marine Technology Directorate (MTD) undertook a review of underwater inspection
of steel offshore installations, including the implementation of a new approach which included
the introduction of structural monitoring (MTD 1989). In Section 4.2.5 the background to this
review was described.
In terms of structural monitoring there are three significant sections in the report, which are:
●● Outline of Structural Monitoring; This details the role of monitoring, in relation to NDE inspec-
tion, for maintaining structural integrity. The sensitivity of the process is discussed, together
with planned coverage of a platform and how the technique might be used in practice (continu-
ous or occasional use).
●● Monitoring methods; This section covers vibration-monitoring methods, acoustic emission meth-
ods, fibre-optic crack monitoring, performance-based monitoring, crack propagation and flooded
member monitoring. In addition, the components of monitoring systems are reviewed, such as
data acquisition, transmission and processing. Examples are given of the mode shapes expected
from vibration monitoring, together with expected accuracies of measuring frequency changes
(1% for frequencies, 10% for deformed shapes). Results from monitoring a North Sea platform with
a severed member were included, showing both the predicted and measured frequency changes,
with generally good agreement between these.
●● Design and Fabrication to incorporate Structural Monitoring; This short section outlined
the requirements to fit equipment for monitoring during fabrication, including techniques
such as vibration analysis, flexibility monitoring, acoustic emission, strain and foundation
monitoring.
5.2.2 HSE Review of Structural Monitoring

HSE commissioned a review of structural monitoring of fixed steel structures with Fugro which
was published in 1998 (HSE 1998) covering the previous 10 years of operating experience. It
reviewed previous work, mainly sponsored by the UK Department of Energy. The main method
reviewed in this report is based on monitoring of natural frequencies which are excited by waves.
1000
Sway
Deck acceleration (milli-g/Hz)
100 Torsion
10
Wave
0.1
0.01
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 51 Typical fixed steel platform response spectrum. Source: Based on HSE (1998). Offshore
Technology Report OTO 97 040 Review of structural monitoring Prepared by Fugro for the Health and
Safety Executive (HSE), HSE Books, London, UK.
These include north-south sway, east-west sway and a torsion mode as shown in Figure 51.
Platform natural frequencies are normally measured using sensitive accelerometers.
A key input was an assessment of the stability of natural frequencies which form the basis for
the monitoring. It was noted that there were natural frequency variations over a year which were
typically 1.1% for north-south sway, 1.2% for east-west sway and 0.8% for the ratio of these. These
variations in natural frequencies limit the ability of the monitoring method to detect damage as
any change in frequency due to minor structural changes could be masked.
Previous studies were analysed to note the reductions in frequency for member severance, as
shown in Table 33. For the larger Ninian Northern platform, the change analysed for member
severance was only 0.5–1.8%, within the observed natural frequency variation. For the small West
Sole platform, the changes were much larger, up to 23% in torsion for member severance in the
lower level main diagonal.
The report also reviewed technological developments of the equipment for structural monitor-
ing and concluded that the method was a low-cost and low-labour activity. It was also noted that
extension of platform life was becoming an important area which could benefit from structural
monitoring. The report also reviewed developments in structural analysis which are relevant to
analysis of the effects of various levels of damage on a structure. In addition, the report reviewed
data collection and processing and noted that improvements in signal processing were making
monitoring techniques more useful.
In Figure 52 the natural frequency variation is indicated with a band within which it would be
difficult to observe a structural change. The effects of member severance on the north-south
frequency are also shown indicating a clearly detectable reduction in frequency.
The review concludes that a change of at least 3% in natural frequency is needed to enable dam-
age to be confidently detected, which is likely to be the case for low redundancy structures (e.g.
West Sole). Hence, jackets with low redundancy configurations are more amenable to monitoring,
whilst for a redundant structure such as Forties A, two members or more need to fail in the same
frame before the failure could be detected.
For low redundancy, structural monitoring may be essential to give a warning of a member sev-
erance as these structures will often not be structurally sound with such damage present. In
Table 33 Sensitivity of Natural Frequencies to Members Severance Based on Analysis. Source: HSE (1998).
Offshore Technology Report OTO 97 040 Review of structural monitoring. Prepared by Fugro for the Health
and Safety Executive (HSE), HSE Books, London, UK.
Reduction in frequency
Platform and description Member severed Sway Torsion
West Sole WE Main diagonal mid-level 3% 10%

Southern UK Basin Main diagonal lower level 12% 23%
4-legged K-braced jacket Horizontal 1% 3%
3 bays
Forties A One-member failure 1–2% in at least one
Central UK North Sea fundamental mode and
4-legged X-framed jacket 7–16% in higher natural
frequencies
6 bays
Two-member failure 1.5% in at least two
fundamental modes and
more than 4.5% in some
cases
Deck mass changes Up to 3%
Ninian Northern Upper level braces Below 0.5% for X-braces
Northern UK North Sea and between 0.5 and 1.8
8-legged diagonal and X-braced jacket for diagonal braces
7 bays Horizontal braces No change in frequency
Ninian Southern Main diagonal 9.5–11.5%
Northern UK North Sea Main horizontal 2.5–4%
4-legged K-framed jacket
7 bays
contrast, for high-redundancy structures, a single member severance is unlikely to be detected but
will also not be likely to reduce structural capacity to a level which is unsafe.
5.2.3 HSE Updated Review of Structural Monitoring

The purpose of the HSE RR685 study on structural integrity monitoring (HSE 2009) was to iden-
tify current monitoring capabilities for offshore structures at the time. The review included tech-
niques for fixed steel structures (jackets) and semi-submersible structures but excluded
ship-shaped floating structures (FPSO). This review identified limitations in approaches and
identified areas for further development and opportunities for technology transfer from other
industries.
The key structural integrity monitoring methods relevant to offshore structures were reviewed.
The review found that offshore experience of structural integrity monitoring was limited to date
and that all systems were for bespoke applications. However, several of these techniques are in
more regular use at the time of writing this book, such as air gap monitoring. An overview of sev-
eral different uses of structural monitoring included in this review is given in Table 34.
The review further indicated that codes and standards referred in a limited way to the use of
structural integrity monitoring and this may have influenced the limited take up to date of this
0.5000
0.4500
Data measured
while intact
0.4000
N-S frequency
0.3500
Data measured
0.3000
while member
severed
0.2500
0.2500 0.2700 0.2900 0.3100 0.3300 0.3500 0.3700 0.3900 0.4100
E-W frequency
Figure 52 Effects of member severance on NS natural frequency. Source: Based on HSE (1998). Offshore
Technology Report OTO 97 040 Review of structural monitoring. Prepared by Fugro for the Health and
Safety Executive (HSE), HSE Books, London, UK.
Table 34 Examples of the Use of Structural Monitoring Methods (HSE 2006).
Location Issue Technology Outcome
Ninian southern Fatigue crack growing at one end Acoustic Three-year monitoring period
of an access window emission
Forties A, These studies used Natural Understanding of the senitivity
Heather and accelerometers both subsea and frequency of the technique to levels of
Piper Alpha at deck level to develop the monitoring damage
technology
Ninian Southern The system was installed on Natural Following repair the platform’s
Ninian Southern following a frequency frequency was detected as
member severance monitoring increasing
FOINAVON Vortex-induced vibrations (VIV) Natural It was concluded that VIV can
Umbilical occurred on the Foinavon frequency be reasonably modelled—both
Monitoring flexible risers at up to 600m monitoring current and vessel motions—to
System depth reduce VIV
The problem was to measure the
bending and tensile stress at the
vessel
technology. However, the review stated that there was a regulatory requirement for leak detection
in ageing semi-subs which was introduced by DNV in 2007 in their classification rules DNV-
OSS-101 (DNV 2007).
Structural integrity monitoring methods that were reviewed and discussed included (HSE 2009):
●● acoustic emission monitoring;
●● leak detection;
●● air gap monitoring;
●● global positioning system monitoring;
●● fatigue gauges;
●● mooring chain monitoring;
●● continuous flooded member detection monitoring;
●● natural frequency response monitoring;
●● acoustic fingerprinting; and
●● strain monitoring.
A detailed description of these techniques as given in the review is included in Section 5.3.
The review concluded that it was clear that the offshore industry had implemented several tech-
niques during the previous decades in order to continuously monitor the integrity of offshore
structures. As such, to that date continuous structural monitoring had not been widely embraced
by the industry. However, as structures were increasingly called upon to operate beyond their
original design life, continuous structural monitoring could have an important role to play in pro-
viding a back-up system to conventional inspection.
There existed a wide range of available monitoring systems, from those which concentrated on
detecting global damage to those that concentrated on detecting the onset of local crack growth.
Each of these had strengths and weaknesses that would make them more suited to certain circum-
stances. However, there was little guidance at that time on when and how the use of continuous
monitoring techniques should be recommended.
5.2.4 SIMoNET
Structural Integrity Monitoring Network (SIMoNET) was a joint venture between industry and
government organisations initiated in 1997 and managed by Cranfield University and University
College London. The aim was to facilitate communication on structural monitoring between
researchers and those interested in the application of the method. The main activity was a web-
based source (Simonet 2020) and the holding of up to two seminars each year to promote knowl-
edge on the method across all relevant industry sectors including offshore. The main objectives
were to:
●● establish the appropriateness of the economic and technical aspects of monitoring techniques
for the management of the structural integrity of large structures and plant safety;
●● identify the latest available technology, experience in use and methods of retrieving and inter-
preting data;
●● encourage harmonisation of data storage and retrieval, by identifying incompatibility within
systems; and
●● propose general guidelines for the practice and application of structural monitoring, and to
identify priorities for further development.
At the time of writing this book the website provides details of 18 seminars, with the last one
undertaken in 2010. Many of these have useful information on applications of structural monitor-
ing in several industry sectors including offshore; several case studies were also included. The
website also provides links to a number of relevant articles.
5.3 Structural Monitoring Techniques
5.3.1 Introduction
The offshore industry has, as already mentioned, implemented several techniques during the
last few decades to continuously monitor the condition of offshore structures. There is good
evidence that the existence of damage on a structure and in some cases the location of this
damage can be detected by the latest structural monitoring methods. The most advanced moni-
toring methods combined with improved analysis methods have shown to be capable to detect
both the type of damage and its severity (May et al. 2008).
As noted in Ersdal et al. (2019), where there is uncertainty about the condition of an ageing
structure, continuous structural monitoring provides an opportunity to decrease this uncertainty
more than could be achieved using periodic inspection. This requires that the most probable and
critical failure modes of the structure are well understood and that the structural monitoring sys-
tem is designed to be capable of identifying such failures.
5.3.2 Acoustic Emission Technique

The principle of acoustic emission (AE) monitoring techniques is to use an arrangement of sensors
to detect characteristic patterns which arise from acoustic stress waves that occur when a material
undergoes changes in its internal structure. These changes could signal the presence of anomalies
locally in the structure. AE has applications to offshore structures and has been used for the moni-
toring of damage mechanisms such as cracks. The system can be used in locations which are
known to be at a high likelihood of fatigue cracking and where normal inspection is difficult,
unreliable or costly.
The system can effectively monitor for crack initiation (with pre-installed sensors at an expected
crack site) and crack growth. The technique can be used in conjunction with strain gauges to cor-
relate AE signals with structural stress levels.
AE provides real-time information on fatigue crack initiation and growth. It can be used to
detect fatigue cracks at an early stage before conventional NDT methods would be able to detect
them. However, due to the attenuation of the AE signal, this method is only suitable for local
monitoring (i.e. over a few metres in the structure). AE sensors need to be located close to the crack
site which could be externally on an offshore jacket or internally to the structure in, for example,
dry semi-submersible hull members.
AE systems have been under development for some time and have subsequently been used for a
long period in the offshore industry, and the technique is generally regarded as being suitable for
the structural monitoring of safety-critical members.
AE systems are generally considered to be reliable with a high probability of detection. When
there is a large amount of background noise, problems may arise that cannot be effectively filtered
out. This noise can mask the presence of activity due to defects. The system relies on interpretation
of the data by an operator to enable the structural anomaly to be detected.
An example of offshore use is the monitoring of cracks on the Ninian Southern platform in the
period 1989–92 (Mitchell and Rogers 1992). The decision to use AE monitoring was taken following
the severance of a horizontal brace as a result of a fatigue crack growing at one end of an access
window. Detailed NDE inspection of other access windows had shown a large number of similar
defects of various sizes. Several were repaired using saturation diving. It was decided to monitor
some of the remaining ones by using conventional NDE methods, such as ultrasonics. One
particular unrepaired defect had a predicted remaining life of only 5 years and it was decided to
monitor this using AE methods. It was found that measured defect sizes from the AE results were
in good agreement with previous data from other NDE methods. Over the three-year monitoring
period, defect growth was found to be minimal, and it was concluded that a repair was not necessary
at that stage.
5.3.3 Leak Detection

Leak detection involves a sensor to detect water ingress in dry compartments and structural mem-
bers and then raises an alarm via an audible or visual unit. Leak detection is particularly important
for managing watertight integrity in floating structures, for which regulators and classification
societies to a large extent require an approved leak detection system.
Several detection methods have been used ranging from simple buoyancy-based systems,
pipe systems to monitor the presence of water in compartments to specialist systems involving
inundation alarms to field effect electronic cells that detect slight disruptions caused by the
presence of water. Such systems have been used for a number of decades in the offshore indus-
try for ship-shaped structures and semi-submersible platforms. A secondary system such as a
CCTV system can be added to identify the cause of the water ingress in, for example, breach of
hull integrity.
5.3.4 Global Positioning Systems and Radar

The methodology for calculating the position, tilt and air gap (subsidence) has changed consider-
ably with current use of GPS or downward looking radar, enabling repeatability and reducing
inaccuracies between surveys.
The position of a floating structure (station keeping) can be monitored using a Global Positioning
System (GPS). The basic positioning GPS technology is mature and has real-time accuracy in the
region of 3–10 m horizontally.
To determine a reliable GPS reading of the position on a fixed structure, the equipment is usually
left in place for 24 hrs. A value for the air gap and tilt can be calculated from measured values
which are recorded and averaged over a given time period. A reference point is established from
early readings which will form the basis for comparison with all repeat readings. For such a fixed
location, the accuracy can be within millimetres horizontally. The general rule of thumb is that the
vertical error is 3 times the horizontal error.
Monitoring of tilt and subsidence of fixed offshore structure is important, and this technique is
one of the most important methods for these. In addition, moored floating platforms can experi-
ence severe mooring loads in harsh sea conditions. A combined mooring and thruster positioning
system can be used to minimise these loads which rely on a thruster system being positioned accu-
rately by the GPS signals.
The air gap is defined as the positive difference between the lowest point of the underside of the
cellar deck and the crest height of an extreme wave for a given return period (often 100 or 10,000
years). Reduction in the air gap can lead to wave impact on the lower deck sections with structural
implications. The purpose of monitoring the air gap is to establish whether the platform founda-
tion is suffering from subsidence which is an important input along with the maximum wave crest
height to establish the air gap.
5.3.5 Fatigue Gauge

A fatigue gauge is a method for measuring fatigue damage from a period of cyclic loading of a welded
component in a structure. One such method is TWI’s CrackFirstTM which was patented in 1990 and is
currently available from Strainstall. The fatigue gauge sensor consists of a thin steel shim which is
attached to the structure near the fatigue sensitive area. A fatigue crack will then grow in the gauge
under cyclic loading. The gauge should be calibrated so that the fatigue crack growth measured in the
gauge relates to the amount of fatigue damage in the detail under observation. This could provide a
representative record of cumulative fatigue damage occurring on a structure under variable amplitude
loading. There is limited information to date on the reliability of this method (HSE 2009). However, at
the time of writing this book the CrackFirstTM gauge is in the process of being further developed to be
fit for marine use (Wintle 2020).
5.3.6 Continuous Flooded Member Detection

Continuous flooded member detection can be used both internally and externally to detect internal
flooding, typically for fixed steel structures. Internally a device is placed inside a nominally dry
member, and if the member becomes flooded, a warning signal is transmitted to a central recording
unit. The preferred method (HSE 2009) is where the salinity of the solution activates a galvanic cell
which generates an acoustic signal. Internal continuous flooded member detection can only realis-
tically be installed during the construction phase to newly built structures. Leak detection on float-
ing structures as mentioned above is essentially a variant of this internal method.
For external use, a device is clamped to the outside of a nominally dry member. The device trans-
mits a high-frequency acoustic signal through the member (similar to early flooded member detec-
tion) and detects any changes to the signal and hence the presence of water inside the member. The
device could be set up to send an alarm signal to the control room.
Continuous flooded member detection is an untried method in the offshore industry (HSE 2009).
One of the controlling limitations for external use is battery life. However, periodic flooded mem-
ber detection used to detect through-thickness cracking continues to be in regular use in the off-
shore industry; see Section 4.3.6.
5.3.7 Natural Frequency Monitoring

Natural frequency response monitoring is the instrumented observation of a structure using
sensors that continuously or periodically measure structural behaviour to identify changes such
as material degradation, geometric properties and boundary conditions of the structure (e.g.
foundation stiffness). This technique can continuously monitor for a change in platform fre-
quency and then identify the significant damage such as failed members. It can be used to detect
changes due to incidents such as an extreme storm, an earthquake, a ship collision or a
dropped object.
Accelerometers are normally placed on the topsides of an installation, although subsea acceler-
ometers have also been used. The response of a structure to wave loading is continuously moni-
tored, and the measured accelerations are transformed into the frequency domain which can
identify the natural modes of the structure. Any significant structural damage to the platform will
result in a change in the stiffness in one or more modes, thereby reducing its natural frequency,
which can be detected. Examples of such damage include:
●● damage to a fixed steel platform member altering the frequency in the sway direction where the
member contributes to the stiffness;
●● changes in soil stiffness reflected by changes to frequencies in both platform directions; and
●● failure of pile sleeve grouted connections similarly changing stiffness and frequency.
Finite element analysis is often performed alongside the measurement to help in identifying
which mode shape corresponds to which frequency. This information is of value when a change in
frequency is reported, as it is then possible to identify which member is the most likely to have failed.
As noted earlier, the method is only sensitive enough to detect significant changes in frequency
because of the background variations, meaning that it cannot detect minor damage such as small
defects in redundant structural members. However, the most likely damage to be detected is the
severance or significant damage to members that result in a large reduction in global structural
strength. Members which cause small changes in frequency on severance or significant damage
tend not to be structurally significant.
A Joint Industry Project (JIP) in which HSE participated showed that in low redundancy jackets
with single diagonal bracing systems, an 80% circumferential through-wall defect is detectable
using this method (EQE 2000). The method is less useful for heavier jackets with high redundancy
bracing schemes.
The technique has been in operation since the late 1970s on a number of platforms. A system
was installed on Ninian South following a member severance (Mitchel and Rodgers 1992).
5.3.8 Strain Monitoring

Strain monitoring is carried out to measure a change in strain (and hence the stress) as a result of
a change in loading on the structure. There are a number of well-established strain measurement
techniques available including conventional strain gauging, fibre optics and stress probes. It is
widely applied across many industries including the offshore industry. Calibration and appropri-
ate surface preparation are required.
Fibre optic methods have been developed to create a strain sensor where the optical fibre is
inscribed during production with a so-called Fibre Bragg Grating (FBG), with a length of typically
5 mm, which reflects the laser light differently from the rest of the fibre. When the optical fibre is
attached to a material, it will be strained along with the material. The reflected light takes a little
longer or shorter time to travel back when the FBG is under strain, which can be accurately meas-
ured. In addition, the wavelength of the reflected light is changed due to the grating. This enables
a fibre to have several different FBGs enabling strain to be measured in different locations using
the same fibre. FBGs optical fibre sensors are very susceptible to temperature, as the fibre expands
when the temperature rises and contracts when the temperature drops. The refractive index
changes as well. These changes require compensation such as installing a temperature sensor next
to the strain sensor.
For all methods, the measured strain will in turn allow an analysis of the mechanical stress in
the material, which is the aim of most strain measurements. It can also be used to verify design
calculations, for example, associated with wave loading. It is particularly useful to gain informa-
tion about the long-term stress range distribution needed for fatigue calculations. It is sensitive to
the positioning of the gauges in areas where there are steep stress gradients. Installation of strain
monitoring systems in an existing structure is rather cumbersome and expensive.
Strain monitoring and load sensors may be used to provide relevant information on the tension
of mooring lines; see more in Section 4.9.
5.3.9 Riser and Anchor Chain Monitoring

The purpose of this technique is to monitor the position of risers and anchor chains and alert the
operator to any displacements outside predefined limits. Systems for riser and anchor chain monitor-
ing consist of a sonar array located beneath the platform, which emits signals in and around the hori-
zontal plane. The system then detects and analyses reflected signals from items that are within the
monitoring region. This data can then be used to determine the accurate location of these items
(mooring lines and risers) and to continuously monitor their position. If there is a problem, the sys-
tem will alert the operator via an audio or visual alarm.
5.3.10 Acoustic Fingerprinting

Acoustic fingerprinting involves the transmission of acoustic signals into the structure at locations
above the water level. The method is to the authors’ knowledge so far only been tried on a repre-
sentative jacket structure. In practice, receivers would be placed above the water level and monitor
the signal that is returned, measuring any changes which could indicate damage. The method
depends on the complex behaviour of the acoustic signals passing through the steel, with reflections
and refractions occurring at section changes and nodes. The technique relies upon measuring any
changes between the transmitted signal and the received signal. The technique is at early develop-
ment stage, and research has been carried out by using time-of-flight computation on the received
signals to diagnose failure in a laboratory-based structure using a polycarbonate material to simu-
late steel. (HSE 2005). If the technique were to be proven, it is likely that it would enable continuous
structural monitoring but would only be sensitive enough to detect fully severed members.
5.3.11 Monitoring with Guided Waves

For inspection of pipes or large areas of plate-like structures, ultrasonic waves can be employed to
detect changes in the specimen’s thickness. Guided ultrasonic wave testing utilises a lower fre-
quency region (typically several hundred kHz) than standard ultrasonic testing (see Section 4.3).
The excited wave can propagate over large distances and pass through the thickness of a structure.
Corrosion damage can be detected by use of this this technique. Successful measurements have
been performed on pipelines where propagation distances of several hundred metres have been
achieved. For the monitoring of structural integrity, a permanently attached guided ultrasonic
wave array type is required. The array consists of a ring of piezoelectric transducers for excitation
and reception of the guided wave. Most of the experience to date has been with pipelines, although
there is the potential for use on plated structures (see e.g. www.simonet.org.uk).
5.4 Structural Monitoring Case Study
A four-legged jacket installed in 150 m water depth in the North Sea with inverted K brace struc-
ture was used as an example for a monitoring trial (Killbourn 2008). The K-bracing together with
it being a four-legged structure implied that it had low redundancy. The platform was ageing and
had previously suffered member failures. The installed monitoring system comprised eight Fugro
accelerometers located in four horizontal bi-axial pairs at each corner of the topside deck. The
signals were transmitted through cabling to a central computer and stored. In addition, a wave
radar unit was installed to record wave profiles and tidal changes. The information from the radar
unit was synchronised with the data from the accelerometers.
A routine inspection of the platform using FMD showed that one of the horizontal brace members
was flooded indicating a through-thickness crack. Detailed visual inspection showed that there was
a crack with a length of 10% of the brace circumference. Following inspections showed that the crack
was growing and as a result, holes were drilled through the brace wall at each end of the crack, which
proved unsuccessful in stopping the crack growing. Therefore, severance of the brace was expected.
Approximately six months after the detection of the crack and in a moderate winter storm, the
monitoring system detected a significant change to the response characteristics of the jacket.
Checking the on-board monitoring system indicated that there had been a member failure. The
plot in Figure 53 shows a significant decrease in the north-south sway frequency below a level set
as an alarm level. There was little change in the east-west sway frequency, but the torsion fre-
quency also showed a significant drop. The alarm level is set at just below the normal day-to-day
variation in natural frequencies. The changes in the response characteristic were analysed to iden-
tify potential braces that could have failed. The jacket member that best fitted the results was the
brace previously identified by FMD as being flooded. A subsequent visual examination by an ROV
confirmed that the cracked brace had severed.
Repair of this severed brace was required. To allow welding of the brace, a pressurised habitat
was constructed over the severed section of the brace. A portion of the brace was removed at either
side of the severance, allowing a pup piece to be inserted and welded to one side of the brace. Four
axial tension rods were welded to the brace and the pup piece allowing the original tension in the
brace to be restored, once welding of the pup piece to the other end of the original brace was
achieved. The internal volume of the brace was emptied of water before being welded up allowing
FMD to be used for subsequent monitoring.
The monitoring system was operational during the repair, and the results following the repair
indicated that the observed reductions in the characteristic responses in the north-south and tor-
sion modes following the severance were restored by the repair.
The case study demonstrated the effectiveness of vibrational structural monitoring for detecting
severance of a brace enabling a rapid response. However, at the time of writing, the industry has
not taken up the use of monitoring to a great extent, which could provide a useful warning system
for structural damage.
0.39
0.385
Statistics (Hz)
0.38
0.375
0.37
0.365
0.36
Dec 2006 Jan 2007 Feb 2007
Date
Figure 53 Change in natural frequencies at, for example, a member failure. Source: HSE (2009), Health and
Safety Executive research report RR685 Structural integrity monitoring—Review and appraisal of current
technologies for offshore applications, Prepared by Atkins Limited, HSE Books, 2009. Licensed under Open
Government License.
5.5 Summary on Structural Monitoring
Structural monitoring in most cases is a useful adjunct to conventional inspection to provide fore-
warning of significant changes in the structural condition. Furthermore, structural monitoring
can complement existing inspection techniques to provide more confidence in structural integrity,
thus potentially reducing inspection frequency and therefore inspection costs.
The first wave of interest in structural monitoring, as discussed in Section 5.1.2, lasted up to the
late 1980s and was aimed at creating a UK capability in this field. However, since the techniques at
that time were only capable of detecting major damage, interest in further commercial develop-
ment of this technology waned.
In 2008 it was reported (May et al. 2008) that monitoring was installed on at least twenty
platforms world-wide, with half in European waters and the remainder between Mexico,
Canada, the Caspian Sea and West Africa. In addition, the company Pulse has indicated use of
structural monitoring for the ageing structures in Malaysian waters (https://www.pulse-
monitoring.com/), being used both to monitor the condition of the structure and to calibrate
design models for future use. Monitoring has included strain, wave height, currents and plat-
form motions. May et al. (2008) also added that a further eight systems had been ordered at that
time. More recently, the techniques and methods to analyse the data (like system identification
and machine learning algorithms) have improved. These improvements have coincided with a
greater need for online monitoring, particularly for ageing structures and this has led to an
increase in its use.
At the time of writing, so-called structural health monitoring (SHM) is in widespread use in
many industry sectors for monitoring structural integrity. This has led to further development of
technologies and the use of digital information methods including such as Internet of Things,
artificial intelligence, robotics, swarm robotics and digital twins, which are applicable to offshore
use. These emerging technologies are further discussed in Chapter 9.
Table 35 provides an overview of the capabilities of the different techniques that are available,
which have been discussed in this chapter; it is based on HSE RR685 (HSE 2009).
Table 35 Structural Condition Monitoring Techniques.
Monitoring
Technique Example techniques capability Maturity Limitations
Air gap GPS, laser Loss of air gap Widespread use Requires specialist
monitoring contractor to carry out
measurements
Positioning GPS Loss of station Widespread use Few
system keeping
Loss of air gap
Acoustic Acoustic stress wave Fatigue crack Has been used for Requires specialist
emission monitoring devices growth specific applications, installation with
Corrosion not as a general sensors hard-wired
monitoring method back to a control unit
Data can be difficult to
interpret. Background
noise, cabling
(Continued)
Monitoring
Technique Example techniques capability Maturity Limitations
Leak Pipe systems to Breach of In regular use in May be affected by

detection monitor the presence water-tight floating structures condensation or
of water in integrity humid environment
compartments or Member leak and necessary pipes
buoyancy-based leak detection often corrode
detection Through-
thickness
cracks
Through-
thickness
corrosion
Continuous Electrical detector Member leak Unproven Internal detectors are
flooded cells activated by detection only suitable for new
member water (internal) build Battery life is a
detection Strapping acoustic key limitation for
sensors to a member external systems
(external) Localised detection only
Natural Accelerometers Member Mature technique, More effective in
frequency severance which has been in detecting damage in
response Significant operation for many low redundancy
monitoring damage to years on a number of structures
members and platforms Limited information
joints on heavily redundant
Damping structures
Riser and Load cells, natural Loss of This technique is It may not always be
anchor chain frequency monitoring, mooring line widely used in the feasible to locate a
monitoring angle of mooring from tension offshore industry system in certain
fairlead offshore environments
Fatigue Fatigue gauges Fatigue Regular use in some Attachment to the
cracking industries but limited structure (close to the
in the offshore weld toe) is often
industry difficult particularly
underwater
The sensor may prove
vulnerable to the
offshore environment
Acoustic Techniques are under Through- Untested on real Only likely to detect
finger development but not thickness structures fully severed members
printing in use cracks
Strain Strain gauges Local stresses Widely applied across Appropriate surface
monitoring and loading many industries preparation required.
including the offshore Installation of gauges
industry on existing structures
can be difficult
Equipment can be
sensitive to damage by
the environment
especially cabling
Section 5.3 is to a large extent based on HSE (2009), where John Sharp was one of the co-authors.
R
eferences
API (2014), API RP-2SIM Recommended Practice for Structural Integrity Management of Fixed Offshore
Department of Energy (1977a), “Offshore Research Focus, No.3”, 1977.
Department of Energy (1977b), “Offshore Research Focus, No.5”, 1977.
Department of Energy (1979), “Offshore Research Focus, No. 13”, June 1979.
Department of Energy (1980), “Offshore Research Focus, No. 17”, 1980.
Department of Energy (1982), “Offshore Research Focus, No.34”, 1982.
Department of Energy (1986), “Offshore Research Focus, No. 51”, 1986.
Department of Energy (1987), “United Kingdom Offshore Research Project - Phase II (UKOSRP II)
Summary Report”, HMSO, OTH-87-265, 1987.
DNV (2007), “DNV Offshore Service Specification DNV-OSS-101 Rules for Classification of Offshore
Drilling and Support Units, Special Provisions for Ageing Mobile Offshore and Self-Elevating
Structures, 2007”, Høvik. Norway.
DNV (2010), “DNV Offshore Service Specification DNV-OSS-102 Rules for Classification of Floating
Production, Storage and Loading Units,” October 2010, Høvik, Norway.
EQE (2000), “JIP Guidance on the Use of Flooded Member Detection for Assuring the Integrity of
Offshore Platform Structures”, EQE Report N°179-03-R-07, Issue 1, 6th June 2000.
HSE (1998), Offshore Technology Report OTO 97 040 Review of Structural Monitoring, Prepared by
Fugro for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), HSE Books, London, UK.
HSE (2005), Cost Effective Structural Monitoring, Research Report RR326, Prepared by Mecon Ltd for
HSE, HSE Books, London, UK.
HSE (2009), Health and Safety Executive Research Report RR685 Structural Integrity Monitoring—Review and
Appraisal of Current Technologies for Offshore Applications, Prepared by Atkins Limited, HSE Books, 2009.
ISO (2004), “ISO 16587:2004 Mechanical Vibration and Shock—Performance Parameters for
Condition Monitoring of Structures”, International Standardisation Organisation, 2004.
ISO (2007), “ISO 19902:2007 Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries—Fixed Steel Offshore Structures”,
Killbourn, S.D (2008), “Detection of Jacket Member Severance Using Structural Instrumentation”,
OMAE 2008 57391.
May P., Sanderson D., Sharp J.V., Stacey A. (2008), “Structural Integrity Monitoring—Review and
Appraisal of Current Technologies for Offshore Applications”, OMAE2008-57425, OMAE
Conference 2008, Estoril, Portugal.
Mitchell, J.S. and Rogers, L.M. (1992), “Monitoring Structural Integrity of North Sea Production
Platforms by Acoustic Emission,” Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 6957, 1992.
MTD (1989), “Underwater Inspection of Steel Offshore Installations: Implementation of a New
Approach”, Report number 89/104. MTD, London, UK.
Simonet (2020), www.Simonet.org.uk, accessed 19 July 2020.
Standard Norge (2017), “NORSOK N-005 In-Service Integrity Management of Structures and Maritime
Systems”, Edition 2, 2017, Standard Norge, Lysaker, Norway.
Wintle, J. (2020). Private communication.
161
Inspection Planning, Programme and Data Management
To the optimist, the glass is half full. To the pessimist, the glass is half empty.
To the engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
—Unknown
Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe.
—Abraham Lincoln
6.1 Introduction
6.1.1 General
The long-term planning1 of inspection, the inspection programme and inspection data manage-
ment are key elements in structural integrity management. In essence, a survey is performed with
the aim of knowing all the different changes that have occurred to a structure after it was built,
storing these change data in a suitable system for easy retrieval and as a result, achieve an overview
of the as-is state of the structure (see Figure 54). Inspection is a part of this survey process, pri-
marily determining the current structural condition and configuration and hence any changes
that have occurred since fabrication or previous in-service inspections.
Underwater inspection is often the most time-consuming and costly part of the survey process and
has safety implications, particularly if divers are used. Hence, it is usually impracticable and often
unreasonable to inspect all members, components and areas of a structure. As a result, the selection
of inspection locations, methods, their deployment and the scheduling of inspections are key factors
in planning an effective and cost-efficient inspection programme that provides the necessary back-
ground information to evaluate the safety of a structure.
The layout of the structure is determined in the design process and has implications for the ability
to inspect and repair while in service. Unfortunately, this is not given the priority it deserves. As a
1 The long-term inspection plan is often called strategy, inspection strategy, surveillance strategy or even integrity
strategy. The word strategy in these contexts imply a high-level long-term plan for how to gather the necessary
information about what is needed to be known about the structure in order to make sure that the structure is
sufficiently safe. Hence, in this book it is decided to use the term long-term inspection planning to be representative
of the above.

Changes in use: Changes in knowledge: Changes in requirements:

- Manning - Metocean criteria - New regulation
- Life extension - Engineering methods - New standards
-… -… -…
As-built Changes As-Is
Changes in loads: Changes in condition: Changes in configuration:

- Weight - Deterioration - Modifications
- Metocean - Damage - Subsidence
-… -… -…
Figure 54 Transition from the as-built to the as-is condition of the structure.
result, the condition of the parts that are difficult or impossible to inspect need to be assessed by other
means. An assessment of fatigue cracking in these cases can utilize inspection results from similar or
nearby components with significantly lower fatigue life in the structure; see for example, NORSOK
N-006 (Standard Norge 2015). The resulting layout from the design process will also determine the
accessibility for ROV inspection and failure to properly plan for such may also leave parts of the
structure uninspected or possibly require the use of divers to perform the inspection. These issues
highlight the importance of bringing in inspection awareness at the design stage of a new structure
and the life of a structure with uninspectable and unrepairable components will often be limited
(Ersdal et al. 2019).
6.1.2 Long-Term Inspection Plan

The long-term inspection plan should aim to:
●● detect in good time any change that may cause unacceptable structural safety, risk to personnel,
risk to the environment, interruption in operation or—if these changes are left unattended—a
more significant damage and more costly repairs;
●● provide information that enables the structural integrity management to be planned on a rational
basis in a systematic manner;
●● ensure that information obtained about anomalies and changes relevant for the structure is reli-
able—this will primarily require that inspection is undertaken by suitably experienced and com-
petent staff using appropriate qualified inspection methods and procedures; and
●● determine how to obtain information that can be used to indicate the condition of items that are
uninspectable.
Inspection Planning, Programme and Data Management 163
The reliability of the selected inspection method as mentioned above needs to be taken into
account in developing the long-term plan. This reliability is often expressed in terms of a probabil-
ity of detection (PoD) curve or value as discussed in Section 4.6.
Further, the long-term inspection plan should specify:
●● where and the extent to inspect (depending on the approach to inspection planning, e.g. areas of
high likelihood of failure and large consequence of failure);
●● what type of change is to be detected (e.g. crack or corrosion);
●● when inspections should be performed (e.g. specific year, time-interval, frequency);
●● how to inspect (the appropriate inspection method and procedure for the given location and the
type of change to be detected);
●● who should inspect (e.g. diver, ROV-controller) and the required personnel qualifications and
competence.
As already mentioned, detecting any change relevant to the structure in good time can be an over-
whelming, time-consuming and expensive task. As a result, the integrity management engineer will
seek to develop a plan that achieves sufficient safety at a reasonable cost. With this in mind, the
long-term plan should optimise the where, what, when, how and who, as mentioned above.
The long-term inspection plan should be based on an evaluation (see Chapter 7) of all available
data about the structure, including the likelihood and consequence of failure. The long-term plan
must also consider a number of other factors such as:
●● regulatory requirements;
●● operational requirements (e.g. safety requirements, bed space, other simultaneous activities);
●● the known condition of the structure including robustness, damage tolerance, fatigue life, age;
●● previous accidental events and inspection findings;
●● the number of similar details on the same structure (a representative number may only need
inspection or, if defects are found, all similar details need to be inspected);
●● known problems on similar types of structures; and
●● the availability and effectiveness of inspection techniques (application and reliability).
This book focuses on underwater inspection and as a result, the changes that are discussed
are primarily those relevant to the condition of the underwater part of the structure. This also
includes changes to features such as scour, seabed condition and marine growth as they are
important for the safety and functionality of the whole structure.
An example of a 10-year long-term inspection plan for a fixed steel structure assumed to be
installed in 2020 with a baseline inspection performed in the same year, is illustrated in Table 36
covering the splash zone and the underwater structure.
Several international standards, such as ISO 2394 (1998), ISO 19901-9 (ISO 2019) and ISO 19902
(ISO 2007), specify requirements for structural integrity management including the long-term
planning of inspections. In addition to these international standards, several regional standards
such as API RP-2SIM (API 2014), API RP2-FSIM (API 2019a) and API RP-2MIM (API 2019b) and
NORSOK N-005 (Standard Norge 2017) also provide guidance that is relevant.
6.1.3 Approaches for Long-Term Inspection Planning

Initially regulators and operators relied on time or calendar-based inspections, as required by the
Certificate of Fitness (CoF) regime in the UK sector and the NPD regulations from 1976. These
calendar-based inspection plans indicated a fixed inspection interval, typically annually and up to
Table 36 Example of a Long-Term Inspection Plan for a Jacket-Type Structure.
Previous inspection Member description Ten-year underwater inspection plan
Comments including
previous events,
Inspection Anomaly Fatigue Strength findings and known
Component Year method description life utilisation Redundancy problems 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Jacket legs 2020 GVI None >35y <1.0 0.5 Water filled GVI/CP CVI GVI/CP CVI
Diagonal bracing in 2020 GVI Coating >50y <1.0 0.8 GVI/CP FMD GVI/CP FMD
splash zone
Diagonal bracing 2020 GVI None >50y <1.0 0.8 GVI/CP FMD GVI/CP FMD
below splash zone
Horizontal bracing 2020 GVI None >50y <1.0 0.95 GVI/CP FMD GVI/CP FMD
below splash zone
Mudmats, pile sleeve, 2020 GVI None >200y <1.0 0.7 GVI/CP CVI GVI/CP CVI
grouting, etc.
Anodes 2020 GVI None >20y GVI GVI
Air gap 2020 GVI None GPS GPS GPS GPS GPS GPS
Marine growth 2020 GVI None GVI GVI
Debris 2020 GVI None GVI GVI
Scour 2020 GVI None GVI GVI
5-year intervals depending on the application. It was, however, regarded as too prescriptive in some
cases and not sufficient in other cases. These calendar-based inspections found a certain number
of anomalies but little damage or deterioration that had a significant impact on the integrity of
these relatively new structures.
This led to a condition-based approach to inspection planning, where the interval between
inspections was determined by the state of the structure identified in previous inspections.
However, it was found to be difficult to prioritise between inspections of the various details due to
the complexity of the structures. As there was a continuing need for the operator to optimise the
inspection process and make it more cost-efficient, the criticality of welded details was introduced
into the condition-based inspection planning in the 1990s. This led to the probabilistic or risk-
based approach, in which inspections were focused on areas of the structure considered to be at the
highest risk of failure, where the meaning of risk in this context is the probability and consequence
of failure of a member, detail or area of a structure. An example of such a high-risk area of the
structure would be a welded detail:
●● which is likely to fail (in terms of a probabilistic fatigue analysis or in terms of a short calculated
fatigue life relative to the design life); and
●● where failure would be critical for the structure (its failure would result in a significant reduc-
tion in the strength or robustness of the structure that would reduce its ability to survive an
extreme loading event without collapse and loss of life).
At the time of writing this book emerging technologies are being introduced, including the use
of robotics in performing inspection together with artificial intelligence and digital twins (see
Chapter 9 for more on emerging technologies). These changes in the approach to inspection plan-
ning are shown in Figure 55.
Risk-based inspection planning is currently the main approach used in the industry. Several
models have been developed, with either a quantitative or qualitative assessment of the probability
and the consequences of failure of a specific component in the structure. However, many uses of
these inspection planning approaches will be somewhere in the middle between quantitative and
qualitative.
An example of a qualitative approach is the use of risk matrices. A risk matrix is produced to
highlight the components with the highest risk scores based on: (1) a qualitative evaluation of the
consequence if this component should fail and (2) the probability of failure for this component.
Based on this risk score the components are prioritised for inspection. An example of a typical 5 ×
5 risk matrix for risk-based inspection planning is shown in Figure 56. Other configurations are
possible and larger matrices are known to be used by the offshore industry to provide a more
refined risk assessment.
Severity levels A–E in Figure 56 are typically determined based on qualitative or quantitative
evaluation of the consequence of failure of the member. Severity level A typically indicates very
low consequence of failure of the member, while severity level E would typically indicate that the
structure would collapse if the member, component or area of the structure should fail. Accumulated
probability would similarly be determined by a qualitative evaluation indicating how likely the
component is to fail. Experience and databases of failure rates are helpful in this qualitative evalu-
ation. However, data on failure rates on structural components is limited and is often difficult to
use in practice. A rigorous structural reliability analysis may be used to determine a more quantita-
tive likelihood of failure, as described below. The major benefit of a risk matrix is its simplicity and
transparency. Further, the risk matrix can be used for any type of anomaly as long as a qualitative
assessment of the consequence and the likelihood of an anomaly can be executed.
Time/Calendar Future
Condition based Risk based
based developments
Time-based intervals Inspection intervals Inspection based on Inspection based on

(e.g. 5 years), based on condition assessment of risk robotics, artificial
prescriptive regulatory and trending (probability and intelligence, digital
practice consequence of twins etc.
degradation)
Figure 55 Approaches to planning offshore structural underwater inspections.
Accumulated Probability
1 2 3 4 5
Rarely Has been Observed Almost Certain
Consequence been observed often certain
observed
People Environment Cost Severity <10–3 10–3 – 10–2 10–2 – 10–1 10–1 – 1 ~1
Level
Multiple Massive Very high E M H H H H
fatalities effect
Single Major effect High D M M H H H
fatality or
permanent
disability
Major Localised Medium C L M M H H
injury effect
Slight Minor effect Low B L L M M H
injury
Superficial Slight effect Negligible A L L L M M
injury
Figure 56 Example of risk matrix for risk-based inspection planning. L indicates low risk, M
indicates medium risk and H indicates high risk.
One of the most useful quantitative approaches is the application of probabilistic structural analysis
(also called structural reliability analysis). The analysis will then typically be based on:
●● a calculation of the probability of a single member or component failure (e.g. through wall deg-
radation or severance) due to one or more degradation mechanisms (e.g. fatigue and corrosion)
at different points in time, combined with
●● an assessment of the likelihood that the structure in the damaged condition will experience total
collapse (e.g. serious leaning or toppling). This is typically assessed by:
–– calculating the probability of system failure for the damaged structure
–– assessment of the remaining capacity of the damaged structure by a non-linear pushover
analysis.
Many types of degradation mechanisms may occur at several different locations, so in prac-
tice a sum of the probabilities of the component failure as a result of all these different deg-
radation mechanisms need to be combined with the probability of system failure in a damaged
condition. The method can be expanded to include the combined probability of multiple
failures, combining these with the calculation of the probability of resulting collapse. An
overview of the background to probabilistic structural analysis and risk-based inspection
planning is given in DNVGL (2019).
Typical inputs to these analyses include a wide range of statistical representations of the
following:
●● long-term distribution of cyclic loading (fatigue);
●● material parameters (yield strength, SN-curve and Paris-Erdogan curve parameters, etc.);
●● material and environment related parameters (corrosion rate, sea water temperature, etc.);
●● system strength, damage capacity, member geometry, fatigue design factor;
●● extreme loading distribution; and
●● probability of detection (PoD) linked to the inspection methods used.
As previously mentioned, the use of drones, robots, artificial intelligence and digital twins are emerg-
ing and this in the near future will most likely change the approach to inspection planning. The future
possibility of autonomous robots that are inspecting and repairing a structure on a permanent basis
could lead to minimal need for inspection planning. However, there are several developments in dam-
age detection and location required as well as the ability to link an autonomous robot to computerised
integrity-management systems. Some progress in this direction has already been made for the integrity
management of bridges, using autonomous robots. Further discussion on such developments is given
in Chapter 9.
6.1.4 Inspection Programme

The inspection programme is the detailed work scope for the offshore execution of a series of
inspections and investigations to be undertaken in a seasonal campaign in accordance with the
long-term inspection plan. This programme should define:
●● selection criteria for appointment of sub-contractor (if necessary);
●● schedules and the sequence of the areas to be inspected;
●● detailed description of inspection method and related procedures (e.g. preparation, calibration,
operational requirements);
●● level of cleaning required;
●● required personnel profiles;
●● reporting requirements and format;
●● approval process for the completion of tasks (e.g. by supervisor and operators site representative);
●● requirements for when anomalies need to be re-inspected with more detailed methods; and
●● safety and other procedures to be followed.
An inspection programme should also have some indication of actions to be taken depending on
the severity of the anomalies found. For example, significant anomalies would usually be reported
directly to the structural integrity management team for their evaluation and possible instruction
for immediate mitigation. All anomalies found and any follow-up actions taken during inspection
should be documented with all records and reports retained.
A typical inspection programme should detail the specification of how to inspect, where to
inspect and what is to be performed during the inspection. The programme would typically include
detailed instructions regarding the inspection method, the degree of cleaning required prior to
inspection and how the inspection is to be deployed. The exact location required for the inspection
needs to be specified, including pictures and sketches.
Inspection results are often described in a report including finding types, finding data, descrip-
tion and comments and documentation of the execution (signature and data). A possible example
of a work sheet for inspection of structures is given in Table 37. In addition, requirements for the
calibration of the inspection tools could be included.
Table 37 Example of a Field Work Sheet for Inspection of a Structural Part.
Field work sheet for inspection of a structural part
Campaign ID Campaign Year 2020

identification number
Reference
Work package ID Work package

Inspection ID Inspection Zone BW
Planned inspection type and deployment: For example, GVI, DVI, CVI or a required NDT method.
How
Deployment will mostly be ROV but could be in special cases divers.

Facility Facility ID Picture or sketch of location for inspection
Inspection specification
Area e.g. hull, e.g. bracing, leg, pile

and group jacket, GBS sleeve, etc. Eddy current
Location
Depth Elevation
Where
Detail ID Brace ID, Weld ID

chord ID, etc.
Position e.g. 1 o’clock
Drawing Drawing ID
Description: Passing along member looking for anomalies, perform CP

measurement, report anode consumption if greater than 50%, report
What
marine growth (max and average).

Additional information In case of an indication of an anomaly removal of marine growth and
performance of a CVI to determine cause and detail is required.
Execution summary Problems (y/n)? Finding (y/n)? Finding no. ______
Execution
Finding location Drawing ID Location ID Addition information
Inspection completion date: Date Inspector name: Inspector name

Company responsible: Company name Inspection method used: GVI, CVI, EC, FMD etc.
Inspection report
Reporter name: Reporter name Deployment method: Diver, ROV, inspector

Anomaly type: Crack, flooding, Anomaly data: Position, clock from/to,
corrosion, dent, bow, penetration, length,
Anomaly detail
thickness & width, depth, dimension,

dimension, loose or height, thickness,
missing, anode displacement, amplitude
condition etc. fouling thickness, etc.
Immediate actions taken Grinding, stop holes Further description and comments:
during inspection: drilled, cleaning of
marine fouling
6.1.5 Integrity Data Management

The optimal management of inspections and eventually (if needed) repair relies on large amounts
of information being collected and stored in order to keep a record of all relevant data about the
structure. These data should include the inspections and repairs performed and relevant historical
and operational documents. The performance of the repairs can be documented by records of sub-
sequent inspections.
A management system for keeping data about a structure is the backbone of structural integrity
management. This should be a system for efficient archival and retrieval of characteristic struc-
tural data, weight and load data, any changes to the configuration of the structure and especially
inspection data, both when anomalies are found and when inspections have revealed that the
structural detail is free of defects. In addition, data about any repair performed is important for
further evaluations and assessments of the structure.
The first and often most important data to be registered in the database is the structure’s charac-
teristic data from design, fabrication and installation. These characteristic data typically for a steel
structure include (API 2014, Standard Norge 2017):
●● original and current operator, use and function;
●● location, water depth, orientation, platform type, number of wells and risers, manning level;
●● design drawings, material specifications, design codes, metocean criteria, deck clearance, weight,
loading and equipment arrangement, foundation and soil data and other relevant design data;
●● fabrication (as-built) drawings, fabrication and welding specifications, material documents (mill
certificates and material traceability) and other fabrication data; and
●● transportation records, installation specification and records, soil data, pile and conductor driv-
ing records, as-installed configuration summary, damage and anomalies, mooring lines and
anchor arrangement, inclining test results, grouting records and other relevant installation data.
The data collected during inspections and investigations in operation is often seen as changes to
these characteristic data. Such data typically includes (API 2014, Standard Norge 2017):
●● platform history (experienced loading, incidents and events, operation, performance, surveys,
repairs and modifications);
●● present condition and configuration
–– in-service inspection data (images, videos, reports)
–– present physical survey reports including degree of tilt (level), configuration measurements
(distances), as is deck clearance, layout, draught, subsidence, bathymetry, as-is weight, etc.;
●● present metocean, load and design specifications,
●● anomaly register and anomaly mitigation register (severity, confirmation of implemented
measures);
●● evaluation data;
●● strengthening, modification and repair (SMR) data;
●● corrosion protection and monitoring data; and
●● structural monitoring data.
A database with data on changes and anomalies from all past inspections will provide insight
into the evolving history of these changes and anomalies, which are very relevant to the develop-
ment of regular inspection plans. Hence, data should be stored in such a way as to aid trend spot-
ting where possible. This is of particular value for inspection data which can be used to establish
trends between consecutive inspections and between assets.
In addition, data about the structural integrity management process is normally kept as part of
the integrity data and includes the basis for surveillance programmes (such as RBI data) and the
as-is analysis models.
These data are in more recent years normally kept in a computerised data management system.
However, whatever archive system is used, the aim is that data can be retrieved in a timely manner
for as long as the structure is in use.
As mentioned above, structural data can be arranged in many possible ways as long as the aim
of easy storage, retrieval and trending is met. One organised option is shown in Figure 57 where
the flow of information from the as-built state to the as-is condition is illustrated with respect to
the main structural integrity topics such as the design regime, the condition and configuration of
the structure and loads on the structure.
The generic information as shown in Figure 57 should include what is needed on a daily basis
and in emergency response situations. What a structural integrity engineer will need in an emer-
gency situation will depend on how responsibilities are divided in the particular organisation in
such situations. Often organisations seek to organise themselves with the same responsibilities in
emergency situations as in daily operations. An example list of generic information is given in the
left-hand side of Table 38.
Independently on how the database is organized, it should include a clear indication of where
the inspections are to be performed, the finding location and where for example the weight has
changed. It is beneficial if all these databases are based on the same location hierarchy (see Table 38
right-hand side for an example).
The purpose of a change register as shown in Figure 57 is to communicate significant anomalies
to evaluation and assessment engineers, provide anomalies with a severity status and check off find-
ings when compensating measures have been implemented. The as-is integrity of the structure is in
most regulations required to be demonstrated for design situations such as the 100-year wave based
on a structural analysis model reflecting the as-is situation. However, many changes may be evalu-
ated as insignificant on their own but may be relevant when seen in combination with other
Structural integrity data management system
Generic information
Design regime Condition Configuration Loads

Regulation Material properties Layout and geometry Design operating,
Standards and records Permanent weight metocean and
As-built information
Specifications Dimensions Position, water dept, accidental loads
Procedures Coating orientation
Compliance Inspection, mitigations Inspection, mitigations Load monitoring and

Surveillance program
management and modifications and modifications inspection
Regulatory changes Inspection data Layout changes Revised operating,

Performance standard (cracks, corrosion, Weight changes metocean and
changes damage, etc.) Equipment changes accidental loads
In-service changes Updated design Structural repair Tilt and position Measured marine
specifications Modifications changes growth
Monitoring data Scour Revised visiting
Accidental events Subsidence vessel sizes
Change register
As-is assurance analysis models and reports
Figure 57 Structural integrity data management system with examples of content.

Table 38 Important Structural Integrity Management Data.
Database structure for inspection and surveillance

Generic information for daily use and for use in programme and results, as-is weight control, change
emergency response—examples register and analysis models and reports
Facility data including use and function, manning Typical heading in a database for major structures
level, location, water depth, orientation, may include:
coordinates, marine system function, structure ●● sub-structure (jacket, semi-submersible, GBS etc.);
type and main dimensions, design life, number of ●● topsides support frames;
wells and risers, other site-specific information
●● modules;

●● bridges;
Platform history including operational history,
●● flares;
accidental events and damage, anomaly reports,
repairs and modifications ●● helidecks;
●● crane pedestals; and
Present condition and configuration ●● templates.
Major structures are often further broken down to

Soil data including geotechnical information, soil components (e.g. members and joints) so that
type and characteristic values, laboratory tests of locations can be specified in the surveillance tasks
samples, pile driving data, pile size anchor and findings can be registered at the same location
configuration and type, anchor holding data
In addition, the inventory includes access structures,
crane utility, bolts and bolted connections, clamps,
caissons, conductors
Load points and anodes are often included in the
database as separate categories for creating statistics
and trends in inspection findings and repair needs
changes, especially when the individual effects combine synergistically. The change register can be
used to give an overview of these changes not yet included in the analysis model but to be included
in the model at a later date.
An as-is assurance analysis model and report overview as shown in Figure 57, containing the included
changes, should be established and kept up-to date for all high-consequence structures.
An integrated integrity management database containing all of the above-mentioned databases has
the advantage of providing a hierarchy of information relating to both process execution and technical
integrity. Such a database should also include key performance indicator (KPI) functionality.
Several computerised systems for structural integrity data management exist which include
many of the above-mentioned requirements. One example is the DNV GL ShipManager Hull. This
is claimed to be an advanced hull integrity management software available for use in maintenance
strategy, planning, inspections, hull surveys, assessments and documentation. The software pro-
vides a planned maintenance system for hull structures and improving inspection strategy with
risk-based ratings of findings related to the hull integrity. The ShipManager Hull software provides
control of the maintenance level of vessels, while also providing documentation to customers,
stakeholders and authorities. The software also includes equipment such as anodes, pipes, valves
and ladders. Hull integrity findings and monitoring covered in the software include:
●● coating condition;
●● cracks;
●● indents/deformation; and
●● buckling and corrosion.
6.1.6 Key Performance Indicators

Key performance indicators (KPIs) are widely used to measure performance against targets,
whether these be technical, environmental or financial. Sharp et al. (2008 and 2015) described the
background to developing KPIs for offshore structural integrity, relating to aspects which are
important for both safety and asset condition. This was achieved based on a hazard approach,
which included extreme weather, fatigue, corrosion and accidental damage. It is important that
KPIs are measurable and this aspect was incorporated in their development. KPIs can be used to
provide a basis for measuring structural performance, particularly for ageing installations where a
case for life extension needs to be made. This basis can also be incorporated into structural integ-
rity management programmes enabling the performance of this management to be monitored.
This applies particularly to inspections, but repairs are not generally addressed.
It is important to note that eight of the 24 indicators developed for steel structures in Sharp et al.
(2008) depend on data from recent in-service inspections (in many cases from more detailed
inspections than are normally carried out). A further two are based on data from the inspection
data management programme or from performance trials of inspection methods. It is important to
note that three of the five KPIs associated with fatigue and all four of those related to corrosion are
dependent on inspection. The remaining ten KPIs were developed from assessment of the design
requirements but using up-to-date design standards.
A typical example of such a KPI is the number of cracks observed during an inspection. A fur-
ther two are based on data from the inspection data management programme or from performance
trials of inspection methods. An example of this type of KPI is a measure of the quality of inspec-
tion method used (e.g. by its probability of detecting cracks).
Key performance indicators have also been developed for offshore concrete structures. Many of
these depend on original design requirements, but several others rely on inspection for detection
and repair of any damage if severe.
The KPI methodology was later extended by Sharp et al. (2015) to floating installations. A further
15 KPIs were seen to be relevant to mobile installations. Ten of these were dependent on data from
inspections for their basis.
6.2 Previous Studies on Long-Term Planning of Inspections

As mentioned earlier in Section 3.3.3 the US Mineral Management Services (MMS) undertook the
AIM (assessment, inspection and maintenance) project to provide guidance on managing the
integrity of existing fixed steel platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. The project was carried out in four
phases by PMB Engineering Group as a Joint Industry Project (PMB 1987, 1988 and 1990).
Phase IV of the programme (PMB 1990) had two components. The first considered the accuracy
of the results from the ultimate strength analyses compared with the actual response from a struc-
ture. The second task addressed particularly inspection as part of the processes within the AIM
programme which is the most important aspect for this book. This task involved outlining three
levels of inspection for both old and new structures, as well as collecting and categorising inspec-
tion data from the participants in the JIP. The intent of this part was to provide operators with a
usable approach for defining specific inspection programmes. The database for this part of the pro-
ject would be the failure database, current inspection procedures and survey data to develop rational
inspection programmes.
Initial conclusions regarding the current practice at that time were:

●● routine inspection plans generally met the API RP2A 18th edition requirements;
●● node cleaning for inspection purposes generally exceeded that specified; and
●● several operators considered that addition of a baseline survey after platform installation was
beneficial even though this was not specified by the API RP2A 18th edition.
Regarding the inspection methods used, visual inspection dominated, with some FMD and CP
tests. The analysis showed that visual inspection was the most effective in determining the exist-
ence of significant damage. The conclusion was that priority should be given to visual inspection
rather than the more expensive methods of NDE such as UT and MPI.
Damage locations were reviewed with damage to braces as 65% of the instances reported, 20%
for joints and a small number of cases where damage was at legs or conductors. Repairs and modi-
fications were undertaken in 23 cases of those analysed, with no repair for 13 cases in the study.
There is minimal information in the report on the types of repair used.
Most operators found damage through routine inspections rather than by random processes. It
was also concluded that the level III inspection (see Section 2.3.2) was not a substitute for the need
to carry out a level II inspection even if they were scheduled at the same time. Inspection require-
ments for the level III inspection relied on the input of engineering analyses. Cost-benefit analyses
were also undertaken which showed a wide range of costs depending on the assumptions made.

Planning Report
An important deliverable from the MSL JIP (MSL 2000), which was undertaken 10 years after the
AIM projects described in 6.2.1, was a set of updated in-service inspection guidelines. These were
at the time only available for use by JIP participants, as a key part of their structural integrity man-
agement system. This would enable them to plan inspections and define the intervals for their Gulf
of Mexico platforms. These guidelines later provided useful input to the development of ISO 19902
clause 24.
The long-term inspection programme (called inspection strategy in this JIP report) was devel-
oped through an assessment and evaluation of all available inspection, damage and repair data.
The guidelines also addressed other issues such as regulatory and operator requirements, platform
decommissioning plans and planning of managing incidents. In addition, the availability of inspec-
tion techniques (application and reliability) and the flexibility of scheduling was also considered.
The collation of data on inspection from the participants’ platforms in the GoM was a major con-
tributor to the development of the long-term inspection programme. For the development of
inspection guidelines for a particular structure, an important input was taking into account the
likelihood of platform failure. This included such aspects as robustness and damage tolerance,
original design criteria and damage susceptibility.
The guidelines were developed to be consistent with the principles within the existing API
RP-2A recommendations and were used in the development in the emerging ISO 19902 (ISO 2007).
The findings of the JIP supported the existing industry position stated in API RP-2A (API 2014a)
that the appropriate use of FMD provides an acceptable alternative to CVI examination and could
sometimes be preferable.
The guidelines included the recognised types of surveys such as baseline, periodic and special
with similar definitions to those in API RP-2A (API 2014a) and ISO 19902 (ISO 2007). The require-
ments for underwater surveys included GVI for general platform examination, FMD to identify
Table 39 Inspection Requirements for Structures of Different Risk Level.
Inspection requirement
Defect and anomaly surveys II III IV
General visual X X X
Anode X X X
FMD Part survey Part survey
Visual corrosion If CP readings are high X
Weld and joint X
CP Part survey X
Debris X X X
Scour If seabed is loose sand or instability is known or suspected
Marine growth X
flooded members, CVI of welded joints, CP and anode surveys, visual checks of corrosion, debris,
scour and marine growth.
For the periodic inspections, the guidelines introduced a risk-type matrix showing three catego-
ries (II, III and IV in increasing risk levels) of platforms based on the following criteria:
●● the susceptibility to mechanical damage by an importance categorisation (high, medium and
low); and
●● platform vintage in terms of API practice used for design.
For the early pre-RP-2A platforms corrosion and CP history and deck elevations were further
used to set inspection levels. The matrix showed three levels of inspections as shown in Table 39
with details of surveys for defects and anomalies. The inspection intervals recommended were 3–5
years for high-risk level structures designed pre-RP-2A, 5–10 years for early RP-2A designed plat-
forms and 10 years for more modern structures. Longer intervals were indicated for structures with
a lower risk level.
The guidelines developed as part of the JIP identified where to target inspections on different
categories of platforms with the aim of optimising inspection resources without compromising
safety. For inspection intervals the JIP demonstrated that the default 5-year inspection intervals
were unnecessary for certain categories of structures, provided an appropriate structural integrity
management process was maintained. The JIP indicated, as noted above, that these intervals could
be extended to 10 years and longer without compromising safety. The JIP also identified differ-
ences in the susceptibility to damage of different platforms which led to a replacement of the previ-
ous categorisation of structures to the new levels II, III and IV described above.
6.2.3 HSE Study on the Effects of Local Joint Flexibility

HSE in 2001 initiated a study by MSL Engineering Ltd on the effects of local joint flexibility on the
reliability of fatigue life estimates and inspection planning (HSE 2001) on fixed offshore structures.
The review indicated that the fatigue-life predictions taking into account joint flexibility increased
compared to at the time conventional rigid-joint analysis. The corrections to the calculated life
depended on the location of the joint within the structure (the ratio of the life calculated using
flexible joint modelling to the life calculated using a rigid-joint model). The average ratio on life for
each of the framing components considered was:
●● transverse frames (A to F): 19.3 factor on fatigue life;
●● longitudinal frames (1 &2): 9.2 factor on fatigue life; and
●● horizontal framing (–24’ elev.): 8.0 factor on fatigue life.
The impact on platform underwater inspection planning was that the implementation of local
joint flexibility in the fatigue analysis reduces the requirement for underwater inspection by
approximately 75%, depending on the member importance. It should be noted that at present joint
flexibility is regularly included in fatigue analysis and inspection planning.
6.2.4 HSE Ageing Plant Report

The HSE report (Wintle et al. 2006) is a landmark report in the field of ageing of different types
of plants and indicated the relevance of the ageing and condition of the plant for the inspec-
tion plan.
It includes a “bathtub curve” which identifies four stages of equipment life; see Figure 3. The
four stages relate to the amount of accumulated damage, the rate of expected degradation and the
margins before fitness-for-service is compromised. These may correlate to the age of the equip-
ment and it would be expected that equipment moves progressively from stage 1 to stage 4 as it gets
older. The four stages are defined together with the relevant inspection needs (Wintle et al. 2006)
are described in Table 40.
6.2.5 Studies on Risk-Based and Probabilistic Inspection Planning

The development of probabilistic analysis of structures (often called structural reliability theory)
and its application for offshore structures took place in several JIPs from the 1970s. In the US, JIPs
were initiated in 1974 (Moses 1975, Stahl 1975). This was taken further in the Stanford University
RMS project that was completed in 1988 (Bjerager and Cornell 1988).
One of the earliest European projects were undertaken by CIRIA (1976) in the UK. Later in 1984
DNV in Norway started the Reliability of Marine structures project which developed significant
theoretical background in probabilistic analysis but also developed computer programs for proba-
bilistic analysis (PROBAN) and probabilistic inspection planning (PROFAST). In this project the
basis for probabilistic crack growth analysis based on fracture mechanics was established in addi-
tion to the concept of probability of detection curves. The basis for probabilistic inspection plan-
ning based on structural reliability theory was established early in the 1980s in a JIP led by DNV
(Sletten et al. 1982). Updating of fatigue failure probabilities based on events was presented by
Madsen (1985), Madsen et al. (1986) and Madsen et al. (1987). Probabilistic inspection planning
has since to a large extent been based on this methodology.
Several engineering houses developed the necessary software tools for performing probabilistic
inspection planning. Aker Engineering is one notable example of this with their PIA (Probabilistic
Inspection Analysis) program (Aker Engineering 1990).
In the 1990s DNV undertook a new JIP to develop guidelines for offshore structural reliability
analysis (DNV 1996). This project reviewed the use of structural reliability theory for general use
including probabilistic design of structures but also included elements of probabilistic inspection
planning.
Table 40 The Phases of the Bathtub Curve and Inspections Needs.
Stage Description Inspection needs
After installation there may be a relatively higher Baseline inspection is normally required
rate of damage and issues requiring attention as within the first years of operation to reveal
1 Initial
inherent weakness or faults are revealed. faults arising from shortcomings in the
material selection, design, fabrication and
installation or from early operational errors.
The nature of this inspection is confirmatory.
In the ‘Maturity’ stage the structures should be Inspections in this phase are primarily to
predictable, reliable and assumed to have a low confirm the continuing integrity of the
2 Maturity
and relatively stable damage rate with few issues structure. Inspection intervals may be
requiring attention. In this stage most of the initial extended based on performance or a
(unexpected) integrity issues should have been risk-informed analysis of degradation, failure
dealt with and the equipment should be in its most likelihood and consequences. The nature of
stable operating regime. this inspection is assurance.
By this stage the structure is likely to have Inspection in this phase should be proactive
accumulated some damage, the rate of and is likely to reveal an increasing number
degradation is increasing and signs of damage are of defects; the prime objective is to detect the
starting to appear. It becomes more important to onset and rate of damage, determine its
3 Ageing
determine quantitatively the extent and rate of extent and determine the current condition
damage and to make an estimate of remaining life. quantitatively. A more deterministic
Design margins may be eroded and the emphasis approach to inspection is appropriate,
shifts towards fitness-for-service and remnant life possibly leading to increased levels of
assessment of specific damaged areas. inspection. The nature of this inspection is
quantitative.
The rate of degradation in this phase is likely to For inspection in this final stage, the main
become increasingly rapid and is not easy to emphasis should be guaranteeing adequate
predict. As the accumulated damage becomes safety between inspections while keeping the
increasingly severe, structures will ultimately need structure in service. Structural integrity can
to be either repaired or decommissioned. be managed through making more use of
on-line monitoring of the damaged areas, by
4 Terminal
frequent NDT to monitor the damage and

anomalies and repairing these if they become
unacceptable. Reliance, therefore, should be
placed on inspection data to justify continued
operation. Inspection and monitoring are
likely to be much more frequent and the
accuracy of measurement is even more
important. The objective of this inspection is
to provide the necessary warning signs of
potential structural failure.
HSE undertook a significant review of the use of probabilistic methods in a project undertaken
by the Norwegian Technical University (NTNU) and Aker Engineering. This project resulted in the
following reports:
●● HSE OTO 99 061 (HSE 2002a) gave a review of the theory behind probabilistic inspection
planning;
●● HSE OTO 99 060 (HSE 2002b) gave a review of the acceptable target probability levels to be used
in inspection planning; and
●● HSE OTO 99 059 (HSE 2002c) provided a validation of inspection planning methods comparing
in-service fatigue performance and the corresponding theoretical predictions, which resulted in
recommendations regarding enhancements to existing analytical methods. The theoretical pre-
dictions were found to be conservative, predicting 4 to 10 times as many fatigue cracks as
observed. However, it was also found that approximately 40% of the observed fatigue cracks were
not identified by the fatigue analysis. Fatigue cracks were detected for 15% of the scheduled
inspections and in the order of 2% for component normally not scheduled for inspection by the
probabilistic inspection planning methods. As a result, the review recommended the need to
include some random locations beyond those identified by the fatigue analysis to be inspected.
The review also gave some recommendations on improvement of the general probabilistic
inspection planning method, primarily related to calibration to experienced cracking on real
structures.
It is possible to establish generic pre-prepared inspection plans based on this type of probabilistic
methods as described in Faber et al. (2000), Straub (2004), Faber et al. (2005) and Sørensen et al.
(2005). These generic inspection plans for different joint types are based on the following parameters:
●● calculated fatigue life of detail;
●● long-term stress range distribution;
●● type of detail (SN-curve);
●● fatigue strength measured by the design fatigue factor (DFF);
●● strength of a structure, for example, measured by the residual strength ratio (RSR) typically
obtained by a non-linear structural analysis;
●● importance of the considered detail or member measured by, for example, the residual influence
RSR
factor (RIF), which is a measure of the importance of a member as RIF where RSR is the
DSR
collapse capacity divided by design capacity for an intact structure and DSR is the collapse capac-
ity divided by the design capacity for a structure damaged by a fatigue failure;
●● member geometry; and
●● inspection, repair and failure cost.
The inspection intervals, the necessary inspection quality and the criteria for when to repair can
be determined and optimised with respect to inspection, repair and failure cost (Faber et al. 2005,
Straub 2004). The inspection plan is generic as it is a function of the above-mentioned parameters
(such as SN-curve, FDF, RSR).
Based on the determined DFF it is possible to establish the corresponding annual probabilities
of failure for a specific year. For the joints to be considered in an inspection plan, the acceptance
criteria for the annual probability of fatigue failure may be assessed through the damaged strength
ratio (DSR) together with the annual probability of fatigue failure. The importance of a joint or
member can, as mentioned above, be described by the residual influence factor (RIF) and the rela-
tion between the RIF value for the specific member on a specific platform and the annual collapse
probability.
The intervals between planned inspections based on probabilistic methods have a tendency to
increase as structures age if no cracks are found (see Figure 58 and Figure 59). This is seen as con-
tradictory to the common understanding that fatigue cracks will become increasingly likely with
age and older structures will require more frequent inspections.
In order to establish an improved understanding of probabilistic inspection planning of older
structures, the Petroleum Safety Authority (PSA) in Norway initiated a review of possible improve-
ments to the method. The work was reported in PSA (2007), Sørensen and Ersdal (2008a) and
Figure 58 Inspection intervals in years for a sample 10

structure (PSA 2007).
Inspection intervals
8
6
4
2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Sequence of inspections
RIF = 0.2
Figure 59 Inspection intervals in years up to 50 years for 60

varying RIF values (PSA 2007).
50
Year of inspection
40
30
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Sequence of inspections
RIF = 0.2 RIF = 0.4
RIF = 0.5 RIF = 0.6
Sørensen and Ersdal (2008b). The following observations were considered for a modified method
for probabilistic inspection planning for older installations:
●● For an ageing platform, several small cracks are expected to be observed implying an increased likeli-
hood of crack initiation and growth. This was included in the review by increasing the expected value
of initial crack size with time due to coalescence of smaller cracks.
●● For older platforms, there may be a large number of critical details (possibly with correlated
loading, fabrication and fatigue life) that have reached their design fatigue life. The simplified
methods normally used in probabilistic inspection planning evaluate the failure of only one
member or joint. System effects where several members or joints are failing more or less simul-
taneously were included in the review.
The most promising method as reported in this review consisted in increasing the rate of defects
(crack initiation) at the end of the expected life corresponding to the final stages of the bathtub
(ageing and terminal). This approach was shown to imply that inspection intervals decreased at
the end of the platform’s life, which were more in line with expectations.
The review further discussed methods for establishing an acceptable annual probability of
fatigue failure for a particular component depending on the number of fatigue critical compo-
nents. The acceptable annual probability of fatigue failure of a component was obtained by con-
sidering the importance of the component through the conditional probability of its failure.
Given this acceptable failure probability, the RIF value and the number of fatigue critical com-
ponents, the maximum acceptable component annual probability of fatigue failure was calcu-
lated using a simple upper bound of the probability of failure.
In 2011 DNV (later to become DNVGL) initiated a JIP to standardise the methodology for risk-
based inspection planning which resulted in the recommended practice DNVGL RP-C210
(DNVGL 2019) for inspection planning of fatigue cracks in jacket structures, semi-submersibles
and floating production vessels. The recommended practice also provides guidelines for the fatigue
analysis needed and gives recommendations for probability of detection curves. This recom-
mended practice is at this time considered to be the industry standard for risk-based inspection
planning for offshore structures.
6.2.6 EI Guide to Risk-Based Inspection Planning

The Energy Institute (EI 2020) is at the time of writing this book in the process of publishing a
guidance document on risk-based inspection planning for fixed offshore steel structures. This
guide provides an alternative and more qualitative description of the RBI process to that of DNVGL
RP-C210 (DNVGL 2019) and links RBI more strongly within the context of SIM as it is rooted in
industrial practice.
This review provides some useful material and defines inspection as “to determine the physical
condition of a structure and the existence and extent of any damage, degradation or defects”.
Further, the review defines the objective of inspection as “to provide condition data that can be
used with other data to confirm that structural integrity is maintained throughout the service life
such that damage and degradation mechanisms do not reach an extent that would impair the
resistance to defined loading events”. This objective is stated to be achieved by providing informa-
tion about the current extent of damage (known, anticipated and rate) and safety critical areas of
the structure whose condition is unknown or uncertain (need for more knowledge and reducing
uncertainty). A risk-based inspection plan should result in an overview of what, when, where and
how to inspect based on the likelihood and the consequences of damage in order to provide a level
of surveillance that ensures structural integrity against defined loading events.
The review provides an extensive overview of the risk-based inspection planning approach and
provides guidance on determining likelihood and consequence of failure, which are often an area
of debate and uncertainty. The likelihood of failure is described by the utilisation ratio (strength
and buckling), the fatigue damage ratio (FDR) and the likelihood or extent of corrosion. The con-
sequences of failure are to some extent linked to the redundancy of the structure but are also
linked to the safety of personnel, environment, financial impact and operator’s reputation. The
guide also contains an example of a risk-based inspection plan for a typical fixed structure together
with case studies. The core processes outlined in this guide for structural integrity management
are illustrated in Figure 60.
6.3 Summary on Inspection Planning and Programme
6.3.1 Introduction
Inspection is an activity that is important in maintaining the safety of structures in operation,
both in reducing uncertainty about their current state and detecting any defects. If defects are
found, further inspections, evaluations and analysis are usually necessary to determine the
severity of a defect and its effect on structural integrity. In order to achieve the objectives of
inspection at a reasonable cost, a detailed inspection plan is needed.
Risk- and probability-informed inspection plans are at present the preferred approach in the indus-
try and are often claimed to be economic. However, calendar-based inspection plans are also still in
use and are often found in both standards for fixed and floating platforms and for classed units.
Component summary sheet

Likelihood of component failure based
on age, experienced damage, repairs,
Historic data Assessment HAZID presence of significant defects,
DFI Updated structural Identification of availability of design calculations and
Inspection data analysis (ULS, ALS, potential anomalies, inspections undertaken
Repairs and incidents FLS and SLS) failure modes and
anomalies
consequences
Evaluate
Consequence of component failure

based on redundancy, potential
implications of failure for personnel
Creation of a component summary sheet
and the environment
Development of a draft inspection plan

inspection plan
Risk assessment
Execute
Risk assessment Likelihood of component failure based

on utilisation ratio (high: UR>0.85, low:
UR<0.6), fatigue damage ratio (high:
FDR>0.5, low: FDR<0.1) and corrosion
Agreed inspection plan for implementation in high, medium and low
likelihood/extent
Consequence of component failure

based on effect on personnel,
environment, financial and corporate
reputation.
Figure 60 The RBI process, based on EI (2020).
6.3.2 Fixed Steel Platforms

For fixed steel platforms the primary inspection methods are FMD, GVI and CVI. If anomalies are
seen in these types of inspection, NDT inspections to verify the extent of the damage may be neces-
sary. An increasing amount of risk or probability-informed inspection planning is used. However,
as previously mentioned, calendar-based programs are still used by operators and found in
standards.
In the absence of a platform specific in-service long-term inspection plan, standards can often
provide a default inspection plan. Example of such plans were included in the previous version of
ISO 19902 (ISO 2007) and to some extent transferred to the newer ISO 19901-9 (ISO 2019), as
shown in Chapter 2. Reduced inspection than that provided in such default plans is often required
to be justified by proper analysis. In ISO 19902 and ISO 19901-9 it is noted that additional inspec-
tion may be needed to meet statutory requirements or owner’s policy and that the standard does
not guarantee fitness-for-purpose by this default inspection plan.
In these standards the annual level I inspection typically contains below water verification of the
performance of the cathodic protection system (at least one leg) and a general examination with-
out marine growth cleaning of all structural members in the splash zone and above water. A gen-
eral examination may include a visual survey to determine the effectiveness of the corrosion
protection system, deterioration of coating systems, excessive corrosion, bent, missing, or damaged
members, indications of obvious overloading, design deficiencies and any use which is inconsist-
ent with the structure’s original purpose. In addition, it is recommended to perform marine growth
measurements, estimate the approximate percent depletion of all the anodes and a visual survey of
the state of the anodes and reference electrodes. If the level I inspection indicates that underwater
damage is possible, a level II inspection should be conducted as soon as conditions permit.
A level II inspection (3–5 years) typically includes a general underwater visual inspection to
detect the presence of excessive corrosion, effects of accidental or environmental overloading, scour,
sea floor instability, damage detectable in a visual swim-round survey, design or construction defi-
ciencies, presence of debris and excessive marine growth. In addition, the cathodic potentials of
pre-selected critical areas should be measured. Detection of significant structural damage during an
inspection will initiate a level III inspection to be conducted as soon as conditions permit.
Further, a level III inspection (6–10 years) typically includes underwater cleaning and close vis-
ual inspection (CVI) of pre-selected areas based on an engineering evaluation and areas of known
or suspected damage. This should include 20 primary members or 5% of the full structure. Flooded
member detection (FMD) of at least 50% of primary structural members can provide an acceptable
alternative to CVI of pre-selected areas where the structural form and sites of potential damage
would lead to flooding. In addition, close visual inspection of pre-selected areas for corrosion mon-
itoring is normally required.
When required, based on results from a level III inspection, a level IV inspection is normally
required including underwater NDT of areas and measurement of damage with its extent as
determined by the level III inspection or from known or suspected damage. The required
marine growth should be cleaned to allow for detailed inspection. The inspection should
include 100% of each weld length.
A special inspection may be required involving visual inspection with marine growth cleaning as
necessary to assess the performance of prior repairs approximately 1 year after completion of the
repair. A special inspection also includes the monitoring of known defects, damage or other anom-
aly that could potentially affect the fitness-for-purpose.
Unscheduled inspections are performed after the occurrence of an environmental or accidental
event. These should include a visual inspection of the whole structure from sea floor to the top of
the structure without marine growth cleaning and visual confirmation of the existence of the cor-
rosion protection system with the intent to detect damage and indirect signs of damage. Inspections
after accidental events should determine the total extent of any damage and provide information
for implementation of mitigation measures such as repairs and down-manning, if required.
6.3.3 Floating Steel Structures

Floating structures include a number of structural and marine systems that are different from fixed
structures. The safety-critical elements are the systems which control bilge and ballast, the water-
tight integrity, the weight control, stability monitoring and station keeping. The watertight integ-
rity includes watertight doors and hatches, seals, valves, pumps, dampers. Failure in any of these
components can lead to loss of watertight integrity and possible loss of stability and buoyancy.
Hence, this introduces a need for very different types of inspection, as well as a different way of
thinking about integrity management in general. In addition, the structural elements of a floating
structure are quite different in geometry and form (as they are primarily shell structures, whereas
fixed structures are often made of beams and tubular joints).
A significant amount of the inspection tasks for a floating structure can be performed from
inside the hull and are as such not part of this book. The underwater inspection tasks on floating
structures typically include:
●● inspection of the hull outer skin;
●● inspection of seawater intakes and outlets; and
●● inspection of mooring chains.
Many floating offshore structures in oil and gas production have a class certificate which is pro-
vided by one of the leading Classification Societies, such as DNVGL and Lloyds Register. The
inspection plans for floating structures have been a key part of the class system and regulation,
which has been developed over many years of experience by owners and class societies. These have
traditionally been based on a calendar-based system of inspection and typically require a dockside
inspection every 5th year. Dockside inspection provides the opportunity for improved access and
repair facilities. However, lately risk- and probability-informed methods for developing inspection
plans for classed units have been increasingly used and accepted by class societies.
Floating offshore structures used in oil and gas production often stay on location for longer peri-
ods and the opportunity for regular dockside inspection is hence not available. The fact that they
are permanently stationed offshore places a more onerous requirement on the inspection of these
floating structures, for which there is less experience. This lack of experience could be significant
for older floating offshore structures and could require a more stringent inspection approach as
there is an increased likelihood of deterioration being accumulated so that widespread deteriora-
tion becomes more likely.
Several standards have recently been developed to guide the operators of floating facilities in
their integrity management including inspection, such as ISO 19904-1 section 18 (ISO 2006),
NORSOK N-005 appendices F, G, H and I (Standard Norge 2017) and API-RP-2FSIM (API 2019a),
which all follow inspection procedures similar to that of fixed offshore structures. In addition,
there is an API-RP-2MIM (API 2019b) which is also highly relevant for the inspection of mooring
lines. With regard to the increased likelihood of deterioration for older structures it should be men-
tioned that the draft API-RP-2FSIM (API 2019a) includes a separate annex specific to life extension
which gives guidance specifically on the life extension assessment process.
API-RP-2I (API 2015) and NORSOK N-005 (Standard Norge 2017) recommends inspection
intervals for chain mooring systems for floating structures. As mentioned earlier, the maximum
interval between major inspections in API-RP-2I is linked to the age of the chain in years. For rela-
tively new chains (i.e. 0–3 years) the recommended interval is 3 years; for slightly older chains
(4–10 years) it is 2 years and for chains older than 10 years, the interval is reduced to only 8 months.
This short interval is very demanding and costly and hence chains are normally replaced before
they reach the 10-year criterion. Inspection of mooring systems can be undertaken visually by an
ROV, but this has significant limitations. A more detailed inspection, e.g. by MPI, requires removal
of the mooring and dockside inspection with significant cost and operational implications.
6.3.4 Concrete Platforms

The strategies for long term inspection planning (section 6.1.3) also apply in general to concrete
structures. Inspection planning should focus on verification of the condition of the structural com-
ponents so that structural integrity can be verified. However, concrete structures are more damage
tolerant than steel structures, which affects the planning of inspections.
Failure of concrete structures is more often related to corrosion of the steel reinforcement and
less to fatigue damage. Especially the splash zone is vulnerable to corrosion. However, failure due
to corrosion below the waterline is minimised by the presence of anodes. Hence, large areas of a
concrete structure such as cell walls and shaft walls below water have a relatively low probability
of corrosion damage.
NORSOK N-005 section 2.5.4 (Standard Norge 2017) states that special attention should be given
to areas of major importance for the structural integrity. Particularly the atmospheric and splash
zones have the highest likelihood of deterioration. Areas of major importance are listed as:
●● splash zone;
●● construction joints, penetrations, embedments;
●● complex connections such as wall-dome connections, cell-wall joints, columns-to-caisson con-

nections; and
●● load-bearing areas in the top of shafts.
NORSOK N-005 (Standard Norge 2017) outlines the general inspection requirements and notes that
for inspection planning the potential failure mechanisms should be taken into consideration. These
can lead to typical types of failure which include reinforcement corrosion, subsequent cracking,
spalling and delamination, as well as damaged coatings. The standard also states that appropriate
inspection methods should be developed taking into account the likely types of defects and damage
which may develop. Visual inspection (GVI and CVI) is recommended as the dominant inspection
method to be employed. However, it is also required that the cathodic protection potentials are checked
at regular intervals (not specified).
Common practice indicates that the first inspection of concrete structures should be completed
within a period of 3–5 years. Based on information gained during the first inspection, the interval
can be altered.
Similar guidance for inspection planning is provided in ISO 19903 (ISO 2019b) as described in
Section 2.5.2. In general, it seems that standards for integrity management of concrete structures
are less specific on inspection needs and intervals compared to those for steel structures, possibly
due to the expectance that these are more damage tolerant. However, it is unclear why the stand-
ards do not recommend annual checking of cathodic potential similar to that for steel structures.
Section 6.1.3 is partly based on Ersdal et al. (2019). Section 6.1.5 is to a large extent based on private
communication with Michael Hall.
R
eferences
Aker Engineering (1990), PIA Theory Manual, Aker Engineering, Oslo, Norway.
API (2008), API RP-2I In-service Inspection of Mooring Hardware for Floating Structures, Third Edition,
Platforms, API Recommended Practice 2A, 22nd Edition, American Petroleum Institute, 2014.
API (2019a), API RP-2FSIM Floating System Integrity Management, American Petroleum
Institute, 2019.
Bjerager, P. and Cornell, C.A. (1988), “Specification for a Failure-Path Base Structural Reliability
Program”, C.A. Cornell Inc, August 1988.
CIRIA (1976), “Rationalization of Safety and Serviceability Factors in Structural Codes”, Report No. 63,
Construction Industry Research and Information Association, London, UK.
DNV (1996), Guideline for Offshore Structural Reliability Analysis—General, DNV, Høvik, Norway.
DNVGL (2019), DNVGL RP-C210 Probabilistic Methods for Planning of Inspection for Fatigue Cracks in
Offshore Structures, DNVGL, Høvik, Norway.
EI (2020), Guidance on Risk-Based Inspection for Fixed Steel Offshore Structures, Energy Institute,
London, UK.
Faber, M.H., Engelund, S., Sorensen, J.D. and Bloch, A. (2000), “Simplified and Generic Risk Based
Inspection Planning”, Proc. 19th OMAE, Vol. 2.
Faber, M.H., Sørensen, J.D., Tychsen, J. & Straub, D. (2005), “Field Implementation of RBI for Jacket
Structures”, Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Vol. 127, Aug. 2005, pp. 220−226.
HSE (2001), Offshore Technology Report 2001/056: The effects of Local Joint Flexibility on the Reliability
of Fatigue Life Estimates and Inspection Planning, Prepared by MSL Engineering Ltd for the Health
and Safety Executive (HSE), HMSO, London, UK.
HSE (2002a), Offshore Technology Report 1999/061: Review of Probabilistic Inspection Analysis Methods,
Prepared by Aker Offshore Partner A.S for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), HSE Books,
London, UK.
HSE (2002b), Offshore Technology Report 1999/060: Target Levels for Reliability-Based Assessment of
Offshore Structures During Design and Operation, Prepared by Aker Offshore Partner A.S for the
Health and Safety Executive (HSE), HSE Books, London, UK.
HSE (2002c), Offshore Technology Report 1999/059: Validation of Inspection Planning Methods
Summary Report, Prepared by Aker Offshore Partner A.S for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE),
HSE Books, London, UK.
HSE (2006), Plant Ageing—Management of Equipment Containing Hazardous Fluids or Pressure, HSE
RR 509, London, UK.
ISO (1998), ISO 2394:1998 General Principles on the Reliability for Structures, International
Organization for Standardization.
ISO (2006), ISO 19904:2006 Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries—Floating Offshore Structures,
International Organization for Standardization.
ISO (2019), ISO 19901-9 Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries—Specific Requirements for Offshore Structures—
Part 9: Structural Integrity Management, International Organization for Standardization.
ISO (2019b), ISO 19903 Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries—Fixed Concrete Offshore Structures,
Madsen H.O. (1985), “Model Updating in First-Order Reliability Theory with Application to Fatigue
Crack Growth”, In: Proc. of 2nd Int. Workshop on Stochastic Methods in Structural Mechanics,
1985, University of Paris, Paris, France.
Madsen, H.O., Krenk, S., Lind, N.C. (1986), Methods of Structural Safety, Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey, US.
Madsen HO, Skjong R, Kirkemo F. (1987), “Probabilistic Fatigue Analysis of Offshore Structures—
Reliability Updating through Inspection Results”, International Symposium on Integrity of Offshore
Structures (IOS ’87), 3rd, Glasgow, UK.
Moses, F. (1975), “Cooperative Study Project on Probabilistic Methods for Offshore Platforms”,
Technical Report, Amoco Production Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma, US.
MSL (2000), “Rationalization and Optimisation of Underwater Inspection Planning Consistent with
API RP2A Section 14”, Published by MMS, US, as Project Number 345, November 2000.
PMB (1987), “AIM II Assessment Inspection Maintenance”, Published as MMS TAP report 106ak.
PMB (1988), “AIM III Assessment Inspection Maintenance”, Published as MMS TAP report 106ap.
PMB (1990), “AIM IV Assessment Inspection Maintenance”, Published as MMS TAP report 106as.
PSA (2007), “Safety and Inspection Planning of Older Installations”, Prepared by Professor John
Dalsgaard Sørensen for the Petroleum Safety Authority Norway (PSA), Stavanger, Norway.
Sharp, J.V., Ersdal, G. and Galbraith, D. (2008), “Development of Key Performance Indicators for
Offshore Structural Integrity”, Proceedings of the ASME 27th International Conference on Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, OMAE2008-57203, June 15–20, 2008, Estoril, Portugal.
Sharp, J.V., Ersdal, G. and Galbraith, D. (2015), “Meaningful and Leading Structural Integrity KPIs”,
Society of Petroleum Engineers. SPE-175519-MS, SPE Offshore Europe Conference and Exhibition,
Aberdeen, Scotland, UK.
Sletten R., Mjelde K., Fjeld S., Lotsberg I. (1982), “Optimization of Criteria for Design Construction
and In-Service Inspection of Offshore Structures Based on Resource Allocation Techniques”,
EW322, In: EUROPEC’82. European Petroleum Conference, London, UK.
Stahl, B. (1975), “Probabilistic Methods for Offshore Platforms”, In Annual Meeting Papers pp. J1–30,
American Petroleum Institute, Texas, US.
Load-Bearing Structures, Edition1, March 2009, Standard Norge, Lysaker, Norway.
Systems, Edition 2, 2017, Standard Norge, Lysaker, Norway.
Straub D. (2004), “Generic Approaches to Risk Based Inspection Planning of Steel Structures”, PhD
thesis, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, ETH Zurich, Switzerland.
Sørensen, J.D., D. Straub and M.H. Faber (2005), “Generic Reliability-Based Inspection Planning for
Fatigue Sensitive Details—with Modifications of Fatigue Load”, Proc. ICOSSAR’2005, Rome, June
2005, Rome, Italy.
Sørensen, J.D. and Ersdal, G. (2008a), “Risk-Based Inspection of Ageing Structures”, OMAE 2008.
Proceedings of OMAE 2008, the 27th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Artic
Engineering, Estoril, Portugal.
Sørensen, J.D. and Ersdal, G. (2008b), “Safety and Inspection Planning of Older Installations,” Journal
of Risk and Reliability, Vol 222 No O3, September 2008, pp. 403–418.
Wintle, J., Moore, P., Henry, N., Smalley, S. and Amphlett, G. (2006), Plant Ageing—Management of
Equipment Containing Hazardous Fluids or Pressure, Prepared by TWI Ltd, ABB Engineering
Services, SCS (INTL) Ltd and Allianz Cornhill Engineering for the Health and Safety Executive,
Published by HSE books, Sudbury, UK.
187
Evaluation of Damage and Assessment of Structures
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.1

—Bert Lance
Without a standard, there is no logical basis for decision making or taking actions.2
—Joseph M. Juran
7.1 Introduction
When inspection or monitoring has detected damage or anomalies, the structural engineer needs
to make a decision on whether repair or mitigation is needed, or if the structure can be left in its
as-is state for a period of time. Repair and mitigation are costly and repair in itself may introduce
weaknesses and details that are susceptible to new damage and deterioration. As a result, a proper
evaluation of the damage and anomalies and their effect on the component’s strength is needed. In
some cases, also an assessment of the structural system strength including the damaged compo-
nent may be required3.
Evaluation should be performed regularly throughout the life of a platform, often on a 1–5-year
basis, by a qualified structural engineer. The process for evaluation may be illustrated as shown in
Figure 61. The evaluation should consider all relevant recently detected damage and anomalies in
addition to the changes to the platform from the ‘register of findings’ and from similar platforms
where appropriate.
1 Source: Bert Lance, May 1977 issue of the magazine Nation’s Business.
2 Source: Joseph M. Juran, Managerial Breakthrough: The Classic Book on Improving Management Performance,
1955, McGraw-Hill.
3 The difference between what’s called evaluation of a damage and what’s called assessment is in most literature
rather vague. In this book the two are defined as follows:
●● Evaluation is focussing on the damage or anomaly and its significance on the structural component. It involves
primarily engineering judgement and simplified acceptance criteria and mainly without analysis. If analysis is
involved, it is mostly local with respect to the damage, anomaly and the related component rather than an analy-
sis of the complete
●● Assessment includes a global structural analysis including the anomaly or change and its effect on the total
strength of the structure.

Local check if Four levels: Three levels

component has -Basic analysis -Standard
sufficient strength -Refined analysis -Refined
and fatigue life with -Complex analysis -Advanced
damage or anomaly -Advanced analysis
Evaluation Assessment
Trigger (e.g. damage Assessment
-Is the damage or Post-processing
or anomaly) Analysis of structure Register of findings
anomaly significant? and code checks
No
Possible outcome:
-Acceptable as-is
Refined analysis, -Specific inspection
further inspection, -Load reduction
Survey data
load reduction or -Strengthening or
SMR needed? repair
-Change of operational
procedures
Structure fit for further service
Figure 61 Overall evaluation and assessment approach. Source: Based on MSL (2004). Assessment of
repair techniques for ageing or damaged structures. Project #502. MSL Services Corporation, Egham,
Surrey, UK.
As shown in Figure 61, evaluation involves reviewing the impact to the structural component
of any detected damage and anomalies in addition to any changes registered. This typically
includes:
●● determining the cause of the damage and anomaly;

●● comparing identified anomalies with predefined acceptance criteria (e.g. compare corrosion
with corrosion allowances, predefined crack sizes, acceptable loading on decks, member dam-
age versus degree of structural redundancy);
●● evaluating trends in data to identify any historic developments that need to be assessed;
●● deciding whether:
–– further inspections are needed to determine the extent or cause of the anomaly;
–– further inspections on a broader area and on similar components are needed to understand
the extent of the anomalies;
–– further analysis and assessments are needed to determine the need for repair or mitigation; or
–– to repair or mitigate without further assessment (e.g. simple repairs that can be performed by
the diver or ROV on site);
●● demonstrating that structure is fit-for-purpose until the next scheduled inspection and evalua-
tion; and
●● updating inspection plans and programs if needed, including monitoring any damage, anoma-
lies and repairs.
Evaluation needs to include preparation of the necessary documentation for the execution of
corrective actions and mitigations if needed and ensure that information about the damage or
anomaly and possible mitigations are included in the long-term inspection and surveil-
lance plan.
In terms of corrosion control, ISO 19902 (ISO 2007) indicates the following aspects to be consid-
ered in the evaluation:
Evaluation of Damage and Assessment of Structures 189
●● the assumptions and criteria used in design;

●● the details of the system (impressed current or sacrificial anodes) and its past performance;
●● cathodic protection readings from monitoring, compared to design criteria; and
●● state of the anodes from visual inspection (if a sacrificial system is used).
For any fatigue cracks found, the evaluation could include the use of:
●● crack growth rates and remaining life analysis; and
●● failure assessment diagrams (FAD) to determine crack stability.
Evaluation typically includes engineering judgement based on specialist knowledge or opera-
tional experience, simplified (screening) analysis, or reference to research data, detailed analysis of
similar platforms, and so forth. If the evaluation results are unacceptable in terms of not meeting
the criteria, then further analysis (assessment) may be required. Alternatively, mitigation meas-
ures which reduce the likelihood of structural failure need to be implemented as described in the
next section.
Standards such as ISO 19902 (ISO 2007) require that “all available data on the structure or group
of structures shall be evaluated using engineering judgment, operational experience, analysis and
predictive techniques, as appropriate”. Further, such standards will require that an assessment is
performed if the evaluation of the anomalies and changes trigger any of the assessment initiators
provided in the standards.
Risk matrices including appraisal of the consequence of failure of the structural part and the
complete platform may be used to differentiate between the importance of different anomalies and
changes. Probability-informed inspection planning methods (see Section 6.2.5) can be used to give
the right priorities for further inspection, taken into account the anomaly or change. However,
according to ISO 19902 (ISO 2007), such analysis “shall be used with care, due to uncertainties in
the input data and the degree of uncertainty of fatigue predictions”. For further details on assess-
ment, see Ersdal, Sharp and Stacey (2019).
7.2 Previous Studies on Evaluation of Damaged Tubulars
7.2.1 Remaining Fatigue Life of Cracked Tubular Structures

The UK Department of Energy (D.En) and later HSE initiated several significant projects on the
evaluation of damaged tubular structures starting in the 1980s.
OTH 87 259 and OTH 87 278 on Remaining Life of Defective Tubular Joints
Two reports, OTH 87 259 and OTH 87 278, were prepared by the Marine Technology Support
Unit (MaTSU) for the UK D.En. to review the remaining life of tubular joints with fatigue cracks
(Department of Energy 1987a and 1987b). These show that the remaining life of such components
may be assessed from the knowledge of the crack growth so far and the maximum tolerable crack
size. This remaining life can be established either by fracture mechanics analysis or from tests of
similar components under similar simulated operational conditions. At the time these reports
were written, it was considered that the fracture mechanics analyses of complex nodes were lim-
ited and as a result, reliance was given to the use of laboratory fatigue crack growth data.
As a result, the OTH 87 259 (Department of Energy 1987a) report proposed a method to assess a
significant crack identified by inspection based on the data on crack growth from over 100 tests of
fatigue cracks. It is in the review noted that fatigue cracks go through a number of stages in terms
of number of stress cycles:
●● N1: first detectable crack;

●● N2: visually detectable crack;
●● N3: through-thickness crack; and
●● N4: loss of stiffness of the joint or final separation of the member (end of test).
Offshore structures are designed against fatigue failure using S-N curves derived from tests on
tubular joints where failure is normally defined as penetration of wall thickness (N3).
Data on the remaining number of cycles after a detectable crack to a through-thickness crack will
provide insight into the remaining fatigue life of a significantly cracked joint and was the focus of
this review as shown in Figure 62. Data on remaining fatigue cracks of length 0.5 times the thick-
ness, 2 times the thickness and 4 times the thickness were studied. Cracks of the length of 0.5 times
the thickness were assumed to be the shortest crack lengths that could be identified (with typical
thicknesses at the time of 50 mm this represent a 25 mm crack length). The lower bound of the
remaining life from a 0.5 ∙ t crack was reported as 48%, from a 2 ∙ t crack 27% and from a 4 ∙ t crack
only 13% (t represents the thickness).
In OTH 87 278 (Department of Energy 1987b) a power-law formula for the crack depth–to-
thickness ratio was proposed to predict the remaining fatigue life (N), given by a/t = (N/N3)p (a
represents the crack depth). The choice of the exponent p was discussed in detail (typically it is in
the range of 3–5).
40
Data from 105 crack sites
2c
Crack t
Surface crack length/Member thickness.2c/t
30
20
10
0
0 0.5 1.0
Number of cycles N
Number of cycles to through thickness cracking. N3
Figure 62 Database of surface crack development in tubular joint fatigue tests. Source: Department of
Energy (1987a). Offshore Technology Report OTH 87 259 Remaining life of Defective Tubular Joints – and
Assessment based on Data for Surface Crack Growth in Tubular Joints Tests. Prepared by Tweed, J.H. and
Freeman, J.H., 1987 for the Department of Energy, HMSO, London, UK.
The review OTH 87 259 (Department of Energy 1987a) further indicated that the method may be
used to make predictions of the number of surface cracks of particular lengths to be expected when
performing inspections, as shown in Figure 63. As can be seen in this figure, for a structure with
all welds designed with 20 years fatigue life, after 20 years it is expected that there would be no
through-thickness cracks, approximately 3 cracks of lengths 4 times the thickness (t), approxi-
mately 5 cracks of lengths 2 ∙ t and 20 surface cracks of 0.5 ∙ t.
Structural Integrity Management of Offshore Installation Based on Inspection for Through-
Thickness Cracking
A study by HSE and MaTSU based on the reviews OTH 87 259 and OTH 87 278 was reported by
Sharp et al. (1998). The limited life between stages N3 and N4 is shown in Figure 64 together with
the rapid loss of stiffness after N3 and approaching N4. This limited gap between N3 and N4 is not
necessarily the case for some other geometries, such as brace over chord diameter (normally
referred to as β) of one. The review pointed out that although N3 is a well-defined stage, this is not
necessarily true of N4 depending at which point the test was terminated.
100
Distribution of joints with lowest fatigue
design lives in structure
90
Number of joints Design life
(years, T curve)
80 10 20
20 30
30 50
40 80
Number of joints with ‘significant’ defects
70 50 120
0.5t surface cracks

60
2t surface cracks
50
40
30
Assumed structure 4t surface cracks
design life
20 Through thickness cracks
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time (years)
Figure 63 Prediction of number of joints with significant cracks. Source: Department of Energy (1987a).
Offshore Technology Report OTH 87 259 Remaining life of Defective Tubular Joints – and Assessment based
on Data for Surface Crack Growth in Tubular Joints Tests. Prepared by Tweed, J.H. and Freeman, J.H., 1987 for
the Department of Energy, HMSO, London, UK.
16
14
12
Actuator stroke, mm
10
2 N3 N4
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Cycles x 106
Figure 64 Limited life between N3 and N4 for a typical joint test (Sharp et al. 1998). Actuator stroke is an
indication of the stiffness. Source: Sharp, J.V., Stacey A., Wignall C.M. (1998). Structural integrity management
of offshore installations based on inspection for though thickness cracking, OMAE conference 1998.
Figure 65 shows the distribution of N4/N3 ratios for a number of different tubular joints tested in
fatigue. This shows some variability with the modal range lying in the band 1.2 to 1.3. The cumula-
tive frequency indicates that there is a 40% probability of N4 occurring at a value of N4/N3 of 1.2
(i.e. only 20% in life beyond N3). This again demonstrates the limited life after N3 which is of par-
ticular relevance to inspection using FMD and the importance of the reliability of FMD detecting
a through-thickness crack when in use. Later analysis of this and more recent data (Zhang and
Wintle 2004) indicated a mean value of N4/N3 of 1.4, although this varied with geometrical
parameters.
50 1
45 0.9
40 0.8
Number of occurences
35 0.7
Probability
30 0.6
25 0.5
20 0.4
15 0.3
10 0.2
5 0.1
0 0
1.00-1.05
1.05-1.10
1.10-1.15
1.15-1.20
1.20-1.25
1.25-1.30
1.30-1.35
1.35-1.40
1.40-1.45
1.45-1.50
1.50-1.55
1.55-1.60
1.60-1.65
1.65-1.70
1.70-1.75
1.75-1.80
1.80-1.85
1.85-1.90
1.90-1.95
1.95-2-00
N4/N3 range
Figure 65 Distribution of N4/N3 ratios for 277 different tubular joints. Source: Based on Sharp, J.V., Stacey
A., Wignall C.M. (1998). Structural integrity management of offshore installations based on inspection for
though thickness cracking, OMAE conference 1998.
Flooded member detection (FMD), as further described in Section 4.3.6, is a well-established

inspection technique relying on the presence of a through-thickness crack allowing water to
penetrate into the previous air-filled space inside the member. Hence the growth of a crack in
the region N3 to N4 is of particular interest. At penetration of wall thickness (N3) the crack is
usually difficult to detect using global visual inspection (GVI), unless special measures are taken
(e.g. cleaning and more close-up visual inspection). The crack growth after through-thickness
(N3) often involves crack branching and deviation of the crack from the weld toe (resulting in
complex crack shapes). A typical aspect ratio for crack depth (a) over crack length (2c) is
(a/2c)~0.06 at N3 (Sharp et al. 1998). Many secondary cracks also develop at lives beyond N3
(Figure 66) until the N4 stage is reached; at this stage the joint loses stiffness and load is trans-
ferred to other members. The crack, however, can continue to grow until member sever-
ance occurs.
RR 224 Growth of Through-Wall Fatigue Cracks in Brace Members
TWI Ltd performed further reviews for HSE (HSE 2004) of the remaining life of tubular brace
members based on the same model as used in OTH 87 259 (Department of Energy 1987a), OTH
87 278 (Department of Energy 1987b) and Sharp et al. (1998). This review indicated that the
remaining number of cycles at the through-thickness cracking stage was significant and the num-
ber of cycles at N4 was approximately 1.1 N3, see Figure 67, which is smaller than the reviews
mentioned above indicate.
TWI Review for HSE on Assessment of Fatigue Data for Offshore Structural Components Containing
Through-Thickness Cracks
The most recent study on this topic was performed by Zhang and Wintle (2004) as reported in
Zhang and Stacey (2008). This review includes a comprehensive examination of published work
Figure 66 Tubular joint with large degree of cracking. Source: John V. Sharp.
1000
Class B
Class C
Class D
Class E
N2
N3
N4
Stress range, MPa
100
10
1.E + 05 1.E + 06 1.E + 07
Endurance N, cycles
Figure 67 Fatigue test results including N2, N3 and N4 measured cycles. Source: HSE (2004). Growth of
through-wall fatigue cracks in brace members, Prepared by TWI Ltd (Dr Marcos Pereira) for the Health and
Safety Executive (HSE) as Research Report 224. HSE Books. Sudbury. UK. Licensed under Open Government
License.
containing data on fatigue lives beyond through-thickness cracking. In total, a database of 281
relevant tests were developed of which fifteen were tested under free water corrosion, eight under
cathodic protection and the rest in air. The database was used to perform a statistical assessment of
the effects of different testing conditions and geometrical parameters on the remaining fatigue life
beyond through-thickness cracking.
Statistical analysis was carried out on N3 and N4 endurance of all data collected and fitted to a
SN-diagram with a slope of the curve forced to 3.0, similar to the T’ design curve for tubular joints
(HSE 1995). The N4/N3 ratio for the resulting SN-curves were found to be 1.38 and 1.25 for the
mean and mean-2SD curves, respectively. However, the review indicates that the scatter of the data
is significant to such a degree that the mean endurance is about a factor of 10 longer than that for
the mean-2SD curve and even the mean-2SD for the N4 endurance falls below the T’ design curve.
The review indicated that the ratio Re=(N4-N3)/N3 illustrating the remaining life after through-
thickness cracking depends strongly on chord thickness, loading mode, type of joint and testing
environment, although the data showed a large amount of scatter. As a result of this complexity of
interactions of many parameters on remaining life of through-thickness cracks, as well as the lim-
ited number of tests in some conditions, the review admitted that it was difficult to draw sound
conclusions. However, the following conclusions and trends were indicated based on the
assessments:
●● taking all the results together, the mean value of Re was 0.4 (corresponding to a value of N4/N3
of 1.4);
●● under axial loading, the stress ratio did not show a significant influence on Re;
●● the chord-to–brace diameter ratio (β) did not exhibit a significant effect on Re under axial and
OPB loading;
●● Re was found to decrease with increasing values of the chord-to-brace thickness ratio (τ), espe-
cially under OPB loading;
●● Re was found to be dependent on chord wall thickness, decreasing under OPB loading;
●● compared to axial loading, higher Re values were achieved under OPB and IPB loadings, espe-
cially under OPB loading for joints with a small chord size;
●● under OPB loading, T joints achieved a higher Re value than K/KT joints when compared
at a chord wall thickness of 6 mm. However, the difference in Re between the two types of
joints became small when compared to a chord wall thickness of 16 mm;
●● specimens tested in free seawater corrosion and cathodic protection had slightly higher Re
values. However, it should be noted that very few specimens were tested in this environ-
ment; and
●● girth welded joints in plain tubes gave a low Re value, with a mean of only 0.086.
The main purpose of the analysis of these data has been to check the effectiveness of using
flooded member detection (FMD) in terms of remaining life after through-thickness cracking.
Although these data provide some indicative information for evaluation, a proper fracture
mechanics crack growth analysis in accordance with BS 7910 (BSI 2013) or similar will in most
cases be required for an improved evaluation of remaining fatigue life of a cracked joint.
7.2.2 Static Strength of Cracked Tubular Structures

Several projects have looked into the ultimate (static) strength of cracked tubular joints from the
1980s and onwards. Several of these were initiated by UK Department of Energy and later UK
HSE. A review of these projects was published by HSE (HSE 2002) named “The Static Strength of
Cracked Joint in Tubular Members” (see more on this project later in this section).
A series of research programmes combining finite element analysis, fracture mechanics proce-
dures and model scale testing was undertaken by several universities and TWI. Work by Burdekin
and Frodin (1987) involved a combination of finite element analysis and model scale experimental
tests on double T joints with through-thickness cracks in the chord (up to 33% of the joint perim-
eter). Failure by ductile tearing was demonstrated in experimental tests on grade 275 steel. This
provided the first demonstration of the significant contribution of mode III loading in T joints with
through-thickness cracks under tension loading. Later work by Cheaitani and Burdekin (1994)
involved a similar combination of finite element analysis and model scale testing applied to 450 K
joints under balanced axial loading, with through–wall thickness cracks at the crown of the ten-
sion brace (lengths up to 38% of the weld toe perimeter length). The experimental tests demon-
strated that for this configuration, the effect of the presence of the crack was to undermine the
support provided by the tension brace against buckling failure of the chord under the compression
brace. When this buckling failure started to occur, the severity of conditions at the crack tip
increased substantially and tearing started to develop.
The above investigations demonstrated a progressive reduction in the ultimate strength of the
cracked joints with crack size, compared to the baseline of an uncracked joint with the same geom-
etry and loading configuration. It was recommended that a safe lower bound assessment of the
plastic collapse strength for a given value of crack length could be made by applying an area reduc-
tion factor (ARF) to the HSE characteristic strength formulae for the uncracked joint geometry.
However, it was further recommended that fracture should be considered separately. This area
reduction factor for plastic collapse was recommended as follows:
cracked area 1 (1)

ARF 1 ,
intersection area Q
where Qβ is a geometric factor. A recommended procedure for defect assessment in offshore struc-
tures was published by Burdekin and Cowling (1998).
Two reviews of the work in this field completed up to 1996 were included in Stacey, Sharp and Nichols
(1996a and 1996b). The static strength of tubular joints is a design criterion using formulae in codes and
standards. However, these codes and standards are based on tests of uncracked joints and normal pro-
cedures for the assessment of static strength do not make allowance for the presence of cracks.
Further work was undertaken to extend and validate these initial findings. A major Joint Industry
Project organised by TWI had large-scale experimental tests on grade 355 steel together with joint
finite element analysis by TWI and UMIST (Hadley et al. 1998). The main part of this test pro-
gramme was concerned with double T joints of a larger size than the earlier UMIST model scale
tests. This work covered through-thickness cracks in the chord (15% and 30% of the weld toe
perimeter). The results of this study and other studies were reviewed in a project initiated by HSE
(2002) described later in this section.
A paper by Sharp et al. (1998) indicated that data has shown that the ultimate capacity of
joints is dependent on the load-bearing cross-sectional area and hence on the crack-aspect ratio
when cracks are present. This data indicated that at N3 the loss in static strength is likely to be in
the range of 15–30% depending on geometry. At N4 the loss is much greater—up to 90% (see
Table 41).
The implications from these results for managing structural integrity are of considerable inter-
est, particularly when either GVI or FMD is used as the main inspection technique with detection
only at the through-thickness stage or beyond. The interval between inspections is also relevant,
since on a five-year cycle with a 25-year design life, a fatigue crack just missed on the first inspec-
tion would have reached the 1.2∙N3 stage by the next inspection with more significant potential
loss in static strength capacity as seen in Table 41 and hence less ability to resist severe wave load-
ing without failing. In planning inspections using FMD, the potential loss in static strength capac-
ity should be taken into account.
It should be recognised that the presence of a large crack in one tubular joint is generally unlikely
to lead to structural collapse due to redundancy in the structure. However, two or more cracks in
joints within the same failure path could have more serious effects on the platform integrity. In
both K and X braced framing there are similar joint types with similar stress concentration factors
(SCFs). Most analyses of the damaged state do not allow for more than one component suffering
damage at the same time.
Studies were undertaken by MMI reported in HSE RR344 (HSE 2005) on the ultimate strength
of multi component damage to structures, which is further described in Section 7.2.3.
Table 41 Variation in Static Strength Capacity with Crack-Aspect Ratio. Source: Sharp, J.V., Stacey A., Wignall
C.M. (1998). Structural integrity management of offshore installations based on inspection for though
thickness cracking, OMAE conference 1998.
Stage in fatigue life Crack-aspect ratio (a/2c) Reduction in static strength capacity
N3 0.04–0.10 15–30%
1.2∙N3 0.03–0.06 20–50%
N4 0.015–0.025 40–90%
The repair options for joints having reached the N3 stage in fatigue is generally limited to clamps,
welding and possibly hole drilling (see Chapter 8). Clamps are often chosen as these provide an
alternative load path and hence no further fatigue cracking should take place in the damaged
detail. It is important, however, to recognise that these types of repair require significant time for
design, fabrication of hardware, installation planning and implementation, which can take up to
several months, particularly if it is necessary to wait for a suitable weather window. During this
period through-thickness cracks will continue to grow and hence there is an enhanced risk of fur-
ther structural damage which may not be acceptable.
Most of the experimental work described above has been undertaken on conventional structural
steels of grade 275 or 355. A series of tests on high-strength steel (yield strength 700 MPa) includ-
ing six T and three Y joints has been completed at University College London (Talei-Faz et al. 1999).
These joints with a chord diameter of 457 mm had been subjected to prior fatigue testing produc-
ing cracks representative of what might broadly occur in service. The results from these tests are
given in HSE (2002b) as described below.
A major programme was completed by UMIST and EQE which included finite element analysis
studies on the behaviour of circumferential cracks in tubular members subject to axial tension,
typical of through-thickness cracks in tubular members which would be detected by FMD
(Burdekin et al. 1999). This work found that the widely adopted solutions at the time on the effects
of cracks on the ultimate strength of tubular members were not appropriate for use in conjunction
with a fracture mechanics treatment.
OTO 1999 054 Detection of Damage to Underwater Tubulars and its Effect on Strength
A review of static strength of cracked tubular joints was published in the report OTO 1999 054
(HSE 1999). Cracks at the chord saddle of a tension-loaded DT joint were studied and the reduc-
tion in strength was found to be proportional to the crack area for low β values. For joints with
higher β values, the reduction in strength was found to be greater and dependent on the geometric
modifier Qβ. The area reduction factor was found to be as given in Equation 1. In case of a DT joint,
the intersection area would be the product of the length of the intersection and the chord thickness.
OTO 00 077 Fracture Mechanics Assessment of Fatigue Cracks in Offshore Tubular Structures
HSE report OTO 00 077 (HSE 2002a) described the modelling procedures for plain plates and
T-butt joints containing semi-elliptical cracks. Two methods for stress intensity factor (SIF) evalu-
ation were developed, including displacement extrapolation and the J-integral. A very extensive
parametric study of plain plates and T-butt joints using this modelling and post-processing proce-
dures was included. This encompassed a variety of crack sizes and attachment geometries.
Fatigue crack growth calculations carried out using the solutions developed in this study high-
lighted the effects of the weld angle, weld toe grinding, degree of bending (DOB) and chord wall
thickness on the predicted fatigue life. The results from these calculations underestimated the fatigue
life to be approximately half that of the experimental tests. This discrepancy was shown to be primar-
ily due to ignoring the combined effects of load shedding and the intersection stress distribution.
OTO 00 078 Static Strength of Cracked High-Strength Steel Tubular Joints
The OTO 00 078 review (HSE 2002b) included nine static strength tests on high-strength steel
tubular welded joints (T and Y) made from SE702 (yield strength 700 MPa). These consisted of six
T joints and three Y joints, which were tested to failure (through-thickness fatigue crack) in either
axial or out-of-plane bending loading. The diameter was 457 mm and thickness 16 mm. These
specimens were available from two previous fatigue test programmes conducted on a high-strength
jack-up steel (SE702). All test specimens had at least one through-thickness fatigue crack at the
weld toe. In terms of the normalised static strength capacity, it was found that the mean curve for
the high-strength steel specimens was slightly lower (by about 5%) than the yield strength for 355D
steel as per BS7191 (BSI 1989). It was concluded that the slight difference between the results for
the SE702 specimens and similar tests on 355D material could be related to the crack path as it was
noted that for the SE702 tests, the crack remained close to the weld toe at all times. For the 355D
tests, the crack often branched away from the weld toe and grew into the parent plate.
OTO 01 080 The Static Strength of Cracked Joints in Tubular Members
The report OTO 01 080 performed by UMIST for HSE (HSE 2002c) included a review of research
between 1980s and 2000 into the effect of cracks on the static strength of tubular joints, including
both plastic collapse and fracture for a range of different types of joint geometry (T, Y, DT and K
joints). Cracks in the weld toe in the chord and as circumferential cracks in brace members were
included and brittle fracture and ductile tearing fracture were considered. The review indicated
that in general, joints in tension usually fail by tearing and fracture failure, whilst failure of joints
in compression often occurs by buckling of the walls of the tubular member. The report concluded
that the plastic collapse strength of cracked tubular joints can be estimated with use of an area
reduction factor (see Equation 1). The fracture strength of the cracked joint or member needs to be
determined by a fracture mechanics analysis, preferably by use of a geometry-specific finite ele-
ment analysis that includes the crack. Approximate methods based on BS7910 (BSI 2019) defect
assessment procedures were also described including recommendations for determining the stress
intensity factor ratio Kr and the collapse load ratio Lr.
Both the experimental test results and the finite element analysis predictions included in this review
showed significant scatter. However, these also showed a general trend for the strength of cracked
tubular joints to follow the uncracked characteristic strength multiplied by the above-mentioned area
reduction factor (see Figure 68). The test results in Figure 68 which fall significantly below the HSE
characteristic strength with the before mentioned reduction factor, are those of Gibstein (1981),
Machida et al. (1987), Skallerud et al. (1994) and some of the UCL high-strength steel tests. The results
plotted in Figure 68 represent the initial crack length for the test and the maximum load reached, by
which time the crack length would have increased considerably from the initial condition.
The review highlights that it was vitally important to recognise that any prediction based on the
strength of uncracked joints modified on an area reduction basis considers only plastic collapse
behaviour and takes no account of fracture. The tests by Gibstein (1981) and Machida et al. (1987)
were mentioned as examples of failure by brittle fracture which should have been assessed taking
this possibility into account. However, the review indicated that virtually all of the other tests
showed ductile crack extension and tearing behaviour before final failure and the implications of
this should also be taken into account.
The review further indicated that the high-strength steel tests by UCL (Talei-Faz et al. 1999) did
follow the same general pattern as those for the general structural steel tests. However, it was noted
that the plastic collapse loads for the high-strength steel would be proportional to the yield stress
and hence higher than those for the general structural steel. As a result, to achieve maximum fail-
ure loads in the experimental tests for high-strength steel, the fracture toughness would also have
to be increased in the same proportion. If such an increase in toughness is not possible, the actual
failure loads are more likely to be influenced by fracture rather than plastic collapse. As a result,
these are likely to fall below the simple area reduction correction factor prediction. This is likely to
be the explanation for the results falling below the area reduction line in Figure 68 including two
of the high-strength steel UCL tests.
OTO 01 081 Experimental Validation of the Ultimate Strength of Brace Members with
Circumferential Cracks
The HSE report OTO 01 081 (HSE 2002d) describes a series of twenty static strength tests which
were carried out on both small-scale and large-scale plain tubular members. These had either
through-thickness cracks or surface cracks lying in the circumferential direction. The through-
thickness cracks had lengths varying from about 10% to 80% of the circumference of the tubes. The
Gibstein
2.5
Machida
2 Kurobane
Exp.max./HSE Char. Load
Nottingham
1.5 UMIST F
UMIST C
1
TWI
DNV
0.5
Liverpool
0 Sintef
0 20 40 60 80 100
UCL (HS
% cross-sectional area cracked steel)
Figure 68 Results of experimental tests on ultimate strength of cracked tubular joints (HSE 2002c) where the
uncracked tension strength has been used as the basis for T and DT joints, whereas the uncracked compression
strength has been used as the basis for K joints. Source: HSE (2002c). Offshore Technology Report OTO
2001/080 The static strength of cracked joints in tubular members, Prepared by UMIST (Professor F M Burdekin)
for the Health and Safety Executive. HSE Books, Sudbury. UK. Licensed under Open Government License.
surface crack tests had depths of 80% of the thickness and lengths corresponding to the through-
thickness cases.
The results were analysed and compared to the BS7910 (BSI 2013) procedures for assessing ulti-
mate strength or fracture behaviour and also to modified procedures which were based on previous
finite element analysis research at UMIST. It was found that improved assessments were given by
the UMIST modified procedures. For through-thickness cracks, the results indicated that the
BS7910 approach could be non-conservative whilst for part thickness cracks, the results indicate
that BS7910 may be over-conservative.
7.2.3 Effect of Multiple Member Failure

MMI undertook a study for HSE RR344 (HSE 2005) on the ultimate strength of multi component
damage to structures, including assessment of the integrity over typical inspection intervals. Member
failure in jacket structures, leads to stress redistribution which can enhance the potential for failure in
other members in the same structure; eventually, this may lead to collapse. This study included analy-
sis of three four-legged platforms (single diagonal, X and inverted K braced framing). These were
analysed using both linear-elastic and non-linear pushover analyses to enable the ultimate strength of
the structures to be determined in all single-member failure conditions. In addition, many dual failed
member combinations for each type of jacket were similarly analysed. The most significant stress
redistributions combined with non-linear pushover analyses of the damaged structures were used to
assess the platform reliabilities. These were determined for three cases for a structure with:
●● single-member failure only;
●● dual-member failure but ignoring the effects of stress redistributions; and
●● dual-member failure incorporating the effects of stress redistributions.
It was shown that for the cases examined the effect of stress redistributions and dual-member
failure reduced the predicted platform reliability. The most dramatic reduction (by two orders of
magnitude) was for the single diagonal braced structure where the failure of the second brace had
a marked effect on the ultimate strength. This demonstrated the low redundancy of this type of
structure. The ultimate strength of the X braced structure was in contrast not significantly affected
by the failure of the second member. It should be noted that Ersdal (2005) found that the reduction
in the ultimate strength of an X-braced fixed steel structure could as a worst case be estimated by
a factor of 0.8n, where n is the number of braces that had failed.
The HSE RR344 report recommended that for all structures some non-linear pushover analyses
including the effects of dual-member failure and stress redistribution should be performed to identify
cases which, if ignored, could result in an overly optimistic prediction of platform failure. If such
cases are found, then these should be included in reliability assessments used for inspection planning.
The report also analysed the effect of inspection intervals. If these intervals are sufficiently short
to detect any damage, the structure can be repaired in a timely fashion, reducing the damaged
structure’s vulnerability to storm loading. In addition, this approach also acts to limit the accelera-
tion of fatigue cracking. The report noted that even for a 2- to 3-year inspection interval, there
would be a high probability of collapse for low redundancy structures (diagonally braced) due to
the probability of two members having failed. The report concluded that such structures would be
ideal candidates for the fitting of continuous monitoring systems which could detect a failed mem-
ber between inspections and enable a repair to be undertaken.
The report also advocated further research on this topic as only single-wave direction analyses
had been performed in this study. Particularly for acceleration of fatigue the effect would need to
be averaged over all directions.
Ersdal (2005) investigated a similar approach to multiple member failure in one fixed steel struc-
ture typical at that time on the Norwegian continental shelf, with a 4-year inspection interval. The
50
Simulated wave height at system failure
45
40
35
30
25
20
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
N component failures at system failure
Figure 69 Wave height at system failure with increasing number of component failures. Source: Ersdal,
G. (2005). Assessment of existing offshore structures for life extension. Doctorate thesis, University of
Stavanger, Norway.
wave height experienced by the structure at failure was estimated as shown in Figure 69. As clearly
indicated in this figure, when one or more components have failed due to fatigue prior to overload
failure, smaller wave heights caused the structure to fail. This clearly demonstrated the weakening
of the structure as the number of component failures increased.
The effect of multiple member failure on the inspection intervals is presented in Section 6.2.5,
indicating the need for a decreased inspection interval when several components are regarded as
critical. It also suggests a method to determine the necessary intervals.
7.2.4 Corroded Tubular Members

Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, US, ran an important project on the remaining strength of
damaged structural members under their Advanced Technology for Large Structural Systems
(ATLSS) engineering research programme in the 1990s. Several projects, including the project
“Residual Strength of Damaged and Deteriorated Offshore Structures” were performed for the
offshore industry. Many financed by the US governmental agency MMS and some also by oil com-
panies and European institutions.
Offshore structures are subjected to a corrosive environment and despite the use of protective
coatings and cathodic protection systems, corrosion damage does occur. The effect of corrosion is
primarily a reduction of the wall thickness. For a tubular section this leads to the following effects:
●● reduced gross section area and hence a reduction in load-carrying capacity;

●● increasing susceptibility to local buckling in the corroded area;
●● introduction of an eccentricity and an internal moment if corrosion is asymmetrical around the
circumference, causing additional compressive stresses; and
●● variation in wall thickness, which can create a stress concentration in the corroded areas.
Corrosion on tubular members is typically classified either as uniform corrosion or patch corro-
sion (non-uniform). Uniform corrosion implies a relatively constant reduction of wall thickness
around the entire circumference. Evaluation of the capacity of a tubular member exposed to uni-
form corrosion is relatively straightforward as the standardised capacity formulae can be used
adjusted to the thinner wall thickness. However, if the uniform corrosion is present only on parts
of the full length of the tubular member, this may be slightly conservative. Patch corrosion is more
difficult to evaluate. Patch corrosion is asymmetrical around the circumferential resulting in an
eccentricity due to the shift in the centre of gravity of the cross-section as illustrated in Figure 70.
Ostapenko et al. (1993) performed tests of two salvaged tubular members with corrosion damage
from decommissioned Gulf of Mexico fixed offshore steel structures after an estimated twenty to
thirty years of service. In the tests both specimens failed by local buckling in corroded areas and
the report recommended using an equivalent thickness based on the area with the greatest amount
of corrosion (average over a rectangular area extending on radius around the circumference and
one-third radius in the longitudinal length). The specimens failed at loads of 42.6% and 77.3% of
the capacity (area times yield stress).
Hebor (1994) performed more tests on the strength of corroded tubular members. Twelve steel
tubular test specimens with various forms of single patch of simulated non-uniform corrosion
damage were tested as part of this master thesis project. The ratio of corroded wall thickness–to-
original thickness, tr/t and the angle exposed to corrosion were used to define the severity of the
corrosion. Length-to–radius of gyration (L/r) ratios for the specimens ranged from 10 to 19, with
corresponding length-to-diameter (L/D) ratios ranging from 3.5 to 6.4. The low L/r ratios of the
Sc
yc1 tc
yc2
t
yc
θ r
Original N.A
ye
Equivalent N.A
Figure 70 Model of patch corroded tubular member.
specimens ensured that the mode of failure would be local buckling and not overall global buckling
in the corroded specimens. The experimental test matrix also included non-corroded stub-columns
and repaired “corroded” specimens. The experimental study was accompanied by appropriate ana-
lytical analyses and a parametric study using non-linear finite element analysis. The experimental
test results showed a capacity reduction of up to 32% for corrosion damaged specimens. The reduc-
tion in strength was most severe for specimens with larger patch dimensions and reduced wall
thickness. The behaviour and performance of the repaired specimens was found to be influenced
by the bond strength of the grouting material. However, the repair was determined to be success-
fully implemented with relatively low bond strength grout.
A comparison between the damaged and un-damaged columns showed that the capacity was
greatly reduced due to the corrosion. The reduction was reinforced by the fact that an eccentricity
arose due to the geometric change resulting from asymmetrical metal loss. In addition, high
stresses occurred in the corroded area.
The work of Hebor (1994), also reported in Hebor and Ricles (1994), emphasized inelastic local
buckling of short tubulars with a single patch of corrosion subjected to monotonic axial loading.
The work performed by these researchers resulted in a recommended set of residual strength
equations.
Pu D tr tr
1.0 0.001 0.052 0.0026 0.0028 1.0
P
y t t t
These equations were recommended to be used to predict the approximate ultimate strength.
Different ways of simulating the patch corrosion damage are possible: cut-off, rounded and sinu-
soidal, as shown in Figure 71.
The type of patch corrosion profile has been shown (Atteya et al. 2020) to be important for the
calculation of the ultimate strength of the tubular column. This is likely to be a result of higher
stresses occurring in the corroded area when the cut-off is sharper. It should be noted that the work
of Hebor (1994) and Hebor and Ricles (1994) are based on a rounded patch.
Ostapenko et al. (1996) conducted further experiments on 11 specimens with patch corrosion
damage simulated by grinding. The specimens were divided into two groups: (1) P5 to P9 with a
slenderness ratio of 14.7, and (2) specimens P10 to P15 with a slenderness ratio of 6.4. Their cor-
roded patch profile was of the sinusoidal type. The primary failure mode of these test specimens
was local buckling.
(a) (b) (c)
h h h
c c c
t tp t tp t tp
Figure 71 Patch corrosion profiles: (a) cut-off, (b) rounded and (c) sinusoidal.
Hestholm and Vo (2019) performed additional experimental tests of tubular columns with simulated
corrosion and compared the results to standardised capacity formulae for tubulars with corrosion patches.
Hestholm and Vo (2019) simulated cut-off profiles for the patch corrosion.
An overview of all known test specimens of tubular columns with patch corrosion is illustrated
in Figure 72.
Standards such as NORSOK N-004 (Standard Norge 2004) included patch corrosion into the
strength calculations by including the corrosion in the formulae for dented tubulars by an equiv-
alent dent. The equivalent dent depth that is intended to illustrate the corrosion damage is
given by:
1 Acorr
1 cos D
2 A
where δ′ is the equivalent dent depth, D is the diameter of the tubular column, A is the cross-
section area of the tubular column and Acorr is the cross-section area of the corroded tubu-
lar column.
1.2
0.8
Fu/Fy
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Equivalent dent/Diameter
D/t=23 D/t=33 D/t=44 D/t=63 Expon. (D/t=23) Expon. (D/t=33)
Figure 72 Experimental results of patch corroded tubulars.

Later, studies by Lutes et al. (2001) indicated that the American Petroleum Institute design
formulae for inelastic buckling were sufficiently conservative to predict the ultimate capac-
ity of typical tubular bracing members without explicitly considering patterns of corrosion.
More recently, Øyasæter et al. (2017) have studied modelling patch corrosion in finite
element analysis and comparing these to analytical formulae.
Vo et al. (2019) found that when comparing experiments with the formulae provided in NORSOK
N-004, the internal bending moment due to eccentricity needed to be included, which is consistent
with the findings of Hebor (1994). If this bending moment was included, the NORSOK N-004 (2004)
formula would provide conservative results. The eccentricity will introduce an internal bending
moment due to the asymmetric corrosion:
D tc
2 sin
Ac 2 2 2
ye
A Ac
Atteya et al. (2020) has used the tests discussed so far and compared the results to modern non-
linear finite element analysis and the ISO 19902 (ISO 2007) and NORSOK N-004 (Standard
Norge 2004) formulae as shown in Figure 73 and Figure 74.
In general, the results of Atteya et al. (2020) indicate that ISO 19902 (ISO 2007) and NORSOK
N-004 (Standard Norge 2004) still can be used with reasonable accuracy for evaluations of bracing
members with corrosion provided that the internal bending due to corrosion is included. However,
more accurate results can be obtained by non-linear finite element analysis, provided that a cali-
brated finite element model is used. The calibration of the finite element model should be
performed to match the results of tests such as those mentioned in this section.
1.2
Tri & Hesthlom
1 Ostapenko
Hebor
0.8
Pu/Pintact FEM
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Pu/Pintact Experimental
Figure 73 Q-Q plot comparing experimental and FEA capacities of tubulars with simulated patch
corrosion damage (bias 1.1, CoV 8.5%). Source: Based on Atteya, M., Mikkelsen, O., Oma, N. and Ersdal,
G. (2020). Residual strength of tubular columns with localized thickness loss. In Proceedings of the 39th
International OMAE2020 Conference. ASME.
1.2
Tri & Hesthlom
1 Ostapenko
Hebor
0.8
Pu/Pintact NORSOK
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Pu/Pintact Experimental
Figure 74 Q-Q plot comparing experimental and NORSOK N-004 capacities of tubulars with different
amount of simulated patch corrosion damage (bias 1.13, COV 25%). Source: Based on Atteya et al (2020).
7.2.5 Dent and Bow Damage to Underwater Tubulars and Their Effect on Strength

Report OTO 99 084 (HSE 1999) reviewed the effect of dent and bow damage to underwater tubu-
lars and the detection of these. The actual work was performed by MSL. The contents of this report
are also discussed in Section 4.2.7.
Report OTO 99 084 (HSE 1999) gave an overview of all earlier experimental and analytical work
on dented and bowed tubulars and provided a comparison of these results with the design formu-
lae suggested for implementation in ISO 19902 (ISO 2007), which was the suggested approach at
the time. The review states that up to the release of this report, no formal procedures were available
for determining the residual strength of damaged offshore components. Several relevant methods
and computer software were available in the public domain, but none of these were generally
accepted and included in standards.
The potential for damage to tubular members on fixed steel structures due to vessel impact or
dropped objects was recognised in the middle 1970s. This resulted in several studies on the effect
of dents and bows on strength, which investigated them both through physical tests and by
modelling.
The first studies of damaged tubular members (in the form of lateral bending and local denting)
were reported by Smith et al. (1979) for small-scale (diameter of 50 mm) cold-drawn tubes. Later
further work was performed by Smith et al. (1980), Smith (1983) and Smith et al. (1984). These
investigations reported a significant loss in strength in tubulars with relatively minor damage.
They also compared small-scale tests to large-scale test, which showed no significant scale effects.
Further studies were carried out by Taby et al. (1981) and Taby and Moan (1985) where more
tests were performed for larger-scale models (diameters up to 150 mm). The computer program
(DENTA) for calculating the load deflection behaviour for dented tubulars were also developed
(Taby and Moan 1987). Taby (1986) also included tests for higher diameter-to-thickness (D/t) ratios
suitable for semi-submersible structures and for lower D/t ratios suitable for jack-ups. These
specimens had a D/t ratio in the range from 12 to 135 and a reduced slenderness ratio in the range
0.5 to 1.0.
The slenderness and reduced slenderness ratio for a tubular member are defined as:
L L y
r r E
where L is the length of the member, r is the radius of gyration, σy is the yield strength and E is
Young’s modulus.
During the mid-1980s the first set of tests involving the use of dynamic loading to generate dam-
age was conducted by Cho (1987). These were followed by an impressive series of 160 specimens
test by Allan and Marshall (1992). These tests were performed on 100 mm diameter tubulars of
various thicknesses. Landet and Lotsberg (1992) added even more tests with combined axial com-
pression and bending.
In addition, several tests were performed as part of the ATLSS projects notably Rickles et al.
(1992), Ostapenko et al. (1993), Bruin (1995) and Ricles et al. (1997). Padula and Ostapenko (1987)
included tests of the axial load capacity under fixed-fixed end condition of two large diameter tubu-
lar steel columns with dents (2.7% and 5.5% of the specimen diameter). One of the specimens
showed no reduction in ultimate axial capacity when compared to the undented specimen. The
other specimen showed a 6% reduction in axial capacity.
Padula and Ostapenko (1989) included a simple method for computing axial load versus axial
shortening for tubular members with dents and out-of-straightness, developed based on a regres-
sion analysis of published test results and finite element analyses.
Ostapenko et al. (1993) performed tests of twenty tubular columns to investigate the residual
strength of dented and corroded columns. Eighteen of these were large-scale tubulars where 11 were
salvaged from actual offshore structures, seven were fabricated and two were small-scale tubulars. All
fabricated and small-scale manufactured specimens and the four salvaged specimens were dented at
mid-length (5% to 15% of diameter). Various end fixities were applied. The seven remaining salvaged
specimens were tested without denting and three of these were corroded, one was badly bent and
three were straight and had no sign of corrosion. The report indicates that analytical methods could
relatively accurately predict the ultimate strength for dented and undented columns. It is further
reported that the analytical formulae were slightly conservative in estimating the post-ultimate behav-
iour. However, the capacity and behaviour of the two patch corroded specimens failing by local buck-
ling was not well predicted by the analytical methods. A stress amplification factor (k) to account for
the lack of symmetry in the patch corroded cross-section and the general out-of-straightness at this
location was introduced and a four-step method to achieve axial capacity of local buckling was estab-
lished (1: determine average thickness over a rectangular area extending one radius around and one-
third radius in the longitudinal direction, 2: compute local buckling stress using this average thickness
according to recognized formulae, 3: compute the cross-sectional properties necessary for calculating
the stress amplification factor k, 4: compute the capacity by the effective area and local buckling stress
divided by the stress amplification factor k).
Many of these tests are shown in Figure 75 sorted according to their D/t ratio. A clear scatter
can be seen which will partly be due to different slenderness, different level of bows and other
factors not clearly indicated in this figure but also randomness in test results. Mean lines for D/
t=33 and D/t=120 are indicated. A significant reduction in axial capacity is seen even for small
dents and the few tests performed with dent depts up to 0.5 diameter indicate more or less a total
loss of capacity.
1.2
0.8
Capacity/Fy
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Dent/Diameter
D/t~33 D/t~40 D/t~45

D/t~65 D/t~90 D/t~100
Figure 75 Capacity of unrepaired dented joints.
Further studies have been performed on the strength of repaired dented tubulars, which will be
discussed further in Chapter 8.
OTO 99 084 (HSE 1999) further used this database of tests after a certain screening to evaluate
the proposed design formulae for ISO 1992 and other possible analytical results. The review con-
cluded that the DENTA procedure is capable of considering the full range of geometrical, material
and dent and bow damage parameters likely to apply to North Sea structures. The proposed ISO
formulations have a similar range of capabilities, but the approach has a cut-off that limits its
application to cases where the dent depth–to-thickness ration is less than 10.
Frieze et al. (1996) studied the prediction accuracy of the ISO formulation and the DENTA pro-
gram as shown in Table 42. It can be seen that once a significant number of test results is consid-
ered, CoV > 0.14 in the case of compressive residual strength. Under combined loading, the CoV
is around 0.22. The so-called ISO MTCG (ISO panel TC67/SC7WG3/P3 Members Technical Core
Group) data is a combined database used by the ISO panel responsible for this part of the standard
developed by Chevron Petroleum Technology in 1996.
A subset of these data has been recalculated according to the ISO formulae (which are identical
to the formulae in NORSOK N-004) and Q-Q plotted against the results of the laboratory tests in
Figure 76.
Other theoretical investigations were performed by Ellinas (1984) and Ueda and Rashed (1985).
Most experiments and theoretical work were performed for tubular elements with geometry usu-
ally found in fixed steel structures.
ISO 19902 (ISO 2007) contains a section on the effect of dents on tubular members. Equations
are given for the effect on strength and stability for dented members subjected independently to
axial tension, axial compression, bending or shear. The studies by Vo et al. (2019) indicates that
the exclusion of eccentricity formed by the dent needs to be included in the calculation of
strength; otherwise, NORSOK and ISO formulae significantly overestimate the strength.
Similarly, the bow needs to be included in the calculations for strength to match the experimen-
tal results.
Table 42 Prediction Accuracy.
Source of comparison (number, bias and CoV)

Procedure Taby et al. (1981) Taby and Moan (1985) ISO MTCG (22)
DENTA 21 44 240
1.020 0.992 1.019
0.091 0.082 0.140
ISO MTCG 191
Axial compression 1.103
0.146
ISO MTCG 74
Combined loading, dent in compression 1.203
0.213
ISO MTGC 9
Combined loading, dent in tension 1.545
0.225
Source: Frieze, P.A., Nichols, N.W., Sharp, J.V. and Stacey, A. (1996). Detection of Damage to the Underwater
1.2
NORSOK N-004 and ISO 19902 formulae
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Laboratory tests
Figure 76 Q-Q plot of results of laboratory tests versus calculations according to NORSOK N-004 and ISO
19902. Source: Based on Vo, T., Hestholm, K., Ersdal, G., Oma, N. and Siversvik, M. (2019). Buckling capacity of
simulated patch corroded tubular columns – laboratory tests. Second Conference of Computational Methods
in Offshore Technology (COTech2019). IOP Publishing.
7.2.6 Studies on Assessment of System Strength

If linear analysis of structures fails to provide code acceptance, non-linear analysis may be an satis-
factory approach to determine the strength of structures. Theories for the non-linear collapse (push-
over analysis) of jackets have been established by Søreide and Amdahl (1986). The approach was
further developed by Hellan (1995) and Skallerud and Amdahl (2002).
Tests to investigate the non-linear collapse (pushover analysis) of jackets were undertaken in a Joint
Industry Project supported by the UK Department of Energy and a number of operators of offshore
structures (Bolt 1995). This programme of tests (JIP Frames project), established in 1987, was under-
taken initially by the Steel Construction Institute and later by BOMEL and involved testing large
instrumented two-dimensional frames to collapse. Each of these frames was approximately 15 m high
and 6 m wide, involving both X and K joints. A loading assembly including jacks was also constructed
to allow the frame to be tested to failure. It was found that the frames exhibited different sequences of
member and joint failure and provided valuable insight into jacket response to large loads.
These tests allowed the generation of non-linear response curves for the frames and the results
allowed comparison with predictions from numerical models. Individual tests on X and K joints of
a similar geometry were also undertaken to compare with the performance of the joints in the frame.
Phase II of the JIP Frames Project included four large-scale collapse tests of K-braced frames in
which both gap and overlap K joints were the critical components. The local failure modes differed
from typical isolated component tests yet were representative of structural damage observed fol-
lowing Hurricane Andrew. These frame test results therefore provided important insight to the
ultimate response of jacket structures.
There was a follow-on project which involved benchmarking of non-linear computer programmes
to predict the behaviour of the tests (Nichols et al. 1994). It was important that this benchmarking
was undertaken blind and those involved in the analyses were only provided the actual test results at
the end of the trials. The range of predicted versus experimental reserve and residual strengths was
found to be varied depending on the type of behaviour. For each test at least one programme gave a
good prediction of the overall performance. However, many of the analyses over-predicted the actual
capacity. In one of the frame tests, joint failure dominated and many packages failed to predict this.
These tests and the benchmarking of non-linear computer programmes provided new informa-
tion on the performance of frames containing joints and brace members and enabled the pro-
grammes to be refined to match actual performance. It was recognised that these tests were large
but not at full scale. The USFOS programme (SINTEF 1988) was one such programme that learnt
from this data and is recognised as one of the leading programmes in this field to this day. A
guideline for performing non-linear collapse analysis as a result of these projects was developed
in the Ultiguide project (DNV 1999). Later, recommended practice DNVGLRPC208 for non-linear
analysis was developed by DNVGL (2019).
Non-linear pushover analysis may be performed in both a limit state and partial factor format and
an allowable stress format. The former is used in DNVGL-RP-C208 (DNVGL 2016) and the latter is
used in, for example, API RP-2A (API 2014). The format for these approaches is illustrated in Table 43.
An illustrative Q-δ curve (load versus deflection curve) is shown in Figure 77, for both an intact
structure and a damaged structure.
The type of framing selected at the design stage can have a significant influence on the non-lin-
ear structural strength. The non-linear strength is an important input in designing inspection
plans for structures and, for example, a high RSR value may compensate for limited inspection
using a global inspection approach such as GVI. The non-linear strength will also influence the
need for repair as further discussed in Section 7.2.8.

As mentioned earlier in Sections 3.3.3 and 6.2.1, the US Mineral Management Services (MMS)
undertook the AIM project to manage the integrity of existing fixed steel platforms in the Gulf of
Mexico. The project was carried out in four phases by PMB Engineering Group as a Join Industry
Project (PMB 1987, 1988 and 1990).
Table 43 Format for Non-Linear Pushover Analysis.
Limit state and partial factor format Allowable stress format
Ultimate strength (or ultimate collapse capacity) The reserve or damaged strength ratio (RSR and
Rult is calculated based on characteristic values of DSR) are used as the ratio between the design loads
strength linked to the characteristic values of and the collapse capacity of the intact or damaged
loads. structure. The RSR is defined as RSR=Qu/Qd and
the DSR=Qr/Qd where Qu is the load that ultimately
results in the collapse of an intact structure, Qr is
The limit state check is then ( Qi ⋅ γi) ⋅ γm Rult the similar load for a damaged structure and Qd is
where Qi is the load i, γt is the partial factor for the design load for that structure (typically at the
load i and γm is the material factor. An extra safety annual probability of 10–2). Typical values of the
factor for non-linear analysis is often required RSR range from 1.6 to 2.4 for critical
recommended due to the uncertainties introduced structures (manned structures).
in advanced analysis.
Qu Intact
structure
Qr
Qd
Structure with
a missing
member
Figure 77 Illustrative Q-δ curve for a jacket structure with an indication of the design load level (Qd) and
the collapse load level in intact (Qu) and damaged (Qr) situation, where Q along the vertical axis is load and
δ along the horizontal axis is deformation.
The AIM Phase III programme (PMB 1988) concentrated on assessments of damaged condi-
tions, consequences of the platform failure database and AIM evaluation guidelines. For the
damaged condition assessment an eight-legged platform (C) was selected, installed in 1970. A
detailed structural assessment was carried out comparing several damage states with the reliabil-
ity of the intact structure. Five cases were evaluated, which were:
●● damaged members near waterline (e.g. from boat impact): it was found that the platform capac-
ity dropped by between 5 and 15% depending on how many members were damaged;
●● damage near base of jacket (e.g. from dropped objects), in the form of completely severed mem-
bers: in this case the platform capacity dropped by 10–12%;
●● interior horizontal damage (missing interior horizontals and a damaged transverse diagonal): in
this case the platform capacity dropped by about 20%, with the damaged diagonal contributing
most to the loss in capacity;
●● corrosion damage—this case considered overall corrosion damage together with localised corro-
sion in the splash zone: the overall corrosion lead to a 35% drop in capacity and the splash zone
corrosion to a 20% drop in capacity; and
●● foundation defects—two piles were considered underdriven by 37 m (out of 82 m): it was
found that capacity dropped by between 5 and 17% depending on loading direction.
Given the present-day structural analysis methods, it is slightly unclear how these reduc-
tions in capacity were obtained. However, they are interesting as indications of the effects
of damage.
In the AIM III report (PMB 1988) it was considered that the cases examined provided the start of
a “damaged condition library” for offshore structures. These assessments offered an opportunity to
make an initial evaluation of a damaged structure.
The second part of Phase III was intended to provide operators with a starting point in assessing
the potential consequences of a platform failure, thereby helping to develop the basis for decisions
on structural integrity. Consequences included injuries to personnel, pollution, salvage and struc-
tural replacement. The outcome of this part of phase III has limited interest for inspection
and repair.
The third part of Phase III was to develop a platform database of the consequences of past fail-
ures of platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. The database would summarise known failures due to
storms. In some cases, damage from these severe storms was later repaired and the platforms
returned to service. However, the database included only damaged structures taken out of service.
Repaired damage was excluded from the database.
7.2.8 MSL Significant JIP for MMS

As part of a Joint Industry Project, MSL (2003) prepared guidelines for defining if a sustained dam-
age to existing fixed steel structures (jackets) was significant or not and gave further advice on how
to perform more in-depth examination if needed. The study related the effect of damage to the
effect it had on the reserve strength ratio (RSR) values.
The review considered denting and bowing damage due to vessel impact and dropped objects,
uniform corrosion, local corrosion (holes) and cracking or members and joints to be the most fre-
quent damage on fixed steel structures.
In the review, robustness (redundancy) of fixed offshore steel structures was categorised by their
type of framing (see Figure 78), their vintage (pre- or post-1980) and the number of legs.
The platform robustness for these configurations of fixed offshore steel structures was in the
review defined as shown in Table 44.
The guideline includes a review of the capacity of damaged members for various damage types
based on standards such as ISO 19902 (ISO 2007) and NORSOK N-004 (Standard Norge 2004),
including:
●● impacted tubular members;
●● tubular members with uniform corrosion;
●● tubular members with local corrosion; and
●● cracked members and joints.
D K X XH
Figure 78 Configurations of fixed offshore steel structures (D: diagonal braced, K: K-braced, X: X-braced
and XH: X-braced with a horizontal).
Table 44 Definition of Platform Robustness (MSL 2003),
Number of legs
Platform robustness 3 4 6 8 Multi-legged
Brace K Non-robust Non-robust Non-robust Moderately Moderately

configuration robust robust
D Non-robust Non-robust Moderately Moderately Robust
robust robust
X Non-robust Moderately Moderately Robust Robust
robust robust
XH Moderately Moderately Robust Robust Robust
robust robust
Eight typical jacket platforms of the GoM were studied with various forms of damage either in
the splash zone or in the submerged zone. The conclusions of the analysis of these platforms were
summed up as shown in Table 45.
In the review it was found that for corrosion damage the strength loss of the global structure was
directly proportional to the remaining thickness, which, for example, implies that a 25% thickness
loss would lead to a 25% reduction in the RSR value. The total reduction of the RSR due to member
and joint local damage was found to be dependent on the structural robustness (non-robust or
moderately robust), location of the damage (submerged zone, atmospheric and splash zone) and
the type of member (brace or leg) where the damage had occurred.
In the project, significant damage was defined as damage causing the capacity of the structure to
reduce by 10% or more. As a result, the following damage scenarios are likely to be of no
significance:
●● general corrosion where the reduction in thickness is less than 10% of the original
thickness;
●● minor to moderate damage to horizontal chords of K-bracings (with some limitations);
●● damage to members that does not directly or indirectly participate in the collapse mecha-
nism; and
●● damage to structures caused by failure of the soil.
Table 45 Effect on Damage on Non-Robust and Moderately Robust Fixed Offshore Steel Structures
(MSL 2003).
Non-robust platforms Moderate robust platforms
Atmospheric or Atmospheric or
Submerged zone splash zone Submerged zone splash zone
50% loss of <15% reduction in <15% reduction in <15% reduction in <10% reduction in
member RSR RSR (except legs) RSR RSR (except legs)
<25% reduction in <15% reduction in
RSR (legs) RSR (legs)
100% loss of <35% reduction in <25% reduction in <25% reduction in <20% reduction in
member RSR RSR (except legs) RSR RSR (except legs)
<45% reduction in <35% reduction in
RSR (legs) RSR (legs)
Failure of <40% reduction in RSR <35% reduction in RSR
pile-leg weld at
jacket top
The evaluation and assessment procedure proposed in the review included the following steps:
●● categorisation of the typical damage expected to be found in an offshore survey (dent and bows,
uniform or local corrosion, cracked member or joint);
●● definition of the damage scenario (location, type and amount) based on the survey information avail-
able. The review recognises that, for example, an inspection finding from a flooded member detection
may not provide sufficient information for determining the cause and amount of the damage.
●● deriving an equivalent wall thickness to represent the experienced damage and the member
capacity reduction based on formulae and tables provided in the report;
●● derive an expected reduction in the RSR value as a result of this damage depending on the
robustness of the structure, the estimated extent of damage and the location of the damage, as
shown in Table 46;
Table 46 Expected Reduction in RSR based on Robustness, Extent and Location of Damage (MSL 2003).
Expected reduction in RSR

Estimated extent of Splash
Robustness damage to member Submerged member zone member Leg Weld
Non-robust 50% 15% 15% 15% 40%

100% 35% 25% 45%
Moderately 50% 15% 10% 15% 35%
robust 100% 25% 20% 35%
Robust 50% 15% 10% 15% 35%
100% 25% 20% 35%
Source: MSL (2003). Guideline for the definition and reporting of significant damage to fixed steel offshore
platforms. MSL Services Corporation, Houston, Texas, USA.
●● compare these with tolerable RSR reductions which depends on the vintage of the structure
(pre-1980 and post-1980) and the exposure category (manned, manned-evacuated or unmanned).
For post-1980s fixed offshore structures, the acceptable reductions in RSR are 20% for manned, 47%
for manned-evacuated and 60% for unmanned platforms. Similarly, for pre-1980s structures, the
acceptable reductions in RSR are 10%, 40% and 55% respectively.
●● decide whether strengthening, mitigation and repair are needed; the review recommends to
base these decisions on the expected reduction in the RSR value and the acceptable
reductions.
7.2.9 MSL Assessment of Repair Techniques for Ageing or Damaged Structures

Section 4 of the MSL report “Assessment and Repair Techniques for Ageing and Damaged
Structures” (MSL 2004) provides good guidance for the assessment of structures with respect to
deciding the need for and the type of strengthening, mitigation and repair that should be imple-
mented when structures are found to have damage or anomalies. According to the review, there are
two main purposes of conducting assessments:
●● to explore the need for and extent of strengthening, mitigation and repair (SMR); and
●● to demonstrate the adequacy of the selected SMR scheme (which is covered in Chapter 8 of
this book).
The review indicates that a structural assessment is normally required to decide whether SMR is
needed and, if so, to what extent. Such an assessment is described to include a structural analysis to
establish member loads in design events and checks of intact or damaged component capacity. The
review also highlights that these structural analyses and component checks may be performed by
refined or advanced analysis techniques if standardised and simplified analysis fails to show that
the structure is fit for further service. In many cases, refined and advanced analysis and component
checks may demonstrate that the structure can be used further without strengthening, modifica-
tion or repair.
The review further points out that the quality of the input data for the structural analysis and
component checks is significant for the quality of the assessment. It should be based on the as-built
structural geometry and should include all subsequent changes, modifications and repairs. Such
changes and modifications can sometimes reduce the loading, for example, when conductors, risers
or caissons have been removed or similar changes have been implemented. Also, the original deck
loading is described to often be conservative and no longer factual. However, examples are also
given of cases where deck loading has been significantly increased after the original design. The soil
strength is also mentioned as an area where more refined analysis can be performed, for example,
based on new soil data or re-analysis of existing soil data. It is also pointed out that having the actual
material certificates can be valuable in defining the yield strength with more accuracy and often at
a higher value. An increase of the yield strength of 15% or higher is indicated as possible (MSL 2004).
Four possible levels of structural analysis are described in the review:
●● basic analysis (similar to standard analysis as performed during design of new structures)—
these analyses should take into account the subsequent modifications and should include any
damaged members in a simplified way (remove the member from the analysis).
●● simple refined analysis where the structural model and load model is refined, for example, by
including member eccentricities and offsets in the model. The stiffness of damaged members
should be reduced to a realistic value;
●● complex refined analysis where more updates to the structural model and load model are
included, for example, by including local joint flexibilities in the model; and
●● advanced analysis where non-linear analysis is performed.
At the time of writing this book most structural analysis of fixed offshore structures is performed
by complex refined analysis and, as such, the choice is now more between this type of analysis and
a non-linear analysis.
Similarly, the review proposes three levels of component checks:
●● standard code check according to recognised standards such as API RP-2A (API 2014) or ISO
19902 (ISO 2007);
●● refined component checks that includes the use of yield stresses from material certificates (mill
certificates), review of member lengths for more accurate buckling analysis, review of SCF for
more accurate fatigue analysis, appraisal of the capacity of damaged members by assessing exist-
ing test data and fracture mechanics studies. In addition, the review suggests the use of reliabil-
ity analysis for component checks; and
●● advanced component checks where finite element analysis of the components is suggested to be
performed or laboratory tests are commissioned to provide data for evaluations of the strength.
These three levels of component checks are rather typical of what is used in analysis of existing
structures at the time of writing this book. However, laboratory tests are normally seen as very
expensive and only used as a last resort.
7.3 Previous Studies on Evaluation of Damaged Plated Structures
7.3.1 Introduction
Corrosion is one of the primary ageing factors of ship-shaped structures as hull structural mem-
bers are exposed to corrosive environments and thickness diminution due to corrosion, which may
be unavoidable. Hence, as stated by Nakai and Yamamoto (2008), “In order to ensure the structural
integrity of ship-shaped structures, it is of crucial importance to understand the corrosion process,
estimate the corrosion rate and evaluate the effect of corrosion wastage not only on overall strength
but also on local strength accurately”.
Corrosion wastage of plate elements can reduce their ultimate strength. A corroded surface on a
plate has a random distribution of thickness over the area of the plate. These variations in thick-
ness will lead to local stress concentrations and plastic hinges may be formed that will affect the
buckling behaviour. In addition, the loss of thickness due to corrosion may form eccentricities that
could influence the capacity of the plate.
Corrosion wastage can be in the form of general uniform corrosion or as localised pitting or
patch corrosion. The strength of a plate with general uniform corrosion is normally estimated by
simply excluding the thickness that is lost due to corrosion. However, this will not fully take into
account the rough surface of a corroded plate. Modelling of the corrosion process is further
reviewed in, for example, Paik (2004), Paik et al. (1998, 2003a, 2003b, 2004a), Guedes Soares and
Garbatov (1999), Garbatov et al. (2004, 2005) and Qin and Cui (2002, 2003).
Fatigue cracking is also one of the primary ageing factors of ship-shaped structures and semi-
submersibles. Guidance on evaluating the strength of cracked stiffened plates can be found in Paik
and Melchers (2008).
In addition, in ship-shaped structures, longitudinals in side-shells may be bent or twisted due to

a local impact resulting in a local reduced structural capacity. In semi-submersibles, the columns
are most vulnerable to local denting. A bent and twisted ring stiffener or girder will reduce the
global buckling capacity of the column. Guidance on evaluating the strength of dented stiffened
plates can also be found in Paik and Melchers (2008).
7.3.2 SSC Studies on Residual Strength of Damaged Plated Marine Structures

In 1995 SSC undertook a project, SSC 381, to review the residual capacity of ship structures after
damage (SSC 1995). The key elements required to undertake an engineering analysis to evaluate
the residual strength were defined and methods such as fracture analysis and ultimate strength
analysis were described. The types of damage identified in this review are discussed in Section 3.4.2.
The principle of reserve and damaged strength ratio often used for fixed offshore steel structures
was in this review used also for ship structures, although reserve strength ratio was in this report
named reserve resistance factor (REF) and the strength in damaged condition was illustrated by a
residual resistance factor (RIF) defined by the collapse load in the damaged condition divided by
the collapse load in the undamaged condition.
SSC 381 (1995) describes the following methods to evaluate residual strength of damaged marine
structures:
●● an indirect method, which is a three-step method using service life experience and semi-empir-
ical assessment criteria for local damage to determine the ultimate strength; and
●● a direct method, which includes identification of potentially critical locations, determination of
the type and extent of damage at these locations and the ultimate strength analysis of the global
structure by linear and non-linear finite element analysis.
Indirect Method
The first step in the indirect method is the identification of critical locations and applicable failure
criteria for damage at these locations. The next step is the local analysis to determine the extent of
damage based on the applied load and the mode of failure. The last step is determination of the
ultimate strength of the structure taking into consideration the damage components. A large
amount of assessment methods and diagrams are provided for various types of damage. These
include:
●● overview of allowable permanent deformation criteria based on both in-service experience and
analytical methods based on calculation of maximum structural strain and the limiting frac-
ture strain;
●● linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) assessment of large structures subjected to low stresses
(less than half the yield stress) and elastic-plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM) for higher stresses.
However, fracture assessment diagrams in accordance with BSI PD 64934 are recommended
accounting for failure in the fracture and collapse modes based on the stress intensity factor K
from a LEFM analysis or the crack tip opening displacement (CTOD) procedure. These evalua-
tions are based on primary stresses, secondary stresses and peak stress, flaw description, mate-
rial properties such as fracture toughness and tensile properties;
4 BSI PD 6493 is later replaced by BS 7910 (BSI 1999).

●● two-dimensional methods for ultimate strength assessment evaluating the hull girder strength
on the basis of individual strength behaviour of the components (gross panel elements and hard
corner elements) making up the hull girder; and
●● damage is included as loss of stiffness and strength of the local components, which results in an
overall reduction of the ultimate hull girder strength. For severe damage, it is assumed that the
whole damaged structure is fully ineffective in carrying any further load.
It is recognised that the indirect method is based on numerous assumptions and that the method
is very conservative. The identified limitations of the indirect method included:
●● it is based on the assumption that the location and form of local damage will be available from
service life experience (truer for merchant ships than for ship-shaped offshore structures);
●● damage like cracks are modelled by removing damaged portions without any consideration for
the residual stiffness or strength the member still possesses; and
●● interaction of failure modes are not allowed for in this method.
Direct method
A 3-D linear finite element analysis of the whole structure is performed and results of this analy-
sis are to be used at the local level for a non-linear fracture and ultimate strength assessment. To
identify locations susceptible to damage, the report suggests that ship motions and load programs
are used in conjunction with the finite element analysis. When locations prone to cracking are
determined, calculations are made to determine the time to failure of the components, typically
based on the Paris crack growth equation. Determination of the critical crack length is recom-
mended to be performed according to BSI PD 6493.
To integrate the effect of local failure upward to the global structural level and ensure that cor-
rect load transfer paths and internal load distributions are calculated, a full three-dimensional
non-linear finite element analysis is recommended to be carried out.
The direct method is recognised as time consuming, requiring a considerable amount of techni-
cal expertise but is the most rational and complete procedure for residual strength evaluations of
damaged ship structures.
An example of an ultimate strength analysis of a typical tanker is provided. The evaluation
includes:
●● typical locations, type of damage and criteria for critical crack length and crack growth rate;
●● load analysis;
●● determination of allowable crack length according to BSI PD 6493; and
●● determination of crack growth according to PD 6493 (based on a 0.005 mm assumed initial crack
length) providing the crack length as a function of number of voyages.
Determination of critical crack length by K-method:
2
1 K mat
am
2 1
Determination of critical crack length by CTOD-method:
mat E 1
am for 0.5
1 y
2 0.25 y
y
mat E 1
am 2
for 0.5
y
1
2 y
y
In the example provided, the allowable crack lengths were 56 mm for the K-method and 106 mm
for the CTOD method.
Later, the SSC in their report SSC 416 (SSC 2000) included advice for the evaluation of hull struc-
tures (appendix B):
●● the hull girder strength is confirmed on the basis of the actual hull girder section modulus,
which may be assessed initially using an allowable area at deck and bottom;
●● buckling found during the survey should be taken as an indication of areas which require stiff-
ening or renewal of material;
●● any fractures found should normally be repaired by part renewal of material or by welding;
structural modifications may also be advisable to avoid repetition of fractures;
●● areas of heavy wastage due to general corrosion need to be analysed, for example, by the percent-
age thickness reduction and a buckling criterion—if wastage is in excess of the allowable limit,
steel renewal may be needed;
●● local corrosion or pitting of the shell that can lead to possible hull penetration needs to be
studied;
●● isolated pits are not believed to significantly influence the strength of plates or other structural
members but may cause a potential pollution or leakage problem;
●● large areas of pitting of a structure will influence the strength and must be considered when
assessing the residual mean thickness of material; and
●● the bending capacity reduction obtained from testing of plates with uniform machined pits sug-
gests that capacity reduction is roughly proportional to the loss of material (pitting diagrams
may be used in combination with measurements of pitting depths).
Here, detailed methods for assessment are not provided, but reference is made to Tanker
Structure Cooperative Forum “Guidance Manual for the Inspection and Condition Assessment of
Tanker Structures”, “Guidance for the Inspection and Maintenance of Double Hull Tanker
Structures” and “Guidance Manuals for Tanker Structures” (TSCF 1986, 1995 and 1997).
7.4 Previous Studies on Evaluation of Damaged

Concrete Structures
7.4.1 Department of Energy Assessment of Major Damage to the Prestressed

Concrete Tower
A review of major damage to concrete offshore structures resulting from ship impact from differ-
ent types of vessels was undertaken for the Department of Energy (1988). It also devised methods
for the repair of different levels of damage following impact. The different types of potential colli-
sions included were:
●● sideways collision with a 2500 tonne displacement supply vessel (in the context of modern sup-
ply vessels this is a small size vessel);
●● bow collision with a cargo ship (875 tonne displacement);
●● bow collision with a channel ferry (8900 tonne displacement);

●● bow collision with a large cargo ship (21,300 tonne displacement); and
●● bow collision with a large oil carrier (127,000 tonne displacement).
Such damage can have effects both on strength and on seawater ingress, which could lead to
corrosion or loss of operational capability. For example, accidental damage to a concrete tower
can cause seawater leakage. This can lead to loss of pressure control and consequent overstress
of the cell-to-tower connection or direct loss of strength in the area of the damage. In many con-
crete platforms the stresses in the base cells and the adjacent parts of the leg are influenced by
the internal pressure in the cells and loss of the pressure regime within the cells (drawdown) can
lead to possible overstress of the structure under severe weather. This pressure is controlled by
the water level in a ballast water header tank situated within one of the legs. The normal under-
pressure of the cells is around 3–4 bar in relation to the adjacent sea water, which results in
beneficial compressive stresses in the towers; this could be lost with water ingress to the cells
(Ocean Structures 2009).
The report also analysed the damage in more depth, reaching the following conclusions:
●● Assessment of the sideways collision showed that a punching shear failure was unlikely, although
it was noted that high-stress concentrations arose from impact with the half round steel fenders
on the supply vessel. It was also noted that supply vessels were getting larger and such vessels
were capable of more severe damage. It should be noted that the bows of modern supply vessels
are different from those analysed in 1987 (bulbous bows and X-bows), and in recent years many
supply vessels are ice strengthened which in both cases will have a very different impact load
scenario.
●● For the bow collisions the report identified the shape of the bow and its elevation, which might
impact a concrete tower. In each case the degree of punching shear failure was estimated for
realistic impact speeds. In terms of the structural integrity of a damaged platform, analyses were
performed on typical offshore towers to assess the effects of major damage. This included ini-
tially an elastic analysis on a damaged tower to identify the distribution of stresses in the region
of the damage and to identify areas where failure of the concrete might occur. Secondly, an ulti-
mate limit state analysis was performed to investigate the load-carrying capacity of a tower with
various degrees of damage. This was coupled with a wave force analysis to determine the limit-
ing sea sate which the damaged structure could withstand.
The tower selected for analysis was from the Cormorant A platform. The tower size was 8 m in
diameter, 650 mm wall thickness. It was decided to restrict the study to holes which might result
from a moderately severe impact and square holes of different dimensions. The analysis indicated
that areas of yielding in compression would be very localised and confined to the area adjacent to
the hole for the scenarios investigated.
The ultimate limit state analysis of the damaged tower was performed on a prestressed tower
containing various degrees of damage. In this case the tower chosen was that for the Wimpey-Elf
structure (similar dimensions to the Cormorant A structure). The analysis produced a series of
interaction curves of the ultimate axial load capacity versus the ultimate bending capacity of the
section. These curves indicated that the tower may sustain substantial damage before collapse.
For the design axial load coupled with the design wave (28 m), failure was predicted when the
damage extended 110o of the circumference, representing a very large impact area. The report
concluded that this analysis may be misleading for a number of reasons, which are listed in
the report.
7.4.2 Department of Energy Review of Impact Damage Caused by

Dropped Objects
Accidental damage to the domes of storage cells from dropped objects can lead to both loss of
strength and seawater leakage. This type of damage was reviewed in a Department of Energy pro-
ject (Department of Energy 1987c). This leakage could reduce the beneficial effects of drawdown
as discussed above. Hence, it is likely that significant damage would need repair as has already
happened in a few cases (see Section 8.4). In one case, damage to a 500 mm thick cell roof slab
resulted from a dropped object, causing a deep hole 300 mm in depth, leading to water flowing
though the slab. Repair was undertaken by pre-packing aggregates within the hole and covering
the hole with a steel plate and injecting grout to restore the original concrete profile.
7.4.3 HSE Review of Durability of Prestressing Components

High-strength prestressing tendons are required to maintain the structural integrity of the concrete
structure, particularly in the towers. These tendons are placed in steel ducts which after tensioning
are grouted. The ducts are placed within the walls of the structure. The degree to which grouting
has been fully effective, given the long length of the ducts and in some cases their horizontal orien-
tation (which is more difficult to grout), has led to concerns that seawater can penetrate into the
ducts. This could cause corrosion of the very high–strength steel tendons with a potentially serious
local loss of prestress. A review of the durability of prestressing components (HSE1997) concluded
that the first group of concrete offshore structures (pre-1978) was more vulnerable to poor grouting
and hence corrosion of the prestressing tendons. Due to the length of the ducts, high pressure had
to be used which caused grout in these early structures to bleed so that water collected at the tops
of vertical ducts and the resulting voids had to be filled with fresh grout. It was known that later
platforms benefited from improved grouting materials and procedures.
The HSE report (HSE 1997) investigated the potential for loss in strength of a typical offshore
concrete structure due to local loss of prestressing caused by corrosion. The analyses undertaken
showed that there would have to be a loss of 10% of the prestress to cause the reliability to fall
below the target value and a loss of 40% before a leg could fail under loading from a design wave.
In addition, it would be necessary for most of the tendons to fail in the same section, which is
unlikely for grouted ducts. However, as noted in the report (HSE 1997), there has been evidence
from land-based structures (e.g. bridges) where prestressing failures have occurred leading to over-
all failure. Nonetheless, the tendons do not play such a critical role in offshore concrete structures.
The report concluded that locations in the post tensioning system most at risk are in the vertical
ducts in the region of the splash zone, particularly at anchorages. The inspection of prestressing
tendons in ducts is recognised as difficult, because of their length and because they are embedded
within the concrete.
The report (HSE 1997) also identified the most vulnerable area in an offshore concrete structure
as being the steel-to-concrete transition between the deck and platform legs. It is recommended in
the report that inspection should be made of this location.
7.4.4 HSE Review of Major Hazards to Concrete Platforms

As part of the Concrete in the Oceans (CiO) programme, a review of major hazards to concrete
platforms was commissioned by HSE and undertaken by Ove Arup and Partners (HSE 1994). A
total of twenty-seven potential major hazards were identified and assessed, including all phases
Table 47 Risk Assessment Matrix for Offshore Concrete Structures.
Hazard Frequency Consequence Risk
Ship impact 5 4 20
Internal pool and jet fire 5 4 20
External sea fire (pool fire) 5 4 20
Explosions 5 3 15
Oil storage systems 4 3 12
Implosion 2 5 10
Dropped objects 5 2 10
Excess hydrodynamic loading 3 3 9
Prestressing failure 2 3 6
Design errors 2 3 6
Fatigue 1 5 5
Scour 1 4 4
from design to abandonment. For each major hazard, the consequence of failure and the frequency
of occurrence were assessed to create a risk assessment matrix indicating areas of uncertainty and
research needs at that time. An extract from this table is shown in Table 47 for the hazards most
relevant for in-service operation. The higher risk hazards are addressed in this book with the
exception of fire and explosion damage to concrete structures.
7.4.5 Department of Energy Review of the Effects of Temperature Gradients

The storage of hot oil in the concrete tanks at the base of many concrete installations can lead to
thermal stresses that can produce cracking of the concrete. Concrete is vulnerable to significant
temperature differences, which in this particular case arise from hot oil on one side of a wall and
cold seawater on the other side. Tests, as reported in the Department of Energy report OTH 87 234,
have shown that temperature differences of up to 45° C can be sustained with the correct design
details (Department of Energy 1987d), with some cracking occurring but within acceptable limits.
The oil is cooled before storage, but if the coolers fail or unusual conditions occur, oil with tempera-
tures of up to 90° C can be diverted into the storage cells, which could cause more significant crack-
ing of the walls. Over a long period of operation these effects could accumulate. The increased
stresses from these thermal effects could lead to cracking of the concrete and overstress of steel-
work in and around the walls and roofs of the storage cells, including the critical junction with
the legs.
7.4.6 Concrete in the Oceans Review of Corrosion Protection

of Concrete Structures
As part of the Concrete in the Oceans (CiO) programme, a review of corrosion protection of concrete
structures was undertaken by DNV and Wimpy Laboratories in the report OTH 87 248 (Department
of Energy 1987e). The review together with exposure tests concluded that for a totally submerged
structure, static cracks up to 0.6 mm wide at the surface on a 50–75 mm cover can be accepted.
However, in the splash zone, corrosion occurred in quite narrow cracks 0.1 mm wide. Overall, it is
expected that local losses of the concrete cover to the reinforcement are likely to result in minimal
loss of strength. However, many losses of cover, unless repaired, can lead to reinforcement corrosion
which if extensive could affect strength.
7.4.7 Norwegian Road Administration Guideline V441

For Norwegian concrete offshore structures, the relevant parts of the Norwegian Road
Administration guidelines (Statens vegvesen 2019) have been used in evaluation of damage and
anomalies. These guidelines are similar to those used by other regional road administrations such
as in the UK.
The guideline requires that a report shall be developed during inspection of concrete structure
describing the damage types and anomalies observed. This should include a description of the
level of damage and of the extent to which the damage will reduce the integrity of the structure.
Standardised damage types are stipulated and shall be used in the reporting. The description of
the level of damage and anomalies is required to include a verbal description specifying the type
found, a clear description of where on the structure this is found and the extent and photos of the
finding.
The level of damage or anomaly is required to be evaluated according to the categories minor,
medium, major and critical. The level of damage can be exemplified by cracks as given in this
guideline where a crack < 0.3 mm is regarded as minor, 0.3–1.0 mm is regarded as medium,
1.0–2.0 mm is regarded as major and > 2 mm is regarded as critical.
Further, the consequences of the damage or anomaly are required to be evaluated based on the
following categories:
●● minor consequences of damage or anomaly: no mitigation necessary;
●● medium consequences of damage or anomaly: to be registered in the structural integrity man-
agement database for further assessment;
●● large consequences of damage or anomaly: proposed mitigation to be registered in the structural
integrity management database and inspection intervals should be re-evaluated; and
●● critical consequences of damage or anomaly: owner or responsible structural integrity engineer
are to be contacted immediately.
A damage or anomaly on a road bridge can affect the structural integrity, the serviceability of the
bridge, future inspection and repair cost and aesthetics; the guideline indicates that these conse-
quence types are listed in decreasing level of importance. The guideline requires the consequence
type to be included in the evaluation. For the most relevant consequence type for offshore struc-
tures, the following description is provided for the evaluation:
●● minor consequences for the structural integrity indicate that the strength of the structure is to
a very small extent affected by the damage and the damage is regarded as stable (not
developing);
●● medium consequences for the structural integrity indicate that the strength of the structure is to
some extent affected by the damage and there is a possibility that the damage is developing;
●● large consequences for the structural integrity indicate that the strength of the structure is sig-
nificantly affected by the damage and the structure is at immediate risk of collapsing;
●● critical consequences for the structural integrity indicate that the strength of the structure is
significantly affected and has been or will be overloaded. Owner or responsible structural integ-
rity engineer are to be contacted immediately.
Table 48 Selected Types and Causes of Damage from Guideline V441.
Standardised damage types Standardised damage causes
Material independent damage types Errors in design and fabrication

●● settlements; ●● insufficient standards;
●● rotation or movement of structural components; ●● inappropriate use of standards;
●● deformation of structural components; ●● inappropriate choice of materials;
●● leaks; ●● errors in design calculations;
●● discolouring. ●● errors in fabrication.
Foundation damage Material

●● erosion and scour. ●● inappropriate material strength;
Damage to concrete ●● cracking.
●● cracks; Environmental
●● damaged coating; ●● frost;
●● thaw; ●● chloride;
●● wear; ●● carbonatization;
●● delamination; ●● bacteria;
●● spalling; ●● chemical.
●● reinforcement corrosion. Loading

●● service loads;
●● environmental loads;
●● accidental impact;
●● accidental fire and explosion.
Source: Modified from Statens vegvesen (2019). Håndbok V441 Bruinspeksjon, Vegdirektoratet. Oslo, Norway (in
Norwegian).
The guideline also requires the cause of the damage to be identified as this may have significant
impact on the decision of repair and mitigation and avoiding similar future damage on the struc-
ture. The inspection history shall be evaluated to check for any trends in damage development that
needs to be corrected or mitigated.
The standardised types and causes of the damage listed in the guideline relevant for offshore
concrete structures are shown in Table 48.
7.5 Practice of Evaluation and Assessment of Offshore Structures
7.5.1 General
A broad range of anomalies, damage and changes will be reported to the structural integrity engi-
neer from the inspections and surveys that have been performed. The structural integrity engineer
has to evaluate each of these and decide whether:
●● the anomaly, damage or change can remain as it is based on the information available, often
combined with a plan on monitoring further development or change going forward;
●● more analysis and assessment are needed in order to decide on further action; and
●● repair is needed and the urgency of the repair execution.
Simple rules may be used such as “Any developing crack in critical areas shall be assessed and
shall have top priority for repair while all other cracks shall be repaired when possible” and “Any
sign of corrosion shall be removed by abrasive blasting, cleaned and re-coated”. However, many
operators would prefer to optimise such guidelines with the aim of minimising repair costs.
DNVGL (2019b) indicates that a decision on whether to mitigate or repair should be made when
damage such as fatigue cracks, significant corrosion, fabrication defects, overload and accidental
damage are detected. Further, the need for mitigation should also be evaluated if changes in use or
increase in loading are identified. Such changes in use or in loading may be due to subsidence,
addition of new modules, addition of new risers or conductors and new information or knowledge
about loading (e.g. environmental loading). Repair or mitigation should also be evaluated if new
standards or regulatory requirements or results from new or more advanced analyses indicate that
the structure has insufficient strength or fatigue capacity.
If the evaluation on a component basis indicates that the finding is significant and hence fails to
demonstrate acceptable strength with the damage present, an assessment including global struc-
tural analysis may be required. MSL (2004) proposed an approach as presented in Table 49 as a way
to perform the evaluation and assessment. Three levels of complexity were proposed for analysis
and component checks. Basic analysis and standard code checks would be sufficient if these prove
that the structure is fit-for-purpose with the damage present. More advanced analysis and compo-
nent checks could be selected if needed.
DNVGL RP-C208 (DNVGL 2019b) highlights the importance of determining the extent of the
damage, whether the damage occurs at several similar locations and the root cause of the damage
taking into account the operational history and the age of the structure. In addition, the impact of the
damage on the integrity of the structure should be determined in order to decide whether repair or
Table 49 Evaluation and Assessment Possibilities for Structures with Damage or Anomalies.
Evaluation Structural analysis Component check
Checking the effect of Basic analysis Standard code check

damage or anomaly on Simple structural model based Strength formulae and variables such as
component strength and on as-built drawings, including yield stress and partial factors are used
fatigue life. subsequent modifications. according to recognised standards.
Damaged members are removed, SN-check of remaining fatigue life.
Significant damage or or their stiffness is reduced
anomaly is often defined according to damage level
as causing a capacity Complex analysis Refined checking
reduction of 10% or More detailed analysis model Yield stress can be based on mill
more. If so, structural with, for example, local joint certificates. The relevance and accuracy of
analysis and component flexibilities included. Load data variables such as effective lengths and
checking is needed. are updated and based on recent SCFs can be checked and updated.
metocean specifications and Capacity of damaged elements can be
joint occurrence data of loads included based on existing test data.
(e.g. wind and wave). Fracture mechanics crack growth analysis
to establish remaining fatigue life.
Advanced analysis Advanced checking
Non-linear finite element Finite element component checks, e.g. in
analysis for a more complete accordance with DNVGL RP-C208
understanding of structural (strength) and BS7910 (SCFs and crack
behaviour and redistribution of growth). Perform laboratory tests to
loads in structure. establish strength or fatigue checks.
Reliability analysis is also a possibility (but
difficult to justify).
modification is needed and, if repair is needed, which repair method should be used (see Chapter 8
of this book). DNVGL (2019b) further highlights the importance of having access to quality informa-
tion about the structure. This requires access to information such as inspection and analysis reports,
weight reports, as-built drawings, any modifications to the structure and possible access to reanalysis
models. A full description of the information needed is provided in, for example, NORSOK N-006
(Standard Norge 2015).
As indicated previously some structural items are uninspectable because of restricted access
either externally or internally. Typical examples are the pile, the shear plates for pile-sleeve con-
nectors, the grout between the pile and the pile sleeve and internal stiffeners in joints for fixed steel
structures. The fatigue evaluation of these can make use of the availability of data from nearby
inspectable components with similar loading and significantly lower fatigue lives. In reality, this
approach has significant limitations for the uninspectable pile-related items but may be used for a
joint without ROV access. For piles and pile-sleeve connections this leaves structural monitoring
techniques as the primary method for providing the necessary information to evaluate their perfor-
mance. The typical method used for this purpose is natural frequency monitoring as a significant
reduction in pile capacity or pile sleeve connection will lead to change in the stiffness and behav-
iour of the platform.
As noted previously, ISO 19902 (ISO 2007) requires that “all available data on the structure or
group of structures shall be evaluated” and indicates that the following structural considerations
should be included in the evaluation:
●● structure age, condition, original design situations and criteria, and comparison with current
design situations and criteria;
●● analysis results and assumptions for original design or subsequent assessments;
●● structure reserve strength and structural redundancy;
●● fatigue sensitivity;
●● degree of uncertainty in specified environmental conditions;
●● extent of inspection during fabrication and after transportation and installation;
●● fabrication quality and occurrences of any rework or rewelding;
●● damage (including fatigue damage) during transportation or installation;
●● operational experience, including previous in-service inspection results and lessons from the
performance of other structures;
●● modifications, additions and repairs or strengthening;
●● occurrence of accidental and severe environmental events;
●● criticality of structure to other operations;
●● structure location (geographical area, water depth);
●● debris;
●● structural monitoring data, if available; and
●● potential reuse or removal intents.
7.5.2 Fixed and Floating Steel Structures

Several standards are as described in Chapter 2 available for the evaluation and assessment of
fixed structures, including ISO 19902 (ISO 2007), ISO 19901-9 (ISO 2019), API RP-2A
(API 2014a), API RP-2SIM (API 2014b) and NORSOK N-006 (Standard Norge 2015). Formulae
for evaluation of dented, corroded and cracked tubular members are provided in, for example,
ISO 19902 (ISO 2007). For floating structures standards such as API RP-2FSIM (API 2019a),
API RP 2MIM (API 2019b), NORSOK N-006 (Standard Norge 2015) and classification society
guidelines such as DNVGL-OS-C102 (DNVGL 2015) provides codified capacity checks for
many relevant situations. In addition, the work by organisations such as the Ship Structure
Committee (SSC) and the Tanker Structure Cooperative Forum (TSCF) provides valuable data
and methods. Such information can also be found in Paik and Thayamballi (2007) and Paik
and Melchers (2008).
A first evaluation of corrosion damage will often be made visually based on some form of clas-
sification. Often a “good, fair and bad” classification is used in DNVGL-CG-0288 (DNVGL 2017)
where less than 3% breakdown of coating or area rusted is considered good, 3–20 % is considered
fair and more than 20% is considered poor and particularly requiring further assessment and most
likely repair (see Figure 79 for illustration of amount of corrosion per area). For hard rust scale,
more than 10% by area would be regarded as poor condition requiring attention while for the edges
and weld lines more than 20% is regarded as fair and more than 50% is regarded as poor
(DNVGL 2017). However, corroded welds will be fatigue sensitive and the SN-curve will need to be
modified to allow for free corrosion which often will reduce the fatigue life by a factor in the
order of 3.
Finite element analysis is often used for detailed checks of specific damage and anomalies.
However, these need to be calibrated to actual physical tests of similar situations before they are
used. This calibration implies that finite element analysis of specimens from the laboratory tests
described earlier in this chapter are performed to check that the finite element analysis produces
similar results. If the finite element analysis does not provide similar results, physical correct
adjustments should be made to the finite element analysis in order to better represent the physics
of the structural behaviour.
The amount of further crack growth from an identified fatigue crack is an important parameter
that needs to be studied. The evaluation and assessment should determine the rate of which the
crack will be growing and predict when the crack would reach a size where unstable propagation
could occur. A few standards for such assessment exist but BS7910 (BSI 2019) is to a large extent
the industry standard.
Fatigue crack growth is in BS7910 (BSI 2019) predicted by fracture mechanics using a fatigue
crack growth law where the rate of fatigue crack growth under cyclic loading is related to the range
of the stress intensity factor, ∆K, as shown in Figure 80. There are three stages of crack growth:
●● Stage I: crack propagation is considered to occur only when the stress intensity factor range
exceeds the threshold stress intensity factor range, ∆Kth.
●● Stage II: at intermediate values of ∆K, there is an approximate linear relationship between the
crack growth rate and ∆K on a log-log scale.
2–3% 20%
Figure 79 Illustrations of percentage of corrosion per area.

Region 1: Region 2: Region 3:

Slow crack Power law Rapid unstable
growth region region crack growth
Kcr final
failure
da/dN (mm/cycle)
da dN = C (∆K)m
Threshold
∆Kth
∆K MPa
m
Figure 80 Fatigue crack growth rate curve. Source: Based on BSI (2013), BS 7910:2013 + A1:2015, ‘Guide to
methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in metallic structures. British Standards Institution, 2013.
●● Stage III: this is characterised by accelerated crack growth which becomes unstable and results
in fracture when the maximum stress intensity factor attains a critical level, Kcr.
The often-used Paris and Erdogan (1963) equation is applicable to the Stage II region only.
Various other fatigue crack growth laws have been proposed to take account of Stage I crack
growth, which can represent a significant proportion of the total fatigue life. The crack growth rate
under cyclic loading is a function of the loading conditions, geometry, material and the environ-
ment in which the material is placed. Further information can be found in Anderson (2017), Ersdal
et al. (2019) and particularly in BS 7910 (BSI 1999).
The evaluation of the stability of a fatigue crack can be performed by using a failure assessment
diagram (FAD). The failure assessment diagrams represent the interaction between the failure
modes of brittle or ductile fracture and plastic limit state or collapse dependent on the fracture
toughness properties and yield behaviour, respectively. The FAD method is described in standards
such as BS 7910 (BSI 1999) and API 579 (API 2016).
Figure 81 shows an FAD based on BS 7910 where the vertical axis Kr is the ratio of the linear
elastic stress intensity factor of the crack to fracture toughness and the horizontal axis Lr is the
ratio between the load and the plastic limit or collapse load with the crack present. If these coordi-
nates calculated for a crack in a given geometry and stress field lie within the FAD boundary, then
the crack can be considered to be stable. If the coordinates lie outside the boundary, then unstable
crack propagation is a possibility.
Three levels of assessment are available depending on the data available and the sophistication of
analysis required. The fracture assessment procedure for offshore structures is usually based on the
use of the Option 2 failure assessment diagram for low work hardening materials which represents
the behaviour of offshore structural steels. The BS 7910 (BSI 1999) procedure allows the collapse
Fracture Dominated
1.0 Unsafe region
Combined Failure
Collapse Dominated
Kr
Safe region
Cut-off: Lrmax
Lr 1.0
Figure 81 Failure Assessment Diagram. Source: Based on BSI (2013), BS 7910:2013 + A1:2015, ‘Guide to
methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in metallic structures. British Standards Institution, 2013.
parameter Lr for tubular joints to be calculated using either local collapse or global collapse criteria.
The local collapse approach is usually very conservative whilst the use of the global approach,
which incorporates more realistic boundary conditions, tends to give more realistic predictions.
The evaluation and assessment of a structure for a damage or anomaly can include many differ-
ent types of analysis and checks, the obvious examples being fatigue crack growth analysis and the
static strength of a damaged member. An overview of possible evaluation methods for different
types of damage and anomalies in steel structures is given in Table 50.
Table 50 Suggested Evaluation Methods for Steel Structures.
Cause of damage Fixed steel and floating structures Suggested evaluation method
Fatigue Fatigue cracks particularly in Crack growth rate and remaining fatigue life
welded structures with potential estimation; residual strength determination to
for through-thickness cracks, determine consequence of cracking; static
member severance (separation) and strength of component in accordance with
missing member appropriate standard (e.g. ISO 19902 for
example tubulars in fixed steel structures);
failure assessment diagram (FAD) if potential
for brittle fracture is suspected
Fatigue crack in chain link, link Crack growth rate and remaining fatigue life
failure, loss of mooring line, estimation; static strength determination to
drifting unit determine need for replacement link or wire
rope
Corrosion Corrosion generally will result in Visual evaluation of the extent of corrosion;
reduced wall thickness and in some static strength of components and fatigue
cases patch corrosion with potential check by corrosion SN curves
for holes, flooding, member
severance and missing member
Corrosion pits leading to flooding Extent and depth of pitting is needed and can
and potential for fatigue initiation be used to determine loss of strength and local
thickness and whether repair is needed
Corrosion of chain link or wire Static strength determination to determine
strand, loss of mooring line, need for replacement link or wire rope
drifting unit
Overload Buckles, dents, holes, cracks at Residual strength determination to determine
(hurricanes and welds and into chords, tears, consequence of damage; crack growth rate and
major storms) out-of-plane bowing, severed remaining fatigue life estimation may be
members, tears, pancake leg required; static strength of component in
severance, punch-through of brace, accordance with appropriate standard (e.g. ISO
pull out of brace, conductor torn 19902 for example tubulars in fixed steel
loose from guide, broken water structures)
caissons, broken riser standoffs
Damage to links, snapping of Replacement of link or rope is normally
anchor chains, drifting units, required
dragging of anchors
Drifting units and dragging of Re-installing of anchors and mooring lines is
anchors may impact other normally required
structures and pipelines
Overload and Buckling in plates and members Residual strength determination to determine
accidental consequence of damage; if cracks are present,
damage (vessel crack growth rate and remaining fatigue life
impact and estimation may be required
dropped object) Dented and bowed member, Static strength of component; fatigue check
member severance and missing including additional stresses and unintentional
member details
Mechanical damage from mooring Static strength and fatigue check of mooring
line seabed impact, wear and bending line (wire rope) or chain link—replace if
over the fairlead and handling of significant
anchor chains and wire ropes
Wear and tear Abrasion/wear of link or rope and Static strength and fatigue check of mooring
possible loss of stud (chain) line (wire rope) or chain link—replace if
significant
Marine growth Increased loading and potential Take into account in load calculations and
overload damage fatigue analysis

Possibility for sulphate-reducing
bacteria resulting in corrosion
Settlement and Platform settlement and subsidence Take into account in load calculations and
subsidence may lead to change in loading fatigue analysis and estimate possibility of
pattern and exposure condition wave-in-deck loading
Scour and Scour around the platform Estimate effect on pile and mud-plate strength;
build-up of drill exposing the piles with the residual strength assessment (redundancy)
cuttings potential for pile failure may be required

Drill-cuttings can bury or bear onto
lower frames and result in damage.
Loss of holding power to anchors Evaluate loss of holding power and need for
due to scour rock dumping or anchor relocation
(Continued)
Material Cracking from hydrogen Estimate level of cracking and loss of static
deterioration embrittlement particularly for high strength in addition to crack growth rate and
strength steel (e.g. Jack-ups) remaining fatigue life estimation; the degree of
overprotection from the CP system needs to be
determined and adjusted if necessary
Brittle fracture of chain links Replacement of link is normally required
Fabrication Lack of penetration or excessive Crack growth rate and remaining fatigue life
fault undercutting that could lead to estimation; residual strength determination to
unexpected fatigue cracks, failure determine consequence of damage. Imploded
to provide vent holes for intended members subjected to compression loads
flooded members could lead to normally need to be replaced
implosion, inferior material,
incorrect member sizes, incorrect
member positions, omissions.
Under-design Member buckling, joint failure, Fatigue and crack growth analysis, strength
tearing, fatigue cracking analysis and residual strength assessment
Damage to links and failure of (redundancy) may be required to determine
anchor chains possibly leading to need for strengthening or repair
drifting units. Under-designed
anchors (soil strength) could lead
to dragging of anchors.
7.5.3 Concrete Structures

The international standards for concrete structures do not offer much information about evaluation of
damage and anomalies to concrete structures. Previous studies have investigated the effect of impact
damage on both towers and cells taking into account damage to the concrete, reinforcement and pre-
stress. These studies have also provided some guidance on evaluation of this type of significant damage.
Table 51 Evaluation Scheme for Concrete Structures.
Consequence Description Repair need
Minor The strength of the structure is to a very small extent No immediate action needed
affected by the damage and the damage is regarded as
stable (not developing)
Medium The strength of the structure is to some extent affected Further monitoring should
by the damage and there is a possibility that the be implemented
damage is developing
Large The strength of the structure is significantly affected Repair or strengthening
by the damage, but the structure is not at immediate should be planned
risk of collapsing
Critical The strength of the structure is significantly affected Repair or strengthening is
and has been or will be overloaded. Owner or immediately required
responsible structural integrity engineer are to be
contacted immediately
Source: Based on Statens vegvesen (2019). Håndbok V441 Bruinspeksjon, Vegdirektoratet. Oslo, Norway (in Norwegian).
The evaluation scheme shown in Table 51 is often used to determine the need for repair to con-
crete offshore structures.
With the lack of standardised evaluation methods for damage types to concrete structures,
Table 52 has been developed to provide an overview of the most likely forms of significant damage
and the suggested evaluation methods for each of these damage types.
Table 52 Anomalies and Possible Evaluation Methods for Concrete Structures.
Cause of damage Types and description Suggested evaluation method
Corrosion Spalling and delamination (above Determine the extent of spalling and
water) as result of reinforcement delamination. The need for repair depends on
corrosion as well as potential loss the level and extent of spalling and
of reinforcement area delamination, typically in accordance with EN
1504-3:2005 (EN 2006). Monitor if low level.
Seepage of corrosion products at Evaluate CP levels against design criteria and
cracks under water as result of determine level of cracking. If CP levels are
reinforcement corrosion insufficient, consider replacement of anodes.
Evaluation of the need for repair (filling epoxy
in the crack) would depend on the
consequence evaluation.
Chloride ingress above water Determine level of chloride at reinforcement.
(reinforcement corrosion and However, as concrete is a porous material,
potential loss of reinforcement chloride ingress is expected during life. The need
area) for repair depends on the chloride level and the
availability of oxygen at the reinforcement,
potentially resulting in future corrosion. The need
for repair is normally dependent on visual
damage, such as spalling and delamination.
Corrosion of steel attachments Evaluate effect of local loss of prestress on
(e.g. pre-tension cable at performance and need for local concrete
anchorages, steel support repair. If significant, consider additional
attachments) and potential loss of prestress (external)
prestressing capacity
Overload and Local impact damage to towers Calculation of local loss of tower strength and
accidental resulting in reduction in concrete likelihood of water penetration.
damage (vessel section area and possible water Evaluation of the extent of damage to
impact and ingress concrete, reinforcement and prestress:
dropped object) ●● if reinforcement is not damaged, patch
repair will be sufficient;
●● if reinforcement or prestress are damaged,
the effect on local strength needs to be
determined and replacement of the
reinforcement or prestress may be required.
In the event of water penetration, repair
methods designed to stop water flow are needed.
Local impact damage to tops of Evaluate the extent of damage to concrete and
storage cells from dropped objects reinforcement and calculation of local loss of
resulting in reduction in concrete cell top strength. If strength loss or water
section area and possible water ingress is significant, repair is needed. Repair
ingress should always be implemented if damage fully
penetrates cell top.
(Continued)
Cause of damage Types and description Suggested evaluation method
Wear and tear Abrasion (local wear) and erosion Determine the remaining local reinforcement
resulting in minor reduction in cover. If loss of cover is significant, local repair
concrete section area may be needed.
Marine growth Increased loading Evaluate the level of marine growth versus
design basis and if in excess, take into account
in load calculations or remove growth.
Settlement and Settlement and subsidence Evaluate the level of settlement and
subsidence subsidence and their effect versus design basis.
If settlement or subsidence is beyond design
bases, an assessment of overall strength is
required.
Scour and Scour around the base of the Evaluate effect on overall strength and need
build-up of drill platform possibly leading to for, for example, rock dumping
cuttings instability
Material Loss of the concrete material due Evaluate loss of cover to reinforcement;
deterioration to aggressive agents (sulphate, evaluate need for local removal of concrete
chloride) and replacement
Cracking due to shrinkage (after Evaluate level of cracking against design
construction) criteria; evaluate effect on local cover to
reinforcement
Cracking, scaling and crumbling due Evaluate degree of cracking against design
to freeze and thaw (above water) criteria; evaluate remaining reinforcement cover
Strength loss of the concrete Often this anomaly is accepted partly due to
material due to sulphate- the enormous difficulty in accessing interior of
producing bacteria (primarily in the tank; however, no real data exists on the
oil-storage tanks) status of such tanks after operation
Fabrication fault Defective construction joints, Determine water leakage from defective
minor cracking, surface construction joints. If significant, repair
blemishes, remaining metal (epoxy filling) may be required. The other
attachments, patch repairs from types of faults will be evaluated depending on
construction, low cover to the the presence of corrosion or water leakage and
reinforcement possibly leading to may require repair in line with similar damage
spalling in the splash zone and types mentioned above in this table.
possible water ingress
Under-design Cracking due to low Local loss of strength needs to be determined
reinforcement or prestressing, as a result of significant cracking, crushing or
crushing of concrete in rare cases, failures being detected. Repair may be needed
failure in the junction between if loss of strength is significant
shafts and cells
References
Allan, J.D. and Marshall, J. (1992), The Effect of Ship Impact on the Load Carrying Capacity of Steel
Tubes, Department of Energy, Offshore Technology Report, OTH 90 317, HMSO, London, UK.
Anderson, T.L. (2017), Fracture Mechanics: Fundamentals and Applications, CRC Press, 4th Edition.
API (2014b), API RP-2SIM Recommended Practice for Structural Integrity Management of Fixed
Offshore Structures, American Petroleum Institute, 2014.
API (2016). API RP-579 Fitness-For-Service, Third Edition, American Petroleum Institute (also
published by ASME as ASME FFS-1–2016).
API (2019a), API RP-2FSIM Floating System Integrity Management, American Petroleum
Institute, 2019.
Atteya, M., Mikkelsen, O., Oma, N. and Ersdal, G. (2020), “Residual Strength of Tubular Columns with
Localized Thickness Loss”, In Proceedings of the 39th International OMAE2020 Conference, ASME.
Bolt, H.M. (1995), “Results from Large Scale Ultimate Strength Test of K-Braces Jacket Frame
Structures”, Presented at the 27th Annual Offshore Technology Conference (OTC) as paper
OTC 7783.
Bruin, W.M. (1995), “Assessment of the Residual Strength and Repair of Dent-Damaged Offshore
Platform Bracing”, Master Thesis presented at Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, US.
BSI (2019), BS7910: Guide to Methods for Assessing the Acceptability of Flaws in Metallic Structures,
British Standardisation Institute (BSI).
Burdekin F.M. and Frodin J.G. (1987), “Ultimate Failure of Tubular Connections, Final Report Project
DA709”, Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, UMIST, November 1987.
Burdekin F.M. and Cowling M.J. (1998), “Defect Assessment in Offshore Structures—A Procedure”,
CMPT Publication 100/98, ISBN 1-870553-330.
Burdekin F.M., Thurlbeck S.D., Sanderson D., Kiwanuka F. and Hamour W. (1999), “Joint Industry
Project on the Reliability of Flooded Member Detection as a Tool for Assurance of Integrity, Final
Report”, EQE Ltd. and UMIST, 1999.
BSI (1989), BS 7191 Specification for Weldable Structural Steels for Fixed Offshore Structures, British
Standards Institution, 1989. Now withdrawn and superseded by EN 10225:2001 Weldable Structural
Steels for Fixed Offshore Structures. Technical delivery conditions.
BSI (2013), BS 7910:2013 + A1:2015, Guide to Methods for Assessing the Acceptability of Flaws in
Metallic Structures, British Standards Institution, 2013.
Cheaitani, M.J. and Burdekin, F.M., (1994), “Ultimate Strength of Cracked Tubular Joints,” in Tubular
Structure VI, Edited by P. Grundy, A. Holgate and B. Wong, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 607–616.
Cho, S-R. (1987), “Design Approximations for Offshore Tubulars against Collision”, PhD thesis,
Department of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, University of Glasgow, Scotland.
Department of Energy (1987a), Offshore Technology Report OTH 87 259 Remaining Life of Defective
Tubular Joints—An Assessment Based on Data for Surface Crack Growth in Tubular Joints Tests,
Prepared by Tweed, J.H. and Freeman, J.H., 1987 for the Department of Energy, HMSO,
London, UK.
Department of Energy (1987b), Offshore Technology Report OTH 87 278 Remaining Life of Defective
Tubular Joints: Det of Crack Growth in UKOSRP II and Implications, Prepared by Tweed, J.H. for
Department of Energy, HMSO, London, UK.
Department of Energy (1987c), Offshore Technology Report OTH 87 240 The Assessment of Impact Damage
Caused by Dropped Objects on Concrete Offshore Structures, HMSO, London, UK.
Department of Energy (1987d), Offshore Technology Report OTH 87 234 The Effects of Temperature
Gradients on Walls of Concrete Oil Storage Structures, HMSO, London, UK.
Department of Energy (1987e), Offshore Technology Report OTH 87 248 Concrete in the Ocean
Programme—Coordinating Report on the Whole Programme, HMSO, London, UK.
Department of Energy (1988), Offshore Technology Report OTH 87 250 Repair of Major Damage to the
Prestressed Concrete Tower of Offshore Structures, HMSO, London, UK.
DNV (1999), ULTIGUIDE—Best Practice Guideline for Use of Non-Linear Analysis Methods in
Documentation of Ultimate Limit States for Jacket Type Offshore Structures, Det Norske Veritas,
Høvik, Norway.
DNVGL (2015), DNVGL-OS-C102 Structural Design of Offshore Ships, DNVGL, Høvik, Norway.
DNVGL (2017), DNVGL-CG-0288 Corrosion Protection of Ships, DNVGL, Høvik, Norway.
DNVGL (2019), DNVGLRPC208 Determination of Structural Capacity by Non-Linear Finite Element
Analysis Methods, DNVGL, Høvik, Norway.
DNVGL (2019b), “Reparasjonsmetoder for bærende konstruksjoner”, Report for the Norwegian
Petroleum Safety Authority, DNVGL, Høvik, Norway (in Norwegian).
Ellinas, C.P. (1984), “Ultimate Strength of Damaged Tubular Bracing Members”, Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 110, No. 2, pp. 245–259.
EN (2006), EN 1504-3:2005 Products and Systems for the Protection and Repair of Concrete Structures—
Definitions, Requirements, Quality Control and Evaluation of Conformity—Part 3: Structural and
Non-Structural Repair, European Standardisation Organisation.
Ersdal, G. (2005). Assessment of existing offshore structures for life extension. Doctorate thesis,
University of Stavanger, Norway.
Frieze, P.A., Nichols, N.W., Sharp, J.V. and Stacey, A. (1996), “Detection of Damage to the Underwater
Tubulars and its Effect on Strength”, OMAE Conference 1996, Florence, Italy.
Garbatov, Y., Vodkadzhiev, I. and Guedes Soares, C. (2004), “Corrosion Wastage Assessment of Deck
Structures of Bulk Carriers”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Marine Science and
Technology, 24–33.
Garbatov, Y., Guedes Soares, C. and Wang, G. (2005), “Non-Linear Time Dependent Corrosion Wastage
of Deck Plates of Ballast and Cargo Tanks of Tankers”, Proceedings of the 24th International
Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering (OMAE2005), OMAE2005-67579,
Halkidiki, Greece.
Gibstein M.B. (1981), “Fatigue Strength of Welded Tubular Joints Tested at DNV Laboratories”,
International Conference on Steel in Marine Structures, Paper ST 8.5, October 1981, Paris, France.
Guedes Soares, G. and Garbatov, Y. (1999), “Reliability of Maintained, Corrosion Protected Plate
Subjected to Non-Linear Corrosion and Compressive Loads”, Marine Structures, 10, 629–653.
Hadley I., Dyer A.P., Booth G.S., Cheaitani M.J., Burdekin F.M. and Yang G.J. (1998), “Static Strength
of Cracked Tubular Joints: New Data and Models”, Proc. OMAE 1998, ASME 1998, Lisbon, Portugal.
Hebor, M.F. (1994), “Residual Strength and Epoxy-Based Grout Repair of Corroded Offshore Tubular
Members”, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, US.
Hebor, M., and Ricles, J. (1994), “Residual Strength and Repair of Corroded Marine Steel Tubulars”,
ATLSS Report No. 94-10, ATLSS Eng. Research Center, Lehigh University, Bethlehem,
Pennsylvania, US.
Hellan, Ø. (1995), “Nonlinear Pushover and Cyclic Analysis in Ultimate Limit State Design and
Reassessment of Tubular Steel Offshore Structures”, PhD Thesis 1995:117, Norwegian Institute of
Technology, University in Trondheim, Norway.
Hestholm, K. and Vo, T. (2019), “Buckling Capacity of Corroded Steel Tubular Members”, BSc Thesis
at the University of Stavanger, Norway.
HSE (1999), Offshore Technology Report OTO 1999 054 Static Strength of Cracked tubular joints: New
data and models, Prepared by TWI for Health and Safety Executive (HSE), HSE Books, Sudbury, UK.
HSE (1994), “Major Hazards to Concrete Platforms”, Project undertaken by Ove Arup and Partners
(report is not in public domain).
HSE (1995), Guidance on Design, Construction and Certification, 4th Edition of January 1990 including
amendment No.3 published in Feb. 1995, HMSO, London, UK.
HSE (1997), Durability of Prestressing Components in Offshore Concrete Structures, Gifford and
Partners, OTO 97 053, HMSO, London, UK.
HSE (1999), Offshore Technology Report OTO 1999 084 Detection of Damage to Underwater Tubulars
and Its Effect on Strength, Prepared by MSL Engineering for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE),
HSE Books, Sudbury, UK.
HSE (2002a), Offshore Technology Report 2000/077 Fracture Mechanics Assessment of Fatigue Cracks in
Offshore Tubular Structures, Prepared by the University of Wales Swansea (D Bowness and M M K Lee)
for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), HSE Books, Sudbury, UK.
HSE (2002b), Offshore Technology Report 2000/078 Static Strength of Cracked High Strength Steel
Tubular Joints, Prepared by University College London for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
HSE Books, Sudbury, UK.
HSE (2002c), Offshore Technology Report OTO 2001/080 The Static Strength of Cracked Joints in Tubular
Members, Prepared by UMIST (Professor F M Burdekin) for the Health and Safety Executive. HSE
Books, Sudbury, UK.
HSE (2002d), Offshore Technology Report OTO 2001/081 Experimental Validation of the Ultimate
Strength of Brace Members with Circumferential Cracks, Prepared by UMIST and University College
London for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), HSE Books, Sudbury, UK.
HSE (2004), Growth of Through-Wall Fatigue Cracks in Brace Members, Prepared by TWI Ltd (Dr
Marcos Pereira) for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) as Research Report 224, HSE Books,
Sudbury, UK.
HSE (2005), RR344 The Effect of Multiple Member Failure on the Risk of Gross Collapse over Typical
Inspection Intervals, Prepared by MMI Engineering Ltd (Andrew Nelson and David Sanderson) for
the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), HSE Books, Sudbury, UK.
ISO (2018), ISO 15653:2018 Metallic Materials—Method of Test for the Determination of Quasistatic
Fracture Toughness of Welds, International Organization for Standardization.
ISO (2019), ISO 19901-9 Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries—Specific Requirements for Offshore
Structures—Part 9: Structural Integrity Management, International Organization for Standardization.
Landet, E. and Lotsberg, I. (1992), “Laboratory Testing of Ultimate Capacity of Dented Tubular
Members”, ASCE, Journal of Structural Engineering 118 (4): 1071–1089.
Lutes, L.D., Kohutek, T.L., Ellison, B.K., Konen, K.F. (2001), “Assessing the Compressive Strength of
Corroded Tubular Members”, Applied Ocean Research, October 2001.
Machida S., Hagiwara Y., and Kajimoto K. (1987), “Evaluation of Brittle Fracture Strength of Tubular
Joints of Offshore Structures”, Proc. Sixth International OMAE Conference, 1987, Vol III,
pp 231–237, ASME.
MSL (2003), Guideline for the Definition and Reporting of Significant Damage to Fixed Steel Offshore
Platforms, MSL Services Corporation, Houston, Texas, US.
MSL (2004), “Assessment of Repair Techniques for Ageing or Damaged Structures”, Project #502, MSL
Services Corporation, Egham, Surrey, UK.
Nakai, T., Yamamoto, N. (2008), “Corroded Structures and Residual Strength”, In Condition Assessment
of Aged Structures, Edited by J.K. Paik and R.E. Melchers. Woodhead Publishing.
Nichols, N., Sharp, J.V. and Kam, J. (1994), “Benchmarking of Collapse Analysis of Large-Scale Ultimate
Load Tests on Tubular Jacket Frame Structures”, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference
Offshore Structure Design, Hazards, Safety and Engineering, ERA, London. UK.
Ocean Structures (2009), “Ageing of Offshore Concrete Structures—Report for Petroleum Safety
Authority Norway”, Laurencekirk, Scotland.
Ostapenko, A., Wood, B.A., Chowdhury, A. and Hebor, M.F. (1993), “Residual Strength of Damaged
and Deteriorated Offshore Structures: Volume 1; Residual Strength of Damaged and Deteriorated
Tubular Members in Offshore Structures”, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, US.
Ostapenko, A., Berger, T.W., Chambers, S.L. and Hebor, M.F. (1996), “Corrosion Damage—Effect on
Strength of Tubular Columns with Patch Corrosion”, ATLSS Report No. 96.01. ATLSS Engineering
Research Center, Fritz Engineering Laboratory Report No. 508.5, Lehigh University, Bethlehem,
Pennsylvania, US (also published as MMS report 101).
Padula, J.A. and Ostapenko, A. (1987), “Indentation and Axial Tests of Two Large-Diameter Tubular
Columns” (also published as MMS TAP project report 101).
Padula, J.A. and Ostapenko, A. (1989), “Axial Behavior of Damaged Tubular Columns”, Sponsored by
Minerals Management Service of the US Department of the Interior (Contract No.
14-12-0001-30288) and American Iron and Steel Institute (Project No. 338). DOIIAISI
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM. Fritz Engineering Laboratory Report No. 508.11, Lehigh
University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, US.
Paik, J.K., Kim, S.K. and Lee, S.K. (1998), “Probabilistic Corrosion Rate Estimation Model for
Longitudinal Strength Members of Bulk Carriers”, Ocean Engineering, 25, 837–860.
Paik, J.K., Lee, J.M., Hwang, J.S. and Park, Y.I. (2003a), “A Time-Dependent Corrosion Wastage Model
for the Structures of Single and Double Hull Tankers and FSOs and FPSOs”, Marine Technology, 40,
201–217.
Paik, J.K., Lee, J.M., Park, Y.I., Hwang, J.S. and Kim, C.W. (2003b), “Time-Variant Ultimate
Longitudinal Strength of Corroded Bulk Carriers”, Marine Structures, 16, 567–600.
Paik, J.K. and Melchers, R.E. (2008), Condition Assessment of Aged Structures, Woodhead Publishing.
Paik, J.K. 2004, “Corrosion Analysis of Seawater Ballast Tank Structures”, International Journal of
Maritime Engineering, 146(A1), 1–12.
Paik, J.K., Thayamballi, A.K., Park, Y.I., Hwang, J.S. and Kim, C.W. (2004a), “A Time-Dependent
Corrosion Wastage Model for Seawater Ballast Tank Structures of Ships”, Corrosion Science, 46,
471–486.
Paik, J.K. and Thayamballi, A.K. (2007), Ship-Shaped Offshore Installations—Design, Building and
Operation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Paris, P.C. and Erdogan, F. (1963), “A Critical Analysis of Crack Propagation Laws”, Journal of Basic
Engineering, 1963, 85, 528–533.
PMB (1987), AIM II Assessment Inspection Maintenance, Published as MMS TAP report 106ak.
PMB (1988), AIM III Assessment Inspection Maintenance, Published as MMS TAP report 106ap.
PMB (1990), AIM IV Assessment Inspection Maintenance, Published as MMS TAP report 106as.
Qin, S. and Cui, W. (2003), “Effect of Corrosion Models on the Time-Dependent Reliability of Steel
Plated Elements”, Marine Structures, 16, 15–34.
Ricles, J., Gillum, T. and Lamport, W. (1992), “Residual Strength and Grout Repair of Dented Offshore
Tubular Bracing”, ATLSS Reports, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, US.
Ricles, J.M., Bruin, W.M. and Sooi, T.K. (1997), “Repair of Dented Tubular Columns—Whole Column
Approach”, ATLSS Reports, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, US (also published as
MMS TAP report 101).
Ricles, J. M. and M. F. Hebor (1994), “Residual Strength and Epoxy-Based Grout Repair of Corroded
Offshore Tubulars”, International Conference on the Behaviour of Offshore Structures, BOSS,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, Pergamon Press, 3: 307–322.
Sharp, J.V., Stacey A., Wignall C.M. (1998), “Structural Integrity Management of Offshore Installations
Based on Inspection for Through-Thickness Cracking”, OMAE Conference 1998.
SINTEF (1988), USFOS—A Computer Program for Progressive Collapse Analysis of Steel Offshore
Structures, User’s Manual, Report No. STF71 F88039. SINTEF, Trondheim, Norway.
Skallerud B., Eide O.I., and Berge S. (1994), “Ultimate Strength of Cracked Tubular Joints: Comparison
between Numerical Simulations and Experiments”, Proc. Seventh BOSS Conference Boston 1994,
Volume III, pp 241–260, July 1994.
Skallerud, B. and Amdahl J. (2002), Nonlinear Analysis of Offshore Structures, Research Studies Press
Ltd, Baldock, Hertfordshire, UK.
Smith, C.S., Kirkwood, W., Swan, J.W. (1979), “Buckling Strength and Post-Collapse Behaviour of
Tubular Bracing Members Including Damage Effects”, Proc. 2 Offshore Structures (BOSS 79),
London, Aug 1979 (also appeared as Smith, C.S., Kirkwood, W., Swan, J.W., “Buckling Strength and
Post-Collapse Behaviour of Tubular Bracing Members Including Damage Effects”, Department of
Energy, Offshore Technology Report, OT-R-7837, HSMO, 1979, London, UK.
Smith, C.S., Somerville, W.L. and Swan, J.W. (1980), Compression Tests on Full-Scale and Small-Scale
Tubular Bracing Members Including Damage Effects, Department of Energy, Offshore Technology
Report, OT-R-8079, HMSO, 1980, London, UK.
Smith, C.S. (1983), “Assessment of Damage in Offshore Steel Platforms”, Proc. of International
Conference on Marine Safety, September 1983, Glasgow, Scotland.
Smith, C.S., Swan, J.W. and Kirkwood, W. (1984), Compressive Strength of Damaged Tubulars,
Department of Energy, Offshore Technology Report, OTO-8315, HMSO, 1984, London, UK.
SSC (1995), “SSC-381 Residual Strength of Damaged Marine Structures”, Ship Structure Committee,
Washington, DC, US.
Committee Report no 416, 2000.
Stacey A., Sharp J.V., and Nichols N.W. (1996a), “The Influence of Cracks on the Static Strength of
Tubular Joints”, Proc. OMAE Florence 1996, Volume III, Materials Engineering, Florence, Italy.
Stacey A., Sharp J.V., and Nichols N.W. (1996b), “Static Strength Assessment of Cracked Tubular
Joints”, Proc. OMAE Florence 1996, Volume III, Materials Engineering, ASME 1996, Florence, Italy.
Standard Norge (2004), NORSOK N-004 Design of Steel Structures, Standard Norge, Lysaker. Norway.
Load-Bearing Structures, Edition1, March 2009, Standard Norge, Lysaker, Norway.
Statens vegvesen (2019), Håndbok V441 Bruinspeksjon, Vegdirektoratet, Oslo, Norway (in Norwegian).
Taby, J., Moan, T. Rashed, S.M.H. (1981), “Theoretical and Experimental Study on the Behaviour of
Damaged Tubular Members in Offshore Structures”, Norwegian Maritime Research, No 2,
1981, 26–33.
Taby J. and Moan T. (1985), “Collapse and Residual Strength of Damaged Tubular Members”, 4th Int.
Conf. on Behav. of Offshore Struct. 395–409, Delft, Netherlands.
Taby, J. (1986), “Ultimate and Post-Ultimate Strength of Dented Tubular Members”, Norges Tekniske
Høgskole, Univ. Trondheim, Rep. No. UR-86-50, Oct. 1986, Trondheim, Norway.
Taby J. and Moan T. (1987), “Ultimate Behaviour of Circular Tubular Members with Large Initial
Imperfections Annu.”, Tech. Session, Struct. Stab. Res. Counc.
Talei-Faz B., Dover W.D., and Brennan F.P. (1999), “Static Strength of Cracked High-Strength Steel
Tubular Joints”, UCL NDE Centre, February 1999.
TSCF (1986), “Guidance Manual for the Inspections and Condition Assessment of Tanker Structure”,
International Chamber of Shipping Oil Companies, International Marine Forum.
TSCF (1995), “Guidance Manual for the Inspection and Maintenance of Double Hull Tanker Structure”,
London, Witherby & Co. and Tanker Structure Cooperative Forum.
TSCF (1997), “Tanker Structure Cooperative Forum Guidance Manual for Tanker Structures”, Issued
by Tanker Structure Co-operative Forum in Association with International Association of
Classification Societies, Witherby & Co. Ltd.
Ueda, Y. and Rashed, S.M.H. (1985), “Behavior of Damaged Tubular Structural Members”, J. Energy
Res. Technol. 107: 342–349.
Vo, T., Hestholm, K., Ersdal, G., Oma, N. and Siversvik, M. (2019), “Buckling Capacity of Simulated
Patch Corroded Tubular Columns—Laboratory Tests”, Second Conference of Computational
Methods in Offshore Technology (COTech2019), IOP Publishing.
Zhang, Y. H. and Wintle, J. B. (2004), “Review and Assessment of Fatigue Data for Offshore Structural
Components Containing Through-Thickness Cracks”, TWI Report for HSE, April 2004
(unpublished).
Zhang, Y.H. and Stacey, A. (2008), “Review and Assessment of Fatigue Data for Offshore Structural
Components Containing Through-Thickness Cracks”, OMAE2008-57503.
Øyasæter, F.H., Aeran, A., Siriwardane, S.C. and Mikkelsen, O. (2017), “Effect of Corrosion on the
Buckling Capacity of Tubular Members”, First Conference of Computational Methods in Offshore
Technology (COTech2017), IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 276 (2017). IOP
Publishing.
239
Repair and Mitigation of Offshore Structures
The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go
wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong, it usually turns out to be
impossible to get at and repair.1
—Douglas Adams
8.1 Introduction to Underwater Repair
Repair and mitigation are often needed when inspection has revealed some damage or anomalies
that have affected the integrity of the structure. In addition, such actions may also be necessary
when a structure is found by analysis to have for example insufficient strength or fatigue life even
without any damage or anomalies present. In the course of the long development of offshore pro-
duction, history clearly indicates that repairs are necessary to maintain structural safety. Many
structures are now being used beyond their original design life and life extension is common. Some
of these older platforms in life extension show clear signs of an increasing rate of damage with a
growing need for repair.
The first offshore platforms based in the Gulf of Mexico experienced corrosion and accidental
damage which required repair in many cases. When the offshore industry moved to the North
Sea, many of the designs were based on Gulf of Mexico practice. Due to the more hostile environ-
ment in the North Sea, these structures suffered early fatigue damage requiring repair. Later, fixed
steel platforms have been designed for fatigue and this has improved the problem. However, con-
tinued operation of these platforms has led to some issues of corrosion, fatigue damage and per-
manent deformation due to accidental events. In addition, insufficient strength and fatigue life
are common issues for older but also for newer platforms. Fixed steel, floating and concrete plat-
forms have also proved to need a significant number of repairs due to similar causes. Floating
steel platforms are, in particular, experiencing significant amounts of corrosion and fatigue
cracking.
The decision whether a repair is needed is normally based on an evaluation and assessment of
the damage and anomalies and their effect on structural integrity, as discussed in Chapter 7. The
1 Source: Douglas Adams.

need for repairs can vary for different types of structures, depending on the material and design
configuration. As noted above, repair of steel structures is primarily needed due to corrosion,
cracks and accidental damage, and the extent of repairs increases with age. In comparison,
repair of concrete structures is dominated by reinforcement corrosion due to chloride ingress in
and above the splash zone followed by possible spalling and delamination. Underwater, the
main types of damage on concrete structures are due to impacts from vessels or dropped objects.
For both steel and concrete structures, maintaining the corrosion protection system is important
to keep the structures safe.
The design and fabrication of repairs requires particular care and attention so that the repair
itself does not introduce defects, degradation and other features that could undermine the
integrity of the structure. Examples include the introduction of dissimilar metals which have
led to corrosion cells, excess loading being introduced by the presence of the repair (e.g. a large
clamp) and new defects introduced by a weld repair. In addition, any repair should be included
in the inspection plan to verify that the repair is performing as intended and not creating fur-
ther issues.
Five basic approaches to repair and mitigation work are proposed, based on the work of MSL
(2004) as reviewed in Section 8.3.13. These are arranged as shown in Table 53.
Major repairs (e.g. strengthening and component addition) of structures are often costly and
complicated and involve the use of expensive equipment and vessels. In addition, the damage
experienced is often particular to the specific structure and location, which requires new design
solutions for each individual case. The planning and preparation of major repairs can take
several months and the repair may be further delayed in the installation phase as the team will
often have to wait for a suitable weather window. In many cases the operators will choose to
perform a trial installation, involving execution of the repair on a mock-up model of the struc-
ture, either on land or in shallow water. This for obvious reasons involves increased duration of
the preparation stage. This lengthy period with the structure in a damaged condition has impli-
cations for managing its integrity, and a temporary repair or other mitigating measures may be
required.
Taking into account that a major repair is often costly and time consuming, its design and execu-
tion need to be properly undertaken to ensure an optimal installation and a sufficiently safe
Table 53 Repair and Mitigation Approaches and Examples.
Repair and mitigation Examples

approaches
Detail and weld Hammer peening, grinding and softening of details (reducing stress
improvement concentration factor), replacement or addition of coatings for corrosion
protection
Local repair Welding of steel joints, spraying and re-casting of concrete cover
Load reduction and Removal of marine growth, reduction in topside weight
new load paths
Strengthening Clamping and grout filling of damaged and understrength members in fixed
steel platforms
Structural component Removal of redundant members on fixed offshore structures, addition of new
removal or addition bracing in fixed steel structures and adding stiffeners for floating structures,
anode replacement
Repair and Mitigation of Offshore Structures 241
structure. In addition, the design of the repair needs to ensure that the repair itself is durable and
avoids future deterioration. A good understanding of the root cause of the damage is important in
achieving this.
An extensive expertise has been accumulated on repair through the many years of experience of
operating offshore structures, and this knowledge, to a large extent captured in reports from Joint
Industry Projects needs to be retained and made available for future use. In addition, the authors
recognise that the inclusion of a review of these reports in this book will hopefully avoid repetition
of research work.
The majority of these reviews were undertaken and published in the period 1983 to 2000, and for
ship-shaped structures earlier studies also exist. With this large amount of reviews, it is difficult to
provide an extensive overview of them all. Projects where major governmental organisations
including MMS, BOEME, BSEE, UK Department of Energy, UK HSE, Norwegian Petroleum
Directorate and Petroleum Safety Authority Norway are included in the overview provided here.
At the time of writing this book many of these reports are not readily available and a summary of
these is provided in the following sections as indicated in Table 54.
Table 54 Overview of Previous Repair Studies Relating to Different Forms of Damage and Anomalies
(F fatigue, C corrosion, MD mechanical damage, IC insufficient capacity).
Steel Concrete
Report Sect. F C MD IC F C MD IC
UEG Repair to North Sea Offshore Structures 8.2.1 X X X X X X X X

MTD Repair to North Sea Offshore Structures 8.2.2 X X X X X X X X
Department of Energy 4th Guidance Note 8.2.3
DNVGL Repair Methods for Offshore Structures 8.2.4 X X X X X X X
Grout Repairs to Offshore Structures OTH 84 202 8.3.1 X X X X
Repairs Research Project (JIRRP) 8.3.2 X X X X
Fatigue Performance of Repaired Tubular Joints OTH 8.3.3 X
89 307
Bonded Repairs OTH 88 283 8.3.4 X X X X
Adhesive Bonding for Offshore Structures OTO 96 030 8.3.4 X X X X
Strength of Grout-Filled Damaged Tubular Members 8.3.5 X X X
OTH 89 314
Fatigue Life Enhancement of Tubular Joints by Grout 8.3.6 X
Injection OTH 92 368
ATLSS Reports on Repair to Dent Damaged Tubular 8.3.7 X
Members
ATLSS Reports on Repair to Corrosion Damaged 8.3.8 X
Tubulars
MSL Strengthening, Modification and Repair of 8.3.9 X X X X
Offshore Installations
MSL Underwater Structural Repairs Using 8.3.10
Composite Materials
Experience from the Use of Clamps OTO 00 057 & 058 8.3.11 X
(Continued)
Steel Concrete
Report Sect. F C MD IC F C MD IC
MSL Study on Neoprene Lined Clamps 8.3.12

MSL Repair Techniques for Ageing and Damaged 8.3.13 X X X X
Structures
KBR Energo Hurricane Damage to Platforms 8.3.14 X X X X
Wet Weld Repairs and Modifications 8.3.15 X X X X
Repair of Major Damage to Concrete Offshore 8.4.2 X
Structures OTH 87 250
Scaling of Underwater Concrete Repairs OTH 89 298 8.4.3 X
Assessment of Materials for Repair of Damaged 8.4.4 X
Concrete Underwater OTH 90 318
Effectiveness of Concrete Repairs HSE RR 175, 184, 8.4.5 X X X X
185 and 186
SSC Reports on Repair of Plated Structures 8.5 X X X X
8.2 Previous Generic Studies on Repair of Structures
8.2.1 UEG Report on Repair to North Sea Offshore Structures

In 1983 UEG undertook a study of repairs of North Sea structures, steel and concrete structures. This
was the first comprehensive study of causes of damage to North Sea offshore structures. It considered
the several techniques used to repair structural damage. The experience of using these techniques for
some 50 underwater repairs used up to 1982 was also described. The results from this study were
incorporated in the later report undertaken by MTD (MTD 1994).
For steel structures, UEG (1983) reports that four methods had been used for strengthening and
repair to enable a section to have its geometric properties increased or to have additional members
to be fixed to the structure to reduce loading in the area. The methods mentioned included welding
(habitat welding, coffer-dam welding and wet welding), clamps (friction, grouted and stressed
grouted), grout filling of existing tubular members and bolts to connect plates to an existing mem-
ber. However, the report states that “No operator has used wet welding for structural components
on any repair covered by this review”.
For concrete structures, the UEG report (1983) indicates that only five repairs had been reported.
The repair methods mentioned are surface application or injection of cementitious or resinous
materials. These repair methods are reported to be used both for spalling and more serious damage
to concrete sections.
8.2.2 MTD Study on Repairs of Offshore Structures

A very useful analysis of repairs to fixed steel and concrete structures was undertaken by the
Underwater Engineering Group (UEG) for the UK Marine Technology Directorate (MTD 1994) as
a follow-up project to the UEG report (1983). The study covered the sub-sea strengthening and
repair of both steel and concrete offshore installations as well as pipelines. Repairs to topsides were
Table 55 Information within the Repairs Database.
Concrete
Steel structures structures Total
Total number of recorded repairs to early 1992 158 14 172

●● of which the date the repair was carried out is known 141 13 154
●● of which the date the damage was discovered is known 129 12 141
●● of which the date at which the damage was caused is 69 7 76
known
Total exposure to the end of 1991 in structure years1 3846 266 4112
1
Structure years is the number of repairs divided by the total exposure of similar platforms.
excluded although splash zone damage was included, even when the repair was above the
waterline.
The project was overseen by a steering group led by J.V. Sharp of UK HSE and consisting of rep-
resentatives from the Phillips Petroleum, Elf UK, Amoco, Texaco, Total, Technomare SpA, British
Gas and the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (now the Petroleum Safety Authority Norway).
In total the review included 172 repairs. At the time of the survey there were 352 steel and 23
concrete structures on the North West European Continental shelf, which was the basis for the
survey of repairs. Details of the information in the UEG database are shown in Table 55. Although
this survey only covered details of repairs undertaken up to 1991, it provides a valuable source of
information on repairs as a result of the limited availability of more recent data. It is not expected
that recent damage is different and repairs are not undertaken in a significantly different manner.
Figure 82 shows the cumulative total of platforms (both steel and concrete) versus installation
year and the number of repairs per repair year in this review.
400 25
Cummulative number of Platforms
350
Number of repairs each year
20
300
250 15
200
150 10
100
5
50
0 0
1965 1967 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991
Year of installation or repair
Concrete platforms Steel platforms Number of repairs
Figure 82 Cumulative total of platforms by material versus installation year and number of repairs versus
repair year. Source: Based on MTD (1994). Review of repairs to of structures and pipelines. MTD report no.
94–102, Marine Technology Directorate, London, UK.
It can be seen that the majority of repairs were undertaken in the 1980s, but this is linked to the
growing number of installed platforms. There are two peaks shown for which the review could
find no explanation, other than possible association with the date of the surveys assuming it’s
easier to recall more recent events (the results of the UEG survey undertaken in 1983 described in
Section 8.2.1 were included in the this survey).
Figure 83 charts the relative performance of steel and concrete structures. The annual number
of repairs to steel structures reviewed in this study remained static during the 1980s in proportion
to the total population. From the early to mid-1980s the number of repairs to concrete and steel
structures related to the respective populations of these two types of structure. From 1987 to 1991
(the last year included in this study) concrete structures were observed to require a higher rate
of repair.
The frequency of repairs per structure-year versus water depth was analysed, which showed an
increasing frequency of repairs per structure-year with increasing depth. This is believed to be the
result of structures in deeper waters having more structural members than shallow water struc-
tures and hence a greater chance of incurring damage. However, the age of the structures was also
believed to be of relevance to the number of damage types.
Figure 84 shows the frequency of repairs per structure year versus water depth. This shows an
increasing frequency of repairs per structure year with increasing depth.
Table 56 shows an analysis of structural elements requiring repair or strengthening for steel
platforms. It can be seen that the number of repairs to primary structural elements had declined,
but the repairs to appurtenances had more than tripled over the time period analysed. The number
of repairs to secondary structures such as conductor guide frames remained more or less constant
over the time period.
Table 57 shows that most damage was discovered as it happened (e.g. ship impact, dropped
object) or by routine or non-routine inspection (typically chance discoveries during inspections for
other purposes). However, the table shows that chance discovery of damage did occur, such as
0.6
Cumulative number of repairs/platforms
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
Repair year
Concrete Steel
Figure 83 Cumulative number of repairs normalised by material population versus repair year. Source:
Based on MTD (1994). Review of repairs to of structures and pipelines. MTD report no. 94–102, Marine
Technology Directorate, London, UK.
0.15
Frequency of repairs per structure year
0.1
0.05
0
0–30 30–60 60–90 90–120 120+
Water depth (m)
Figure 84 Frequency of repairs per structure year versus water depth. Source: Based on MTD (1994). Review
of repairs to of structures and pipelines. MTD report no. 94-102, Marine Technology Directorate, London, UK.
Table 56 Analysis of structural elements requiring repair or strengthening.
Percentage of total for each timeband
Number of Primary Secondary Sub-sea

Date of repair incidents structure structure Appurtenances Fabrication aids structures
1974–79 24 75 17 8 0 0
1980–82 38 63 24 13 0 0
1983–85 23 61 26 9 4 0
1986–88 20 50 25 25 0 0
1989-early 92 33 36 24 27 3 9
Total 138
Source: MTD (1994). Review of repairs to of structures and pipelines. MTD report no. 94–102, Marine Technology
Directorate, London, UK. © 1994, Marine Technology Directorate Limited.
Table 57 Analysis of Method of Discovery, over Time.
Date on which Number of As incident Routine Non-routine

damage occurred incidents occurred inspection inspection Chance Unknown
1969–76 13 54 23 0 8 15
1977–79 14 79 21 0 0 0
1980–82 16 75 6 0 0 19
1983–85 9 67 22 11 0 0
1986–88 12 50 42 0 0 8
1989–early 1992 11 46 27 9 9 9
Total 75
Source: MTD (1994). Review of repairs of structures and pipelines. MTD report no. 94–102, Marine Technology
Table 58 Analysis of Method of Discovery, by Cause.
Cause Number of As incident Routine Non-routine

of damage incidents occurred inspection inspection Chance Unknown
Corrosion 13 0 62 8 8 23
Fatigue 40 0 63 3 8 28
Vessel impact 37 68 19 0 5 8
Dropped 16 75 13 0 0 13
objects
Total 106
Directorate, London, UK. © 1994, Marine Technology Directorate Limited
during visual inspections of other structural elements. This clearly has implications for manage-
ment of structural integrity depending on the severity of the damage.
Table 58 shows that not surprisingly, damage from accidents such as vessel impact and dropped
objects were more frequently found soon after the incident occurred, whereas corrosion and
fatigue were more usually discovered by routine inspection. It also shows that there was a signifi-
cant percentage of damage being discovered by chance for corrosion and fatigue, with implications
for structural integrity.
The MTD review of repairs (MTD 1994) provided details of ~140 repairs to offshore fixed steel
platforms with 14 in water depths greater than 100 m, using a range of methods including clamps
and grouted members. Table 59 shows that mechanical and grouted clamps dominated the repair
methods. However, welding techniques including hyperbaric also played an important part in repair
and strengthening. Grouting of members had also been used on several occasions. It should be noted
that wet welding was reported as being in use after 1986, possibly for non-structural purposes.
Table 59 Analysis of Repair Types over Time.
Date Number of Mechanical Grouted Air Cofferdam Hyperbaric Wet Grouted Bolts,
of repair incidents clamps clamps weld weld weld weld members plates
1974–76 8 38 12 8 0 12 0 0 0
1977–79 21 10 19 24 0 24 0 10 14
1980–82 38 34 21 18 8 11 0 8 0
1983–85 20 15 20 15 10 15 0 15 10
1986–88 17 18 18 24 6 18 12 6 0
1989–91 21 29 10 38 0 10 10 5 10
Total 125
Table 60 Analysis of Vessel Impact Leading to Repairs by

Vessel Type.
Type of vessel No. of incidents
Errant 4
Operational 19
Work 5
Unknown 9
Total no. of incidents 37
Source: MTD (1994). Review of repairs of structures and pipelines.

MTD report no. 94–102, Marine Technology Directorate, London,
UK. © 1994, Marine Technology Directorate Limited.
MTD (1994) assessed the number of fatigue repairs versus installation year. The number was
shown to be concentrated in the years from 1969 to 1980 representing the problem that the early
designs of North Sea structures did not adequately cover the fatigue problem in the more aggres-
sive North Sea wave climate. Later designs had fewer fatigue problems requiring repair.
Vessel impact causing damage was also reviewed as shown in Table 60. Not surprisingly impact
damage from operational vessels dominates the list. However, the more serious impact from
errant vessels is shown; these are vessels en route to another location colliding with the offshore
installation. Errant vessels have caused serious damage; one of the incidents was a vessel travel-
ling through a field at speed in fog; a second was a vessel on autopilot colliding with an
installation.
It is recognised that the above analysis of vessel impact is dated and generic. More recent and
platform-specific data often needs to be obtained from recognised risk analysis consultants. Some
more recent data can be found in HSE RR053 (HSE 2003e).
8.2.3 UK Department of Energy Fourth Edition Guidance Notes

HSE has published separate reports on different topics from the Fourth Edition Guidance Notes
(HSE 1994). The section on repairs to offshore installations was issued in the report OTO 96 057
(HSE 1997). This section was quite extensive, covering both steel and concrete, and probably the
most detailed description of these topics at the time. The Guidance Notes were based on data that
had been acquired as a result of research work as described later, supported by the Department of
Energy and the offshore industry. The main sections were:
●● procedure for dealing with damage and repair;
●● general considerations for repair work;
●● welded repairs to steel structures;
●● repairs to steel structures other than by welding; and
●● repair of concrete structures.
A specific requirement for assessing bowing damage was stated (bowed members for which the
maximum measured deviation from the nominal centreline exceeded 1/1200 of the nominal length
should be regarded as significantly damaged). The Guidance Notes also referenced OTH 87 259
(Department of Energy 1987a) and OTH 87 278 (Department of Energy 1987b), which gave some
guidance on the remaining fatigue life to be expected at cracked tubular joints. These reports are
discussed in Chapter 7.
Welded repairs to steel structures were described with emphasis on the issue of the quality of
welding in a repair situation recognising the difficulty of achieving high-quality welds in the field,
particularly underwater. It was also noted that if the cause of damage was solely due to fatigue,
repair welding to an equivalent standard would only be likely to reinstate the original life. Weld
improvement techniques, such as controlled weld toe grinding of tubular joints, could then be
necessary to improve the fatigue life. The Guidance Notes also listed underwater welding problems
and limitations, as discussed in Section 8.6.8. These include depth limitations of certain methods
and problems of wet welding particularly for repairs to the primary structure.
Repairs to steel structures other than by welding were described including the following techniques:
●● Bolted friction clamps; these included those relying on metal to metal contact, those using either
a grout or resin filler and those using elastomeric linings. The Guidance Notes also gave informa-
tion on acceptable coefficients of friction that could be used in different circumstances, with a
maximum value of 0.25 between steel surfaces. This value was also recommended to apply to a
grout to steel interface.
●● Grout filling: this addressed the filling of members with grout to improve the strength of the
member or joint. Advice was provided on the strengths of grouted members/joints as given in BS
5400-5 (BSI 2005), OTH 88 283 (Department of Energy 1988) and OTH 88 299 (Department of
Energy 1989b).
●● Grinding: the Guidance Notes indicated that surface cracks could be removed by carefully con-
trolled grinding and this should be confirmed by MPI.
Repairs to Concrete Structures
The Fourth Edition Guidance Notes (HSE 1994) stated that the accepted materials for repair
offshore were concrete, cement grouts, mortars and epoxy resins (as discussed in more detail later).
The importance of the ability of the repair material to bond to concrete, reinforcement or prestress-
ing ducts needed to be considered. The Guidance Notes also noted that when selecting a repair
material for protection of the reinforcement against corrosion, the properties of the material to be
considered should include issues such as permeability to water, presence of chloride ions and resis-
tivity. An important factor was the durability of the repair material in the marine environment.
Repair of fire damage to concrete structures was also considered, mainly relevant to above water struc-
tures. It was noted that following a fire, the damage should be inspected to estimate the temperatures
reached by the fire (hydrocarbon fire temperatures may be as high as ~1100°C). From this, the relaxation
of prestressing cables and loss of strength of the concrete should be assessed to consider repair options.
Repairs to steel reinforcement were considered where the reinforcement has been damaged or
cut away, as addressed later in this chapter.
Repairs to prestress were also addressed making the point that it is very difficult to establish the
effectiveness of any damaged prestress, as this is to a large extent dependent on the bond with the
grout in the cable duct. The effectiveness of any repairs to tendons which have been broken would
require being re-stressed.
8.2.4 DNV GL Study on Repair Methods for PSA

A very recent study of repair methods for both steel and concrete offshore structures was per-
formed by DNV GL for the Petroleum Safety Authority Norway (DNVGL 2019). Structural types
included ship-shaped structures, semi-submersible structures, fixed steel structures and gravity-
based concrete structures.
Repair was in this report defined in a broad manner, matching the definition of SMR (strength-
ening, modification and repair) by MSL (2004) and included measures to restore a damaged detail
or area to its original condition, strengthening and also measures implemented for intact struc-
tures with insufficient strength. The report focusses on experience of repairs on the Norwegian
Continental Shelf (NCS).
Triggers for when repairs are necessary included:
●● damage such as fatigue cracks, corrosion, fabrication errors, overloading, accidental damage
including impact from collisions and damage from installation;
●● changes in use or increase in loading from subsidence, addition of new modules, risers, conduc-
tors, etc. and life extension; and
●● new information such as improved knowledge on, e.g. environmental loading, improved
standards and regulatory requirements and results from a more advanced analysis.
Any of these triggers may start a process for evaluating the need for a method of repair. The fol-
lowing steps in this process are recommended by DNVGL (2019) by determining:
●● the amount of damage and whether the damage occurs at several similar locations;
●● the root cause of the damage taking into account the operational history and the age of the structure;
●● the consequences of the damage on the integrity of the structure. This may often imply the need
for a non-linear finite element and fracture mechanics analysis and capacity checks of the struc-
ture in the as-is situation;
●● whether repair or modification is needed or whether the structure has sufficient strength in the
as-is condition with the damage present; and
●● which repair method is to be used.
DNVGL (2019) states that it is crucial in this process to have access to quality information about
the structure. This requires access to information such as inspection reports, analysis reports,
weight reports, as-built drawings, any modifications to the structure and possible access to reanaly-
sis models. A full description of the information needed is provided in NORSOK N-006 (Standard
Norge 2015).
An appropriate method to execute the work is needed if it is concluded that the damage needs to
be repaired. There are often several methods that may be relevant to a specific case. Although a
specific solution may be perceived as an obvious choice, alternative methods are recommended to
be considered to ensure that the final choice is optimal in each case. Important criteria to evaluate
in this decision-making process are:
●● the effect of the repair on the structural strength;
●● reliability of the method (with what confidence the prescribed result can be achieved);
●● the cost of the repair;
●● operational consequences of the chosen method (e.g. if shut down is needed);
●● requirements for competence;
●● requirements for execution;
●● tolerances in designing and fitting new components (e.g. clamps and new members); and
●● operators own preferences.
The repair methods described for steel structures are well known and have been used for decades
on both the UK and Norwegian continental shelves. The effect and long-term properties of these
repair methods are also understood. A few relatively new methods are also described by DNVGL
(2019) where knowledge about the long-term properties are more limited. In addition, a descrip-
tion of repair methods using adhesives is provided.
If the structure is overloaded, DNVGL (2019) states that it will be necessary to determine the
magnitude of permanent deformations and any plastic strains. Structures may experience dents and
permanent deflections from ship impact, dropped objects or local buckling due to overload.
Normally, a check would be made that the damage is sufficiently small to allow the structure to still
meet the strength requirements without repair, see also Chapter 7. For example, rules for checking
braces damaged by buckling are given in ISO 19902. For plated structures, analyses can be per-
formed with reduced or no stiffness in the damaged area to get a quick indication of the conse-
quence of the damage. The structure should be checked for strength taking into account any
permanent deformations. If the structure has experienced plastic strain, material tests may be
required to determine whether the structure has been weakened.
Corrosion is a major challenge for steel structures in the marine environment. However, to what
extent corrosion is an issue varies with the type of installation and when they were built. The early
fixed steel structures on the Norwegian continental shelf were protected with both paint and
cathodic protection. Although many of these structures have been in operation far beyond their
original design life, corrosion has not been reported to be a major problem. This is believed to be a
result of well-designed and maintained cathodic protection systems. These fixed steel structures
have proved to be durable as a result of the CP systems in combination with high-quality coatings.
Later designs have followed the same design method, and the experience related to corrosion on
fixed steel structure on the Norwegian continental shelf is regarded as good at the time of writing.
The use of ship-shaped production vessels was introduced in the late 1980s and their use has
increased since that date. The early versions of ship-shaped units were often designed without any
corrosion allowance. Paint and cathodic protection systems were used, for example, in ballast
tanks, but experience indicates that these have not been of a sufficient quality. Consequently, ship-
shaped production vessels have experienced major corrosion problems in ballast tanks. Storage
tanks have been less of an issue, but this is sensitive to temperature and the concentration of cor-
rosive agents.
These have typically been painted at the bottom and top (to minimise condensation problems).
Large variations in corrosion problems for floating units have been observed which is believed to
be due to differences in requirements for paint systems in the NORSOK standards, compared to
class rules. Presently, FPSOs are designed with a corrosion allowance in hulls, tanks and decks. If
corrosion is observed, it is less of a problem in these FPSOs, thus reducing the need for early and
urgent repairs. Accordingly, it should be sufficient to prevent further corrosion by, for example,
cleaning, abrasive blasting and the application of protective coatings such as paint.
The choice of repair methods has been given considerable attention for concrete structures in
DNVGL (2019), including the various activities and roles essential in this process (inspection plan,
documentation and assessment of findings, choice of repair method, choice of material, method
for testing, quality control and documentation during the execution). However, concrete repairs
above water have primarily been described with minimal information on underwater repair.
8.3 Previous Studies on Repair of Tubular Structures
8.3.1 Grout Repairs to Steel Offshore Structures

The UK Department of Energy in 1984 funded a test programme, OTH 84 202, to investigate the
strength of grouted connections between steel tubular members (Department of Energy 1985).
These were initiated as a result of increasing interest in design information for repairs to North Sea
structures. The tests included 14 pipe-to-pipe connections at quarter scale with no mechanical
shear connectors (weld beads), using a split sleeve with bolted flanges to represent the fixing of a
sleeve around an existing member. A separate programme involved 14 pipe-to-pipe connections
with welded shear connectors to represent the end-to-end connection of new members (also at
quarter scale). In addition, there were supplementary tests to extend the range of geometries of the
pipe-to-pipe connections. There were also 3 tests on T-shaped repair systems for tubular joints.
The report also addressed a number of practical issues. These included tolerances, making the
point that centralisers are normally required between a sleeve and the parent member to ensure
that there is a minimum grout thickness at all points (recommended 25 mm). Another issue was
detailing of the flange connection to ensure that there are effective seals at the ends of each sleeve
to contain the grout, where rubber seals were recommended. Regarding the addition of shear con-
nectors to the parent member, underwater welding methods were reviewed. These included wet
welding and although this technique was known to produce reduced mechanical properties, the
report concluded that for the addition of weld beads, this could be acceptable. Welding in a water-
tight box was also reviewed but concluded to be more expensive and to have limitations.
The test results showed that in pure bending, the strength of a grouted connection was much
greater than that of the steel member. For combined axial and bending loads, a small reduction in
strength of the connection was reported. The strengths of the specimens with shear connectors
were much greater than those of plain pipe connections. With only a small amount of shear con-
nectors the strength was increased by a factor of three. An optimal value for shear connector spac-
ing (Dp/s) of 8 was found where Dp is the member diameter and s the connector spacing. The use
of more closely spaced weld beads led to no further increases in strength.
Overall, the results from the pipe-to-pipe tests showed that for the geometries tested, the strength
of the grouted connections was adequately described by the design rules for grouted pile-to-sleeve
connections as reported in the Department of Energy Guidance Notes at that time (Department of
Energy 1977 and 1984). The tests also indicated that the bond strength was a linear function of the
shear connector ratio (h/s, where h is the height of the weld bead and s its spacing) for the range of
h/s up to 0.06.
The results from the three T joint tests demonstrated that it was possible to design a grouted
repair system for a simple T joint against static failure.
Later, in 1988, Department of Energy published the report OTH 89 289 on grouts and grouting
for construction and repair of offshore structures, providing a summary of a university-led pro-
gramme managed by the London Centre for Marine Technology (Department Energy 1988b). The
project was funded by the Department of Energy and industry partners. The programme examined
problems encountered in offshore grouting applications and generated information which can be
used to design grouts for specific tasks. The ten projects in the programme included research into
the three aspects of grouting, which were materials, techniques and structural applications.
In the materials part of the programme, grout formulations were investigated to provide the
required properties for different offshore applications. These included, for example, the need to
develop strength rapidly at low temperatures for grouts to be used for clamp repairs. Eight of the
projects extended the understanding of how to develop specific formulations, using four different
types of cement, including Portland cement with ash, slag or silica fume replacement. Seawater
was used for mixing the grouts and they were cured at 8°C, typical of North Sea temperatures.
Other projects also investigated the placing of grout. The water volume needed to maintain fluidity
is greater than that required to fill the voids between the particulate components. The volume
occupied by a settled grout may be only 85% of the mix volume. This potential bleed (or settlement)
can cause voids leading to structural problems. To identify the critical stages in settlement, the
theory of bleed was investigated using laboratory tests (with grouts in vertical and inclined ducts).
Methods to reduce the bleed, such as high shear mixing and use of admixtures, were also
investigated.
An investigation of the residual strength of dented tubular members showed that filling the
member with grout could restore strength. A series of tests examined the effects of geometry and
grout age on the ultimate load capacity. It was concluded that for an isolated member, a grout infill
restored the strength lost by denting in most cases. In addition, it was found that fatigue was not a
problem with a high-strength grout, the ultimate load increased with the age of the grout and
full-scale tests showed proportionally higher failure loads than small-scale tests. Another project
improved the understanding of the failure of a grouted pile-sleeve connection which had weld
beads on the tubulars to improve the key between grout and metal. Failure of the grout beneath the
weld-beads was shown to follow circumferential yielding of the pile. A finite element (FE) pro-
gram to predict the strength of weld-beaded connections was developed and showed good agree-
ment with experimental results.
8.3.2 UK Joint Industry Repairs Research Project

The OTH 88 283 report (Department of Energy 1988) is the outcome of the Joint Industry Repairs
Research Project funded by the UK Department of Energy and nine oil companies. The steering
committee for this Joint Industry Project was led by J.V. Sharp. The research carried out investi-
gated the static strength and fatigue performance of grouted and mechanical connections and
clamps of the types used to strengthen or repair underwater steel members. Data from the research
and from other sources was assimilated and used in the compilation of Part 1 of this report which
was entitled the “Designers Manual”. The designer’s manual was intended to provide engineers
with basic information and design formulae from laboratory tests on repairs by grouting and
mechanically strengthening carried out between 1982 and 1984. It was in the review recognised
that the use of grouted and mechanical repair systems underwater and in the splash zone had
increased dramatically up to date. This “Designers Manual” is now considered dated, but many of
the elements in this manual have been transferred into new standards, recommended practices
and guidance with the required updates.
In the review it was differentiated between a clamp and a connection. A clamp was defined as a
repair or strengthening of a tubular joint by providing an alternative load path through the clamp
whilst a connection was defined as a device for joining concentric tubular members together. The
primary causes for repair were in the review identified as fatigue, increased code requirements
(wave loading), ship impacts and impact by dropped objects.
The different grouted and mechanical repair schemes that had been employed to date were in
the review defined as shown in Table 61 (Department of Energy 1988).
Part II of the document (Engineering Assessment of Test Data) provides more detailed informa-
tion, including a detailed discussion of the factors affecting the strength and behaviour of each
type of clamp or connection.
For each type of underwater repair, the analysis includes its applications and factors affecting
its strength, ranges of application, permissible working loads, safety considerations, applied loads
and fatigue.
The concluding chapters of the manual describe grouting materials and procedures and other
relevant considerations in the design of repairs, such as bolting and sealing systems, cathodic pro-
tection, inspection and wet welding.
There are two main types of grout material used for repairs, which are (Department of
Energy 1988):
Table 61 Repair Methods.
Repair method Description Comments
Grouted A connection between two concentric Grouted connections were reported to be

connection tubulars formed by the injection of a regularly used to connect piles to fixed
cementitious material into the annular space steel structures (still the case) but also for
between the tubulars repairs such as sleeving understrength
Stressed A connection formed between two concentric members or providing an alternative load
grouted tubulars. The outer tubular is formed in two path across defective areas.
connection or more segments. Cementitious material is Stressed grouted connections were
placed into the annular space between the reported to be used as a repair technique
tubulars and allowed to reach a predefined for the Viking Field.
strength prior to the application of an external General formulae for static strength and
stressing force normal to the steel-grout guidance on fatigue analysis of grouted
interface. connection were provided.
Mechanical A connection formed between two concentric Applications were reported to include
connection tubulars relying for load transfer on the connecting two parts of a member
friction capacity of the interface between the together and for connecting a new
two tubulars. The outer tubular will be member into a structure. Formulae for
formed from two or more segments which are static strength were provided.
stressed together to generate a force normal to
the friction surface.
Mechanical A clamp in which the outer sleeve is formed Applications were reported to include
clamp in two or more segments which are placed strengthening of one or more brace
around an existing tubular joint. The clamp members at a tubular joint (static
body will be formed from two or more strength and fatigue) and connecting
segments which are stressed together to members at an inclined angle into an
provide the load path in the clamp. existing structure. Guidance for static
strength and fatigue analysis were
provided.
Grouted A clamp in which the outer sleeve is formed Applications were reported to include
clamp in two or more segments which are placed strengthening of one or more brace
around an existing tubular joint. The splits are members at tubular joints and
closed by pre-tightened bolts prior to the connecting a new brace member into the
injection of a cementitious material into the structure. Formulae for static strength
annular space between the clamp and the and stress concentration factors were
existing tubular joints. provided.
Stressed A clamp in which the outer sleeve is formed in Applications were reported to include
grouted two or more segments which are placed strengthening of one or more brace
clamp around an existing tubular joint. Cementitious members at tubular joints against static
material is placed into the annular space or fatigue loading and connecting a new
between the clamp and the existing tubular brace member into at an inclined angle
joint and allowed to reach a predefined into an existing structure. Formulae for
strength prior to the application of an external static strength and stress concentration
stressing force normal to the steel-grout factors were provided.
interface.
Grout-filled A tubular which has been filled with a The major uses were reported to be
tubular cementitious material increase of capacity of understrength,
impact prone, dented or buckled
members.
Source: Modified from Department of Energy (1988). Offshore Technology Report OTH 88 283 Grouted and
mechanical strengthening and repair of tubular steel offshore structures. Prepared by Wimpey Offshore Engineers
and Constructors LTD (R.G. Harwood and E.P. Shuttleworth) for the Department of Energy. HMSO, London, UK
●● Portland cement grouts with or without inert fillers, mixed preferably with fresh water.
Seawater can be used; however, for repairs particularly in the splash zone, it is not recom-
mended because of potential corrosion issues due to the presence of chloride and the availa-
bility of oxygen.
●● High alumina cement (HAC) grouts mixed with fresh water for faster curing times. The water-
cement ratio should not exceed 0.4 as HAC is prone to conversion reducing its strength. It is also
vulnerable to chemical attack when exposed to water for long periods and hence limited for
underwater applications.
Admixtures are available to improve the properties of either the slurry or hardened grout, but
tests need to be undertaken to demonstrate that these have no harmful effects on the performance
of a connection.
8.3.3 UK Department of Energy and TWI Study on Repair Methods for Fixed

Offshore Structures
The report OTH 89 307 (Department of Energy 1989) describes a series of fatigue tests at the Welding
Institute on welded tubular T joints in which fatigue cracks were repaired by a number of alternative
methods. The main objectives were to establish a ranking for the repair methods in terms of residual
fatigue performance and to establish whether it is necessary to repair the entire joint or only the cracked
region. The joints were tested in out-of-plane bending.
The repair methods investigated were:
●● repair welding (cracks were removed by grinding and the resulting excavation filled by manual
metal arc welding);
●● repair welding and burr grinding (repair welds, made as described above, were fully burr ground
to remove the repair toe weld and to achieve a smooth finish on the repair weld face);
●● hole drilling and cold expansion (the fatigue crack tips were removed by drilling through-thick-
ness holes, which were then cold expanded to include compressive residual stresses in the hole
circumference); and
●● grinding alone (part wall cracks were removed by burr grinding and the resulting excavations
left unrepaired).
Repair welding included removing the crack by grinding and welding the resulting excavation by
manual arc welding. Various factors were seen to play a part in the fatigue life of a repair welded
detail, for example the hot spot increased marginally but the length of the weld increased reducing
the stress at the weld toe. Repair welding was carried out in the air at atmospheric pressure under
shop conditions, rather than trying to reproduce conditions likely to be met in an underwater
repair of an offshore structure. In a subsidiary investigation fatigue crack growth rates were meas-
ured in weld metal deposited under hyperbaric conditions to establish whether hyperbaric repair
welds would give similar results to those for one-atmosphere repairs. All in all, the conclusion was
that the remaining life was similar to or possibly marginally greater than the fatigue life of the
original detail.
Burr grinding to remove the repair weld toe and to achieve a smooth finish on the repair weld
face significantly improved the fatigue life of a repaired weld. If the applied loading was unchanged,
the fatigue life was indicated to be in excess of five times that before repair. It was noted that burr
grinding of the unrepaired weld toes on both the chord and brace side was necessary to avoid pre-
mature failure.
N1 N2
400 Repair welded

Repair welded and
burr ground
1B Unfailed
300
Hot spot stress range after repair, N/mm2
1A 5A 1A 5A 15A 16B 16B 24A
6B
4A 4A 24B
4B
15B 15B
3A 3A
23A + B
6A
19A 20A 20A 19A
200 20B 19B
13A 13A
13B 13B
T curve From
up to 22 mm 9B 16 mm 9B 16 mm mean Ref.8
mean-2SD
104 105 106 107

Endurance, cycles
Figure 85 Fatigue test results for repair welded tubular joints plotted in terms of the measured hot spot
stress range after repair. White dots indicate fatigue life prior to repair and black dots after repair. Source:
Department of Energy (1989). OTH 89 307 Fatigue performance of repaired tubular joints. Prepared by the
Welding Institute (P.J. Tubby) for the Department of Energy. HMSO, London, UK.
Results of the fatigue tests of repair welded specimens with and without burr grinding are shown
in Figure 85.
In hole drilling the fatigue crack tip was removed by drilling a through-thickness hole which was
cold expanded to induce compressive residual stresses in the hole circumference. The report con-
cluded that cold expanded holes at the crack tips were not an effective way of delaying crack propa-
gation; see Figure 86. However, later work on the use of hole drilling indicates that this is not
necessarily the case (Atteya et al. 2020).
N1 N2
400 Hole drilling
Precracking hot spot stress range, N/mm2
8A 7A 8A
7B
8B 8B
300
T curve, up to 22 mm
Ref.8 16 mm mean –2SD
16 mm mean
200
103 104 105 106 107
Endurance, cycles
Figure 86 Fatigue test results obtained for tubular joints repaired by hole drilling and cold expansion
plotted in terms of the hot spot stress range during pre-cracking. White dots indicate fatigue life prior to
repair and black dots after repair. Source: Department of Energy (1989). OTH 89 307 Fatigue performance of
repaired tubular joints. Prepared by the Welding Institute (P.J. Tubby) for the Department of Energy. HMSO,
London, UK.
Grinding alone, as shown in Figure 87, may be used for part wall cracks and includes that the crack
is removed by burr grinding and the resulting excavations are left unrepaired. This study indicates that
this was an effective repair method giving fatigue lives up to four times greater than that of the unre-
paired weld. It was further noted in this project that it is necessary to burr grind the unrepaired weld
toes on both the chord and the brace side to avoid fatigue failure at an early stage.
The main findings of the review were the following:
●● Expressed in terms of the hot spot stress range, the fatigue strength of as-welded repair welds was
marginally lower than that of unrepaired welds. However, this was compensated by the fact that
in making the repair, the overall weld length was increased, which led to a reduction in the stress
range of the repair weld toe. As a result, if the applied loading was kept the same before and after
repair, the fatigue endurance to through-thickness cracking after repair was on average similar or
marginally greater than that before repair.
●● Burr grinding the repair weld was found to considerably improve the fatigue strength, although
a smooth surface finish should be achieved to avoid premature crack initiation on the weld face.
Where the applied loading continues unchanged after the repair, the fatigue life to through-
thickness cracking may be in excess of five times that before repair.
●● Through-thickness and part-wall weld repairs behaved similarly. Under the mode of loading
investigated, a relatively large penetration of defects could be tolerated at the root in through-
thickness repairs.
●● Cold expanded holes at the crack tips were not effective as a means of delaying crack propagation.
22B 22B
22A 22A N1 N2
400
14A 14A Ground only
14B
11B 12B 12A 12B 11B
11A 11A
300 6 mm 6 mm
Precracking hot spot stress range, N/mm2
25B 25B
4 mm 6 mm 2 mm
280
260 25A Three

excavation depths
18A
21B 21B
240 18A
18B
220 21A
17A
200
17B
180 10B 10B
160
T curve 16 mm 16 mm From
up to 22 mm mean– mean Ref.8
2SD
140
103 104 105 106 107

Endurance, cycles
Figure 87 Fatigue test results for tubular joints repaired by grinding alone plotted in terms of the hot spot
stress range during pre-cracking. White dots indicate fatigue life prior to repair and black dots after repair.
Source: Department of Energy (1989). OTH 89 307 Fatigue performance of repaired tubular joints. Prepared
by the Welding Institute (P.J. Tubby) for the Department of Energy. HMSO, London, UK.
●● Removal of part-wall flaws by grinding was an effective repair method giving endurances after
repair up to four times greater than the mean for unrepaired joints. Data were presented which
allowed the likely residual life to be estimated for a given excavation depth.
●● The report indicated that crack growth rates in hyperbaric repair welds would be expected to be
similar to those in the one-atmosphere repairs.
8.3.4 UK Department of Energy–Funded Work on Adhesive Repairs

The UK Department of Energy funded a programme of work to develop repair methods for appli-
cation to underwater sections of an offshore steel platform (Clarke et al. 1986). Typical underwater
repair systems for fatigue cracking are based on grouted connections. Alternatives to these would
have benefits if they could provide equivalent or improved mechanical properties and cost
advantages. Previous work for the UK Ministry of Defence had developed resins for repair of ships
where the resin was capable of bonding to a wet steel surface. The Department of Energy pro-
gramme was aimed at exploiting these resins for offshore use for repair of platforms (Clarke
et al. 1986).
In selecting a suitable resin, several physical properties needed consideration. These included
bond strength to a wet surface, cure time at temperatures typical of the North Sea, viscosity as it is
needed to penetrate the annular space in a connection. Another consideration was the exotherm
generated during curing. Thick sections of resin could lead to high temperatures, which would
degrade the properties of the resin.
Based on the Ministry of Defence work, the adhesive selected was an epoxide-based, cold curing
formulation called UW 45. It was selected as having a good blend of chemical and physical proper-
ties, with the ability to cure when immersed in water at temperatures as low as 5oC. It also flowed
well at these temperatures. In addition, several other commercially available resins at the time
were tested for comparison purposes.
The programme involved work on the adhesive at the Admiralty Research Establishment at
Holton Heath, together with structural analyses of proposed repair systems at the Admiralty
Research Establishment at Dunfermline.
The materials-focussed research involved first grit blasting the steel specimens underwater.
This led to a surface where water was strongly absorbed onto the freshly exposed steel. In this
condition it was found that the adhesive failed to “wet” the surface leading to a poor bond. It
was established that the application of a sacrificial pre-treatment technique (SPT) led to the
displacement of the water and to the deposition of a hydrophobic film over the surface. This
film was found to be compatible with the adhesive and use of the SPT method led to conditions
where the adhesive would spontaneously spread over the surface and provide a good bond. A
technique was developed for applying the SPT using a hood where bulk water was displaced
from the hood by compressed air; an atomised spray of the SPT was then applied, which dis-
placed the residual water film. This left behind a useful hydrophobic surface to which the
adhesive could bond.
Many small steel specimens were prepared to investigate the basic properties of the adhesive and
the effect of different surface treatments. These included both tensile butt joints and lap shear
joints. Joints made using the SPT and without it were compared, and it was found that use of the
SPT led to strengths 3 to 4 times higher and with a much smaller variation in properties. Joints
made using the SPT failed mainly within the adhesive layer, not at the steel-adhesive interface.
To test the durability of adhesive-bonded butt joints they were exposed to seawater at room tem-
perature for a period of up to 8 years. These showed good performance over the long exposure
period. To test the performance in real seawater, a number of single overlap tensile joints were
exposed just below the waterline on a raft in a harbour on the south coast of England. These
showed no loss in strength after 3 years’ exposure.
Stress rupture tests were also carried out to establish the effect of continuous loading. Specimens
were exposed at 20oC under seawater at loads representing between 10–40% of their short-term
failure stress. Although failure of specimens initially loaded at the 40% level occurred within a few
hours, the specimens subjected to the 20% loading level survived about 3 years before failing.
In addition to the small-scale specimens, tube-to-tube joints were selected as an example of a
repair required for offshore structures. Typical dimensions of these were an outside diameter of
110 mm for the tube and 127 mm for the sleeve. Resin thicknesses of between 1.5 and 5.5 mm were
tested. All the specimens were bonded in simulated seawater at a temperature of 6oC. Grit blasting
of the steel surfaces was done both in air and underwater using the SPT treatment. For the latter
specimens, an adhesive pre-coat was applied as it was found that the resin bonded well to itself,
and the pre-coat provided a protective layer to prevent corrosion.
The tube specimens were tested in tension at a temperature of about 10oC. Good strengths were
found for those specimens grit-blasted in air and with the resin applied above water. Specimens
cleaned underwater and using the SPT treatment provided strengths in excess of 450 kN corre-
sponding to the yield strength of the tube.
A comparison of these resin-bonded joints was undertaken in OTH 88 283 using results for simi-
lar grouted tube-to-tube joints from a separate programme (Department of Energy 1988). The
grouted tests included both specimens with and without shear connectors (weld beads applied to
the surface). The results for the resin-bonded joints were encouraging, with the strength of the
resin-bonded joint approximately twice that of the grouted specimen with weld beads and 6 times
that of the plain grouted connections (see Table 62).
The practical aspects of an adhesive-based repair to steel underwater were examined. This
involved several stages starting with an initial grit blasting followed by application of the SPT. For
preparation of larger specimens, grit blasting and the SPT deposition needed to be mounted in one
unit in order to keep to a minimum the time before the SPT is applied. It was found that the useful
life of the SPT film varied depending on the exposure conditions with current and wave action hav-
ing an effect. The key stage was to apply the adhesive pre-coat as quickly as possible to avoid dam-
age to the SPT film.
The research programme demonstrated a repair technique for using an epoxy resin adhesive to
steel underwater. This included the use of a surface preparation technique which was shown to be
essential to achieve good bonds. The use of the resin to connect tube-to-tube connections also
demonstrated good properties, with strengths up to a factor of two compared to similar tube-to-
tube connections using grout. Patents were applied for the process, which were granted.
A company (Wessex Resins) was commissioned by the Department of Energy to commercial-
ise the resin, pre-treatment and general process. Wessex Resins and Adhesives Limited is a man-
ufacturer and formulator of epoxy resin systems for the marine, transport, construction and
general engineering industries. At the time of writing, Wessex Resins offered a modified adhe-
sive, UW 4701, which is an improvement on UW45. Its claim is that it can cure at low tempera-
tures and is highly tolerant to oil and water. The improved formulation provides a good bond to
wet steel without the use of the surface pre-treatment tested in the research programme. This
has the advantage of simplifying the process underwater. At present, adhesive repair using the
above-mentioned resins have been reported to be used for an underwater caisson repair
(Clarke 2020).
Table 62 Comparison of Grouted and Bonded Repairs.
D/t
Average shear
Type of repair Tube Sleeve Adhesive/ grout Tube OD stress MPa
Adhesive 27–33 32 20–25 110 6.6–7.6

Grout 36.3 50–83 32.5 230 0.6–1.3
Grout with weld beads 36.3 50–83 32.5 230 3.1–3.9
Source: Clarke, J.D., Sharp, J.V. and Bowditch M. (1986). An Underwater adhesive based repair method for offshore
structures. Conference on inspection, maintenance and repair, Aberdeen, 1986.
Review of Adhesive Bonding for Offshore Structures OTO 96 030

A review was commissioned by the Department of Energy (HSE 1997) on the applications of
adhesives in offshore structures. It was limited to dry applications relevant to topsides. The review
addressed health and safety issues in handling adhesives, as well as inspection and repair. On occu-
pational health the review concluded that adhesives at that time posed no particular hazards to
operatives, provided established handling procedures were used.
On inspection the comment was that it was inherently difficult, and for that reason, quality
assurance should be built into the bonding process and post-bonding coupon testing. It also com-
mented that in most situations adhesively bonded connections were significantly defect tolerant. It
was concluded that at the time there were a very limited number of inspection methods available.
The review also addressed repair and identified three situations, which were:
i) to completely remove the existing joint and continue with surface preparation as for a new joint;
ii) to attempt to introduce more or different adhesives into a partially bonded connection; and
iii) to use some other form of joining such as mechanical to provide security for the joint.
Option (ii) requires introduction of adhesive into the joint either from the edge or from holes
drilled into the adherend. This clearly has many limitations. Option (iii) is particularly relevant if
the defect is at the edge of an attachment or at the end of a stiffener where failure is due to exces-
sive cleavage forces. A mechanical attachment (or possibly welding) can help reduce these cleav-
age forces. Welding is likely to produce local damage to the joint. These repairs would be difficult
underwater.
8.3.5 Residual and Fatigue Strength of Grout-Filled Damaged Tubular Members

Report OTH 89 314 (Department of Energy 1989b) presented details and results of a test pro-
gramme carried out on tubular members to determine the effectiveness of grout filling as a means
of repairing damage.
The tests involved a number of indented specimens to be grout-filled under controlled condi-
tions. After denting, the tubulars were tested and then after failure cut open for the condition of
the grout to be examined. Comparisons were made with the unfilled damaged and undamaged
parent tubulars. A comparison was also made with the experimental work and theoretical analysis
undertaken separately.
It was shown that for the number and dimensions tested, the presence of grout enhanced the
strength of the member when compared with an identical but unfilled damaged tubular. The
results showed that this increase in strength was dependent upon grout strength, dent size, and
L/r and D/t ratios. At higher grout strengths, increases in ultimate strength ranging from 45%
to 125% were achieved. The size of dent influenced the strength in grout-filled members with
an increase of approx. 70% for small dents (d/D = 0.04) and a smaller increase of 55% for larger
dents (d/D = 0.16). It was shown that the L/r ratio had little effect at low values of the D/t ratio,
but a reduction was observed at higher D/t ratios. The strength increased with the D/t ratio for
lower values of the slenderness ratio (L/r), but there was little change at higher ratios. Except
for the most severe case of damage tested (d/D = 0.16), the presence of high-strength grout
increased the strength of a damaged member beyond that of the same unfilled undamaged
member. The increase in strength, however, resulted in post-collapse losses and rapid unloading.
Scale effects would appear to have been present, but these effects did not change the main con-
clusion of enhanced strength from grout filling. From the limited test results, it would appear that
fatigue is not a significant problem at acceptable grout strengths. Since the ultimate load was found
to be influenced by grout strength in the static case, it might be that fatigue is an important consid-
eration at lower grout strengths.
It was noted that the results in this report were based upon tests carried out on specimens that
have been completely filled with grout. Losses due to voids or partial filling had not been investi-
gated in this study.
The grout used for these tests was a standard Oilwell B cement grout with 0.36 water/cement
ratio by weight of cement used. This is typical of the grouts used for structural grouting of North
Sea platforms.
8.3.6 Fatigue Life Enhancement of Tubular Joints by Grout Injection

Report OTH 92 368 (Department of Energy 1992) described static stress analysis and fatigue tests
on repaired and fully internally grouted tubular welded T joints. Two fatigue damaged 914 mm
diameter tubular T joints, originating from the UKOSRP programme, were repaired by internally
grouting. Extensive stress analysis was carried out on each specimen to determine the influence of
full internal grout on the stress and strain concentrations factors generated under 3-point loading,
axial loading through the brace member, in-plane bending and out-of-plane bending.
Each specimen was then subjected to axial fatigue loading through the brace members to evalu-
ate the effect on fatigue performance and failure modes due to the introduction of this type of
stiffening. Throughout each test, crack initiation sites and crack propagation data were recorded
along with joint flexibility data.
The results, which were presented in the form of stress concentration factors and stress endur-
ance curves, indicated that the technique may be applied to existing nodes to extend their fatigue
lives by reducing the hot spot stresses around the chord to brace intersection due to the loads to
which the nodes are subject in-service. In addition to the possible extension in fatigue lives, crack
propagation and local joint flexibility indicated that failure modes had not changed from those
exhibited by conventional nodes.
Introduction of grout considerably reduced the stress generated under axial and out-of-plane
bending conditions, thereby reducing the SCFs around the brace/chord intersection weld.
The fatigue lives of two grout-stiffened nodes were less than that predicted by the mean T curve
but were within the scatter band of that displayed by conventional nodes. Failure modes of grout-
stiffened nodes of the geometry investigated in this programme had not been altered from that of
conventional nodes.
It was concluded that fatigue lives of existing undamaged nodes could be extended by the
introduction of grout provided the dominant load condition was axial. It was also concluded that
the existing S-N curve approach to structural analysis was still applicable for grout-stiff-
ened nodes.
8.3.7 ATLSS Projects on Repair to Dent-Damaged Tubular Members

As part of the ATLSS projects, Rickles et al. (1992) in the project “Residual Strength and Grout
Repair of Dented Offshore Tubular Bracing” performed laboratory tests of thirteen steel tubular
braces of various diameter-to-thickness ratios. These tests were performed to examine the effect of:
●● a dent damage of 0.1 of the diameter D on the residual strength;
●● internal grout repair; and
●● grouted clamp repair (sleeve).
The braces were subjected to axial loading, and in some specimens, this was combined with load
eccentricity of 0.2 of D to simulate a bending moment. The main results of this study included the
following conclusions:
●● A dent of 0.1 D gave a significant loss of strength (up to 50% reduction);
●● The effect of load eccentricity of 0.2 D gave a pronounced effect on the strength (up to 50%
reduction);
●● Internal grout repair of a 0.1 D dent-damaged brace successfully reinstated the original un-damaged
strength (limited by the D/t ratio of the damaged member due to local buckling); and
●● Grouted steel clamp repair of a 0.1 D dent-damaged brace successfully reinstated the original
un-damaged strength.
Several strength formulations, computer programs and general finite element analysis were used
to compare with the test results. It was found that non-linear finite element analysis was effective
in modelling the experimental results, if care was taken in the material modelling and mesh
refinement.
Later, Ricles et al. (1997) investigated the effect of grout repairs to larger dented specimens up to
0.5 D. The review confirmed previous experimental studies that internal grout repair could rein-
state the capacity of a tubular member with up to a dent of 0.15 D. A series of laboratory tests were
performed to investigate tubulars with dents > 0.25 D and investigate the effect of grouting for
tubulars with D/t of 33.8 and 67.9. The project used these tests in verification of analytical methods
and computer programs relevant at that time. However, the test results as shown in Figure 88
1.2
0.8
Fy/Fy
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Dent/Diameter
Figure 88 Capacity of repaired and unrepaired dented tubulars based on Ricles et al. (1992), Bruin (1995)
and Ricles et al. (1997). Circles indicate unrepaired tests, triangles represent tests results of internal
grout-repaired tubulars with D/t~34, squares with D/t~45, diamonds with D/t~67 and the X indicates one
external grouted sleeve repair for a tubular with D/t~67. Sources: Based on Ricles, J., Gillum, T. and Lamport,
W (1992). Residual strength and grout repair of dented offshore tubular bracing. ATLSS Report No. 92-14,
Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, US ; Bruin, W.M. (1995). Assessment of the residual strength and repair of
dent-damaged offshore platform bracing. Master Thesis presented at Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, USA
; Ricles, J.M., Bruin, W.M. and Sooi, T.K. (1997). Repair of dented tubular columns – whole column approach.
ATLSS Reports, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, USA. Also published as MMS TAP report 101.
clearly indicate that grouting is not able to reinstate the capacity of dented tubular members with
dents of 0.25 D or 0.5 D. Approximately 65–90% of strength was restored (depending on D/t ratio)
by internal grouting for a tubular member with a 0.25 D dent and as low as 20–35% of strength was
restored by internal grouting for a tubular member with a 0.5 D dent. Interestingly, more capacity
was restored by external grouting (clamp or external sleeve).
The formulae of Loh et al. (1992) and Ellinas (1984) were recommended for calculating the as-
dented capacity (Loh for dents of less than 0.3 D and Ellinas for dents between 0.3 D and 0.5 D).
Finite element analysis of such members was recommended to include the denting process. For
grouted members Loh’s formulae (Loh 1991) were recommended for dent depths up to 0.5 D. Finite
element analysis was not recommended due to cost, effort and uncertainty.
Ellinas’ (1984) estimation of the ultimate member stress σud of the dented tubular member was
found by solving the following quadratic equation including second-order effects:
2
ud Ad ed fe Ad ed
1 0 d ud fy pd 0
e Sd e Sd
where ed is the eccentricity introduced by the dent, fy is an equivalent squash stress of the dented
section (not the yield stress σy), σe is the Euler buckling stress and σpd is equal to the initial plastifi-
cation stress in the saddle of the dent. Geometric parameters for the imperfection α0 and column
slenderness λd are further discussed in Ellinas (1984).
The moment and axial load capacity of grout-filled dented tubes was studied by Ostapenko et al.
(1996) as part of a Joint Industry Project also sponsored by US MMS. The aim of this project was to
derive formulae to predict the deformation as a result of axial and bending loads. The formulae
were developed based on an assumption that both steel and concrete materials had a bi-linear
elastic-plastic stress-strain relationship and that the grout had no strength in tension. By varying
the location of the neutral axis and the value of curvature, the relationship between the axial load
and curvature could be defined. The method was compared to laboratory tests of grouted tubulars
where 3 specimens were dented and 3 specimens were undented. The formulae derived in this
study were concluded to provide somewhat higher ultimate loads compared to the laboratory test
specimens.
8.3.8 ATLSS Projects on Repair to Corrosion Damaged Tubulars

Repair options should be reviewed if the evaluation has found the residual strength of a corroded
tubular member to be less than needed. Repair options include total member replacement, but this
is often neither feasible nor necessary. A better option is indicated by Hebor (1994) to be the addi-
tion of a sleeve or partial or full internal grouting. For dent damage, internal grouting is effective
as it prevents the dent from growing and the original strength can be restored for members with
smaller dents.
However, as stated by Hebor (1994), repair of corrosion damage is influenced by load transfer
across the corroded patch and an external steel sleeve was considered to provide a better load trans-
fer. A cement-based grout between sleeve and member was an option, but Hebor (1994) used an
epoxy-based grout to obtain higher bond strength in order to develop improved stress transfer
across the corrosion patch. It was also indicated by Hebor (1994) that an epoxy-based grout restores
the lost gross section and minimises the corrosion-induced internal moment by reducing the
eccentricity in the corroded cross section. High-strength epoxy-based grouts will also allow for
shorter steel sleeves to be used.
The choice of repair method may also depend on the size of the corrosion patch. Hebor (1994)
reports that an unrepaired corrosion patch had a tendency to buckle outward if the aspect ratio of
the corrosion patch (c/h) was greater than one and inward if the ratio was close to one. An outer
sleeve would constrain outward buckling. An inward buckle would require both hoop restraint by
the sleeve and radial tensile stresses in the grout to maintain compatibility between the tubular
and the sleeve.
The required sleeve length is provided by Hebor (1994) as:
P
s 2 hcritical
D b
where s is the sleeve length, P is the load needed to be transferred to the sleeve, D is the outer diam-
eter of the tubular, σb is the bond strength of the grout and hcritical is the span of the corrosion
patch itself.
The tests performed by Hebor (1994) indicated that patch corrosion could be successfully
repaired with a grouted external sleeve. Further, it was concluded that the bond strength of the
grout influenced the behaviour of the grouted sleeve repair by preserving the compatibility between
the tubular and the sleeve both in the longitudinal and radial directions. A grout with higher bond
strength preserved the compatibility more effectively. Particularly when the aspect ratio of the cor-
rosion patch was close to 1.0, higher bond strength grouts were recommended to avoid an inward
local buckle.
The work in the ATLSS project on residual strength and repair of dented and corroded tubulars
in offshore structures was summarised in Ricles et al. (1995). It was concluded that:
●● The ultimate strength capacity of tubular members was significantly decreased by dent damage
and corrosion. The reduction of the capacity of the patch-corroded steel tubulars was reported to
be due to local buckling in the corrosion patch (reduced wall thickness in combination with an
amplification of the stress due to a shift in the centroid of the cross section). Further, the local
buckling strength was found to be independent of the height of the patch for heights equal to or
greater than half the diameter. Capacity formulae based on simplified elastic analysis were
developed and showed reasonable approximations of the residual strength.
●● An exterior grouted sleeve repair was found to successfully reinstate the capacity of a corroded
tubular member (low bound strength grouts were found to be acceptable, but epoxy-based grouts
were found to be more capable of preventing yielding and buckling of the damaged cross
section).
●● Non-linear finite element analysis and moment-thrust-curvature analysis both were able to pre-
dict the behaviour of non-repaired dented tubular columns. The studies indicated that the inter-
action of dent-depth and out-of-straightness can have a significant effect on a member’s ultimate
capacity.
●● An internal grout repair was shown to be able to reinstate the strength of the member for low
dent depts and out-of-straightness (<0.15D and <0.002L respectively).
Patterson and Ricles (2001) reviewed the residual strength and repair of patch-corroded offshore
steel tubular braces subjected to inelastic cyclic axial loading to determine whether existing
strength prediction methods for monotonic loading conditions could predict cyclic strength. As
part of this study, the effectiveness of using an epoxy grouted repair sleeve to restore member
resistance was investigated. An experimental programme consisting of the testing of twelve
specimens was undertaken, consisting of two non-damaged specimens, eight patch-corroded
specimens and two repaired specimens with patch corrosion. Steel tubulars with diameter-to-
thickness ratios (D/t) of 27 and 40 and a slenderness ratio (L/r) of 57 were used and mechanical
removal of portions of the wall thickness over a controlled area of the surface was used to simulate
the patch-corrosion. The repairs studied included both a steel sleeve and a carbon fibre composite
sleeve. The results of the experimental programme demonstrated that corrosion damage can
severely limit the ductility and strength of a tubular member. The presence of patch corrosion
resulted in local buckling which led to a through-thickness crack in the cross section due to low
cycle fatigue. The results from the repaired test specimen demonstrated that a patch-corroded
tubular member could be restored to its original design strength. Comparison of the test results to
design formulae were performed and the average error was found to be 2.6%, with a maximum
error of 9.2% and a coefficient of variation of 5.8%.
Epoxy grout was found to be effective in transferring forces to the repair sleeve and eliminating
the high stress concentrations around the patch corrosion and was as such an effective tool in
restoring a corroded tube to its full undamaged axial capacity.
8.3.9 MSL Strengthening, Modification and Repair of Offshore Installations

A Joint Industry Project in two phases sponsored by several oil and gas companies and governmen-
tal organisations (HSE UK and MMS US) was performed by MSL on strengthening, modification
and repair (SMR) of offshore installations (MSL 1995, MSL 1997a and MSL 1997b). The purpose of
the project was stated to be to “bring together in one document all the information necessary for
the planning and execution of offshore SMR work”. Building upon these two reports, MMS com-
missioned MSL to revisit strengthening, modification and repair to review and update these reports
in MSL (2004), further described in Section 8.3.13.
It should be noted that these four reports in combination form an extensive (close to 2000 pages)
source of information on repair of fixed steel offshore structures. The reports are available at the
US Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSSE 2020) as part of their Technology
Assessment Programs (TAP). It is highly recommended to visit these reports for significantly more
information than what can be provided in this book.
Phase one of this project (MSL 1995) consisted of six parts:
●● Part I–Summary, which included structure and usage of the document, project description and
outline of the remaining parts;
●● Part II–Assessment engineering and repair technique selection, which included a guide to the
choices to be made relating to strengthening or repairs.
●● Part III–Design recommendations, which included a detailed recommended practice for the
design of various strengthening, modification and repair (SMR) techniques. The recommended
practices involved design formulae based on the data from Part IV.
●● Part IV–Background data and assessment, which included research, databases and appraisals
which form the supporting evidence to the design recommendations in Part III.
●● Part V–Clamp stud-bolt load variations, which included new data generated in the project
(experimental and numerical) in order to provide a rationale for clamp design.
●● Part VI–Diver-less implementation studies, which included various feasibility studies and an
actual case history on implementing repairs without the use of divers.
Part II included guidance on the use of non-linear structural analysis methods, the combination
of fracture mechanics and fatigue calculations, how to deal with overstressed elements and how to
integrate physical research into a design method. Further, the report gave guidance on the
selection of repair including removal of damage, reducing of the loading and how to undertake a
localised or global strengthening or repair.
An overview giving the full recognition to this project cannot be provided in a few pages. However,
many of the recommendations are included into the review of repair methods in Section 8.6.
Phase two of this project (MSL 1997a), extending the work in Part VI of phase one included
demonstration trials of diver-less strengthening and repair techniques for offshore installations.
The objective of the project was to demonstrate that strengthening and repair systems could be
implemented using remote intervention rather than the traditional diver intervention. The objec-
tive was met through in-water demonstration trials and experimental assessments for the follow-
ing strengthening and repair scenarios:
●● Repair of a T-joint with a stressed grouted clamp using an atmospheric diving system (ADS)
intervention;
●● Repair of a T-joint with a stressed grouted clamp using a work-class remotely operated vehicle
(ROV) intervention; and
●● Placement of an additional brace member into a structure, utilising an elastomer-lined clamp
and a tube-to-tube stressed grouted clamp using ROV intervention. This scenario represented
both the repair of an existing damaged member and introduction of a new brace member.
A significant number of innovative designs were reported to be introduced in this project for
strengthening and repair systems to make the repairs ROV-friendly, including the following:
●● A clamp manifold was provided on each strengthening and repair system to allow the ROV to
interface with and provide power to the clamp hydraulic system and grouting system.
●● A clamp closure system was provided to clamp two halves together via structural hinges.
●● Stud-bolt restraint and engagement were developed.
●● A direct interface self-centralising sealing system was developed.
●● A modified grouting system was developed to allow the ROV to control grouting operations from
the clamp manifold.
●● Specialised stud-bolt tensioners powered from the clamp manifold were developed.
The trials were reported to provide valuable lessons learnt. Dry “fit-up” trials were found to be
an invaluable part of the preparation for deployment, and it was recommended that this should
be a part of any strengthening and repair operation before attempting to implement these offshore.
It was further found that the ROV should be specified with 7-function manipulator arms as a mini-
mum. In a harsh environment a separate station-holding device such as a hydraulic docking device
or a suction “foot” were seen as preferable. Suitable lighting and camera configurations were seen
as essential and an additional simple manipulator arm should be available for adjustable position-
ing of these. An “eyeball” observation ROV should be specified to assist the work class ROV pilot
with a second visual perspective of both the work site and the work-class ROV itself. This ROV
should carry a dedicated work sled containing all required tools and fittings for the completion of
the task. Visual coloured and graduated indicators were recommended for all tasks requiring a
work-class ROV observation.
8.3.10 MSL Underwater Structural Repairs Using Composite Materials

MSL initiated a Joint Industry Project (MSL 1999) to undertake a study for a number of partici-
pants to develop an underwater technique for the strengthening or repair of offshore steel struc-
tures, in which carbon fibre reinforced plastic (CFRP) was bonded to an existing structure. In this
method dry fibres were pre-formed in a workshop. As part of the project, a resin specification was
sent out to major resin manufacturers including the following required properties. The resin should:
●● be able to cure in the presence of water;
●● be capable of bonding to steel underwater;
●● be capable of curing in temperatures as low as 3oC;
●● have low viscosity and long pot life (1–3 hours); and
●● have high initial Young’s modulus and ultimate elongation.
Thirteen candidate resins were identified for further investigation (of which 11 were epoxy res-
ins) and coupon tests were carried out on these. The coupons were prepared with the adherends
saturated with seawater and lap shear tests were undertaken. The three most suitable resin systems
were then used to manufacture test specimens to provide static material test data and long-term
material properties. A single resin was selected (Kobe R10) as being the most suitable for the repair
process and bonding to the steel. This resin was then evaluated for long-term durability, and it was
found that it would deteriorate underwater over a period of time and would not therefore be suit-
able for permanent repairs. Further work (outside this JIP) was then undertaken to provide an
improved resin, but to the knowledge of the authors it is unclear if this was achieved.
The JIP developed a manufacturing process for resin infusion under flexible tooling (RIFT). In
this method, dry fibres are pre-formed in a workshop to match the profile of the intended repair and
the necessary process materials and ancillary equipment are attached to the pre-form before pack-
aging. Using divers, the laminate was cast in-situ. On-site the pre-form is unwrapped and attached
to the substrate. A vacuum line was connected to remove the bulk water out of the fibre pre-form.
After the initial de-watering, air was drawn through the pack to further eliminate any liquid resi-
dues. Finally, the resin was infused into the fibre preform and the laminate allowed to consolidate
and cure. Fifty-five flat plate trials were undertaken to develop the process and the resin. Finite ele-
ment analysis was used to design the preform and this was shown to be a valuable tool.
This technique was further demonstrated underwater for bonding laminates onto pipes and
tubular joints. The two pipe specimens (diameter 610 mm, thickness 12.7 mm) had simulated
defects (dent, crack, corrosion patch). The laminate wrap was intended to restore the full integrity
of the pipe over the region containing the defects. The four T joints were designed with a brace-to-
chord bolted connection, the bolts being removed before testing to simulate complete severance.
The performance of the T joints tested under out-of-plane bending (OPB) was variable, with tests
underwater in the tank showing values between 33 and 74% of the target strength. The design of
the preform using FE analysis was shown to be important in achieving good performance. For the
two pipe tests one failed at a low pressure, the second using a hand lay-up process passed the proof
loading test and was then subjected to a fatigue pressure cycling regime. The specimen eventually
failed during a subsequent burst test at a pressure close to that produced by the analysis.
Overall, the repair method showed some limited success for the bonding of laminates onto dam-
aged pipes and also to damaged tubular joints. However, the main limitation was that the selected
resin did not have long-term durability underwater and hence the technique as developed would
only be suitable as a temporary repair.
8.3.11 HSE Experience from the Use of Clamps Offshore

The Viking AD platform was decommissioned in 1998 and one of the strengthening clamps intro-
duced after installation was obtained by HSE for assessment in the offshore technology report
2000/057 and 2000/058 (HSE 2002a and HSE 2002b). This clamp was subject to careful
examination following its twelve years in service by the Health and Safety Laboratory at Buxton.
The first phase (HSE 2002a) of the project included the tasks listed below, which were undertaken
after the clamp had been out of the water for approximately one year. In addition, it had been
transported between sites on two occasions and had been lifted several times.
●● compilation of a visual record of the clamp and its dimensions at the end of service;
●● assessment of marine growth, in terms of thickness, density and distribution;
●● corrosion survey;
●● non-destructive assessment of the grout layer between the clamp shell and the jacket tubulars;
●● crack detection of all welds;
●● measurement of residual stress in the vicinity of the welds in the tubulars; and
●● disassembly of one half of the clamp and measurement of stress in the stud-bolts.
Overall, the clamp was approximately 8 m long, including the tubular ends. It was approximately
1.7 m wide, i.e. across the strong-backs, and each clamp box was 0.75 m deep. The clamp box
flanges were 1.0 m across—see Figure 89. The two halves of the clamp were held together by 12
stud-bolts made from medium carbon, low alloy steel, probably grade L7. On testing, the tensile
strength of the stud-bolt material was found to be 930 MPa, equivalent to those of a grade 8.8 bolt.
After cleaning, a visual examination of the strengthening clamp was carried out to estimate the
degree of corrosion that had occurred and to assess the effectiveness of the impressed current pro-
tection. This examination revealed that there had been no significant localised pitting or general
corrosion of any of the plate material used to fabricate the clamp boxes or the strong backs. The
only components that appeared to have suffered any noticeable corrosion were the threaded stud-
bolts themselves. These exhibited signs of minor general corrosive attack where they passed
through the pockets on the upper surface only. These appear to have suffered corrosion only where
they had been covered by sand and grit, molluscs, and the like. Other areas of the threaded stud-
bolts were in very good condition. The grout between the clamp shell and the jacket tubulars was
found to be uniform in thickness (45–48 mm) using an ultrasonic instrument (PUNDIT) and thus
the clamp and tube were concentric. Following strain gauging of the stud-bolts, it was found that
all the stud-bolts had been correctly tensioned in accordance with the drawing requirements and
Figure 89 Bolted clamp used on the Viking AD platform after decommissioning. Source: John V. Sharp.
it was concluded that the clamp had been installed satisfactorily. The welding of the node in the
centre of the clamp was checked and found to be satisfactory with no weld defects being found.
The residual stress pattern in the vicinity of the node welds was measured and found to be complex
and it appeared that complete stress relief had not been carried out. In addition, installation of the
clamp appeared to have induced compressive stresses around the node welds.
The second phase of the project (HSE 2002b) consisted of the following tasks:
●● dismantle one-half of the clamp;
●● carry out compression tests on samples of grout;
●● assess the residual fatigue life of the stud-bolts;
●● measure the fracture toughness and impact toughness of parent plate, weld metal and heat-
affected zone; and
●● measure the fatigue crack growth rate and threshold stress intensity in the parent plate.
One-half of the clamp was dismantled successfully and it was found there was no indication of
any significant deterioration. Visual examination and mechanical testing of the grouted annulus
between the clamp body and the tubular showed that the annulus was complete, relatively uni-
form in thickness and there were no large voids present. The bond between the clamp body and the
grout material was considered very good. Tests showed that the compressive strength of the grout
material met the design requirement but that the shear properties were anisotropic, being influ-
enced by the observed layered structure such that the shear strength along a layer was approxi-
mately one-third of that across a layer. It was concluded that these results could have had
implications for the strength of the clamp, which is dependent on the bonding and the mechanical
properties of the grout material.
Test samples, each approximately 0.5 m in length, were cut from the stud-bolts removed from
the upper half of the clamp. Fatigue tests were conducted in air at a frequency of approximately
2 Hz. An S-N curve for the axial tensile loading of the stud-bolts was developed and compared
with that in BS 7608. It was concluded that the residual fatigue life of the stud-bolts was consist-
ent with what would be expected from new bolts and thus the fatigue life had not been signifi-
cantly reduced by the period in service. Following further testing, it was concluded that the
fatigue crack growth rate and the fatigue crack threshold stress intensity were consistent with
values reported previously for this material. In addition, it was found that the fracture toughness
and impact toughness of the tubular material were within the range normally expected for
50D steel.
Overall, twelve years in service had not led to significant corrosion and the measured material
properties were similar to those for new materials.
8.3.12 MSL Study on Neoprene-Lined Clamps

Neoprene-lined clamps contain a liner that lies between the clamp steelwork and the enclosed
member. This liner provides tolerance against lack of fit of the clamp saddle around the tubular
brace. The neoprene liner is usually plain for structural connections designed to transmit axial or
rotational loads, although ribbed linings are sometimes used to accommodate potentially large
lack of fit tolerances. Stressed neoprene-lined clamps rely on applied stud bolt pre-loads to gener-
ate compressive forces normal to the interface between the clamp liner and the surface of the
clamped brace. The strength is considered to be dependent on the magnitude of the normal force,
the relative stiffness of the steel and liner and the effective coefficient of friction at the liner-brace
interface.
A Joint Industry Project funded by HSE and two North Sea operators was undertaken by MSL in
HSE RR 031 (HSE 2002c). At that time there was only limited data available on the slip capacity of
this type of clamp, despite the widespread use of neoprene-lined clamps throughout the world. The
test programme consisted of two phases. In the first phase 16 full-scale neoprene-lined clamps were
subjected to axial and torsional loading, including parameters such as the bolt load, neoprene thick-
ness, pipe surface condition, clamp length-to-diameter ratio and pipe radial stiffness. The primary
Phase I finding was that the coefficient of friction for neoprene-lined clamps was substantially
below the range of values that had been adopted in practice. One factor was the unexpected slip
behaviour of the clamp, particularly with regard to the relationship between applied bolt load and
clamp capacity. There was also insufficient test data to permit a proper clarification of the role of
bolt loads.
As a result of the findings in Phase I, further tests were undertaken in Phase II, consisting of six
axial slip tests on neoprene-lined clamps. This programme consisted of either quasi-static loadings
or cyclic loadings that simulated wave action in the UK Southern North Sea. The parameters that
were investigated in this second phase included bolt pre-load and neoprene hardness.
The tests with clamps having different neoprene hardness confirmed that this hardness did affect the
capacity of the clamp. Cyclic loading indicated that at the design capacity, the relative displacement of
the clamp and member that occurred was recoverable as the displacement was largely due to neoprene
shear deformation as opposed to true slip. It was found that time-dependent phenomena such as creep
occurred only when the loads were applied statically.
Design guidance was formulated based on the results of both Phase I and Phase II test programmes
(HSE 2002c). In this guidance it was recommended that the factor of safety should be adjusted depend-
ing on whether quasi-static or dynamic loading was being considered.
8.3.13 MSL Repair Techniques for Ageing and Damaged Structures

MSL (2004) evaluated repairs and remediation in a review for MMS (project number 502), and this
report can be seen as the third report by MSL on repair techniques for fixed offshore structures
building upon (MSL 1995 and MSL 1997a and b). The review was prepared for the US MMS as an
assessment of the current status of repair techniques and a guide for selecting an optimal SMR
scheme and individual SMR techniques. The review indicates that developments in repair tech-
niques since the earlier work by MSL in 1995 and 1997 primarily consisted of a rise in composite
material repairs and developments in welding consumables and grout materials. The report states
that the objective was to build on the earlier reports and to bring these up to date with recent devel-
opments in the field. The report included:
●● past, present and future perspectives on strengthening, modification and repair (SMR)
techniques;
●● triggers (initiators) for carrying out an assessment possibly leading to SMR requirements;
●● an assessment process to decide whether SMR is needed and if needed how extensive the SMR
scheme needs to be;
●● a guide for the possibilities that exist for various SMR schemes; and
●● detailed information on each of the SMR techniques and their strengths and weaknesses.
As shown in Figure 90, the initiators for strengthening, mitigation and repair included situations
where damage was found on the structure during inspections and where the structure was found
to have insufficient strength. These were then recommended to be a part of a structural assessment
similar to the process described in Chapter 7 in this book. The possible results of the structural
- Change in platform operation

- Life extension
Initiators - Damage
- Insufficient strength
- Structural analysis (Basic,
Simplified refined, Complex
refined or Advanced)
Structural - Code checks of intact or damaged
assessment structure (Standard, Refined or
Advanced)
- Inspection requirements
SMR Schemes - Load reduction programmes
- SMR techniques
- Operating procedure changes
- Remove damage (e.g. crack or member)

- Local SMR (e.g. clamp)
SMR Techniques - Global SMR (e.g. additional members)
- Total SMR (e.g. new structure)
Figure 90 Illustration of the process leading up to SMR. Source: Based on MSL (2004). Assessment of repair
techniques for ageing or damaged structures. Project #502. MSL Services Corporation, Egham, Surrey, UK.
assessment included updates of the inspection requirement, load reduction programmes and oper-
ational procedure changes, in addition to strengthening, mitigation and repairs.
MSL proposed four basic approaches to strengthening, modification and repair (SMR) work,
which included the following:
●● remove damage (e.g., grinding out of cracks or removal of bent or bowed members);
●● local SMR (where no change in the load path of the structure occurs as a result of using an SMR
scheme, e.g. employing a clamping mechanism around a joint or member);
●● global SMR by provision of new members (a change of system load path occurs, e.g. by the addi-
tion of a new member); and
●● total SMR by tying into a new adjacent structure.
MSL stated that the full extent of any remediation can be only determined after the assessment phase
of the SIM process. Initially when considering the SMR options it is necessary to determine whether a
local SMR option is viable or if a more detailed global SMR action is required. It was noted that local
SMR options generally tend to be less costly and less complex to install than global SMR actions.
MSL (2004) showed the links between SMR actions for both undamaged structures where there
is insufficient static or fatigue strength and those for damaged structures as a result of denting and
bowing, corrosion or fatigue as shown in Figure 91.
Local and global repair for the various situations were recommended as shown in Table 63.
MSL (1995 and 2004) discussed the various techniques and their applicability to address com-
monly occurring damage scenarios as indicated in Table 64. The footnotes in this table provide
additional information that the authors to some extent find questionable, for example, the note
that dry welding is usually performed in conjunction with additional strengthening measures.
MSL (2004) included a useful summary of the SMR techniques as further discussed in
Section 8.6. Composites were included as they have been used as a containment formwork in the
case of repair work to corroded conductors as described earlier for tubular repairs.
Nichols and Khan (2017), as a follow-up of MSL (2004), listed the different repair options
with some details on each one. This included member removal, welding, weld improvement,
Repair techniques
Intact structure Damaged structure
Insufficient Insufficient Dented/bowed Non-fatigue

Corrosion Fatigue crack
fatigue life static strength member crack
Member Member Member

removal/load removal/load removal/load
reduction reduction reduction
Local SMR Local SMR Local SMR
Global SMR
Figure 91 Interrelationship between scenarios, SMR schemes and SMR techniques (Simplified from
MSL 2004). Source: Modified from MSL (2004). Assessment of repair techniques for ageing or damaged
structures. Project #502. MSL Services Corporation, Egham, Surrey, UK.
Table 63 Local and Global Repair as Recommended by MSL (2004).

Hammer peening
Grouting of joint
Grouted sleeve
doubler plates
Brace member
new member
new member
Nodal clamp
Toe grinding
Weld repair
of member
Clamp in
Grouting
Weld in
Welded
Intact Insufficient fatigue X X X X X X

structure life
Insufficient static X X X X X X
strength
Damaged Dented / bowed X X X X X
structure member
Corrosion X X X X X
Fatigue crack X X X X X X
Non-fatigue crack X X X X X X X
Source: Modified from MSL (2004). Assessment of repair techniques for ageing or damaged structures. Project #502.
MSL Services Corporation, Egham, Surrey, UK.
clamp technology, grout filling and bolted connections. Nichols and Khan (2017) also included
several examples of the use of SMR techniques such as damage to a drilling platform located at
68 m depth in the Gulf of Mexico with a stress grouted clamp attached with sleeves to new piles
as part of the SMR scheme. In the latter case post-hurricane inspection revealed that a pile was
exposed and severed about 6 m below the mud line. The repair work involved the installation
of stress grouted clamps to the existing piles.
Nichols and Harif (2014) advocated using an online monitoring (OLM) process to monitor the
effectiveness of an SMR scheme. They added that inspection and monitoring techniques should
Table 64 Applicability of Repair Techniques (MSL 1995 and MSL 2004). Sources: MSL (1995). Strengthening,
Modification and Repair of offshore installations – Final report for a joint industry project. MSL Document
No. C11100R243. MSL Engineering Limited, MSL House, Sunninghill, Ascot UK. Also published as MMS TAP
project report no. 189. ; MSL (2004). Assessment of repair techniques for ageing or damaged structures.
Project #502. MSL Services Corporation, Egham, Surrey, UK.
Inadequate
Inadequate static fatigue
strength strength
Fabrication defect
Non-fatigue crack
Fatigue crack
High loads
Corrosion
Member
Dent
Joint
Dry welding Y1 Y Y3 Y3 Y1 Y1 N Y
2 3 3 1
Wet welding N Y Y Y Y Y1 N Y
Toe grinding N N N N N N Y N
Remedial grinding Y Y1 N N N N N N
Hammer peening N N N N N N Y N
Stressed mechanical clamps Y Y N Y Y N Y Y
Unstressed grouted connections Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Unstressed grouted clamps Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Stressed grouted clamps Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Elastomer lined clamps N Y N Y Y4 N N N
Pressurised connections Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Grout filling N N Y N Y Y4 Y4 N
Bolting N Y N N N N N N
Member removal Y5 Y5 Y5 Y5 N N Y5 Y5
Adhesives Y6 Y6 Y3,6 Y3,6 Y3,6 Y6 Y3,6 Y3,6
1
Usually in conjunction with additional strengthening measures
2
Except to apply weld beads in unstressed grouted connection and clamp repairs
3
To apply patch plates
4
Applicability depends on type and sense of loading
5
If member is redundant
6
Used as epoxy grout in clamps
be part of an operator’s inspection plan to ensure that SMR schemes continue to perform over
time. They also noted that modern monitoring technology had proven quite effective in monitor-
ing structural behaviour and performance of jacket structures.
8.3.14 MMS Studies on Hurricane Damage and Repair

Energo performed several reviews to summarise the damage to offshore structures in the GoM in
the hurricanes during the 2000s (Energo 2006, Energo 2007, Energo 2010). These also included
examples of the repairs that had been done. The report provides a list of typical repair options in
order of least complex to more complex:
●● stop hole drilled into material at tip of crack;

●● grinding surface cracks to smooth surface to prevent further growth;
●● grout interior of member to increase strength;
●● wet welding to weld on doublers, shear pups and other secondary structure to reinforce member
in region of damage. Key concerns with wet welding are that the weld is not as strong as an
above-water dry weld;
●● stressed clamping using contact stress of member to clamp and repair damage;
●● dry habitat welding used to enclose the damage in an underwater habitat and dewater to per-
form dry weld; and
●● stress grouted clamping to account for deformations and fit-up tolerance.
Photos of several of these repairs are included in Section 8.6.
8.3.15 BOEME Report on Wet Weld Repairs to US Structures

The service history of several underwater wet welded repairs and modifications carried out in the
period 1970 to 2010 in the US Gulf of Mexico and at several international locations were summa-
rised as case studies in Reynolds (2010). Components repaired and modified consisted of primary
structural members (e.g. jacket legs, vertical diagonals and horizontal members) and secondary
structural members, such as conductor guide framing and control umbilical support structures.
Specific details of repairs are given for several structures and are summarised in Table 65.
In most of the case studies, primary members were either repaired or replaced by wet welding.
These primary members consisted of jacket leg repairs (100% separation of legs), vertical diagonal
replacements, vertical X brace replacements, horizontal member replacements, horizontal X brace
repairs and a few conductor guide framing repairs.
Table 65 Brief Details of Damage and Repairs to Platforms.
Water
Structure Type depth m Cause of damage Type of damage Repair type
Ship Shoal 8 piled 17.3 Hurricane Crack on horizontal Installation of doubler plate by
169A jacket Andrew diagonal wet welding
Ship Shoal 8 piled 72 Fatigue due to Separated member New horizontal stub members
291 A jacket movement of were prepared and attached to
conductors in doubler plates
guide frame from Clamps were installed on four
wave loading selected conductors
Ship Shoal 8 piled 52 Fatigue due to Cracks identified Repair procedure involved locating
246A jacket movement of at six locations on the ends of the cracks and drilling
conductors in members that crack arresting holes, then
guide frame supported the designing and fabricating three T,
from wave conductor bay one K and two X type cruciform
loading framing clamps
Eugene 4 leg 34 Hurricane Crack located at Crack removed with an arc/water
Island, design Andrew intersection of a gouge and hydraulic grinder
231CB vertical diagonal The resulting groove preparation
member and ring area was filled in by wet welding
stiffener
Water
Structure Type depth m Cause of damage Type of damage Repair type
South 4 leg 20 Hurricane Two damaged, New K brace nodes designed and
Timbalier, design Andrew critical midpoint K installed involving wet welding
52 brace nodes
Arabian Storage 47 Installation Several anodes were Anodes were repaired at site by
Gulf and damage torn loose during re-welding the 100 mm standoffs
– Khazzan loading launching to the tank wall
Offshore
Storage and
Loading
Facility K1
Arabian Storage 47 Pile driving K-2 and K-3 tanks Damaged structural tee stiffeners
Gulf and damage were damaged from were removed by chipping and
– Khazzan loading dropped piles oxy-arc burning and then new tee
Offshore during pile driving stiffeners were fitted in place and
Storage and Structural tee installed by wet welding
Loading stiffeners crushed
Facility K2, due to falling piles
K3
Atlantic 8 leg 51 Storm damage Detached 406 mm The existing damaged horizontal
Ocean design diameter horizontal member was removed, the surface
– Trinidad, member at 38 m of the legs ground smooth and then
Samaan A elevation the new assembly installed by wet
Structure welding
UK North 8 leg 91 Vessel collision Impact damage Repair consisted of a modified
Sea jacket including cracking scallop sleeve that stabbed over
–Montrose in weld joining the existing undamaged,
Structure vertical diagonal underwater stub to leg connection
member to a wall The single scallop sleeve was
stub attached to the stub with a
continuous fillet weld (wet
welding)
Garden TLP 305 Construction Upgrade The below-waterline assembly had
Banks 426 A, upgrade requirement to five doubler plates. Tube clamp
Auger attach umbilical I assemblies were wet welded to the
Tension Leg tubes to columns hull column. All clamps were
Platform attached to the column by wet
welded fillets.
Source: Modified from Reynolds, T.J. (2010). Service History of Wet Welded Repairs and Modifications.
In International Workshop on the State-of-the-Art Science and Reliability of Underwater Welding and Inspection
Technology November 17–19, 2010 Houston, Texas, US ed. by Stephen Liu and David L. Olson.
The paper also includes additional repairs included in Table 66, however, with minimal detailed
descriptions compared to those mentioned in Table 65. It can be seen that vertical diagonal mem-
bers have received the most damage and subsequent repairs by wet welding.
The paper is for obvious reasons focussed on US practice using wet welding. However, in the
North Sea wet welding is normally not accepted for repair of structural damage. Rather, hyperbaric
dry welding techniques are preferred as a welding technique to restore the structure to its original
design. Nevertheless, in the case of the Montrose platform repair as shown in Table 65, the
Table 66 Summary of Repair Types.
Repair types No. of repairs
Vertical diagonal brace repairs 25

Vertical brace repairs 3
T, K and Y node replacements 2
Horizontal brace repairs 5
Horizontal X brace repairs 2
Conductor guide framing repairs 4
100 leg break repairs 2
Total 43
Source: Modified from Reynolds, T.J. (2010). Service History of Wet Welded

Repairs and Modifications. In International Workshop on the State-of-the-
Art Science and Reliability of Underwater Welding and Inspection
Technology November 17–19, 2010 Houston, Texas, US Edited by Stephen
Liu and David L. Olson.
operator chose to investigate wet welding as an alternate technique for reinstalling a replace-
ment brace.
The report also assessed the performance of structures after repair. All of the structures described
in the case studies in Table 65 performed satisfactorily for many years after the repairs; some were
still supporting production and storage in 2010 when the report was prepared. This was seen as
validation of wet welding methods used offshore.
8.4 Previous Studies on Repair of Concrete Structures
8.4.1 Introduction
There are several books and articles on concrete repair, mostly dealing with concrete above water.
Some of these include parts dealing with underwater repair, such as the book Repair of Concrete
Structures by Allen, Edwards and Shaw, which includes a chapter on underwater repair by
R.D. Browne (1993).
Another book entitled Materials, Maintenance and Repair by Campbell-Allen and Roper (1991)
also includes limited material on underwater concrete repair. This book provides background and
understanding of how to achieve sound concrete construction and or remedying defects in dam-
aged concrete structures. The sections on repair provide useful information for repair of structures
above water with a few examples of repairs in the splash zone. It further notes that polymer-mod-
ified mortars are useful for placement underwater for local patch-type repairs. In addition, the
book notes that pre-packed aggregate concrete (pre-pack) made by forcing grout into the voids of
a compacted mass of coarse aggregate is particularly useful for underwater construction and repair.
In the examples of repairs to structures, the reinstatement of concrete piles in the splash zone on
an oil refinery jetty was addressed. This splash-zone repair has relevance for similar structural
repairs for an offshore structure.
A further relevant book by El-Reedy (2019) includes a section on concrete repair. However, this
mainly addresses concrete above water, with examples of repairs to beams and plate structures
typically found in bridge structures and buildings. The book stresses the importance of removing
the damaged material and cleaning the steel reinforcement prior to repair using, for example,
sandblasting and coating the repaired area after the concrete has been added.
In addition, Hamakareem (2020) addresses several underwater repair methods. These include:
●● Surface spalling repair in the splash zone:
The boundary of the spalled area should be cut back (removed) to enable cementitious mortars
to be used to fill the damaged area. A bonding coating can then be applied. If the damaged area
is small, water tolerant epoxy mortars can be suitable for this repair. However, for larger areas
requiring repair, formwork should be used to hold the repair material in position whilst it is set-
ting and grout or cement injected into the gap.
●● Large-scale repair of underwater structural concrete:
The damaged area needs to be prepared, including cleaning the reinforcement. Suitable form-
work is prepared and placed on site. Aggregate is then placed and compacted in the formwork.
Grout is then injected into the base of the compacted aggregate, expelling water. The formwork
is filled, allowing for shrinkage of the grout while setting.
●● Injection techniques for restoring underwater concrete structures:
Cementitious grout or resins can be injected to repair cracks or to fill voids. Epoxy resins are suit-
able for narrow cracks, while epoxy grout can be used for cracks up to 3 mm and cement grout
appropriate for wider cracks. There are two methods of injection, pressure and gravity feed.
Injection nipples need to be placed along the whole length of the crack and then the surface
should be sealed along the whole length of the crack. Injection should commence at one end of
the crack using the nipples. Following injection, the concrete surface is finally prepared along
its length.
●● Steel sleeve repairing technique for underwater concrete:
This method involves placing a steel sleeve around a column or pile. The repaired sleeve should
be able to take the load on the pile if the reinforcement has been damaged due to corrosion.
Loose concrete and marine growth are removed from the damaged pile. The sleeve is then fitted
in two semicircular sections. The space between the sleeve and the pile or column is then filled
with mortar or concrete, pumped from the base. Any temporary supports are removed after set-
ting and corrosion protection is then added for the steel sleeve.
8.4.2 Repair of Major Damage to Concrete Offshore Structures

The Department of Energy funded Wimpey Laboratories to undertake a study on the repair of
major damage to prestressed towers of concrete offshore structures (Department of Energy 1988c).
This report, OTH 87 250, reviewed damage from ship collisions, how this damage could be assessed
and then proposed five different repair techniques, which were:
●● repair of damage where broken prestressing cables are re-joined (two different methods);
●● repair of damage where broken prestressing cables are not re-joined (two different methods); and
●● repair of damage where prestressing cables are unbroken.
In all the repair methods proposed, a standard sized square hole of 3 m × 3 m was selected as
being typical of the type which might result from an incident of moderate severity. The tower
dimensions were taken as those investigated in a previous study with an inside diameter of 8 m
with a wall thickness tapering from 400 mm to 650 mm near the waterline. The repairs were
detailed for the lower wall thickness (400 mm) as it was recognised that this thin wall section
would cause the greatest problems. It was noted that the location of the impact damage in the
tower would depend on several factors including the tidal level, the type of ship involved in the
collision and the sea state at the time of the incident. If the damage is below the waterline, the
problem of repair becomes more difficult and a steel jacket would be placed and sealed around the
relevant part of the tower to enable most of the repair work to be carried out in the dry.
The initial procedure for all the repair operations involved:
●● mooring a small crane barge adjacent to the damaged zone of the tower;
●● for damage below water level, if possible, fabricating and positioning a steel jacket around the
part of the tower where damage has occurred;
●● breaking out all severely damaged pieces of concrete and reinforcement using jack hammers
and burning equipment;
●● clearing marine growth from the concrete surface of the hole by water jetting; this should expose
the extent of the smaller cracks;
●● sealing the smaller cracks with epoxy putty; and
●● injecting the larger cracks with epoxy injection grout.
In the case of methods involving repair and re-stressing of existing tendons, new lengths of ten-
don can be attached to the broken ends by means of a tendon coupler (Department of Energy 1988c).
These tendons can be overlapped, anchored and stressed using normal anchorages. An alternative
is that they can be curved outside the wall, joined together and stressed using new anchorages.
This stage is undertaken after the damaged area has been infilled with epoxy resin.
There are three different methods where fractured prestressing tendons are not re-joined
(Department of Energy 1988c):
●● The original role of the prestressing can be replaced by using “flat jacks”, which produce a simi-
lar effect in maintaining compressive stresses in the concrete.
●● A second method utilises Macalloy bars, which can accommodate the tensile stresses in the ulti-
mate load condition. The design needs to ensure that at ultimate strain the total force in the
Macalloy bars will be equal or greater than the sum of the forces that the broken tendons would
have taken.
●● Another repair solution uses a steel “splint” which is capable of taking tensile loads. It is stated
that this should be designed to have the same stiffness characteristics as the concrete that has
been removed. Shear forces are transmitted through an epoxy adhesive layer between the steel
plate and the concrete wall.
The study showed that it was possible to restore the structural integrity of a damaged tower with
a number of different techniques depending on the level of damage. More detail on these repair
methods including drawings can be found in the Department of Energy OTH 87 250 report
(Department of Energy 1988c).
8.4.3 Scaling of Underwater Concrete Repairs

A study undertaken for the Department of Energy in the report OTH 89 298 (Department of
Energy 1992b) noted that any materials used in concrete repair underwater must be compatible
with underwater placement, be able to bond to a wet surface and develop full strength at low tem-
peratures. As a result, four different test methods were investigated of which two at the time were
recommended in BS 6319:1984 (BSI 1984) and the remaining two developed specifically for this
test programme. These included two slant shear tests, which is a standardised test method for con-
crete repair. One of these was designed for cementitious grouts and one which was an adaptation
of the BS slant shear test to be suitable for testing epoxy resins. In addition, two flexural tests were
developed, one suitable for cementitious grouts, the other for epoxy resins. Eight different repair
materials were tested (not named), all of which were proprietary formulations and with previous
use as an underwater repair material. Concrete slabs were cast in pairs, one to be used for the
repair, the second as a control. The concrete used was based on the standard grade mix tested in the
CiO programme reported in OTH 87 248 (Department of Energy 1989c). The slabs were cured in
seawater for 28 days before testing. The seawater used in the tanks was based on an artificial mix,
similar to that used in the CiO programme and cooled to typical North Sea temperatures for the
repair and subsequent curing.
The slant shear test used for resin repairs was a resin-bonded scarf-jointed prism tested in com-
pression. The test specimens (typical specimen size was 500 × 100 × 100 mm3) were prisms for the
epoxy repairs and prepared by fracturing the slab under compression, producing two halves which
were then mounted in a jig to create a 5 mm crack width for the repair. The cracked slabs were held
overnight in seawater at the North Sea temperature before being repaired. A control slab was also
immersed in the tank for the same time. Resin was injected into the crack slowly to ensure dis-
placement of the water in the crack. The repaired slab was then left for 28 days for curing before
being removed from the tank for testing. The repaired slabs were then tested in compression to
record an ultimate load and the mode of failure was also recorded.
The test procedure for the cementitious repairs was similar to that for the epoxy repairs, except
the specimens were slightly smaller (400 × 100 × 100 mm3) and the gap left between the two
cracked sections in the jig was 100 mm. Cementitious grout was introduced for the repair and
cured for a similar period before testing as shown in Figure 92.
Concrete test specimens were also prepared for flexural testing (bending), each 400 × 100 × 100 mm3
in size. These were prepared for repair both by resins and cementitious materials, by loading in a
two-point flexural test. The two halves were then mounted in a jig for repair similar to the compres-
sion tested specimens as shown in Figure 92. After repair and curing in cold seawater, the specimen
and control were loaded in flexure, on a two-point loading machine to test the strength of both the
repaired specimen and the control.
The results for the resin bonded and cementitious repairs as shown in Table 67 clearly demon-
strate that for repairs tested in compression, cementitious grout was more effective while for flex-
ural testing, the epoxy resin repair was clearly better.
It is worth noting that three of the cementitious repairs shown in Table 67 tested in compression
had strengths in the range of 83–90% of the control strengths.
In the resin-bonded slant shear tests it was found that failure was usually in the concrete adja-
cent to the bond, understood to be due to the stress concentrations caused by differences in the
Figure 92 Repaired prism using grout for compression testing (left) and repaired slab with grout for
flexural testing (right). In both cases the repair material can be seen as a slightly darker band in the centre
(Department of Energy 1992b). Source: OTH 89 298 Scaling of underwater concrete repair materials.
Prepared by University of Dublin (S.H. Perry) and Imperial College of Science and Technology (J.M. Holmyard)
for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). HMSO, London, UK.
Table 67 Results of Repairs to Concrete Specimens.
Compression Flexural (bending)

Repair method (percentage of control strength) (percentage of control strength)
Epoxy resin 35–54% Up to 28%

Cementitious grout 62–90% 5–12%
Source: Modified from Department of Energy (1992b). OTH 89 298 Scaling of underwater concrete repair materials.
elastic moduli of the resin and the concrete. In the grout-bonded slant shear tests the repaired
prisms always failed by vertical cracking in the grout or the concrete or by a failure of the whole
prism. There was no evidence of the failure of the bond itself. In the flexural tests all specimens
failed at the repair-concrete interface at relatively low strengths. This means that the strength of
the bond was less than the tensile strength of the concrete.
In conclusion the report questioned the test procedures at the time, particularly those in BS
6319:1984 (BSI 1984). Since these tests were carried out, a new version of the BS standard has been
published in BS 6319:1990 (BSI 1990). The report also made recommendations about improved test
procedures. An important outcome of the tests series was that cementitious grout was considera-
bly more effective in compressive testing whereas the strength of resin repairs was higher than
cementitious repairs in bending. This information is relevant to the selected repair method depend-
ing on the loading situation.
8.4.4 Assessment of Materials for Repair of Damaged Concrete Underwater

Study OTH 90 318 was undertaken to assess the efficiency of different materials for repairing
damage to the simulated domes of the roofs of underwater concrete storage tanks (Department of
Energy 1990). The roofs of these storage tanks are vulnerable to damage from accidentally
dropped objects and there have been several occurrences of such damage followed by repair (see
Section 4.8).
Several concrete slabs and domes simulating roof members of storage tanks were subjected to
controlled punching shear damage and then repaired underwater in a tank of artificial seawater
cooled to a typical North Sea temperature of 7oC. After suitable storage time in the tank (usually
28 days), each member was tested to destruction by static loading to assess the performance of the
different materials.
The set of domes and slabs comprised:
●● ten circular reinforced concrete slabs (diameter 1500 mm, thicknesses of either 60 or 80 mm);
●● three circular reinforced concrete domes (1500 mm in diameter, 40 mm thickness at the crown);
●● two circular reinforced concrete domes (2300 mm in diameter, 800 mm thick with a 250 mm
square section outer ring beam); and
●● one circular reinforced concrete dome (without a ring beam, 2300 mm in diameter and
800 mm thick).
As part of an earlier study, part of this set of concrete elements had been subjected to hard
impact from a dropped steel billet (100 mm in diameter), representing a dropped object. Different
degrees of damage as shown in Figure 93 and Figure 94 had occurred through varying the mass
100 mm
60 mm
Damage class 1 Damage class 3
Damage class 2 Damage class 4
Figure 93 First four levels of impact damage to concrete slabs. Source: Department of Energy (1990).
Offshore Technology Report OTH 90 318 Assessment of materials for repair of damaged concrete
underwater. Prepared by University of Dublin (S.H. Perry) and Imperial College of Science and Technology
(J.M. Holmyard) for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). HMSO, London, UK.
Slab GS1, top face after test Slab GS1, back face after test
Figure 94 Slab GS1 after test, front and back-face (Department of Energy 1990). Source: Offshore
Technology Report OTH 90 318 Assessment of materials for repair of damaged concrete underwater.
and terminal velocity (Department of Energy 1990). The three larger domes had been subject to
static loading by means of a steel loading platen of either 150 or 300 mm diameter. Five classes of
damage were considered, which were:
●● no damage;
●● cracking on the back of the element but no evidence of shear plug formation;
●● full-depth cracking and small shear plug formation (less than a tenth of the thickness) but with
no significant loss of concrete from the back face;
●● severe full-depth cracking, distinct displacements of the shear plug and visible deformation of
the steel; and
●● hole in the elements (total loss of concrete from the shear plug); the reinforcing steel may be
present but damaged.
The repair of these slabs consisted of sealing the cracks and injecting repair materials into these
with the aim of re-establishing the strength and water tightness. These included both epoxy and
cementitious materials selected to be suitable for bonding underwater. These were:
●● Epoxy resin
–– Sikadur 53LV, two-part solvent free epoxy resin formulated for the repair of water-immersed
concrete structures by crack injection;
–– Colebrand CXL878R, also a two-pack aromatic amine-cured solvent-free epoxy resin formu-
lated for repair of damage concrete both in dry and wet conditions;
●● Cementitious
–– Conbextra HF, high-fluidity non-shrink cementitious grout;

–– Conbextra UW, non-shrink cementitious grout especially formulated for underwater applica-
tion. Additives contained in the grout gave resistance to wash-out of the cement when placed
underwater;
–– Armorex L2, high flow. This was a high fluidity, non-shrink cementitious grout.
All three cementitious grouts were supplied as a pre-packaged dry powder requiring only the
addition of water. It is uncertain whether all of these products are still available, but alternative
products with possibly improved properties are on the market (Wessex Ressins 2020).
Each damaged slab and dome was prepared for repair before it was immersed in seawater by
sealing the cracks on the back face with a siliconised rubber sealant. Care was taken to ensure that
the sealant did not penetrate into the cracked area. The authors claimed that the sealant could be
regarded as a form of shuttering and did not contribute to the strength of the repaired slab or dome.
For the planned epoxy repairs, injection nipples were added to the cracked area using a special
cement. After this preparation, each specimen was immersed in the chilled seawater tank for seven
days before the actual repair took place.
For the epoxy repairs, plastic tubes were connected to the installed nipples. The damaged area
was first flushed out with clean seawater. The resin was then pumped into the damaged area using
an injection gun. Pumping was continued until clean resin came out the other injection nipples.
For the cementitious repairs, the grout was mixed with water as prescribed by the manufacturer and
injected into the crack system, relying on the properties of the grout to displace water from the cracked
region. Pumping continued until the crack appeared to be full and a pool of grout was left on the surface.
After repair, each of the specimens was left in the seawater tank to cure at 7oC. For most speci-
mens, the period in the tank was 28 days. However, four slabs were left in the tank for longer peri-
ods up to 330 days before being tested.
Testing of the repaired specimens recovered from the test tank was performed using a specially
made test rig, enabling the load to be applied to the centre of each specimen. The 2.3 m diameter
dome specimens were supported by a steel I-section beam rolled into a complete circle, which was
a similar diameter to the large dome specimens. The bearing surface was 145 mm in width. The
specimens were instrumented using linearly variable displacement transducers to measure dis-
placement. For testing the repaired specimens, circular section steel billets with diameters ranging
from 63 to 190 mm and thicknesses ranging from 60 to 140 mm were used. The loading platens
were placed directly on the surface concentric with the original damage.
In addition to the above tests, slant shear tests were also carried out in accordance to BS 6319
(BSI 1984) to measure the bond strength of the different repair materials. All repairs to the slant
shear prisms were carried out underwater in the seawater tank. The results from the slant shear
tests are given in Table 68.
The results of the tests are given in Table 69.
Table 68 Slant Shear Test Results.
Average compressive Slant shear

strength concrete, Average compressive strength, bond strength
Material (N/mm2) grout (N/mm2) (N/mm2)
Conbextra HF (G) 53.9 60.0 31.6 (58.6%)

ConbextrA UW (G) 54.0 44.0 26.4(48.9%)
Armorex L2 (G) 46.7 42.2 27.1 (58%)
Colebrand CXL878R (E) 45.8 44.4 36.3 (79.3%)
Sikadur 53LV (E) No results, as proved difficult to inject the resin into the cracked plaque
Note: Figures in brackets in column 4 are the percentage of the concrete strength
Table 69 Results of Tests.
Type of
Class repair
Type of test of damage material Strength (kN) Comments
Slab – GS3 4 Epoxy (S) 43 (116%) Concrete failed along the old lines of cracking.
Penetration of resin into crack system good.
Adhesion of resin to concrete good.
Slab – GS5 4 Grout (CoH) 33 (89%) New shear cone formed. Penetration and adhesion
of repair grout was good.
Slab – GS7 4 Grout (A) 37 (100%) New shear cone formed within old one, with
considerable deflection of reinforcement.
Slab – GS1 3 Epoxy (Col) 18 (50%) New shear cone formed within the old one. Failure
mainly in the concrete, but some debonding of resin
noted. Resin had penetrated full depth of slab.
Damage shown in Figure 93.
Slab- GS8 3 Epoxy (Col) 25 (68%) Resin had penetrated and adhered well but concrete
within shear cone was in poor condition. Failure
partly in the resin and partly in the concrete.
Slab – GS16 4 Epoxy (S) 33 (90%) Resin penetrated into crack system well. Failure in
the parent concrete and also by debonding the resin
in part of the failure.
Slab- GS2 3 Epoxy (Col) 30 (82%) Penetration of resin complete, with all visible cracks
filled. Failure mainly at resin to concrete interface.
Slab – GS12 4 Grout (A) 31 (85%) Penetration not good, but where penetrated, bond
was good. Failure not at the grout-concrete
interface.
Slab GS13 3 Grout (CoH) 58 (159%) Penetration of repair grout good. Failure by old
shear plug.
Small Dome 4 Grout (CoU) 17 Grout not penetrated, voids present. Failure by
– D08 original shear plug.
Small dome 4 Grout (CoH) 23 Failure by original shear cone and at interface
– D05 between parent concrete and repair material.
(Continued)
Type of
Class repair
Type of test of damage material Strength (kN) Comments
Small dome 4 Grout (CoH) 17 Good penetration of the grout with remaining fine
– D010 followed by cracks filled with resin. However, resin had failed to
Epoxy (S) bond with repair grout or parent concrete. Good
penetration of the grout, remaining fine cracks
filled with resin. However, resin had failed to bond
with repair grout or parent concrete due to a soft
coating being formed because of the time between
the two stages of repair.
Large dome 4 Grout (CoH) 68 (13%) Failure in parent concrete and grout, also failure of
– D/86/1 grout-concrete bond observed. Poor penetration of
grout
Large dome 4 Grout (CoU) 71 (24%) Very good penetration of grout, reaching full depth
– D/86/2 of repair. Failure by original shear cone. Repair
failure through body of grout.
Large dome 3 Epoxy (S) 53 (21%) Failure occurred via new shear cone. Failure in both
– D/86/4 concrete and resin. Resin de-bonded from parent
concrete, probably due to difficulty of flushing out
part of the repair.
Note: Grout (CoH) is Conbextra HF, Grout (CoU) is Conbextra UW, Epoxy (S) is Sikadur 53LV, Epoxy (Col) is
Colebrand CXL 878R, A is Amorex L2. The figures in brackets in column 4 are the percentage regain in strength. *
Indicates longer-term tests, in the range 200–330 days.
The authors noted that the project had been about testing repair materials and not the method
of repair. It was noted that the selection of repair materials was dependant on the width of the
cracks through which the repair materials had to penetrate. Cementitious grouts had difficulty in
penetrating cracks of surface width of 10 mm and below 5 mm it was impossible. Hence for cracks
less than 10 mm in width, epoxy resins would be the repair material of choice.
The authors also noted the risks to divers from making repairs underwater using these materials.
The lighter epoxy resin (Colebrand CXL78R) tended to break into small globules which floated
when coming out of an exit port. There was less problem with the heavier resin (Sikadur 53LV)
where any material tended to sink. When the cementitious grouts came into contact with water,
some clouding was observed, reducing visibility.
Regarding bond strength, which is an important parameter, the tests demonstrated that surface
preparation was a key factor. Flushing out the damaged area with seawater was undertaken in each
case but because of the nature of the cracking and that the damaged area could not drain easily,
surface preparation was uncertain.
Results of the slab, dome and slant shear tests showed that in most cases the epoxy resin bonded
well and bond strengths were high. However, where there was evidence that there had been a
problem of surface precondition (e.g. dome D010), the bond was weak.
As noted earlier, four repaired slabs were stored for a period of up to 330 days in cold seawater
before testing. Although there was some variation in specimen properties between the 28- and 300-
day tests, there appeared to be no detrimental effect with time on the Colebrand CXL878R resin or
the Conbextra HF grout, both of which showed an increase in strength over the slabs tested at
28 days.
Overall, the report concluded that there was a large variation in the performance of the epoxy
resins whilst the cementitious grouts behaved more consistently. It was also noted that the results
obtained from the slant shear tests were not directly comparable to the results obtained on large-
scale repairs. The project has shown from the slab tests that underwater injection of crack systems
with either epoxy resins or cement grouts could result in the recovery of a large proportion of the
original strength. It was also shown that repairs of the type undertaken could satisfactorily seal
cracked elements, limiting water ingress. The authors also commented that for those undertaking
full-scale repairs, there were many obstacles to overcome and that some additional strengthening
such as a cap or fender layer might be necessary to guarantee the full structural integrity of repaired
structures.
As mentioned earlier, three methods involving repair and restressing of existing tendons are
presented (Department of Energy 1988c). These include methods where broken prestressing
tendons are not re-joined and three different methods described in more detail with drawings,
which are:
●● a method where the original role of the prestressing can be replaced by using “flat jacks”, which
produce a similar effect in maintaining compressive stresses in the concrete;
●● a method that utilises Macalloy bars which can take the tensile stresses in the ultimate load con-
dition; the design requirement for this method is that at ultimate strain, the total force in the
Macalloy bars will be equal or greater than the sum of the forces that the broken tendons would
have taken; and
●● a method where an alternative repair solution uses a steel “splint” which is capable of taking
tensile loads. It should be designed to have the same stiffness characteristics as the concrete that
has been removed, providing the same stiffness characteristics to allow the plate to take some of
the stresses in the elastic range. Shear forces are transmitted through an epoxy adhesive layer
between the steel plate and the concrete wall.
New lengths of tendon can be attached to the broken ends by means of a tendon coupler. The
tendons can be overlapped, anchored and stressed using conventional anchorages or they can be
curved outside the wall, joined together and stressed using new anchorages. This stage is after the
damaged area has been infilled with epoxy resin.
8.4.5 Effectiveness of Concrete Repairs

A study on the effectiveness of concrete repairs was undertaken by Mott MacDonald Ltd for HSE
with a focus on land-based repairs, such as bridges (HSE 2003a, b, c and d). Hence, it has limited
value to offshore structures, other than regarding the general principles of placing and monitoring
repairs. The first phase included a literature review; the third and fourth phases addressed field
studies of the effectiveness of concrete repairs including a number of case studies mainly from
bridges, car parks and power stations.
As part of the first phase, an expert group was set up from industry and academia for consulta-
tion. In addition, a thorough literature study was undertaken to identify the state of the art at the
time with regard to repair materials, methods for selecting and specifying repairs, in addition to the
measurement of the effectiveness of different repair procedures. Degradation mechanisms were
also identified similar to those already identified in this book. A particular case was the chloride
ingress into reinforced concrete due to the presence of de-icing salts (which is not directly relevant
for offshore structures, but chloride ingress from seawater may react similarly). Durability models
for these issues were put forward for use in maintenance planning.
The classification of repair materials and techniques was reviewed. Repair materials considered
included cement-only systems, polymer-modified cementitious systems, resins and fibre fillers.
The placement methods reviewed included hand trowelling, hand packed, poured in shuttering
and spraying. The report concluded that there was little published information describing or com-
paring the long-term performance of different repair types.
A framework for measuring the performance of a repair in situ was developed. This
included factors such as the preparation and application, as well as long-term performance.
Methods for testing the effectiveness of repairs were similar to those already discussed in
this book.
The report also reviewed relevant standards and guidance relevant to UK repairs. It concluded
that at the time there was no current British Standard for concrete repair. It noted that a forthcom-
ing Eurocode would provide a framework for identifying the causes of deterioration in a structure
and selecting appropriate methods of repair. The code would also standardise the measurement of
properties of repair materials to provide some comparison of relative performance. This standard
is now published as EN 1504:2005 (EN 2005).
8.5 Previous Studies on Repair of Plated Structures
The Ship Structure Committee (SSC) has published several reports on the repair of ship struc-
tures. A brief summary of some of these reports is provided in this section. It should be noted
that most of these reports are concerned with internal repair in dry conditions as would be
expected for floating structures. The exception is report SSC 370 on underwater welding
(SSC 1993).
In 1969 the Committee issued a “Recommended Emergency Welding Procedure for
Temporary Repairs of Ship Steels” (SSC 1969), acknowledging that the steel quality of the time
required close control of the welding procedures as well as special techniques to assure
serviceability.
Further in 1993, SSC published report “SSC 370 Underwater Repair Procedures for Ship Hulls—
Fatigue and Ductility of Underwater Wet Welds” (SSC 1993). Wet welding was seen as a method with
a potential to avoid dry docking of ships. The report saw fatigue performance and low tensile elonga-
tion properties of wet welds as a potential problem. However, the S-N tests for the underwater wet
welds without backing bars indicated fatigue strength levels comparable to dry surface welds. The
results for welds with backing bars were less good but those results were based on more limited data.
Further, the study indicated that wet welds did not appear to have adequate weld metal ductility for
areas where tensile strains exceeded 6%.
In 2000, the SSC published report “SSC 416 Risk-Based Life Cycle Management of Ship
Structures” (SSC 2000) including a review of repairs in Appendix B. It was reported that there was
no reasonable consensus on what, how and when to repair and that “the general lack of readily
retrievable and analysable information on repairs and maintenance makes repair and mainte-
nance tracking very difficult”. Further, it was noted that that many common crack repairs appeared
to be ineffective, such as veeing (arc-gouging, grinding or cutting a V-shaped slot) and welding as
cracks quickly develop again. Replacement of the cracked plate and modification of the design by
adding a bracket or a lug were reported as longer lasting, although more costly. In addition, crack
repairs, steel renewal and pitting and grooving repairs were reported as possibilities. A summary
of the suggested repair methods in this report is presented in Table 70.
Table 70 Repair Options for Ship Structures as Provided by SSC (2000).
Damage type: Repair option
Cracks No repair and monitor

Temporary fix and monitor:
●● drill hole at crack tip
●● drill hole at crack tip, tighten lug to impose compressive stresses at crack front
●● add doubler plate
●● cover crack with cold patch
Permanent fix with same design:

●● gouge out crack and re-weld
●● cut out section and butt weld
●● apply post weld improvement techniques
Permanent fix with modified design:

●● gouge out crack, re-weld and add, remove or modify scantlings, brackets,
stiffeners, lugs or collar plates
●● cut out section, reweld, and add, remove or modify scantlings, brackets,
stiffeners, lugs or collar plates
●● apply post weld improvement techniques
Corrosion Minor coating breakdown:

●● General corrosion
–– no repair and monitor

–– spot blast and patch coat
–– add and maintain anodes
●● Pitting corrosion (small shallow pits less than 50% plate thickness in depth)

Major coating breakdown
●● General corrosion

–– re-blast and recoat
–– Add and maintain anodes
●● Pitting corrosion (large, deep pits greater than 50% plate thickness in depth,
small in number)
–– spot blast, weld fill and patch coat
●● Pitting corrosion (large, deep pits greater than 50% plate thickness in depth,
large in number)
–– spot blast, weld cover plate and patch coat (temporary repair)
–– cut out, weld new plate, blast, coat (permanent repair)
Source: Modified from SSC (2000). SSC-416 Risk-based Life Cycle Management of Ship Structures, Ship Structure
Committee report no 416. Washington, DC, US.
A four-step repair strategy was described in SSC (2000):

●● Inspection of structural failure (locate failure and describe the basic properties such as location,
orientation, length and percentage wastage).
●● Determination of mode of structural failure (such as fatigue damage, corrosion fatigue damage,
fracture buckling and stress corrosion cracking).
●● Determination of cause of structural failure (design issues such as analysis and material selec-
tion, insufficient quality control and welding procedures, overloading due to collisions or poor
seamanship in extreme weather, environmental factors that cause corrosion and combined
effects).
●● Evaluation of repair alternatives and selection.
In 2003, SSC prepared report 425 on “Fatigue Strength and Adequacy of Weld Repairs” (SSC 2003).
In this report tests were conducted on large-scale structural details typical for tankers and bulk-
carriers (which to a large extent are also relevant for ship-shaped offshore platforms). These included
girders, tee joints and longitudinal-to–transverse web frame connections. The repair methods tested
included arc-gouging and welding (veeing and welding), adding doubler plates, hole drilling and
hammer peening (alone or in some combination with other repair methods). The specimen types
were fatigue-tested until cracking occurred and then had their cracks repaired by different tech-
niques. After repair, the specimens were retested under fatigue loading until cracking occurred
again. The process was either continued until the specimens could not be further repaired due to
multiple cracks or the repair technique resulted in a fatigue life significantly better than that of the
original detail. The results of the tests are briefly outlined in Table 71.
In 2005 SSC undertook a review (SSC 443) to establish design guidelines for doubler plate repairs
in ship structures (SSC 2005). The review noticed that the use of doubler plates had become rou-
tine for temporary ship repairs due to their relative ease and low cost. However, as the review
indicated there was a lack of performance data and engineering design guidance. As a result,
repairs with doubler plates were considered only temporary. Consequently, the review was per-
formed to develop a set of guidelines for designing and applying doubler plate repairs to ship
structures, including criteria for stress analyses, buckling strength, primary stress assessment, cor-
rosion types and rates, weld types and doubler plate fatigue and fracture assessment.
SSC report 469 (SSC 2015) reviewed the use of composite patches for preventing crack growth,
hence extending the service life of ship plating. The primary aim of the report was to review the
strength and fatigue capacity of composite patch repairs to cracked steel plates. The report indi-
cated that cracks in ship plates were most often repaired by welding, but more permanent repairs
required the plating to be cropped and renewed. However, the welding might induce changes to
the material properties and stress concentrations and hence not provide the required fatigue life.
Hence, the study examined the repair of cracked ship plating using composite patches as the use
of adhesively bonded composite patches for repairing cracked or corroded structural components
had been seen to experience a significant increase in repair of ship structures.
Numerical simulations of the cracked plates were undertaken and indicated approximately two
orders of magnitude increase in service life for the specimens tested. However, the test results
showed only increases closer to a single order of magnitude increase. Two factors were deemed
important which were debonding of the patch and cracking of the patch, neither of which were
taken into account in the finite element analysis. It was noted that debonding of the patch could be
improved by more careful attention to the bonding process and it was found that the thickness and
uniformity of the layer of epoxy was very important. The application of pressure normal to the
bond surface after the attachment also improved the effectiveness of the patching.
Table 71 Results of Repair Tests.
Repair method Findings from the tests
Hammer peening Hammer peening of the weld toes could improve the fatigue resistance by a full SN
category (e.g. from category E to D). Hammer peening can be an effective repair for
shallow surface cracks less than 3 mm deep.
Weld repairs after Attachments and bracket details: The ratio of the life of the repaired detail to the
arc-gouging original was found to be 0.27 (i.e. the remaining life after repair was found to be 27%
of the original life).
Weld repairs after Attachments and bracket details: The ratio of the life of the repaired detail to the
arc-gouging with original was found to be 2.0.
additional hammer Longitudinal-to–web frame connections: Cracks that occurred at the one-sided fillet
peening weld between the longitudinal and web frame were described to be caused by a lack
of fusion defect, inherent in the connection. The report further described these as
best repaired by arc gouging through the fillet weld into the web frame and replacing
with a full-penetration groove weld followed by hammer peening the weld toes. The
report indicated that the ratio of the life of the repair to the original would then be
expected to be 0.86.
Stop holes Longitudinal-to–web frame connection: Stop holes were found to be an effective
technique and all details repaired with stop holes survived more cycles without
failure than the original detail. The addition of a fully tensioned high-strength bolt in
the stop hole was indicated to further increase the fatigue life.
Doubler plate Attachments and bracket details: Proved to be by far the best repair method. The two
repair repairs of this type reached the same fatigue life as the original and neither repair had
any noticeable crack growth.
Source: Modified from SSC (2003). Fatigue strength and adequacy of weld repairs. Ship Structure Committee report
no 425. Washington, DC, US.
Overall, this project demonstrated the effectiveness of composite patching of steel plates.
Important factors are the quality control of the bonding procedure and optimisation of the geom-
etry and properties of the patch system which are dependent on the properties of the parent plate
and how it was fractured (SSC 2015).
8.6 Repair of Steel Structures
8.6.1 Introduction
The most comprehensive reviews of repair of fixed steel structures are found in MSL (1995), MSL
(1997a and b), MSL (1999) and MSL (2004). These reports include detailed guidance for evaluation
and assessment of the damage and structure and recommendations for selection of repair tech-
niques for various types of damage and anomalies. To a large extent these reports have been used as
the basis for the development of standards and recommended practices for the design of repairs,
such as ISO 19902 (ISO 2020). The reader is recommended to access these reports and relevant
standards for actual design of repairs. Further, DNVGL (2019) provides significant information
about the repair of floating steel structures.
Papers have also been published that provide important information about repairs to offshore
structures. For example, Sharp (1993) published a review of strengthening and structural repair
techniques for ageing fixed steel offshore platforms. This paper reviewed the ability to repair
damage and cracks at that time. The methods included welding, clamps and grout filling. The
paper also reviewed the integrity of repaired connections as well as recent developments at the
time, including friction welding and underwater adhesives. Further, Sharp et al. (1997) also
reviewed the techniques used for deep-water repairs in the North Sea in the period 1977–1997,
based on the information in the MTD report (MTD 1994). The paper also addressed the specific
problems of deep-water repair. It particularly investigated both hyperbaric and wet welding
methods, related to research going on at the time on hyperbaric welding at Cranfield University.
The paper also commented on the suitability of different techniques for fully diver-less repairs.
Factors such as application and operational requirements, ranges of application, permissible
loads and the static and fatigue strength of the repaired structure need to be addressed. The avail-
able repair methods will in approximately increasing cost and effort include:
●● improvement of existing structure (e.g. grinding, hole drilling, peening, sandblasting, coating);
●● local repair (e.g. weld repair, anode replacement, adhesives);
●● load reduction (e.g. removal of marine growth, conductors, redundant members);
●● strengthening (e.g. clamps, grout filling, reinstate CP); and
●● component removal and replacement.
Although the reviews reported earlier in this chapter can provide some indications of the
strength of structures repaired by different methods, most repairs will be analysed and designed
by the use of advanced non-linear finite element analysis. As background for these analyses, the
data from earlier laboratory tests is essential for the calibration of the analysis models of the
repairs.
This section first reviews the process of selecting mitigation and repair methods and then con-
tinues with a review of different possible repair methods for steel structures. Primarily fixed steel
structures are reviewed as repair of semi-submersibles and ship-shaped offshore structures can
often be performed in dry condition inside or in dry dock.
8.6.2 Selection of Mitigation and Repair Methods

It is clear from the reviews of previous work discussed earlier in this chapter that the selection of
a repair method is strongly linked to the damage or anomaly in need of repair and its cause. For
example, if a crack is found, it is important to determine whether this is caused by fatigue or by
other mechanisms (e.g. fabrication defect, impact or overload). If fatigue is the cause of the crack-
ing, improvement of the fatigue strength (hammer peening, toe grinding or modification of the
detail) will be important, in addition to removing the crack by, for example, a weld repair. The
decision on whether to repair and which method of repair to use is reached based on pertinent
criteria such as those in Table 72, where:
●● the damaged structure is first evaluated and assessed to determine if repair is needed and its
urgency in addition to improving the inspection programmes to take into account the damage;
●● it is acknowledged that several possible outcomes of these evaluations and assessments are pos-
sible, including to repair the structure locally, globally or totally; and
●● if repair is found to be needed, the damage type and the damage cause will have influence on the
choice along with several other pertinent issues.
All repair methods have their advantages and disadvantages, both in terms of which type of
damage they can effectively be used to repair and to what extent they are proven by previous expe-
rience or from earlier studies. The MSL studies (MSL 1995, 1997, 1999 and 2004) and the DNVGL
Table 72 Criteria for Selection of Repair Options.
Process Possible outcomes Comment and criteria
1) Evaluate No strengthening or The damaged structure is found to be able to

structural adequacy repair is necessary. withstand all design load cases.
and integrity of No strengthening or The structure is demonstrated to have adequate
intact or damaged repair is needed but a strength in most design load cases, but:
structure change in the ●● operational procedures should be changed or
operating and implemented to reduce or eliminate exposure to
2) Identify and de-manning those design events which the structure is not able
optimise extent of procedures to withstand (e.g. modify vessel operating
any repair or procedures), or
strengthening work
●● de-manning should be implemented to eliminate
and the associated
the presence of personnel and hydrocarbons when
urgency
exposure to design events which can be forecast
(e.g. storm).
3) Optimise
Local strengthening A method to carry out the work should be selected.
specification of
or repair There are often several methods that may be relevant
inspection
to a specific situation and it is important that several
programmes
methods are considered to ensure that the final
choice is the best one based on relevant criteria.
These are:
●● What is the effect of the repair on for example
strength and fatigue life and how likely the
prescribed result can be achieved
●● Depth limitations
●● Tolerance acceptability (e.g. clamps)
●● Cost, difficulty, available competency, execution

timescale and consequences on production
Post-installation inspection requirements
Global strengthening A method to carry out the work should be selected.
or repair There are often several methods that may be relevant
to a specific situation and it is important that several
Total strengthening
methods are considered to ensure that the final
or repair
choice is the best one based on relevant criteria.
These are:
●● What is the effect of the repair on for example
strength and fatigue life and how likely the
prescribed result can be achieved
●● Depth limitations
●● Tolerance acceptability (e.g. clamps)
●● Cost, difficulty, available competency, execution

timescale and consequences on production
●● Post-installation inspection requirements
Source: Based on MSL (2004). Assessment of repair techniques for ageing or damaged structures. Project
#502. MSL Services Corporation, Egham, Surrey, UK.
(2019) study to a large extent provide valuable information that should be used on these issues. An
overview is shown in Table 73.
It should be noted that the most difficult components to repair on a fixed steel offshore structure
are the piles and grouted connections. A further important factor is that these components are also
Table 73 Advantages and Disadvantages of Individual Repair Techniques.
Offshore installation
Post-repair inspection
Defect size that can
Added weight/load
equipment needs
fabrication cost

requirements
be repaired

timescale
Offshore
Onshore

Technique Advantages Disadvantages
Dry welding Universally accepted from a Requires the construction S H H H M N

technical standpoint. of either cofferdam or
Applicable to small fatigue hyperbaric habitat—both
cracks in addition to being time consuming and
corrosion and dents when expensive. The cofferdam,
combined with patch plates in particular, will attract
high wave loading.
Wet welding Proven technique and Weld properties not as S M M N M N
relatively quick method. good as dry welds and
Applicable to small fatigue therefore not accepted in
cracks in addition to all parts of the world.
corrosion and dents when
combined with patch plates.
Toe Assumed to double fatigue Applicable only to small S L M N M N
Grinding life. cracks and insufficient
fatigue life.
Remedial Proven technique. Static strength needs to be S L M N M N
Grinding Relatively quick method for assessed.
arresting fatigue cracks.
Hammer Very effective method for Applicable only to N L M N M N
Peening increasing fatigue life. insufficient fatigue life
and fatigue life extension.
Stressed Proven technique for Poor tolerance L M M H H M
Mechanical member and joint repair. acceptability precludes
Clamp Can also be used as an end use around nodal joints or
connection to introduce over girth joints between
new members into the tubular cans. Welds and
structure. other protuberances have
to be ground flush.
Unstressed Proven technique. High Clamps are relatively long L M M M M M
Grouted tolerance acceptability. Can unless they, and the
Clamp be used as an end connection clamped member, are
to introduce new members provided with weld beads.
into the structure.
Stressed Proven technique. High The grout needs to be L M H H H M
Grouted tolerance acceptability. undisturbed during
Clamp Clamps are relatively short. setting. The strength is
Can be used as an end achieved only after grout
connection to introduce setting and tensioning of
new members into the the studbolts.
structure.
Neoprene- Some tolerance Friction coefficient can be L M M H M M
lined Clamp acceptability. Can be used overestimated. Neoprene
as an end connection to introduces flexibility,
introduce new members thereby compromising its
into the structure. ability to take up load if
alternate load paths exist.
Offshore installation
Post-repair inspection
Defect size that can
Added weight/load
equipment needs
fabrication cost

requirements
be repaired

timescale
Offshore
Onshore

Technique Advantages Disadvantages
Grout-filling Proven technique. Weight penalty M L L L L H*

of Member Relatively quick method. (structures in seismic
Applicable mainly for repair regions are especially
of dents, corrosion, vulnerable). Complete
inadequate strength and grout filling may be
fatigue life. difficult to achieve.
Grout-filling Proven technique. Weight penalty M L L L L H*
of Joints Relatively quick method. (structures in seismic
Good for improving both regions are especially
static and fatigue strengths. vulnerable). Joints with
expanded cans, or
internal ring stiffening,
are more difficult to grout
fill.
Member Proven technique. Safety issue if member L M L N N N
Removal Relatively quick method. springs (releasing stored
Only applicable for energy) when final
redundant members if not ligament severed.
followed up by member
addition
Composites Lightweight strengthening Longevity for underwater M L L M NA L
and repairs are possible. No use is not yet proven.
hot work.
Nomenclature: Generally, H denotes High, M moderate, L low, S small, N none and NA denotes not
applicable. H* on weight/load for grout filling indicates that it only applies to weight.
Source: Based on MSL (2004). Assessment of repair techniques for ageing or damaged structures. Project
#502. MSL Services Corporation, Egham, Surrey, UK.
very difficult to inspect. It is important, therefore, that sufficient capacity is provided at the design
stage such that any expected reduction in strength as a result of ageing effects can be allowed for,
recognising the difficulty of repair.
In semi-submersibles and ship-shaped structures repair of fatigue damage is often done by grind-
ing and weld repair, which is much easier if performed in dry conditions (e.g. internally or in a dry
dock). A fatigue crack in a semi or ship-shaped structure is often caused by bad detailing in design
or fabrication, often related to stiffeners. Remedial measures in these cases often include redesign of
the detail to reduce the stress concentration factor or grinding the existing stiffener in order to
reduce the effect of the hot-spot stress. Underwater repairs are often possible to avoid on semi-sub-
mersibles and ship-shaped offshore structures.
Structural repairs of steel structures are most often required when fatigue damage is found. In
addition, corrosion, overload damage and insufficient fatigue life or strength often requires repair.
There are a number of different structural repair method available as illustrated in Figure 95 for
various types of damage and anomalies.
Damaged structure Intact structure
Overload Insufficient Insufficient

Cracks Corrosion strength
damage fatigue life
Detail and weld improvement

Grinding, (peening), detail Toe grinding, hammer
Clean, sand blast and re- Detail improvement to
improvement to reduce N.A. peening, reduce SCF
SCF, hole drilling
coat decrease stresses
by better detailing
Local repair
Weld repair, TIG welding,
Buttering, doubler plates, Doubler plates, addition
insert plates and Doubler plates, adhesives Doubler plates, adhesives
anode replacement of stiffeners, adhesives
doubler plates
Load reduction
Load reduction e.g. by removal of topside weigh, removal of marine growth, removal of redundant conductors, risers or structural parts
Strengthening
Grouting, clamping, brace
Grouting, patch plates,
Clamping, grout filling bowed members, Grouting, clamping Grouting, clamping
reinstate/improve CP
additional stiffeners
Component removal or addition
Provide alternate load paths by introducing new members, replacement of steel, connect ends by welding or clamping
Figure 95 An overview of possible repair and mitigation options (overload damage includes accidental damage from dropped objects and ship impact).
8.6.3 Machining Methods (Grinding)

Machining methods such as burr grinding, disc grinding and water jet gouging can be used as weld
improvement methods and to remove cracks (Haagensen and Maddox 2006). These methods
require highly skilled operators who should have the relevant training and qualification for the
particular task to be undertaken. The final profile after grinding should be thoroughly checked to
ensure compliance with recognised standards.
Grinding is a widely used method both for removing fatigue cracks and improving the fatigue
strength of welds, see Figure 96. As shown in OTH 89 307 (Department of Energy 1989a), see also
Section 8.3.3, the original life of the detail can be more than restored by proper grinding away a
defect. The grinding process is normally performed by a rotating burr (typically with a diameter of
12 mm) or by a rotating disc. Disc grinding is effective in removing metal, but the operator needs
to be careful not to remove too much material. In addition, the metal may be gouged if the grinding
is too severe from operator error. Burr grinders are claimed to be easier to use, but the cutting rate
is slower than that of disc grinders. Burr grinding is the preferred method used offshore.
There are mainly three methods of grinding welds:
●● weld toe grinding;
●● flush grinding of weld cap; and
●● weld profiling.
Weld toe grinding will result in a significant improvement in fatigue strength. A circular groove
in the transition between weld and base material is created by the grinding tool, as shown in
Figure 97.
Weld toe grinding is an effective method for removing shallow fatigue cracks and is likely to be
the preferred method for this type of crack, compared to the more costly methods such as welding.
DNVGL-RP-C203 (2016) requires the groove to be at least 0.5 mm below the deepest undercut to
remove any defects in the area around the weld toe. The depth of the groove should not exceed the
smaller of 2 mm or 7% of the plate thickness. After grinding, the groove should be tested preferably
with magnetic particle inspection.
Grinding of large fatigue cracks is also possible, and provided that sufficient fatigue strength
after grinding can be documented, this is often the preferred solution. An example is tubular joints
below the waterline of jackets where the weld repair is a comprehensive and costly operation. An
example of geometry after grinding of deep cracks is given in Figure 98.
It is important to point out that toe grinding may not be the optimal solution. A typical example
is a fillet weld with a narrow throat thickness (see Figure 99 for illustration of a weld throat). In
Figure 96 Example of grinding repair. Source:

Courtesy of US Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement (BSEE).
Figure 97 Weld toe grinding. Source: Based on DNVGL

(2019). Reparasjonsmetoder for bærende
konstruksjoner. Report for the Norwegian Petroleum
Safety Authority, DNVGL, Høvik, Norway (in Norwegian).
Figure 98 Example of geometry after grinding to

remove deep cracks. Source: Based on DNVGL (2019).
Reparasjonsmetoder for bærende konstruksjoner.
Report for the Norwegian Petroleum Safety Authority,
DNVGL, Høvik, Norway (in Norwegian).
R2
0
Weld
leg
Weld Effective
toe weld throat
Weld
leg
Weld
toe
Theoretical
weld throat
Root penetration
Figure 99 Fillet weld throat terminology.

such cases, there is a likelihood that a large part of the throat cross section is removed by the grind-
ing, which may result in a crack initiation in the weld root (DNVGL 2019). Such cracks are difficult
to detect by inspection.
Flush grinding of the weld cap is a method for increasing the fatigue strength of butt welds. The
grinding should be carried out as shown in Figure 100 where the transition between plate and weld
should be as smooth as possible. The grinding should be made sufficiently deep to remove possible
weld defects, such as undercuts.
Weld profiling is done by machining the weld with a given radius as illustrated in Figure 101.
Weld profiling will reduce local stress concentrations and thus increase the fatigue strength. The
method is not suitable for repair of fatigue cracks. However, it can be used in combination with toe
grinding and weld repair. Typical fields of application are tubular joints on jackets and cruciform
joints in general.
8.6.4 Re-Melting Methods

Weld dressing methods such as TIG (tungsten inert gas), plasma and laser dressing involve re-
melting of the weld in order to remove toe imperfections. Re-melting of the toe region of steel
weldments is claimed to give an increase in fatigue strength (DNVGL 2019). TIG welding is a
method where the welding material is heated until it melts. Properly designed, this will result in
a smoother surface with lower stress concentrations. In addition, the number of weld defects
and pores is reduced during the re-melting. However, TIG dressing results in an increased hard-
ness in regions near the weld, which makes the method unacceptable for some applications. The
use of weld dressing methods as an improvement method is to the knowledge of the authors not
used extensively on offshore structures.
8.6.5 Weld Residual Stress Improvement Methods (Peening)

As mentioned earlier, residual stress modification methods can be used for weld improvement
(Haagensen and Maddox 2006). These include:
●● mechanical peening methods (hammer peening, needle peening, shot peening, ultrasonic
peening);
●● mechanical overload methods (initial overloading, local compression); and
●● thermal methods (thermal stress relief, spot heating, Gunnert’s method).
Figure 100 Illustration of flush grinding of a

butt weld.
Figure 101 Weld profiling.

Common to all mechanical peening methods is a tool that deforms the toe plasticly, resulting
in compressive residual stresses at the surface of the weld toe. The increase in fatigue strength
is primarily due to the introduction of compressive residual stresses preventing the initiation of
fatigue cracks. In addition, the geometry after the cold deformation can have lower local stress
concentrations compared to an untreated weld, which is also positive for the fatigue strength.
The effect of the treatment depends on the level of the residual compressive stresses obtained.
As a result, it is important that procedures are developed for the appropriate performance of the
methods and that the effect is documented. A general weakness of improvement methods based
on superimposed compressive stresses is that these can be reduced or disappear if the weld is
subjected to an overload in compression (DNVGL 2019). Machining methods such as toe grind-
ing or profiling are therefore considered to be more robust methods of improvement than peen-
ing. Hence, quality control of the performance of peening should be considered to be even more
demanding than toe grinding requiring operator’s skill and training.
Peening methods for weld improvement are primarily used to extend the fatigue life of welds,
and the best results (Haagensen and Maddox 2006) are obtained by a combination of a machining
method to modify the weld (e.g. grinding) and a residual stress improvement method (e.g. peen-
ing). Peening methods have been used on offshore structures to improve fatigue life.
Mechanical overload methods involve the generation of residual stresses by making the structure yield
in compression by mechanical means. Although experiments have shown that this method can increase
fatigue life, it has not, to the knowledge of the authors, been used for repair of offshore structures.
Thermal methods include those methods where heat is used to cause plastic deformation, which
is cooled instantaneously by spraying a jet of water onto the surface. Since the underlying layers
cool more slowly, compression stresses will be created in the surface as these layers cool. To the
knowledge of the authors, thermal methods have not been in use in the offshore industry for
repairs and particularly not underwater.
8.6.6 Stop Holes and Crack-Deflecting Holes

Drilling of stop holes is a widely used method to prevent the further development of existing cracks
and is normally believed to be most effective for the arrest of non-fatigue cracks. The method is
primarily intended as a temporary measure, and for ship structures it is recommended only as a
temporary repair (SSC 2012). However, it has in some cases been proven to be suitable as a perma-
nent solution (DNVGL 2019). Stop holes are an attractive method for underwater repair and have
been used for tubular joints in jacket structures as shown in Figure 102 and for plated structures in
ship-shaped structures, although with some variation in their effectiveness as a repair.
The stop hole is normally drilled at the crack tip, and the principle is to transform a crack tip into
a blunt notch and as a result reduce the stress concentration, as shown in Figure 103. It is vital that
the crack tip is completely removed and as a result the location of the crack tip needs to be verified
using appropriate NDT methods prior to repair. The placement of the hole should include suffi-
cient tolerance (twice the thickness of the plate in front of the assumed crack tip has been men-
tioned as a rule of thumb) to ensure that the actual crack tip is removed. This allows for the
possibility that the crack has grown beyond the assumed location. An alternative may be to drill
the entire hole in front of the crack tip or use a crack-deflecting hole as shown in Figure 103c.
The stress intensity at the crack tip is removed by the hole if drilled so that it removes the crack
tip, but the hole will also introduces a stress concentration (SCF) itself. The SCF 1 2 a / r ,
where a is the length of the crack and r is the radius of the stop hole (Lotsberg 2016). A possible
way of sizing the hole would be to require a maximum allowable SCF. If, for example, an SCF of
Figure 102 Example of stop hole repair. Source: Courtesy of US Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement (BSEE).
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 103 (a) Crack (b) stop hole (c) crack-deflecting hole.
maximum 3 is required, the radius of the hole needs to be equal to the crack length, and if an SCF
of 4 is allowed, the radius can be set to half the crack length. This shows that hole drilling is, there-
fore, more effective for short cracks, as reasonably low SCFs can only be achieved by realistic hole
radii. Drilling of small holes to stop long cracks has a reduced effect as the SCF will be significant.
Often a ½-inch (12.5 mm) hole is used which will result in an SCF of 5 for a crack of 50 mm, 6.6
for a crack of 100 mm and 9 for a crack of 200 mm. Similarly, for a 1-inch (25mm) hole, the SCFs
would be 3.8, 5 and 6.7, respectively. These SCFs are usually considered too high and can obviously
be reduced by drilling a larger hole, but this may be challenging for other reasons.
Rolfe and Barsom (1977) and later Fischer et al. (1980) and Fischer et al. (1990) reported experi-
ments and provided a formula for the required radius of a crack arrest hole as a function of the crack
length, the yield stress and the cyclic stress range. These two variations of the same formula are
shown by Simmons (2013) to be inappropriate for some situations and hence have limited validity
range. Simmons (2013) further concluded that calculating an exact radius for a crack-arrest hole is
most likely not feasible and that the size should be set in practice to a reasonable value.
A set of practical rules of thumb for crack arrest holes in plates is reported to be:
●● for steel plates, ½–1 inch (~ 12.5–25 mm) in thickness the diameter of a stop drilling hole is typi-
cally ~ 0.5–2.0 times the plate thickness (SSC 2012);
●● the diameter of the crack-arrest hole should be one third the length of the crack (accredited to
Dexter by Simmons 2013); and
●● the crack-arrest hole must be 4 inches (~100 mm) in diameter and can be permanently effective
if the crack is less than 6 inches (~150 mm) long on each side of the transverse stiffener (accred-
ited to Dexter by Simmons 2013).
The second rule of thumb above will provide an SCF of approximately 6, and the third will pro-
vide an SCF of approximately 4.5. These SCF values are considered high. The first rule of thumb
mentioned above has insufficient information to provide an estimated SCF.
The hole finish after it has been drilled is important to an extent that it is often regarded as more
significant than the hole diameter as the remains of burrs or rough edges after the drilling opera-
tion can act as crack initiators. All drilled holes should be ground and surfaced to a polished finish,
and NDT inspection should be performed upon completion to ensure that the hole circumference
is free of defects and that the crack tip has been properly located. These operations can be time
consuming, especially underwater.
Several real cases of the use of hole drilling as a repair method have led to an increasing number
of holes to be drilled of increasing diameters before there was any evidence of crack arrest. This
evidence shows that it is difficult to locate the crack tip accurately in practice and that the neces-
sary hole diameter and hence the SCF is easily underestimated. As shown in Section 8.3.3, the
results from fatigue tests after hole drilling for cracks in tubular joints to arrest crack growth were
concluded to be partially ineffective based on tests with rather long cracks (approximately 200 mm),
a small diameter hole (12.5 mm) and in most cases one hole per crack. A second test was per-
formed in the same test programme with a much shorter crack (approximately 70 mm) and with
the same diameter hole, which was more successful. Although these results are not sufficient to
prove a relationship between the crack length and the crack arrest hole, they clearly indicate that
the findings from plated structures have some relevance also for tubular structures.
As a result, crack-arrest hole drilling to stop or retard crack growth is regarded as an uncertain
method and is often only regarded as a temporary repair. However, due to its popularity and sim-
plicity, it is still being used and more work should be performed to verify its effect.
The effect of a stop hole can be improved by the use of bushes or bolts plugged into the holes for
creating favourable compressive stresses around the entire hole (Haagensen 1994). It has also been
shown that cold forming of the stop hole by expansion by inserting an oversized conical mandrel
into the hole to introduce compressive residual stresses can increase the fatigue life of the repair
(Lotsberg 2016).
Crack-deflecting holes can also be used and are believed to be more useful for fatigue cracks.
These are drilled in the cracked area but at some distance away from the crack with the purpose of
altering the stress field and as a result deflect the crack into a lower stressed area. The placement of
the hole is very critical and requires a good understanding of the existing stress field and how it is
modified by the presence of the hole to gain any benefit (Atteya et al. 2020). The method has been
used to some extent and with varied success possibly due to insufficient knowledge of the stress fields.
The use of stop holes to prevent cracks growing along the weld toe can be challenging as the
stress concentration of the hole may coincide with the weld. One alternative is to drill a stop hole
eccentric to the weld to ensure the stress concentration caused by the hole is away from the weld.
Another alternative is to use crack-deflecting holes as shown in Figure 103c.
Drilling of stop holes often requires the use of divers, but ROV tools are understood to have been
developed to undertake this task.
8.6.7 Structural Modifications

Fatigue cracks may initiate due to insufficient fatigue strength, typically associated with details
with large stress concentrations. In such cases, local modifications may be required in addition to
other repair methods to avoid repeated cracks. Modifications to reduce stress concentrations are
also common for intact structures with insufficient fatigue life.
Structural modification as a repair method is mostly used on semi-submersible and ship-shaped

structures where bracket, flange and stiffener terminations are common. The fatigue cracks initi-
ate due to high local stress concentrations caused by an abrupt termination of the bracket, flange
or stiffener towards the plate, particularly where there are close adjacent details that further
increase the stress concentration.
The most common modification is to soften the detail by making the transition more gradual.
The most efficient result is achieved by grinding the bracket, flange or stiffener toe all the way
down to the plate to make the transition as smooth as possible. However, this may not be feasible
if the bracket, flange or stiffener is fillet welded to the plate. In such cases the termination of the
bracket, flange or stiffener should rather be ground in a way that minimises the impact on the weld
itself. Alternatively, a length of the fillet weld (50–100 mm) could be removed and replaced with a
full-penetration weld to allow for a smooth transition to be obtained by grinding. If the repair is
adequately designed and local stress concentrations minimised, experience shows that these solu-
tions are robust (DNVGL 2019).
Low fatigue strength in such details may also be a result of high nominal stresses, and in such cases
a local modification will often not be sufficient to achieve sufficient fatigue strength. Replacement of
the plating in the vicinity of the structural detail to a thicker plate may then be a possible method to
reduce the nominal stress level (DNVGL 2019). In such cases it may be necessary to weld the insert
plate centric with the existing plate to avoid eccentricities that would give rise to bending stresses.
Detailed design involving finite element analysis is often needed to verify such repairs.
Closing of openings, such as mouse holes, can also be effective when fatigue cracks are detected
or the calculated fatigue is found insufficient. However, it is important to be aware that such open-
ings may be used for functional purposes and closing of such openings may not be optimal.
If a propagating crack has been detected in the early life of the structure, there is then a likeli-
hood that the original design was insufficient. Repair of such cases should include measures to
increase the fatigue strength in addition to, for example, a weld repair. Otherwise, a crack may re-
initiate at the repaired site. Cold deformation peening methods and detail modifications are exam-
ples of methods that can be used to increase fatigue life.
8.6.8 Underwater Welding

Underwater welding offers the opportunity for repair of cracks or the addition of members or attach-
ments (Liu et al. 2010, SSC 1993, Rowe and Liu 1999, Sharp et al. 1997). There are four forms of
underwater welding, which are atmospheric, hyperbaric, wet and friction welding. Hyperbaric weld-
ing has been used for a number of repairs—the MTD review (MTD 1994) lists 24 repairs using hyper-
baric methods. In addition, there were cofferdam repairs (8) and wet welding (3) repairs reported in
this review. A number of wet-welding repairs are reported by Reynolds (2010) as described in
Section 8.3.15. Cranfield University, in the UK, has been active in research on several types of under-
water welding, and for the physics and technology of this welding underwater, the reader is referred
to Nixon (1995). The review by Liu et al. (2010) provides considerable information on different weld
repair procedures for offshore structures and should be consulted for further information.
The purpose of a weld repair is normally to reinstate the detail to its original state. If an increased
fatigue life of the detail is needed, further improvements may be required (e.g. grinding). Repair
welding offshore is often done under conditions that are more difficult to control than in a yard
and the welding may be of poorer quality. As a result, it is important to develop and use specific
accepted welding procedures when performing weld repairs on site (DNVGL 2019).
Repair welding is in addition to grinding the most commonly used method for removing fatigue
cracks. Weld methods can be classified into four categories:
●● Welding under dry atmospheric pressure. Typical examples are welding on deck areas and in
ballast or storage tanks in ship-shaped or semi-submersible structures. Welding can also be done
in the dry using a habitat on underwater structures (see below).
●● Welding under dry hyperbaric pressure. Welding underwater in an open-bottom habitat where
the air pressure is approximately equal to the water pressure. The higher than normal pressure
affects the welding process.
●● Welding in direct contact with water.
●● Friction welding.
Weld repair is best suited for replacing existing welds and it can normally be assumed that the
original fatigue strength is restored, assuming a good welding practice. For castings the weld must be
ground afterwards to achieve a smooth surface (DNVGL 2019). Weld repair of the base material in
rolled and forged components usually leads to a shorter fatigue life compared to the original as dem-
onstrated by the appropriate SN-curves.
Atmospheric Welding
Welding in dry atmospheric pressure is a very widely used repair method. It is especially com-
mon for ship-shaped and semi-submersible structures as well as deck structures with relatively
easy access. Atmospheric welding can also be used above the splash zone on fixed structures and
by the use of cofferdams also in the splash zone and below.
A cofferdam is a watertight structure that surrounds the repair location and is open to the atmos-
phere. The structure can be open-topped or it can have a closed top with an access shaft to the sur-
face. With this technique welding repair can be carried out using conventional methods providing
high-quality welds. There is a significant cost implication in providing the cofferdam, and the method
is usually limited to shallow water situations. The MTD review (MTD 1994) lists 3 cofferdam-type
repairs, all in shallow water less than 10 m depth. Further, the review also noted problems with main-
taining seals against hydrostatic pressure.
Weld repairs to floating structures often involve repairs which are undertaken in the dry at nor-
mal pressures, for example in tanks and bulkheads. One option for welds on the outer skin may
require a habitat to be installed underwater on the outside which is dewatered. This allows the
weld to proceed without contact with the seawater. Examples of such habitats being installed by
robots (crawlers) have been undertaken (Equinor 2019). There are significant safety issues for the
welder working in a closed environment. This is particularly the case if the tank has been used to
store hydrocarbons, fuel or other toxic fluids.
Hyperbaric Welding
Welding under hyperbaric pressure is usually carried out using a purpose-built waterproof
chamber (either steel or a flexible material) with an open bottom from which the water has been
expelled by admitting gas at the same pressure as the surrounding seawater, see Figure 104.
The pressure in water increases by about one bar for each ten metres of depth. Welding is
therefore carried out in a nominally dry environment but at a higher pressure than that on the
surface. This higher pressure can have a significant influence on the performance of the welding
process, through increasing the arc voltage and reducing arc stability (Richardson 1993). In addi-
tion, the increased pressure affects the reaction between gas, slag and metal. Furthermore, the
heat loss from the welding process increases due to the increased gas density. As a result, special-
ised welding procedures should be developed for this method.
Figure 104 Example of a hyperbaric chamber and a diver inside the habitat performing a weld.
Source: Courtesy of US Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE).
There are a number of potential techniques for hyperbaric welding, with Gas Tungsten Arc
Welding (GTAW) sometimes called Tungsten Inert Gas (TIG) welding as the front-runner. This
uses an arc struck between a tungsten electrode and the work piece as a heat source. GTAW-type
welding is often regarded as a complex process, but research has shown that it is a viable and
effective technique for hyperbaric welding (Richardson 1993). Cranfield University has under-
taken research on developing hyperbaric welding for deep water situations, particularly for pipe-
lines (Hart et al. 2001). Using Cranfield’s specialised research equipment (HyperWeld 250),
welded joints have been produced at pressures up to 150 bar using the GTAW process. However,
to operate this type of welding effectively, special power supply control systems are required in
order to optimise process stability.
As noted above, the MTD review (MTD 1994) lists 24 hyperbaric welds in depths ranging from
10 m to below 100 m. Details of a hyperbaric welded repair of a through-thickness crack on BP’s
Magnus platform at a depth of 182 m, close to the seabed, are given in Sharp et al. (1997) and
Offshore Engineer (1990). This was the repair of a closure weld joining a diagonal tubular brace to
the stub of a leg on a jacket structure. A decision was taken to use hyperbaric welding as the loads
were considered too large for a clamped-type repair. The preparation of a work habitat was
required, but this was in a difficult position as it was at the junction of an inclined member and
between two pile guides. The defective weld was cut out using abrasive water jetting, cutting
though the full thickness of the 45 mm wall thickness of the member. This thickness made signifi-
cant demands on the pre-heating and post-weld heating requirements needed to maintain weld
quality and minimise hydrogen-induced cracking. An induction heating system was deployed to
provide full circumferential heating of the repaired region. The hyperbaric chamber consisted of
two parts, using both steel and a high-strength fabric. A service chamber was linked to the main
work chamber, which had facilities for the subsea welding and pre-heating modules, as well as life
support. The habitat system was tested using a full-scale mock-up at a base in Aberdeen. The repair
was successfully completed in 1990, but the operator reported difficulties in finding qualified
welder divers at the time.
Wet Welding
Wet welding is carried out in direct contact with water as shown in Figure 105. The advantage is
that there is no need to build a habitat around the area to be repaired. However, a significant dis-
advantage is that the quality of the weld is poorer compared to the corresponding weld under dry
atmospheric pressure. Wet welding has been reported to be used in the offshore industry (Liu
et al. 2010) with welds of sufficient quality (AWS D3.6 class A quality). Section 9.3.10 has details of
actual repairs undertaken by wet welding mainly in the GoM. However, the use on both the UK
and Norwegian continental shelf is very limited.
Wet welding offers a simpler and less costly solution as a repair method, but fast cooling rates
occur in the weld metal. This can produce hard and brittle structures in the weld and heat-affected
zones (HAZ) with only modest ductility and impact toughness, particularly in the case of higher
carbon content steels more typical of North Sea structures.
The wet welding procedure leads to dissociation of water by the arc. The rapid interaction
between oxygen and the more readily oxidisable elements in the molten weld metal leads to
removal of oxygen creating a hydrogen-rich environment. This hydrogen diffuses readily through
any slag layer to dissolve in the molten weld metal. As the weld cools, the hydrogen begins to dif-
fuse away. However, the hydrogen that remains may be sufficient to cause cracking in the weld
metal or in the heat-affected zone adjacent to the weld.
A semiautomatic wet welding process ‘water curtain welding’ (with the action of a conical water
jet containing a gas shield) and a flux-cored wire welding method (without a gas shield) has been
used with some success. The former has been reported as being able to produce high-quality welds
(Hoffmeister et al. 1983). However, on balance the quality of welds has generally not reached that
standard achieved with the other welding processes. As a result, the technique is often restricted to
repairs where structural strength is not a major concern such as connecting anodes to non-struc-
tural elements and adding weld beads to members as part of a clamp-type repair.
Friction Welding
The friction-welding technique was developed by TWI and is applicable for underwater repair by
being able to add, for example, studs and attachments (TWI 2020). It is a solid-phase process which
involves rotating a stud at high speed whilst pressure is applied forcing the stud onto the metal
substrate. The friction between the stud tip and the substrate causes the metal surfaces to heat and
a thin layer of metal to flow plasticly under pressure without melting to the periphery of the weld,
Figure 105 Example of a diver performing a wet weld. Source: Courtesy of US Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement (BSEE).
removing impurities from the interface. Pressure is maintained for a few seconds after the rotation
is stopped, producing a solid-phase forged weld with a fine grain structure.
Friction welding underwater can cause rapid cooling of the weld and may lead to poor weld
properties such as excessive hardness with potential cracking. It has been found that the use of a
polymer sleeve to form a shroud around the weld region protects it from the surrounding water
and therefore reduces the problem (TWI 2020) and can give acceptable welds.
It is reported by Gibson et al. (2010) that quality welds can be made by friction welding both in shallow
water and at depth. It is claimed to be a relatively simple process to operate, and divers can be rapidly
trained and qualified in using the process. It can also be adapted for remote operations with ROVs.
8.6.9 Doubler Plates

The use of doubler plates can be an effective reinforcement method where it is reasonable to
increase the thickness of the plate or member. A thorough analysis of the design is needed to make
sure that the double plate is effective in carrying loads. IACS (1996) recommends machining slots
in the doubler plate and the plate should be welded to the parent material both on the edges and
through the slots to achieve effective stress transfer to the doubler plate. Doubler plate repair is also
used on fixed steel offshore structures as shown in Figure 106.
8.6.10 Removal of Structural Elements

Removal of structural elements may in some cases be the preferred solution for a repair. As a result
of advanced analysis techniques, of members that can be removed rather than repaired have
become readily available. The purpose of such a measure can be put into three main categories:
●● removal of secondary elements to avoid local stress concentrations;
●● removal of structural elements or parts of a structural element to change global or local load
effects; and
●● removing a structural element to be replaced by a new one.
Removal of a secondary element may be relevant for structural elements primarily included due
to requirements in early temporary installation phases. An example of this is lifting lugs. Such
Figure 106 Example of doubler plate repair to a jacket structure. Source: Courtesy of US Bureau of Safety
and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE).
details can have low fatigue strength if they are located in an area subjected to high cyclic loads.
Removal may serve as an effective measure.
Removal of structural elements or parts of a structural element may in some cases be efficient for
reducing external loads on the structure. After several years of operation, riser or other appurte-
nances may no longer be in use. Removal of these structural elements (including support structures)
will reduce the hydrodynamic loads and potentially have a positive effect on the fatigue strength
locally. In addition, the likelihood of fatigue crack initiation in the transition between the support
structure and the main support structure is removed.
Removing the conductor guide frames on fixed offshore structures may be a valuable repair for
older structures, such as those designed before about 1981 (MSL 2004). The understanding of how
conductors behave under internally applied loads has improved, and there is now an inherent capac-
ity for these early types of conductors to span greater distances (MSL 2004). Other items which can
be removed from fixed offshore structures include redundant caissons, conductors and risers, launch
rails, boat landings, bumpers, pad-eyes and pile guides.
Removing a structural element to be replaced by a new one may also be used as an effective modi-
fication. Examples of such repairs include a jacket on the Norwegian continental shelf where a crack
was detected at the tubular joint between the original horizontal brace and the pile sleeve. The repair
was performed by removing the original brace, and a new brace was installed by the use of clamps.
Cutting techniques to remove the member include mechanical cutting (cutter, wire saw, abrasive
water jet and diamond wire), thermal cutting (oxy-acetylene, oxy-hydrogen, oxy-arc, thermic and
ultra-thermic lance, plasma arc, pyronol), explosives and electro-chemical cutting (MSL 2004).
8.6.11 Bonded-Type Repairs

Bonded-type repairs are increasingly being used in many industry sectors to bond (“glue”) materi-
als of various types to a dry substrate (base material). For bonding to wet surfaces, special materials
are required, and some of these have been developed for repairs on ships.
Bonded types of repair consist of a fibre-reinforced laminate patch (bonded patch) that is
attached to the base material with an adhesive (see Figure 107). Bonded repairs can also involve
attaching a metal or composite plate to the base material. The most used bonded repair in the off-
shore industry is resin repair involving a layer of fibre-reinforced composite material. The fibre-
reinforcement is typically glass fibre, carbon fibre or aramid fibre. Such repairs can provide a
structural reinforcement and should be designed to allow the transfer of loads from the damaged
Corrosion pits
or cracks
Steel plate Bonded patch

Adhesive
layer
Figure 107 Illustration of bonded patch repair (before and after repair).

material into the fibre-reinforced composite repair. The laminate needs to be designed to carry
these loads and the adhesive to transfer the forces between the steel structure and the laminate.
Failure modes to be considered in the design are fractures of the laminate, fractures of the adhe-
sive compound and delamination of the laminate. DNVGL-RP-C301 (DNV GL 2015) provides
requirements and guidelines for the use of laminating and bonding with composites in repairs and
provides guidelines on where such repair can be used and how to obtain a repair of sufficient quality.
The repair method is only recommended for non-critical structural elements (DNVGL 2019).
However, the method can also be used on a critical structural element where the damage is consid-
ered minor. MSL (2004) describes the use of bonded repairs to caissons but is not clear on whether
this was performed underwater or above water.
As previously described in Section 8.3.4, a UK Department of Energy–funded programme was
undertaken to develop adhesives for application to wet surfaces. This proved successful in develop-
ing high-strength tube-to-tube connections with a resin filler. A company (Wessex Resins) further
developed the technology. However, given the early emphasis on structural repairs to offshore steel
structures using, for example, a sleeve-type joint, the resin technology has not so far been taken up
by the industry. Grout is the preferred filler, despite its lower strength when used in a sleeve joint.
Grouting is an established offshore technique used for connecting the pile and jacket, and the use
of similar methods for grouted repairs is an obvious step. There is the possibility of using resin
techniques for repairs to other parts of an offshore structure such as damaged caissons. These cais-
sons house large pumps for providing seawater for cooling and fire services. Caissons have suffered
damage from galvanic action between the pump and caisson leading to severe localised corrosion
and holes in the wall. Another cause of damage is depletion of the original anodes when corrosion
can occur if the anodes are not renewed.
8.6.12 Structural Clamps and Sleeves

Structural clamps and sleeves are used as a repair method primarily in fixed steel offshore struc-
tures. Clamps and sleeves consist of two or more parts which are assembled around the structural
element (member or joint).
A clamp is used to repair or strengthen a tubular member or joint within an existing struc
ture by providing an alternative load path. A clamp typically weighs between 0.5 and 10 tonnes
(MSL 1995). A sleeve surrounds and is connected to a tubular member providing an alternative
parallel load path.
Clamps and sleeves have several applications as a repair method. The most common are:
●● strengthening of fatigue and impact-damaged members or joints (cracks, dents and bows etc.);
●● strengthening of members or joints with insufficient strength; and
●● support for a new structural element added to an existing structure.
The main aim of a structural clamp and sleeve repair is to transfer the loads and stresses into
the clamp or sleeve from the area of the damaged or under-strength area of the structure. One of
the critical factors in achieving this is being able to obtain a close connection between the clamp
or sleeve and the existing steelwork such that stress transfer can be effective. Ways to achieve
this have included using friction directly or a grout or an elastic membrane (e.g. neoprene) to fill
the interface between the original steelwork and the clamp or sleeve. The stress transfer can be
made more effective by stressing the clamp or sleeve directly onto the tubular section by using
long stud-bolts (MSL 2004). A schematic diagram of a clamp repair of a K joint is shown in
Figure 108.
Figure 108 Schematic diagram of a repair of a tubular K joint using bolted connections.
Figure 89 shows a bolted clamp used to strengthen a connection on the Viking AD platform as
discussed previously in Section 8.3.11. This clamp was recovered from the platform following
decommissioning which allowed tests to be carried out on the components such as the bolts
and grout.
Different clamp and sleeve technologies exist distinguished by their load transfer methods and
requirements for allowing for geometric tolerances in relation to the existing structural element.
The most common types include:
1) Mechanical friction clamps (prestressed mechanical clamps), which are a clamp with a body
of two or more segments stressed together by bolts to provide the load path in the clamp. The outer
segments need to be formed with strict tolerances to fit the existing structure. The coefficient of
friction between the two steel surfaces is as a result an important factor for the strength of the
repair. Application of mechanical friction clamps is reported to include strengthening of one or
more brace members (static strength and fatigue) and connecting members at an inclined angle
into an existing structure. The use of mechanical friction clamps is often not seen as suitable for
repair of joints as the geometry of a joint is rather complex and the strict tolerances required are
difficult to obtain. Guidance for static strength and fatigue analysis are provided in ISO 19902
(ISO 2020) and OTH 88 283 (Department of Energy 1988), presented in Section 8.3.2.
2) Grout-filled clamps (split sleeve clamps) are clamps in which the split sleeves are closed by
pre-tightened bolts leaving an annular space between the clamp and the existing structure for the
injection of grout. Grout-filled clamps are therefore unstressed. The use of grout reduces the need
for strict tolerances. Loads are transferred from the existing structure to the clamp through the
grout by shear and compressive loads. Weld beads (shear keys) can be placed around the circum-
ference of the clamp and member or joint to increase the shear capacity (DNVGL 2019). Placing
weld beads on an existing underwater member or joint would require underwater welding (such as
wet welding). Filling the clamp with grout is regarded as a standard underwater operation, but
there may be individual features that require large-scale testing prior to the repair to verify the
execution procedures. Such issues may include filling of particularly large volumes, placement of
grout piping and the contractor’s experience with materials and methods. Ensuring sufficient seal-
ing at, for example, the lower end of the clamp may also be a challenge. Observations of insuffi-
cient filling have been noted when inspecting clamps from decommissioned structures
(DNVGL 2019), highlighting the importance of having a verified grout-filling method that ensures
sufficient quality of the repair. Applications are reported (D.En. 1988) to include strengthening of
one or more brace members at tubular joints and connecting a new brace member into the struc-
ture. Formulae for static strength and stress concentration factors are provided in ISO 19902
(ISO 2020) and OTH 88 283 (Department of Energy 1988), presented in Section 8.3.2. The strength
of unstressed grouted clamps is lower than mechanical friction clamps. As a result, unstressed
grouted clamps often need to be made longer to achieve sufficient capacity.
3) Stressed grout-filled clamps (prestressed grouted clamps) are similar to grout-filled unstressed
clamps in many ways. Grout is placed in the annular space between the clamp and the joint and
allowed to reach a predefined strength prior to the application of an external stressing force normal
to the steel-grout interface applied by tightening the bolts. Stressed grouted clamps share the
advantages of both friction clamps and unstressed grouted clamps with regards to load-bearing
capacity. Similar to unstressed grout-filled clamps, the requirements for tolerances are less strict
compared to mechanical friction clamps. Application are reported to include strengthening of one
or more brace members at tubular joints against static or fatigue loading and connecting a new
brace member at an inclined angle into an existing structure. This type of clamp has been used
extensively on the Norwegian continental shelf and the experience has generally been good
(DNVGL 2019).
4) Stressed neoprene-lined clamps (prestressed lined clamps) are similar to mechanical friction
clamps except that a layer of elastomer material, for example neoprene, is applied between the
clamp and the structural element. The strength is determined by the external bolt loads and the
coefficient of friction between the elastomer layer and the steel surface. The use of an elastomer-
liner provides less stringent tolerance requirements compared to friction clamps (see Section 8.3.12).
An example of a clamp repair is shown in Figure 109.
Similar solutions to the four types of clamp repairs are available for sleeve-type connections. A
mechanical sleeve connection relies on the friction between the two tubulars for load transfer. The
outer tubular has two or more segments stressed together to generate a force normal to the friction
surface. A grouted sleeve connection is formed by injecting cementitious material (grout) into the
Brace
Repair sleeve brace

Bolt flanges
Bolts Repair sleeve chord
Figure 109 Typical grouted clamp for T joints. Source: Based on Department of Energy (1988).
Offshore Technology Report OTH 88 283 Grouted and mechanical strengthening and repair of
tubular steel offshore structures. Prepared by Wimpey Offshore Engineers and Constructors LTD
(R.G. Harwood and E.P.
Split sleeve
Continuous Stressed flange

sleeve connection
Grout annulus Grout annulus
Brace
Brace
Figure 110 Grouted sleeve connections. Source: Based on Department of Energy (1988). Offshore
Technology Report OTH 88 283 Grouted and mechanical strengthening and repair of tubular steel
offshore structures. Prepared by Wimpey Offshore Engineers and Constructors LTD (R.G. Harwood
and E.P. Shuttleworth) for the Department of Energy. HMSO, London, UK.
annular space between the tubulars. Two examples of grouted sleeves are shown in Figure 110.
Both consist of a stressed grouted sleeve connection in which grout is placed into the annular space
between the tubulars and allowed to reach a predefined strength prior to the application of an
external stressing force normal to the steel-grout interface.
At present, various forms of conductor guide securing clamps are also in use such as tie down
clamps, tension clamps, compression clamps and lobster clamps (see e.g. DNVGL 2019).
Structural repairs by clamps and sleeves have performed satisfactorily over many years but require
regular inspection particularly if bolts have been used to connect the two halves of a repair. Bolt
tightening is regular maintenance routine for many of these clamps and sleeves.
These repairs have a disadvantage in increasing the wave loading, a factor which needs to be
taken into account during design of the repair and the assessment of the global structure. In addi-
tion, the cost of using clamps is high because of the required underwater working and support
vessels.
As already mentioned, the tolerances of a clamp design are important, particularly for mechani-
cal friction clamps. At the time of writing this book, the standard method is to use photogramme-
try of the underwater structural part to be repaired. This provides an accurate 3D model that is
used as the basis for the design of the clamp to ensure optimal tolerances.
Formulae for static strength and stress concentration factors are provided in ISO 19902
(ISO 2020) and OTH 88 283 (Department of Energy 1988), presented in Section 8.3.2.
8.6.13 Grout Filling of Members

Grout filling of damaged or understrength members or joints (filling the tubulars with cementi-
tious material) can increase their static strength, see Figure 111. Grout filling of tubular mem-
bers is a common repair and strengthening method for offshore structures, particularly for older
jacket structures.
Air void
Outlet Port
Direction of grout flow
Inlet Port
Direction of grout flow Outlet Port
Inlet Port
Trapped water voids
Figure 111 Void formation during grout filling. Source: Based on MSL (2004). Assessment of repair
techniques for ageing or damaged structures. Project #502. MSL Services Corporation, Egham,
Surrey, UK.
It has been shown that filling of grout can lead to full recovery of the strength of damaged
members as the grout will prevent further local buckling deformation inwards and the capacity
against global buckling will increase. The best load transfer to the grout is through the contact
stress at each end of the brace. As a result, grout filling as a repair method is most effective in
braces subjected to compressive loads and requires complete filling of the member and cavities
are reduced to a minimum, as shown in Figure 111. This may be difficult for horizontal braces and
braces with internal ring stiffeners. The filling procedure, including material selection, inlet and
outlet points and equipment should be verified using full-scale testing prior to the repair
(DNVGL 2019). Load transfer through friction or bonding between the steel and the grout cannot
normally be assumed (DNVGL 2019).
Filling of grout will increase the stiffness and mass of the member and thus change the load
distribution in the structure. Hence, it is important that the effect of load distribution due to grout
filling is documented through reanalysis of the structure.
Several research programmes (Department of Energy 1988, Department of Energy 1989b,
Department of Energy 1992, Rickles et al. 1992, Rickles et al. 1997, Hebor 1994, Ricles et al. 1995 and
Patterson and Ricles 2001) have been undertaken to provide design information for such repairs,
including both fatigue and static strength properties. These have included testing of repaired and
grout-filled components in the laboratory and analytical work.
ISO 19902 (ISO 2020) provides design formulae for fully grouted intact members and fully
grouted dented tubular members with dent depths less than 0.3 times the diameter and 10 times
the thickness of the member.
8.6.14 Grout Filling of Tubular Joints

According to ISO 19902 (ISO 2020), two varieties of grouted joints are commonly used in practice,
namely a grouted chord (as shown in Figure 112) and grouting in the annulus of a double-skin
joint. As a repair method, grout filling is typically performed by grout filling the chord. The strength
of a tubular joint increases by grout filling the chord as it strengthens the wall and as a result limits
local bending and ovalisation of the cross section. Increased capacity is achieved both against
fatigue and static stress. As previously described in Section 8.3.6, grout filling of existing undam-
aged nodes can also be used to extend the fatigue life provided the dominant load condition is axial
(Department of Energy 1992).
Grout filling of tubular joints is a relatively simple and effective method of repair. However, the
effect can be reduced as the capacity of the joint will in a repaired state be limited by the strength
of an incoming brace. Many of the limitations related to the use of grout in braces will also apply
to repairs of tubular joints. The influence on stiffness and load re-distribution should be carefully
considered in order to achieve the best possible repair.
In terms of fatigue, the introduction of grout considerably reduces the stress generated under
axial and out-of-plane bending conditions, thereby reducing the SCFs around the brace-to-chord
weld intersection. It has also been shown that the failure modes of grout-stiffened nodes were not
altered from those of conventional nodes.
8.6.15 Installation of New Structural Elements

In some cases, the most effective repair method is to introduce new structural elements. For exam-
ple, additional braces can be inserted in order to increase the strength of a jacket to withstand
increased wave forces. These may be attached by welding if located above water, while below water
it may be appropriate to use clamps to attach the new elements.
For floating structures, additional stiffeners may be required for a damaged stiffened plate or
plates with insufficient capacity. This will require access to the plate area with damage or
reduced capacity in order to perform repair work. The repair strategy will depend on the extent
of damage and the structural arrangement. Stiffened plates are to a large extent used as
Brace
Grout
Chord
Figure 112 Grout-filled joint. Source: Based on MSL (2004). Assessment of repair techniques for
ageing or damaged structures. Project #502. MSL Services Corporation, Egham, Surrey, UK.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 113 Reinforcement methods for stiffened plates, (a) indicates the original stiffened plate, (b)
indicates the use of doubler plates, (c) indicates methods for strengthening the stiffeners, (d) indicates
additional stiffeners to achieve an increased effective flange-width.
load-bearing components in marine structures, such as the hull girder of a ship and the pon-
toons of a semi-submersible. In addition, stiffened plates are used in the decks of offshore
platforms. In a majority of cases repair of such stiffened plates is possible to perform above
water or inside a floating structure, which is outside the scope of this book. An overview of
repair methods to stiffened plates can be found in DNVGL (2019), Paik and Thayamballi (2007)
and in Paik and Melchers (2008). Underwater repair is used if needed and then typically in the
form of underwater welding.
The stresses in the outer skin of floating structures due to direct wave load are largely deter-
mined by the ratio of stiffener spacing (s) to plate thickness (t), the so-called s/t ratio. If the stiff-
ener spacing is too large, the use of intermediate stiffeners or transverse plates are possible
solutions to reduce the stress level. However, the stiffeners are normally attached by fillet welds,
and the size of the welds is often not sufficient for this to be considered as an alternative. The use
of intermediate stiffeners or transverse stiffeners is illustrated in Figure 113d.
A brief overview of repair and strengthening methods in situations when these plates are found
to have insufficient capacity is provided in Table 74, based on DNVGL (2019) and Paik and
Melchers (2008).
Possible reinforcement methods for the web of girders are described in chapter 9 of DNV-
RP-C201 (2010).
8.6.16 Summary of Steel Repairs

Based on the previous studies reviewed in this chapter, an overview of repair methods including a
short description is given for different types of damage, including:
●● cracks and insufficient fatigue life in Table 75;
●● overload damage and insufficient strength in Table 76;
●● corrosion in Table 77; and
●● other types of damage in Table 78.
Table 74 Repair and Reinforcement of Stiffened Plates.
Cause of the
insufficient capacity Temporary repair Permanent repair
Insufficient design Doubler plates may be used but may lead to Intermediate stiffeners to achieve an
or fabrication or fatigue cracking. increased effective flange-width.
increase in loading Reinforcement of the stiffener flange.
(see Figure 113 for Reinforcement of the web of girders
examples)
Corrosion of Repair by sandblasting and repainting. Crop and renew (replacement of
plates or stiffeners Doubler plates over the affected area. panels or part of panels). Cutting,
Stronger member may be used to support weld sequence, edge preparation and
weakened stiffeners and composite repair alignment should be done in
may be used accordance with fabrication
standards for new builds.
Fatigue cracks in Crack arresting holes with or without Rewelding of cracks, replacing the
plates or stiffeners expansion bolts may be used as a temporary cracked plate by suitable inserts,
repair but insert plates should be used as soon modifying details, increase scantlings.
as possible. Weld repairs are also often used Latent defects should be veed out by
but should be used in combination with grinding or arc gouging, prepared and
grinding or hole drilling to reduce the stresses. rewelded.
Table 75 Repair Methods for Cracks and Insufficient Fatigue Life in Steel Structures
Repair method Description and discussion
Grinding: The preferred method of crack repair if the crack is not too deep, especially in
●● grinding of welding contained areas (tanks); weld profiling will reduce local stress concentrations
toe; and thus increase fatigue strength.
●● plane grinding of Toe grinding is an effective method for removing shallow fatigue cracks, and it
butt weld; has been shown to significantly improve the fatigue strength. Plane grinding
●● weld profiling.
of the weld is a method to increase the fatigue strength of a butt weld.
The methods are not suitable for repair of deep fatigue cracks but can be used
in combination with weld repair.
Weld repair in: The preferred method when fatigue cracks are long, deep or through
●● atmospheric dry thickness. Placing the weld in a low-stress area should be chosen to avoid low
conditions; fatigue life of a repair. Execution includes grinding the area down to
●● hyperbaric
uncracked material and to a geometry suitable for a repair weld. Qualified
conditions; welding procedures are vital, especially inside welding on the outer skin plates
(with the sea on the other side) and for hyperbaric welding. Wet welding is to
●● wet conditions.
some extent also used but not accepted in all offshore regions.
Shot-, needle-, Methods to deform the weld toe plasticly and, as a result, to introduce
hammer- and compressive residual stresses in the surface of the material. A weakness of
ultrasonic peening this improvement method is that strict procedures need to be followed and
the residual compressive stresses can be reduced or disappear after the
structure has been subjected to a possible compressive overload. Peening
has been reported to be used on the Norwegian continental shelf in order to
increase fatigue life of details.
Drilling stop holes A method to prevent the further development of existing cracks and can be
used also for stopping the growth of through-thickness cracks. Primarily used
as a temporary repair method but also as a permanent repair. It has been
reported to be used on nodes of fixed jacket structures, inner plating and outer
skin of floating structures.
The long-term effect is not yet established.
A possible problem is that the crack continues to grow beyond the stop hole,
and to avoid this, the location of the stop hole is vital. The effect of a stop hole
is best for short cracks and large-diameter stop holes.
The effect of stop holes can be enhanced by introducing compressive residual
stresses around the hole (tapered bolt, inserting a sleeve in the hole and by
other specialized tools).
Modification of the Used to improve fatigue life of details with insufficient life and on floating
detail structure for cracks that initiate at the termination of brackets, flanges and
stiffeners. The purpose of the modification is to reduce the local stress
concentration of the detail and especially at the weld. Often used in
combination with a weld repair.
Insert plates Used if the nominal cyclic stress is high. Parts of an existing plate and any
stiffeners are cut out and replaced with a thicker plate to reduce the nominal
cyclic stress level.
Doubler plates Another possible method of reducing the nominal stress level. This is a
well-established method and guidelines for execution are given in standards.
Closing of openings Closing openings (e.g. penetrations for stiffeners) can be an effective measure.
Addition of new Can be used to reduce stresses in highly stressed components. On fixed steel
structural elements offshore structures these added members are often connected by the use of
clamps; see below.
Addition of stiffeners in floating structures is a useful method if the
distance between stiffeners in the outer skin is too large. The method is
used to reduce the stresses locally in the longitudinal weld between
stiffeners and plates.
Member and nodal Clamps and sleeves are particularly useful for repair of insufficient fatigue
strengthening life and significant cracks (e.g. severance). Clamps and sleeves can be
stressed or unstressed, mechanical, grouted or elastomer lined.
Removal of secondary Cracks or low fatigue life related to secondary structural elements that
structural elements are no longer in use (e.g. pad eyes for lifting) may be rectified by
removing these.
Removal of primary Primary purpose of this method is to reduce overall loading (e.g. wave loading
structural elements on unused horizontal frames).
Removal and Found to be useful for severed or near-severed jacket braces. The remains of
replacement of the existing brace are removed and a new brace is inserted, possibly at a
structural elements slightly different location.
Adhesives A useful method for adding material (steel or composite) over cracked
●● composite (CRP); section. Repair by adhesives is preferred to avoid hot work (welding). In
●● steel.
general, underwater adhesive repairs are not widely used and the experience
and possible limitations are not well documented.
Table 76 Repair Methods Suggested for Overload Damage and Insufficient Strength in Steel Structures.
Weld repair in: Mostly used in combination with other repair methods (e.g. to weld doubler
●● atmospheric dry plates or for addition of new members). Can also be used to reconnect ends
conditions; of severed braces.
●● hyperbaric conditions;
Grouting Grouting will increase the capacity of the cross section at a dent and will
also increase the axial and bending capacity in general. In addition,
grouting has been used to increase damping and alter the eigen-frequency
by adding mass. This repair method is suitable for damage both above and
below water.
Addition of braces A method to reduce loading in, for example, a brace or to reduce the buckling
length of a brace.
Addition of stiffeners to Method used in cases where there is insufficient cross-sectional area.
plates
Doubling plates Method used in cases with insufficient cross-sectional area or dented
members.
Strengthening of existing Method used in cases with insufficient bending capacity in the stiffener. The
stiffeners method includes the addition of a stiffened area (doubling plates on stiffener
web or additional stiffener on the existing stiffener).
Addition of new structural Can be used to reduce loading in highly stressed components, as for repair
elements methods for cracks and insufficient fatigue life, see Table 75.
Member and nodal Clamps can be used as a repair method for structural elements or nodes
strengthening damaged by buckling, dents and for structural elements that have
experienced large plastic deformations due to overload. Clamps can also be
used to strengthen structural elements with insufficient strength and can be
used to attach new members to a structure.
Adhesives A useful method for adding material (steel or composite) over damaged or
●● composite; under-strength sections, see also Table 75.
●● steel.
8.7 Repair of Corrosion and Corrosion Protection Systems
8.7.1 Introduction
Most offshore installations experience some degree of corrosion, even when protective systems are
in place. Typical cases are due to damaged coatings or poor control of the cathodic protection volt-
age. A thorough assessment prior to the implementation of mitigating measures is important.
One possible outcome may be that the corroded component or area still has sufficient strength
for all relevant limit states. In such cases it will be sufficient to prevent further corrosion by
cleaning, sandblasting and re-applying a protective coating. If the corrosion damage is more
severe, then remedial measures are required. In general methods for mitigation of corrosion
and corrosion protection systems may include repair of damaged coatings, replacement of
material and repair or replacement of the corrosion protection system as further reviewed in
this section.
Table 77 Repair of Corrosion Damage in Steel Structures.
Cleaning, abrasive blasting A recommended method if the strength of the structure is still sufficient
and reinstating protective taking into account the level of corrosion.
coating
Replacement of steel Used for heavily corroded components to reinstate strength. Inserts are
used either to return the component to its original state or to reinforce
by increasing the thickness of the plate.
Weld repair in: Buttering (welding of strings) to replace lost material. This is considered
●● atmospheric dry conditions; a good alternative in cases where the area of reduced thickness is
●● hyperbaric conditions;
limited, for example for corrosion in welds.
Slab plates Used in areas of reduced thickness to increase the load-carrying

capacity primarily as a temporary measure.
Grout filling Grout filling can increase the capacity of a corroded cross section, see
also Table 76.
Addition of new structural Can be used to provide alternative load path for significantly corroded
members components, see also Table 75.
Addition or replacement of stiffeners in floating structures is useful if
stiffeners are significantly corroded.
Enhance cathodic protection Anode replacement, adding sled or bracelet anodes.
Resins A useful method for adding material (steel or composite) over corroded
●● composite sections or patch, see also Table 75.
●● steel
Table 78 Repair Methods for Other Types of Damage for Steel Structures.
Anomaly
Defect or change Repair method (temporary and permanent)
Wear Grout member, joint or sleeve. Weld patch plates. Member removal or load
reduction. Provide alternative load path by adding new members or connecting
ends by welding or clamping.
Marine growth Marine growth cleaning by water jet
Settlement and Lifting or straightening by jacking. Removal of lower decks or lower deck
subsidence equipment to reduce wave loading.
Scour Sand filling, rock dumping.
Material embrittlement Reduce cathodic potential overprotection, if possible, to avoid further cracking.
(hydrogen Cracks may be repaired as for fatigue cracks (Table 7). Replacement may be
embrittlement) required in serious cases.
Fabrication faults Treat as fatigue cracks, corrosion or insufficient fatigue or static strength.
Under-design Treat as fatigue cracks, corrosion or insufficient fatigue or static strength.
8.7.2 Repair of Damaged Coatings

Coatings are applied for corrosion control as they act as barriers that isolate the steel from the
corrosive environment. Coatings can be applied in the construction yard or offshore although the
latter is more expensive and often less efficient. Typical coatings used offshore include coal tar
epoxy (as noted in Section 3.1.2 for the West Sole WE platform) and epoxy resins. Coatings on
fixed steel structures are more normally applied on members in the splash zone while on floating
structures large parts of the external hull structure are coated.
Coatings are inspected as part of an inspection programme and may require repair or replace-
ment depending on the level of damage. Several scales exist (ISO 2016) for measuring the degree
of either blistering, rusting, flaking or cracking which may occur with coatings. Pinpoint rusting
or spot rusting is one of the more common types of coating failure, often as a result of ageing.
Assessing the level of damage to a substrate during inspection can be difficult without removing
the coating, which can be expensive and will require substantial remedial work.
Coating repairs need to include proper cleaning of the surface for marine growth (brushes or
water jet), sandblasting of the surface to remove the damaged coating and to ensure good adhe-
sion before re-applying a protective coating. Although coatings exist that can be applied manually
underwater with good adhesion, a habitat extends the ability to perform the repair more effec-
tively. ROV-created habitats exist but are primarily used for pipeline repairs.
Replacement of coatings in the splash zone has access difficulties and requires a coating to be applied
to a wet surface. In order to obtain good quality adhesion special coatings are required (Belzona 2020).
Coatings and anodes are also a feature of corrosion protection for ballast tanks in floating struc-
tures. Breakdown of these coatings can lead to localised corrosion and loss of watertight integrity.
Proper re-installment of coatings in such areas is an important m itigating measure.
8.7.3 Replacement of Corroded Material

A more comprehensive measure is replacement of material. This typically implies that compo-
nents or plate areas need to be partly or completely replaced with new material or with local
reinforcements. Methods commonly used include replacement of steel by insert plates, butter-
ing and doubler plates. These methods are used when an area is so severely corroded that it is
considered that complete replacement is the most appropriate solution.
Insert plates are primarily used to return the component to its original state but thicker insert
plates than the original can be used to increase the plate thickness thereby obtaining a larger cor-
rosion allowance for further operation.
Weld beads can be added to replace lost material (buttering). This is considered a good alterna-
tive in cases where the area of reduced thickness is limited such as pitting corrosion and where
corrosion is limited to areas adjacent to welds.
Doubler plates can be welded to a plate or member to increase thickness. The use of doubler plates is
primarily considered as a temporary measure but can occasionally be used as permanent strengthening.
As previously mentioned, corroded tubular members may be strengthened by grout filling, sleeves or
clamps. Removal of the damaged member or section and replacement by a new member is also possible.
8.7.4 Repair or Replacement of the Corrosion Protection System

Corrosion protection systems are used on most offshore structures by means of sacrificial anodes
or impressed currents systems. Sacrificial anodes are designed with an expected life commensurate
with the design life, typically 25 years.
Sacrificial anodes are designed to provide the expected current demand of the system over the
expected life. As part of the inspection plan, the anode condition and the cathodic potential are
checked. Depending on the remaining anode material, replacement may be required. Figure 40, in
Section 4.3.10, shows a series of drawings of sacrificial anodes with increasing loss of material. A
partially depleted anode from the West Sole WE platform is shown in Figure 12. At some stage,
such as the severely pitted example in Figure 40, the loss of material results in a less negative pro-
tection potential and therefore less efficient cathodic protection. At this stage, anode replacement
is required to maintain efficient protection.
Individual anodes can be replaced, but this can involve a considerable amount of underwater
working, often requiring divers. ABS has produced guidance on retrofitting of sacrificial anodes
(ABS 2018). These include:
●● Hanging impressed current anode systems; these have been successfully applied to offshore float-
ing storage vessels which had originally used sacrificial anodes for the hull. In this system the
anode is freely suspended from locations above water either from the feed cable or a strain mem-
ber. The anode is often weighted and contained within a frame. This can be a viable approach for
shallow water structures with a relatively short life expectancy (< 5 years) and a moderate to high
current demand. Anode failure is expected on a regular basis but with very low replacement cost.
●● Gravity anode sleds, which are designed to sit on the sea floor at some distance from the struc-
ture and are connected electrically to the protected structure.
●● Buoyant anode sleds, which are high-capacity impressed-current cathodic protection systems.
They utilise impressed-current titanium-anode rods housed in buoyant floats. These are similar
to gravity sleds but with the anode elements held up in the seawater by means of buoys. The
advantage of the buoyant sled is that the critical elements can move freely if hit by falling debris
and the overall sled structure is much lighter.
●● Anode pods, which are aluminium anode systems arranged in stable, self-contained “pods” and
are ideal for replacing depleted anodes on mature assets. The pods are deposited on the seabed
and connected electrically to the protected asset using a clamp tieback system to any local tubu-
lar member or flange. However, this system can result in less efficient spread of the protection
compared to adding conventional individual anodes.
●● Anode links, which are cost-effective cathodic protection retrofit systems consisting of 3 to 15
anodes cast directly onto a heavy-duty wire rope. The anode link is attached electrically and mechan-
ically above the waterline allowing the string to hang in the seawater with at least two anodes situ-
ated in the mud. This solution is typically suitable for any structure in less than 30 meters (90 feet)
of water. Anode links are available to increase cathodic protection capacity by securely fitting around
pipes. The two half segments can be welded together (most likely above water) or mechanically
using bolted connections. Each segment should be electrically connected to the pipe (Bahadori 2014).
As earlier mentioned, corrosion protection systems are designed with an expected life commen-
surate with the design life. Life extension, therefore, may require assessment of these systems and
consideration of any required mitigation to meet the extended life.
8.8 Repair of Mooring Systems
Repair is required for mooring systems with significant damage as indicated in Section 3.8.4,
Table 18. The most common types of damage requiring repair are fatigue cracking and corrosion.
However, also overload and mechanical damage, particularly at the fairlead has been reported as
Figure 114 Kenter shackle. Source: HSE 2006.
causes leading to repair or replacement. In recent years, the increasing use of high-strength chain
(for example R5) has led to several cases of brittle fracture.
The typical repair methods for damaged mooring lines are:
●● replacement of a section length (chain or wire rope);
●● replacement of individual chain links (e.g. Kenter links);
●● stud tightening or mechanically refitted (in studded chain); and
●● grinding of chain links to remove cracks, gouges and other surface defects (excluding weld
cracks) provided that the resulting reduction in link diameter does not exceed 5% and the cross-
sectional area, due to abrasion, wear and grinding is at least 90% of the original nominal area
(IACS 2010).
Weld repair is not allowed (IACS 2010) on the higher-strength chains, such as the now common
R4 and R5 chains.
The term “discard criteria” is a useful guide for the stage at which to replace a mooring line.
Guidance is provided in for example API RP-2I (API 2008), based on the degree of damage such
as cracks in chains and broken wire rope. Where chain links have become significantly damaged
and have met the discard criteria, IACS (2010) states that such links should be removed and
replaced with joining shackles, such as a Kenter-link as shown in Figure 114. These shackles
should be capable of passing through fairleads and windlasses in the horizontal plane. It is also
recognised that these joining shackles have much lower fatigue lives than ordinary chain links
and, hence, as few as possible should be used. On average it is recommended that such shackles
should be separated by at least 122 m.
8.9 Repair of Concrete Structures
8.9.1 Introduction
Repair is typically required for damage as described in Chapter 3 and when strengthening of the
structure is needed. These typical damage types to concrete offshore requiring repair include:
●● corrosion of reinforcement leading to cracking, spalling and delamination (splash zone);
●● vessel impact and dropped object damage;
●● insufficient design or fabrication (detailing, material, cover to reinforcement); and
●● corrosion around embedded steelwork, including prestressing anchorages.
Some of the defects observed on offshore concrete structures are reported to result from the
breakdown of repairs from the time of construction. This may indicate that the long-term proper-
ties of these had not been optimal. This may be related to the workmanship, method and material
for these repairs at the time of construction.
The repair of concrete structures underwater represents a challenging task, particularly due to the
harsh environmental conditions associated with working underwater and in the splash zone. In
order to determine the need for repair, a thorough evaluation or assessment of the present condition
of the structure (with the damage present) is an essential first step. This should be based on compre-
hensive documentation of the cause and extent of damage in addition to the relevant strength
requirements for the repaired structure. If repair is found to be needed, a broad evaluation of pos-
sible repair techniques should be undertaken to determine the most effective solution. An assess-
ment should also be made whether a temporary strengthening is needed until the repair is complete.
In addition, proper quality assurance of the repair work is important to provide a sufficient
repair. Repair procedures (including equipment) should be verified using full-scale tests that rep-
resent relevant conditions such as environment, size and temperature. These tests should also be
used to qualify personnel to perform the job.
The American Concrete Institute (ACI) has prepared a guide to underwater repair of concrete
(ACI 1998) which covers an overview of typical damage types, inspection methods, evaluation of
this damage, preparation for the repair, repair materials and methods in addition to inspections of
the completed repairs. This has together with the previous studies presented in Section 8.4 formed
the basis for this chapter.
Another ACI report (ACI 2016) has also been developed to provide design engineers with a rec-
ommended practice for the evaluation of the damage and deterioration for concrete structures
(primarily land-based structures). In addition to the design of appropriate repair and rehabilitation
strategies, this code provides minimum requirements for the assessment, repair and rehabilitation
of existing structural concrete buildings including structural components. Similarly, a European
standard (EN 2005) for concrete repair of land-based concrete structures specifies requirements for
the identification, performance (including durability) and safety of products and systems to be
used for the structural and non-structural repair of concrete structures. It covers repair mortars
and concretes and systems to replace defective concrete and to protect reinforcement, necessary to
extend the service life of a concrete structure showing deterioration. Its applicability to offshore
structures is limited.
Typical repair methods for concrete structures related to these types of damage include:
●● concrete material replacement (cementitious or epoxy):
–– spraying (in splash zone and dry areas);
–– hand mortaring;
–– concrete casting into formwork by use of grout or pre-placed (pre-packed) aggregate followed
by cementitous material injection.
●● injection methods (e.g. cracks or voids);
●● re-instating damaged reinforcement and prestressing; and
●● steel sleeve repair (normally not useful for large-scale offshore components).
The various repair methods require preparation of the base material or substrate in order to
obtain a good quality repair. This includes for example removal of chloride-infected concrete and
also the removal of concrete attached to the reinforcement to achieve good adhesion. Previous
studies on repairs have concluded that published information comparing long-term properties of
different repair methods under similar conditions (HSE 2003 a, b, c and d) is limited.
Table 79 Causes and Consequences of Damage and Underwater Repair Solutions.
Cause of damage Consequence of damage Repair solution
Vessel impact Water seeping through Epoxy resin and caulking used to seal damaged area
cracked wall externally; a 200 mm section of wall was removed
internally and recast. A coffer dam was placed against
the outer wall and the outer 200 mm of wall then
removed and recast. Resin injection points were cast
into the new concrete to ensure a good bond between
the old and new material.
Faulty construction Leak manifested Initial repair attempts using resin injection were
joint several years after unsuccessful. Optic fibre examination showed voids
construction. Repaired within 1200 mm wall. Voids were injected with
10 years after cementitious grout, with epoxy grout being used for the
construction. final contact with the old concrete.
Leaky grouted Water leakage (depth Stopped by injecting resin from the dry end.
prestressing duct of 90 m)
Dropped object Damage to a 500 mm Deep hole (300 mm in depth) was formed in the
thick cell roof slab at a concrete, with water flowing through slab. Repair made
depth of 80 m. by prepacking aggregate within the hole, covering the
hole with a steel plate and injecting grout to restore the
original concrete profile.
Cracks in external Water ingress Resin was injected into cracks. In some cases, the crack
shear walls was jacked apart before the resin was placed so that on
removal of the jack the resin was compressed into the
crack void. Ballast was added to the structure to prevent
the cracks reopening under wave loading
Scour hole at Hole extending 4 m Void was grouted and subsequently protected by rock
pipeline entry point beneath the structure dumping.
An overview of underwater repairs to offshore concrete structures is shown in Table 79 and also
as reported by OceanStructures (2009) in Table 15.
The following sections present an overview of the most common repair methods used on offshore
concrete structures. Each repair method is evaluated in relation to its maturity, quality, reliability
and long-term properties.
8.9.2 Choice of Repair Method

In selecting a repair method there should be a well-defined requirement for the properties to be
achieved, such as capacity or durability. The repair solution, including the method and materials,
should be selected based on engineering requirements, the cause of the defect, performance require-
ments for the completed repair and previous experience with the method proposed and its complex-
ity. The following options are available when damage is found:
●● monitor for a given period before considering repair;
●● prevent or reduce further degradation;
●● re-analyse the design capacity, with possible downgrading of the function;
●● reinforce or repair; and
●● rebuild or replace all or part of the concrete structure.
Qualification of the proposed method and personnel prior to planned repair work is necessary.
The reason why extra focus is given to design for the repair methods for concrete structures, versus
steel structures, is because it is more difficult to test quality and workmanship after the repair
(DNVGL 2019). Hence, sufficient time should be made available for such preparation and quality
control. Large-scale testing to verify the method may be required together with some initial materi-
als testing as part of the development depending on the method selected, its maturity and repair
material. The inspection and control regime for repair work should comply with the requirements
of the standard used in the original design.
8.9.3 Concrete Material Replacement

Damaged concrete material or concrete that covers corroded reinforcement may have to be removed
and replaced. This can involve chiselling, pneumatic hammer, high-pressure water jets or pneu-
matic or hydraulic-powered saws to remove the relevant material and different ways of replacing
the material either by cementitious materials (hand mortaring, casting and dry and wet spraying) or
by the use of epoxy resins. An important consideration is that the concrete structure itself is usually
subjected to permanent compressive forces due to self-weight and prestressing during the execution
of the repair and as a result, large repairs may not contribute to carry these permanent loads.
Due to the difficulty of the use of these methods proper planning and prior testing are normally
required. The repair should include (DNVGL 2019):
●● removal of marine growth, corrosion products, loose or chloride-infected concrete;
●● the boundary of the spalled area should be cut back to a depth of about 10–20 mm depending on
the amount of damage;
●● cleaning and surface preparation;
●● avoidance of spillage on nearby areas prepared for repair, for example when using spraying;
●● operating conditions such as temperature and humidity and for spraying the orientation on the
base material (vertical surface or under a horizontal surface) and the thickness of repair (possi-
ble need for layering); and
●● possible finishing by epoxy application over cementitous repairs.
These repair methods may be used to fill cavities, cracks and other damage, such as impact dam-
age to the domes of the roofs of underwater concrete storage tanks, as described in OTH 90 318
(Department of Energy 1990). This study also assessed the efficiency of different materials for
repairing this type of damage.
The OTH 90 318 report and the report by DNVGL (2019) listed the typical properties of repair
materials for cementitous and epoxy types of repair needed to be considered in the selection of
suitable material. The key factors with respect to the repair’s design and durability and the integ-
rity of the structure after repair are:
●● operating time and pumpability;
●● compatibility with basic concrete material (e.g. temperature coefficient of expansion,
permeability);
●● low permeability to seawater;
●● suitability for the environment (temperature limits, relative humidity, exposure);
●● volume stability (shrinkage);
●● long-term properties (environmental and cyclic loading);
●● adhesion to base material; and
●● strength and strength development in tension and compression.
There are many available mortar products suitable for repair of concrete structures. According
to DNVGL (2019), cement-based materials which can be used underwater include pre-mixed,
packaged or mortar mixed at the workplace and methods mostly relevant for above water and pos-
sibly in the splash zone such as hand-applied mortar, dry sprayed mortar mixture and wet spraying
of a concrete mix. The compressive strength of the repair material should be determined using
core samples. It is also recognised to be difficult to achieve the same strength as the base material
(particularly for high-strength concrete) if a full load-bearing repair is needed.
Surface treatment techniques to remove damaged material prior to repair commonly used on
concrete offshore structures are water or mechanical chiselling. Several studies and publications
have previously documented that water chiselling generally produces less micro-scratches in the
surface than mechanical chiselling and is therefore preferable for achieving good adhesion to the
base material (HSE 2003c). Water chiselling is, therefore, a preferred alternative for achieving good
adhesion to the base material as well as durability. In addition, water chiselling provides an uneven
surface which is favourable for adhesion to the base material.
The typical methods for applying cementitious materials are shown and described in Table 80.
Underwater concrete casting type of repair can be performed by using:
●● a cofferdam installed around the damage;
●● sealing the outer surface of the damage with, for example, epoxy and then the casting can be
performed from inside a dry tower; and
●● injection into formwork as shown in Figure 115.
Table 80 Typical Methods for Applying Cementitious Materials.
Method Description
Spraying Spraying is a widely used method for repair of offshore concrete structures above
water or on internal shafts. The method is often used where there are defects such as
peeling and delamination in the concrete due to reinforcement corrosion which often
occurs in areas where there have already been defects from construction. Spraying is
an effective method of repairing larger areas with extensive damage, typically on the
shafts, where access is difficult. In many cases, dry spraying is the chosen repair
method above water and preferably above the splash zone, partly because of its
positive historical experience and its operational advantages over other methods.
Hand mortaring Hand mortar is a repair method that is widely used in a number of repairs, particularly
above water or on internal shafts. For repairs to existing concrete structures this
method is mainly used for smaller and more individual defects. The quality of the
repair by this method is very dependent on the craftsmanship, especially for upper
horizontal surfaces. The advantage of this method, compared to dry spraying, is that
the pre-packaged dry mix is mixed with a certain amount of water before application,
thus allowing better control over the properties and quality of the applied material.
Compacting the material through the full thickness of the repair can be challenging
and the method should therefore be subject to close control during execution. In
preparation for repair using hand mortaring, a hand chisel is often used to remove for
example loose and chloride-infected concrete to prepare for the mortar repair.
Concrete casting Concrete casting with formwork is often used for extensive repairs associated with
using formwork deep defects and multiple defects with a significant amount of exposed reinforcement.
It can be used underwater, in the splash zone and above water.
Concrete casting can be combined with additional reinforcement installation and
prestressing. Prestressing is used if there is a need to ensure that the concrete repair is
to be subjected to compressive forces and to satisfy water-tightness requirements.
Outlet
port
Inlet
port
Seal
Anchor bolt
connection to
structure
Figure 115 An example of formwork used for concrete repair.
A liquid and pumpable concrete or mortar is required. In the past, a “two-stage” process was
used, involving aggregate being installed in a mould and a mortar being pumped in to fill the void
to form a monolithic repair. More recently premixed micro-cement concrete, often with rough
aggregate, has been used for repairs with formwork (DNVGL 2019). Due to its large size, this type
of repair will typically place high demands on compatibility with the surrounding structure, pre-
treatment and roughness in castings and factors such as modulus of elasticity and temperature
properties.
8.9.4 Injection Methods

Injection of a cementitious or epoxy material is a versatile and historically widely used repair mate-
rial on offshore concrete structures. The material is injected into voids such as cracks, fabrication
joints (to seal a leaking joint), delaminations, cavities in walls and in prestressing cable ducts with
incomplete filling or leaks. According to OTH 90 318 (Department of Energy 1990), cementitious
grouts were shown to have difficulty in penetrating cracks of surface width of 10 mm and penetration
was impossible below 5 mm. Hence, for cracks less than 10 mm in width, epoxy resins would be the
repair material of choice.
A liquid two-component epoxy may be applied through hoses connected to injection tubes or
nipples, which are placed in the concrete to fill voids which will be too narrow to enable a cementi-
tious material filling to be effective. Epoxy material is not typically used to fill voids in large vol-
umes due to challenges with heat generation during the curing of the epoxy, creep properties as
well as constraints in the material’s shelf life.
There are a number of limitations in using epoxy injection as a repair method. When epoxy is
injected into delaminations in walls or into through-thickness cracks, it can be challenging to seal
the surfaces, typically with an epoxy resin before injection starts. It can also be challenging to
completely fill the void. For example, on a vertical surface the injection begins at the lowest point
and continues until the epoxy begins to ooze out of the port above, which is the visual sign that the
void has been filled to that level. Failure to seal the surface may result in loss of epoxy material and
compromise the efficiency of the operation. Other issues concerning the use of epoxy materials are:
●● limited cure life for some of the materials on the market limiting the use to only small volume
cavities;
●● Influence of temperature can have a significant impact on the material’s cure life; this is impor-
tant underwater with typical North Sea temperatures;
●● the influence of relative humidity can have a significant impact on the properties of the final
product; and
●● injection at too high pump pressures can cause defects in the concrete.
Epoxy coatings are widely used on offshore concrete structures for surface protection, particu-
larly in the splash zone and above water. The primary use is to improve the durability of the con-
crete in areas with low cover, fabrication joints and penetrations as well as protection of completed
repairs. The typical applications and experience with epoxy as surface protection are (DNVGL 2019):
●● Full-coverage coating applied as a repair method. There exists good experience with such coat-
ings to minimise chloride penetration. As a result, a complete membrane has been subsequently
applied to, for example, the Troll A platform after 10 to 15 years in operation. Similar full-cover-
age coatings were applied to the Statfjord A platform during construction with good results, as
discussed earlier.
●● Local application of a coating is often used in smaller areas to compensate for low concrete cover
and to protect the repair material, steel attachments, penetrations and as a membrane for any
repairs performed.
Surface protection with an epoxy coating is sensitive to the design and material selection as well
as operational temperature and relative humidity. Adequate testing of the method and material
should therefore be performed prior to the application. In addition, cleaning and preparation of
the concrete surface is essential for achieving good adhesion. The application of epoxy coatings
often requires specialist contractors with a good knowledge of both materials and workmanship.
8.9.5 Repair of Reinforcement and Prestressing Tendons

Corroded reinforcement may in many cases require repair. Removal of the corrosion products
can be performed with high-pressure water jets and abrasive blasting, but the back surfaces of
the reinforcement can be challenging to clean. If the cross section of the reinforcing steel has
been reduced significantly, the addition of new reinforcing bars may be necessary. This will
require the original reinforcement to be exposed beyond the corroded section by a distance
equal to the required design length for the lap splice. New reinforcement can be added by
splicing (e.g. by tying) or welding new bars to the undamaged material, typically with an over-
lap of at least 100 mm for welded connections and more for tied bars. Welding underwater will
often be difficult for reinforcement.
Major impact damage may also include exposure of the reinforcement which may have experi-
enced damage requiring similar repair. In addition, prestressing tendons may also be exposed and
damaged. As mentioned in Section 8.4.2, there are three different methods where fractured pre-
stressing tendons are replaced (Department of Energy 1988c). The first involves the use of “flat
jacks” which produce a similar effect in maintaining compressive stresses in the concrete. The
second method utilises Macalloy bars which can accommodate the tensile stresses in the ultimate
load condition. The third method uses a steel “splint” which is capable of taking tensile loads.
8.9.6 Summary of Concrete Repairs

Typical repair systems for offshore concrete platforms are shown in Table 81.
Table 81 Anomalies and Possible Evaluation Methods for Concrete Structures.
Cause of damage Types and description Suggested repair method
Corrosion Spalling and delamination Removal of concrete cover to enable

(above water and in the splash cementitious mortars to be used to fill the
zone) as result of reinforcement damaged area. Sandblasting of reinforcement to
corrosion as well as potential remove any corrosion products and a bonding
loss of reinforcement area coating can be applied to the damaged area.
Above water, grout spraying (wet and dry)
potentially followed by introducing an epoxy
coating can be used. Alternatively, re-casting
concrete with or without additional reinforcement
is an option for larger areas of damage.
In the splash zone, water-tolerant epoxy mortars
can be suitable for small areas of damage. For
larger areas of damage, formwork may be
required to hold the repair material (grout or
cement) in position whilst it is setting.
Seepage of corrosion products Removal of concrete cover, sandblasting of
at cracks under water as result reinforcement and replacement of material. CP
of reinforcement corrosion system should also be considered for improvement.
Chloride ingress above water Removal of concrete cover, sandblasting of
causing reinforcement reinforcement and grout spraying (wet and dry),
corrosion and potential loss of potentially followed by introducing an epoxy cover
reinforcement area
Corrosion of steel attachments For minor damage, sand blasting to remove
(e.g. pre-tension cable at corrosion and epoxy filling. For major damage
anchorages, steel support involving potential loss of local prestressing
attachments) and potential loss capacity, flat jack, Macalloy bars and steel splint
of prestressing capacity repair may be required. Reinstall of the anchorage
may be also required.
Overload and Local impact damage to towers Sealing (epoxy resin) of damaged area if minor.
accidental resulting in reduction in For larger damage, removal and replacement of
damage (vessel concrete section area and the concrete by use of cementitous materials is
impact and possible water ingress required. Repair of damaged reinforcement and
dropped object) prestressing may also be required.
Local impact damage to tops of Replacement of concrete by injecting grout or
storage cells from dropped cementitious material into formwork (with or
objects resulting in reduction in without preplaced aggregate) to restore the
concrete section area and original concrete profile. Typical formwork
possible water ingress could be a steel plate covering the damaged area
(as shown Figure 115.
If reinforcement is damaged, treat as mentioned
above.
(Continued)
Cause of damage Types and description Suggested repair method
Wear and tear Abrasion (local wear) and erosion Filling of the area by cementitous or epoxy
resulting in minor reduction in material if needed.
concrete section area
Marine growth Increased loading Marine growth cleaning by water jet. Care needs
to be taken not to damage the concrete structure.
Settlement and Settlement and subsidence Removal of lower decks or lower deck
subsidence equipment to reduce loading.
Scour and Scour around the base of the Sand or grout filling of voids followed by rock
build-up of drill platform possibly leading to dumping to protect the repair.
cuttings instability
Material Loss of the concrete material Removal and replacement of infected material
deterioration due to aggressive agents and possibly add epoxy coating.
(sulfate, chloride)
Cracking due to shrinkage Sealing of cracks by epoxy or grout injection.
(after construction)
Cracking, scaling and Sealing of cracks by epoxy or grout injection
crumbling due to freeze and Re-casting concrete (with or without additional
thaw (above water) reinforcement)
Strength loss of the concrete Often this anomaly is accepted partly due to the
material due to sulfate enormous difficulty in accessing the interior of
producing bacteria (primarily the tank. However, no real data exists on the
in oil-storage tanks) strength loss due to sulfate reducing bacteria.
Fabrication Defective construction joints, In case of significant water leakage from
fault minor cracking, surface defective construction joints, repair by injecting
blemishes, remaining metal epoxy filling or cementitious grout may be
attachments, patch repairs from required.
construction, low cover to the The other types of faults may require repair in
reinforcement possibly leading line with similar damage types mentioned above
to spalling in the splash zone in this table.
and possible water ingress
Under-design Cracking due to low Repair may be needed if loss of strength is
reinforcement or prestressing, significant using techniques listed above.
crushing of concrete in rare
cases, failure in the junction
between shafts and cells
8.10 Overview of Other Mitigation Methods
As shown in Figure 61 in Section 7.1 there were several possible outcomes of an evaluation and
assessment outlines. These included:
●● acceptable as-is;
●● specific inspection;
●● load reduction;
●● strengthening or repair; and
●● change of operational procedures.
In addition to inspection, load reduction, strengthening and repair, there are other mitigation
methods that can fall under the heading of “change of operational procedures”. These are often
used when strengthening and repair are difficult or too expensive or a short-term solution is
needed. These mitigation methods are generally classified in standards such as API RP-2SIM
(API 2014), NORSOK N-006 (Standard Norge 2015) and NORSOK N-005 (Standard Norge 2017).
These methods generally consist of exposure reduction (exposure to personnel and the environ-
ment) and likelihood reduction. The following mitigations can be used for exposure reduction:
●● production shut down in severe events;
●● de-manning (temporarily in forecasted events or permanently);
●● operational limitation changes linked to redefined safe operating conditions (e.g. visiting vessel
sizes, sea-states, weight, centre of gravity, draft, trim, ballast, mooring pretension);
●● reduction of the environmental consequences of a structural failure (including such as sub-sur-
face safety valves, reducing hydrocarbon storage, removing or re-routing gas flow lines, plugging
of abandoned wells); and
●● storm and hurricane preparedness (evacuation prior to severe events, safe shut in, secure loose
objects and equipment that could become projectiles).
In some standards, post-event assessment by identifying and inspecting critical members and
joints are mentioned as a possible mitigation. For likelihood reduction such standards typically
describe inspection, load reduction, strengthening and repair activities as described earlier.
Regulation in some parts of the world allows for the use of risk reduction processes based on an
ALARP approach (As Low As Reasonable Practicable). In this, a comparison is made between the
benefits of additional risk reduction measures beyond the minimum required by regulation and
the cost of undertaking these measures. This approach is relevant to the assessment of existing
damaged structures. For example, depending on the circumstances de-manning under severe
storm conditions would represent an appropriate risk reduction.
Decommissioning or re-use of installations is a final option if repair, strengthening and other
mitigation methods fail to provide a safe structure. Often the platform will stop production and be
left in a “cold-state” or “light-house mode” until the actual decommissioning takes place. In this
“cold-state”, inspection and repair may still be necessary as the structure needs to retain sufficient
integrity to allow for a safe removal. Re-use includes, for example, the addition of wind turbines
onto the structure which is being considered. The US rigs to reef programme made use of toppled
structures on the seabed to create a habitat for marine life.
Section 8.6 is to some extent based on DNVGL report for Petroleum Safety Authority (DNVGL 2019)
and MSL (2004). Section 8.9 is to some extent based on ACI (1998) and DNVGL (2019).
References
ABS (2018), “Guidance Notes on Cathodic Protection of Offshore Structures”, American Bureau of
Shipping, New York, US.
ACI (1998), “Guide to Underwater Repair of Concrete ACI 546.2R-98”, Reported by ACI Committee
546. American Concrete Institute.
ACI (2016), “ACI 562-16 Code Requirements for Assessment, Repair, and Rehabilitation of Existing
Concrete Structures and Commentary”, American Concrete Institute.
API (2008), API RP-2I In-Service Inspection of Mooring Hardware for Floating Structures, Third Edition,
API (2014), API RP-2SIM Recommended Practice for Structural Integrity Management of Fixed Offshore
Atteya, M., Mikkelsen, O., Dimitrios, G.P. and Ersdal, G. (2020), “Crack Arresting with Crack
Deflecting Holes in Steel Plates”, In Proceedings of the ASME 39th International Conference on
Ocean, Offshore and Artic Engineering (OMAE 2020), Fort Lauderdale, Florida, US. Paper number
OMAE2020-19358.
Bahadori, A. (2014), Cathodic Corrosion Protection Systems—Guide for Oil and Gas Industries, Gulf
Professional Publishing, Elsevier Waltham, Massachusetts, US.
Belzona (2020), “Solutions for Splash Zones”, https://www.belzona.com/en/focus/splash_zones.aspx,
Accessed on 23rd June 2020.
Browne, R.D. (1993), “Underwater Repair”, In Allen, R.T.L., Edwards, S.C. and Shaw, D.N. (1993),
Repair of Concrete Structures, CRC Press.
Bruin, W.M. (1995), “Assessment of the Residual Strength and Repair of Dent-Damaged Offshore Platform
Bracing”, Master Thesis presented at Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, US.
BSSE (2020). https://www.bsee.gov/site-page/master-list-of-tap-projects-0 . Visited 29th June 2020.
BSI (1984), BS 6319-8:1984 Testing of Resin and Polymer/Cement Compositions for Use in Construction.
Method for the Assessment of Resistance to Liquids”, British Standardisation Institute. London, UK.
BSI (1990), BS 6319-3:1990 Testing of Resin and Polymer/Cement Compositions for Use in Construction.
Methods for Measurement of Modulus of Elasticity in Flexure and Flexural Strength, British
Standardisation Institute, London, UK.
BSI (2005), BS 5400-5 Steel, Concrete and Composite Bridges—Code of Practice for Design of Composite
Bridges, British Standardisation Institute, London, UK.
Campbell-Allen, D. and Roper, H. (1991), Concrete Structures—Materials, Maintenance and Repair,
Longman Singapore Publishers, Singapore.
Clarke, J.D., Sharp, J.V. and Bowditch M. (1986), “An Underwater Adhesive-Based Repair Method for
Offshore Structures”, Conference on Inspection, Maintenance and Repair, Aberdeen, 1986.
Clarke, S. (2020), Private communication.
Department of Energy (1977), First Edition Guidance Notes for the Design and Construction of Offshore
Structures, Department of Energy, HMSO, London, UK.
Department of Energy (1984), Third Edition Guidance Notes for the Design and Construction of Offshore
Structures, Department of Energy, HMSO, London, UK.
Department of Energy (1985), Offshore Technology Report OTH 84 202 Grouted Repairs to Steel Offshore
Structures, Performed by Wimpey Laboratories for the Department of Energy. HMSO, London, UK.
Department of Energy (1987a), Offshore Technology Report OTH 87 259 Remaining Life of Defective
Tubular Joints—An Assessment based on Data for Surface Crack Growth in Tubular Joints Tests,
Prepared by Tweed, J.H. and Freeman, J.H., 1987 for the Department of Energy, HMSO, London, UK.
Department of Energy (1987b), Offshore Technology Report OTH 87 278 Remaining Life of Defective
Tubular Joints: Det of Crack Growth in UKOSRP II and Implications, Prepared by Tweed, J.H. for
Department of Energy (1988), Offshore Technology Report OTH 88 283 Grouted and Mechanical
Strengthening and Repair of Tubular Steel Offshore Structures, Prepared by Wimpey Offshore
Engineers and Constructors LTD (R.G. Harwood and E.P. Shuttleworth) for the Department of
Energy. HMSO, London, UK.
Department of Energy (1988b), Offshore Technology Report OTH 88 289 Grouts and Grouting for
Construction and Repair of Offshore Structures—A Summary Report, HMSO, London, UK.
Department of Energy (1988c), Offshore Technology Report OTH 87 250 Repair of Major Damage to the
Prestressed Concrete Tower of Offshore Structures, Prepared by Wimpey Laboratories for the
Department of Energy (1989), OTH 89 307 Fatigue Performance of Repaired Tubular joints, Prepared by
the Welding Institute (P.J. Tubby) for the Department of Energy, HMSO, London, UK.
Department of Energy (1989b), Offshore Technology Report OTH 89 314 Residual and Fatigue Strength
of Grout Filled Damaged Tubular Members, HMSO, London, UK.
Department of Energy (1989c), OTH 87 248 Concrete in the Ocean Programme—Coordinating Report on
the Whole Programme, HMSO, London, UK.
Department of Energy (1990), Offshore Technology Report OTH 90 318 Assessment of Materials for
Repair of Damaged Concrete Underwater, Prepared by University of Dublin (S.H. Perry) and
Imperial College of Science and Technology (J.M. Holmyard) for the Health and Safety Executive
Department of Energy (1992), Offshore Technology Report OTH 92 368 Fatigue Life Enhancement of
Tubular Joints by Grout Injection, HMSO, London, UK.
Department of Energy (1992b), OTH 89 298 Scaling of Underwater Concrete Repair Materials, Prepared
by University of Dublin (S.H. Perry) and Imperial College of Science and Technology
(J.M. Holmyard) for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), HMSO, London, UK.
DNVGL (2015), DNVGL-RP-C301 Design, Fabrication, Operation and Qualification of Bonded Repair of
Steel Structures, DNVGL, Høvik, Norway.
DNVGL (2016), Recommended Practice DNVGL-RP-C203 Fatigue Design of Offshore Steel Structures,
DNVGL, Høvik, Norway.
DNVGL (2019), Reparasjonsmetoder for bærende konstruksjoner, Report for the Norwegian Petroleum
Safety Authority, DNVGL, Høvik, Norway (in Norwegian).
El-Reedy, M.A. (2019), Assessment, Evaluation, and Repair of Concrete, Steel, and Offshore Strucutres,
CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, Florida, US.
Ellinas, C.P. (1984), “Ultimate Strength of Damaged Tubular Bracing Members”, Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 110, No. 2.
EN (2005), EN 1504-3:2005 Products and Systems for the Protection and Repair of Concrete Structures—
Definitions, Requirements, Quality Control and Evaluation of Conformity—Part 3: Structural and
Non-Structural Repair, European Standardisation organisation.
Energo (2006), “Assessment of Fixed Offshore Platform Performance in Hurricanes Andrew, Lili and
Ivan”, MMS Project no 549, Energo 2006.
Energo (2007), “Assessment of Fixed Offshore Platform Performance in Hurricanes Katrina and Rita”,
MMS project no 578, Energo 2007.
Energo (2010), “Assessment of Fixed Offshore Platform Performance in Hurricanes Gustav and Ike”,
MMS project no 642. Energo 2010.
Equinor (2019), “Integritetsstyring på en aldrende FPSO med begrenset POB - Utvikling av sprekker, samsvar med
analyser og utfordrende utbedringer”, Presentation at PSA Structural Meeting, August 2019 (In Norwegian).
Fisher, John W., Barthelemy, B. M., Mertz, D. R., and Edinger, J. A. (1980), “Fatigue Behavior of
Full-Scale Welded Bridge Attachments”, National Cooperative Highway Research Program
(NCHRP) Report 227, National Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, US.
Fisher, John W., Jin, Jain, Wagner, David C., and Yen, Ben T. (1990), “Distortion-Induced Fatigue
Cracking in Steel Bridges”. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 336,
National Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, US.
Gibson, D., Paculba, N. and Grey, I. (2010), “Friction Stud Welding Underwater in the Offshore Oil and
Gas Industry”, In International Workshop on the State of the Art Science and Reliability of Underwater
Welding and Inspection Technology, Edited by Liu, S., Olson, D.L., Else, M., Merritt, J. and Cridland,
M. November 17–19, 2010. ABS, Houston, Texas, US.
Haagensen, P.J. and Maddox, S.J. (2006), “IIW Recommendation on Post Weld Improvement of Steel
and Aluminium Structures”, IIW Report XIII-1815-00, International Institute of Welding.
Haagensen, P.J. (1994), Methods for Fatigue Strength Improvements and Repair of Welded Structures,
OMAE1994, ASME.
Hamakareem, M.I. (2020), “Repair of Underwater Concrete Structures—Methods and Procedure”, The
Constructor, https://theconstructor.org/concrete/repair-underwater-concrete.
Hart, P.R., Richardson, I.M. and Nixon, J.H. (2001), “The Effects of Pressure on Electrical Performance
and Weld Bead Geometry in High Pressure GMA Welding”, Welding in the World 45 (11-12)
pp 25–33, London, UK.
Hebor, M.F. (1994), Residual Strength and Epoxy-Based Grout Repair of Corroded Offshore Tubular
Members, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, US.
Hoffmeister, H., Küster, K. and Schafstall, H-G. (1983), “Weld Joint Properties of Medium Strength
Steels after Underwater Wet MIG-Welding by the Water Curtain Process”, Proc. Second Int. Conf. on
Offshore Welded Structures, 16–18 November 1982, London, UK, Published by The Welding
Institute, 1983, pp. 17-1–17-8.
HSE (1997), Offshore Technology Report OTO 96 030 A Review of Adhesive Bonding for Offshore
Structures, Prepared by Professor M.J. Cowling, Glasgow Marine Technology Centre, Glasgow
University for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), HMSO, London, UK.
HSE (1997), Offshore Technology Report OTO 96 057 Repairs of Offshore Installations—Background to
Section 60 of the Guidance Notes, Prepared by Techword Services for the Health and Safety Executive
HSE (2002a), Offshore Technology Report 2000/057 Assessment of Strengthening Clamp from the Viking
Offshore Platform: Phase I, Prepared by the Health and Safety Laboratory for the Health and Safety
Executive (HSE), HMSO, London, UK.
HSE (2002b), Offshore Technology Report 2000/058 Assessment of Strengthening Clamp from the Viking
Offshore Platform: Phase II, Prepared by the Health and Safety Laboratory for the Health and Safety
Executive (HSE), HMSO, London, UK.
HSE (2002c), Research Report 031 Development of Design Guidance for Neoprene-Lined Clamps for
Offshore Application Phase II, Prepared by MSL Engineering Limited for the Health and Safety
HSE (2003a), RR 175 Field Studies of the Effectiveness of Concrete Repairs Phase 1 Report: Desk Study
and Literature Review, Prepared by Mott MacDonald Ltd for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE),
HMSO, London, UK.
HSE (2003b), RR 184 Field Studies of the Effectiveness of Concrete Repairs Phase 3 Report: Inspection of
Sites, Sampling and Testing at Selected Repair Sites, Prepared by Mott MacDonald Ltd for the Health
and Safety Executive (HSE), HMSO, London, UK.
HSE (2003c), RR 185 Field Studies of the Effectiveness of Concrete Repairs Phase 3a Report: An
Investigation of the Performance of Repairs and Cathodic Protection (CP) Systems at the Dartford West
Tunnel, Prepared by Mott MacDonald Ltd for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), HMSO,
London, UK.
HSE (2003d), RR 186 Field Studies of the Effectiveness of Concrete Repairs Phase 4 Report: Analysis of the
Effectiveness of Concrete Repairs and Project Findings, Prepared by Mott MacDonald Ltd for the
Health and Safety Executive (HSE), HMSO, London, UK.
HSE (2003e), RR053 Ship/Platform Collision Incident Database (2001), Prepared by Serco Assurance for
the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), HSE Books, Sudbury, UK.
IACS (1996), Shipbuilding and Repair Quality Standard 47, 1996 (Rev. 1, 1999) Part B, International
IACS (2010), Guidelines for the Survey of Offshore Chain Cable in Use, No. 38, 2010. International
ISO (2016), ISO 4628-3:2016 Paints and Varnishes—Evaluation of Degradation of Coatings,
ISO (2020), Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries—Fixed Steel Offshore Structures, International
Organization for Standardization.
Liu, S., Olson, D.L., Else, M., Merritt, J. and Cridland, M. (2010), “International Workshop on the State
of the Art Science and Reliability of Underwater Welding and Inspection Technology”, November
17–19, 2010. ABS, Houston, Texas, US.
Loh, J.T, Kahlich, J.L. and Broekers, D.L. (1992), “Dented Tubular Steel Members”, EXXON Production
Researh Company Internal Report, Houston, Texas, US.
Loh, J.T. (1991), “Grout-Filled Undamaged and Dented Tubular Steel Members”, EXXON Production
Research Company Internal Report, Houston, Texas, US,
Lotsberg, I. (2016), Fatigue Design of Marine Structures, Cambridge University Press, 2016.
MSL (1995), “Strengthening, Modification and Repair of offshore Installations—Final Report for a
Joint Industry Project,” MSL Document No. C11100R243, MSL Engineering Limited, MSL House,
Sunninghill, Ascot, UK. Also published as MMS TAP project report no. 189.
MSL (1997a), “JIP—Strengthening, Modification and Repair Techniques for Offshore Platforms—
Phase II—Demonstration Trials of Diverless Strengthening and Repair Techniques—Final Report”,
MSL Document no. C15800R025 Rev1, MSL Engineering Limited, MSL House, Sunninghill, Ascot,
UK. Also published as MMS TAP project report no. 273aa.
MSL (1997b), “Development of Grouted Tubular Joint Technology for Offshore Strengthening and
Repair—Draft Final Report”, MSL Document no. C14100R020 Rev1, MSL Engineering Limited, MSL
House, Sunninghill, Ascot, UK. Also published as MMS TAP project report no. 273ab.
MSL (1999), “Subsea Structural Repairs Using Composite Materials—Final Report for a Joint Industry
Project”, MSL Engineering Limited, Doc. Ref. C20200R008, June 1999.
MSL (2004), “Assessment of Repair Techniques for Ageing or Damaged Structures”, Project #502. MSL
Services Corporation, Egham, Surrey, UK.
MTD (1994), Review of Repairs of Structures and Pipelines, MTD report no. 94-102, Marine Technology
Directorate, London, UK.
Nichols, N. and Harif, H.M. (2014), “Use of Platform Response Measurements from On-Line
Monitoring (OLM) System to Verify the Effectiveness of Structural Repairs and Managing On-going
Structural Integrity”, OTC Asia Paper 24947-MS.
Nichols, N. and Khan, R. (2017), “Remediation and Repair of Offshore Structures”, In Encyclopedia of
Maritime and Offshore Engineering, Edited by John Carlton, Paul Jukes and Yoo-Sang Choo. John
Wiley & Sons Inc.
Nixon J.H. (1995), Underwater Repair Technology, Gulf Professional Publishing, 1995.
Ocean Structures (2009), Ageing of Offshore Concrete Structures-Report for Petroleum Safety Authority
Norway, Laurencekirk, Scotland.
Ostapenko, A., Berger, T.W., Chambers, S.L. and Hebor, M.F. (1996), “Corrosion Damage—Effect on
Strength of Tubular Columns with Patch Corrosion”, ATLSS Report No. 96.01. ATLSS Engineering
Reseach Center, Fritz Engineering Laboratory Report No. 508.5, Lehigh University, Bethlehem,
Pennsylvania, US. Also published as MMS report 277.
Paik, J.K. and Thayamballi, A.K. (2007), Ship-Shaped Offshore Installations – Design, Building and
Operation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Paik, J.K. and Melchers, R.E. (2008), Condition Assessment of Aged Structures, Woodhead Publishing.
Patterson, D. and Ricles, J.M (2001), “Structural Integrity Assessment of Corrosion-Damaged Offshore
Tubular Braces Subjected to Inelastic Cyclic Loading”, ATLSS Report No. 01-09, Lehigh University,
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, US. Also published as MMS report 101.
Reynolds, T.J. (2010), “Service History of Wet Welded Repairs and Modifications”, In International
Workshop on the State-of-the-Art Science and Reliability of Underwater Welding and Inspection
Technology, November 17–19, 2010, Houston, Texas, US. Edited by Stephen Liu and David L. Olson.
Richardson, I.M. (1993), “The Influence of Ambient Pressure on Arc Welding Processes”, Int. Institute
of Welding Doc. 212-828-93, Proc. Of IIW Study Group 212 Seminar, pp. 43–68, Delftse Uitgevers
Maatschappij.
Ricles, J., Gillum, T. and Lamport, W (1992), “Residual Strength and Grout Repair of Dented Offshore
Tubular Bracing”, ATLSS Report No. 92-14, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, US.
Ricles J. M., Bruin W. M., Sooi T. K., Hebor M. F. and Schonwetter P. C. (1995), “Residual Strength
Assessment and Repair of Damaged Offshore Tubulars”, OTC: Offshore Technology Conference
Houston, Texas, US.
Ricles, J.M., Bruin, W.M. and Sooi, T.K. (1997), “Repair of Dented Tubular Columns—Whole Column
Approach”, ATLSS Reports, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, US. Also published as
MMS TAP report 101.
Rolfe, S. T. and Barsom, John M. (1977), Fracture and Fatigue Control in Structures: Applications of
Fracture Mechanics, First Edition, Prentice Hall.
Rowe, M. and Liu, S. (1999), “Global—JIP—Phase II Final Report”, Published as MMS TAP report 263.
Sharp, J.V. (1993), “Strengthening and Structural Repair of Ageing North Sea Platforms: A Review”,
OMAE 1993.
Sharp J.V., Nixon J.H., Billingham J. and Richardson I. (1997), “A Review of the Technology of
Deepwater Repairs for Offshore Structures”, Boss Conference, 1997.
Sharp J.V., Stacey, A. and Birkinshaw, M. (2002), “Application of Risk Based Acceptance Criteria to
Offshore Structural Integrity Management”, ERA conference, London, 2002.
Simmons, G.G., “Fatigue Enhancement of Undersized Drilled Crack-Arrest Holes”, PhD Thesis at
University of Kansas, US.
SSC (1969), “Recommended Emergency Welding Procedure for Temporary Repairs of Ship Steels,”.
Ship Structure Committee report no 195. Washington, DC, US.
SSC (1993), “Underwater Repair Procedures for Ship Hulls (Fatigue and Ductility of Underwater Wet
Welds)”, Ship Structure Committee Report no 370, Washington, DC, US.
Committee Report no 416, Washington, DC, US.
SSC (2003), “Fatigue Strength and Adequacy of Weld Repairs”, Ship Structure Committee Report no
425, Washington, DC, US.
SSC (2005), “Design Guidelines for Doubler Plate Repairs of Ship Structures”, Ship Structure
Committee Report no 443, Washington, DC, US.
SSC (2012), “Review of Current Practices of Fracture Repair Procedures for Ship Structures”, Ship
Structure Committee Report no 462, Washington, DC, US.
SSC (2015), “Strength and Fatigue Testing of Composite Patches for Ship Plating Fracture Repair”, Ship
Structure Committee Report no 469, Washington, DC, US.
Load-Bearing Structures, edition1; March 2009, Standard Norge, Lysaker, Norway.
Systems. Edition 2, 2017, Standard Norge, Lysaker, Norway.
TWI (2020), https://www.twi-global.com/technical-knowledge/job-knowledge/friction-stir-
welding-147, Visited 30th June 2020.
UEG (1978), “Underwater Inspection of Offshore Installations—Guidance for Designers”, CXJB
Underwater Engineers Report UR10, CIRIA Underwater Engineering Group, London, UK.
Wessex Ressins (2020), https://www.wessex-resins.com/, Visited 28 June 2020.
337
Conclusions and Future Possibilities
9.1 Overview of the Book
Offshore energy production of oil, gas and wind from a large number of fixed and floating struc-
tures is important for the world’s economy. These structures are subject to damage and degrada-
tion such as corrosion, fatigue and impact and the continued safety of these is essential. In addition,
the first offshore oil and gas structures date back to the 1940s and many of these existing structures
are now getting old and have exceeded their original design life.
Underwater inspection and repair are key processes in ensuring these structures continue to
operate safely and effectively. These activities have developed and improved significantly since
the early offshore structures were installed. Initially divers played an important part, but with the
development of ROVs and more recently AUVs, the activity has been done remotely. Standards
and recommended practices have also developed for inspection and repair, particularly with the
introduction of the ISO 19900 (ISO 2007), API RP-2A (API 2014) and NORSOK N-001 (Standard
Norge 2012), as reviewed in Chapter 2 of this book.
Over the years, particularly in the period 1980 to 2000, many research and development pro-
grammes were initiated, mainly in the UK and US, providing valuable information on inspection,
repair and related activities. The results of these programmes have been reviewed in this book to
provide the reader with a background to enable current practice and standards to be better under-
stood. In addition, the purpose of including these has also been to avoid duplication of research.
Inspection methods range from GVI and FMD for the detection of larger defects underwater, to CVI
and NDE methods such as EC, MPI and ACFM that are available for the detection of small damage
and anomalies, such as fatigue cracks. There is sufficient evidence that current inspection methods are
able to detect damage and anomalies at a sufficiently early stage if used effectively. Such early detec-
tion is required to enable repair before more significant damage develops which could lead to struc-
tural collapse. The evaluation and assessment of structure with identified damage and anomalies
has also improved significantly, enabling repair decisions to be made with more confidence.
A range of repair options have been developed with the ability to mitigate most typical damage
occurring in offshore structures and have been extensively used in practice over many years. This
experience has enabled operators to select the most appropriate among the several repair tech-
niques available. In the early years of the offshore industry, such repairs needed to be undertaken
by divers, but the use of remote vehicles to undertake repairs has developed significantly and this
is expected to continue.

Structural monitoring is, in principle, a valuable technique for gaining continuous data on the
condition and behaviour of structures. Natural frequency monitoring was tried in the early days of
North Sea developments but proved to be limited in being able to detect only large defects in most
offshore fixed structures with the technology available at that time. More recently, structural moni-
toring methods and the related data processing abilities have improved significantly and are now
able to detect and locate defects at a much smaller scale. These techniques have significant benefits
in continuous damage detection and can provide damage alerts for the increasing number of age-
ing offshore structures. These techniques are increasingly being used and are expected to be fur-
ther developed in combination with digital technologies and robots.
9.2 Emerging Technologies
The loading and response on offshore structures are at present, to an increasing extent, monitored in
real-time and all these data are stored and available for the structural integrity engineer. Real-time
detection of damage can be obtained and enhanced by post-processing of monitoring data. These
data can be linked directly to the integrity management database in order to give improved insight
into the safety of the structure and to detect adverse structural changes in real-time. As a result, the
structural engineer may be able to respond even more timely to mitigate or repair the structure.
Appropriate (real-time) data processing algorithms can link these measurements to models that
recognise damage and anomalies and predict the condition of the structure. In many cases these
analyses have been done retrospectively, requiring manual transfer of data to the shore and this
time lag limits the value of such structural health monitoring systems. However, the ideal is that
these analyses are done in real-time. More recently, monitoring devices that include wireless col-
lection and transfer of data to the shore have been introduced making it possible to provide such
real-time damage detection. Monitoring records are stored remotely (e.g. cloud) where they are
easily accessible for any structural engineer involved.
This monitoring data can be used to calibrate structural analysis models (modal frequencies
from accelerometer monitoring and stress levels from measured stresses) before significant dam-
age occurs. Computer algorithms can be established so that regression analysis can be performed,
estimating the relationship between different parameters (load and responses). Based on such a
setup, the analysis can be used to predict anomalies and damage in a structure more or less in real
time. One possible method is the machine learning algorithm (recurrent neural network) that can
be used to establish the necessary methods to detect such anomalies and damage. Neural networks
are also a computer technique that is commonly used for feature extraction, pattern recognition
and classification. Its capability of recognising patterns in a database is especially useful. The neu-
ral network’s ability to learn the correlations between the input and output can be a very useful
method for identifying changes in the structural behaviour.
When using these emerging technologies, it is vital to have a clear idea of:
●● which failure modes of the structure are critical;
●● which damage and anomalies will precede such failure modes; and
●● how and what to monitor to gain early information about such damage and anomalies.
A benefit is that the results from traditional inspection and surveillance can be used in these
computerised algorithms as an addition to the continuous monitoring data.
The emergence of advanced monitoring techniques and wireless sensors (Internet of Things)
can influence how structures are managed in the future. Embedding intelligent sensors and
Conclusions and Future Possibilities 339
3D design
Documentation
Machine learning
Data Real-time operation data and artificial intelligence
algorithms
Gateway
Sensors
Data integration and

Wireless sensor network Digital twin
analytics
Figure 116 Illustration of a digital twin.
computer algorithms into managing offshore structures is already underway. 3D computer aided
design (CAD) models with additional data related to structural specifications, the required
inspection intervals, cost estimation and other structural integrity management data are already
in use. In addition to the 3D model, the implementation of real-time data from sensors and data
processing are components needed for creating a so-called digital twin, as illustrated in Figure 116.
The digital twin is designed to replicate a physical structure and improve its operational effi-
ciency, enabling predictive maintenance by utilising sensors. For example, a fixed offshore steel
structure may have a 3D model that includes all data and the documents from fabrication, instal-
lation and operation to allow for an easy retrieval of information for the structural integrity engi-
neer. Further, if the structure has a sufficient number of sensors, these data can be used to train a
machine learning algorithm to understand the behaviour of the structure and predict damage and
anomalies. However, with the large uncertainties that exist, for example in the soil data, the meas-
ured motions and strains are unlikely to be identical to those predicted by a structural analysis
program (e.g. finite element program). As a result, the structural analysis models may need to be
updated based on the measured motions and strains in order to minimise the discrepancy between
the digital twin and the real structure (Thygesen et al. 2018).
The updating of the structural analysis model can be performed by system identification methods
(see e.g. Chantzi and Papadimitriou 2016), which are a process of identification of the natural fre-
quencies and associated mode shapes along with the damping properties of the real structure and
using these as a basis for the digital twin model updating (Thygesen et al. 2018). In addition, the load
models can be similarly calibrated which will even more increase the accuracy between the digital
twin and the real structure. Several engineering houses are developing the necessary software to per-
form such analysis, e.g. Rambøll and DNV GL. Digital twins are at the time of writing in use for a
select number of platforms, for example Apache’s Beryl Alpha platform (Oil & Gas News, June 8, 2020).
Autonomous underwater robots to monitor offshore structures offer a further promising addition
to traditional inspection techniques and structural monitoring. Robot-based autonomous monitor-
ing systems allow for more frequent inspections at a potentially lower cost. Recent advancements in
robotic systems, already in use on bridge structures and electricity pylons, have led to the develop-
ment of so-called swarm robots that can adapt their functionality dynamically and are expected to
bring a radical change in the existing structural monitoring techniques in the near future.
Underwater inspection and integrity management of offshore structures in the future may be
performed by structural monitoring and autonomous underwater robots that detect damage and
anomalies. These may be supported by computer algorithms that predict the location and severity
of the findings. A follow-up repair using autonomous robots is, however, a more difficult step but
developments are also expected in this field.
9.3 Final Thoughts
Based on some 70 years of experience with offshore structures in many different areas of the world,
the standards for design, fabrication, installation and operation of these are well developed. This
conclusion is borne out by the absence of any recent major accidents involving the structure at the
time of writing this book. However, many offshore structures are now ageing and being life
extended, which would be expected to lead to an increasing amount of damage and deterioration.
This is, in particular, already seen on some floating structures but should also be expected to apply
to other types of structures in due course. This anticipated increase in damage and deterioration
should be leading to increased inspections to ensure continuous safe performance of these struc-
tures and will realistically also lead to an increased amount of repairs.
Inspection methods and their deployment are at present well developed and capable of detecting
most expected damage. However, in the need to minimise costs the inspection execution is con-
tinuously optimised using longer intervals between inspections and lower cost inspection methods
(e.g. FMD). The challenge of these approaches is to deal with situations where, for example, mul-
tiple failures occur or failure occurs between inspections. The consequence of this is that damage
may develop into a more serious event that may place the platform at an unnecessary risk. Some
structural engineers are becoming increasingly aware of these challenges but unfortunately, in the
authors view, this is not in general reflected in the industry as a whole. The development of auton-
omous robots, monitoring techniques and digital technology may offer a more cost-effective and
possibly safer route for managing structural integrity.
Taking into account what we have discussed in this book, we feel it would be useful to recom-
mend which key factors should be taken into account when making a structure more suitable for
inspection and repair. At the design stage these are:
●● ensuring that the design allows for all safety-critical parts of the structure to be inspectable and
repairable;
●● building in appropriate and durable monitoring systems enabling early detection of
damage; and
●● ensuring that sufficient redundancy and ductility is built in to provide continuing integrity when
damage begins to accumulate due to ageing.
During operation these are:
●● increased use of monitoring systems enabling early detection of damage;
●● sharing information with other operators of similar structures; and
●● keeping data about the structure accessible and well organised, for example by the use of digital
twins and related damage identification algorithms.
The continued safety of offshore structures is an increasingly important issue with underwater
inspection and repair being acknowledged key activities, particularly with the increasing need for
life extension of offshore structures. Ultimately, the safety of personnel working on these
Conclusions and Future Possibilities 341
structures is paramount and the awareness of damage types and anomalies, their detection and the
possible repair of these plays a vital part in ensuring continued safety. It is hoped that this book will
contribute to this understanding so that the structures are managed appropriately and safely.
R
eferences
API (2014), API RP-2A Recommended Practice for Planning, Design and Constructing Fixed Offshore
Chatzi, E. and Papadimitriou, C. (2016), Identification Methods for Structural Health Monitoring,
Springer.
International Organization for Standardization.Oil & Gas News, June 8, 2020.
Thygesen, U.T., Jepsen, M.S., Vestemark, J., Dollerup, N. and Pedersen, A. (2018), “The True Digital
Twin Concept for Fatigue Re-Assessment of Marine Structures”, In Proceedings of the ASME 2018
37th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, OMAE2018, June 17–22,
2018, Madrid, Spain. OMAE2018-77915.
Standard Norge (2012) NORSOK N-001: Integrity of Offshore Structures, Rev. 8, September 2012,
Standard Norge, Lysaker, Norway.
342
Index
a Bows 2, 37, 38, 41–42, 49, 50, 52, 53, 87–89, 90,
Acoustic emission xv, 84, 90, 107, 109, 141, 142, 100, 101, 118, 126, 127, 205, 206, 213, 219, 307
144, 146, 149, 150, 151–152, 153, 157 BS 7910 195, 198, 199, 216, 224, 226, 227, 228
Acoustic fingerprinting 141, 150, 155, 158 BSI PAS 55 14
Adhesives 241, 249, 257–260, 273, 278, 285, 288, BSEE see Bureau of Safety and Environment
290, 294, 306–307, 315, 316, 317 Enforcement
Alexander L. Kielland accident 2, 4, 41 Buckling 2, 38, 54, 58, 60, 73, 74, 83, 128, 130,
Alternating current frequency measurement 137, 172, 180, 195, 198, 201, 202, 204, 206,
(ACFM) xv, 90, 93, 94, 101, 105, 106, 118, 208, 215, 216, 218, 229, 230, 250, 262, 263,
125, 126, 129, 136, 337 264, 265, 288, 310, 311, 316
Alternating current potential difference Bureau of Safety and Environmental
(ACPD) xv, 94, 101, 105, 118, 144 Enforcement (BSEE) 15, 241, 265
Anodes 19, 30, 32, 38, 39, 40, 41, 45, 53, 68, 69, Burr grinding 254–256, 295–297
70, 83, 100, 101, 102, 109, 111–112, 118, 126,
127, 128, 130, 133, 135, 164, 168, 169, 172, c
175, 181, 183, 189, 231, 240, 275, 287, 290, Caisson on steel jacket structures 7, 32, 53, 54,
295, 304, 307, 317, 318–319 56, 73, 116, 127, 129, 172, 214, 229, 259,
API RP‐2A 14, 15, 16, 18–21, 23, 52, 53, 54, 306, 307
55, 89, 90, 91, 93, 128, 174, 209, 215, Caissons (storage cells) on concrete platforms
225, 337 (GBS) xv, 9, 10, 29, 32, 47, 68, 73, 75, 128,
API RP‐2FSIM 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 34, 121, 145, 130, 131, 132, 184, 220, 221, 227, 231
163, 183, 225 Capacity of damaged members 187–232
API RP‐2I 24, 25, 183, 320 Carbonation of concrete 68, 96, 97, 98, 99
API RP‐2MIM 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 24, 25–26, 34, Cathodic protection (CP) xvi, 9, 11, 19, 20, 21, 23,
44, 62–63, 64, 121, 135, 163, 183, 226 25, 29, 30, 31, 32, 38, 39, 40, 42, 45, 46, 53, 64,
API RP‐2SIM 14, 15, 18–21, 34, 121, 145, 163, 67, 69, 70, 86, 100, 102, 109, 111–112, 113, 118,
225, 329 121, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 135,
API RP‐2SK 24, 25 164, 168, 174, 175, 181, 184, 189, 194, 195, 201,
Autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) 81, 230, 231, 250, 252, 290, 294, 315, 317, 319, 327
112–116, 337 see also Anodes
Certification regime 16, 86
b Chain link xvii, 27, 43, 64, 73, 74, 135, 136, 137,
Bathtub curve 4, 5, 176, 177, 179 228, 229, 230, 320

Index 343
Chemical analysis 96 Crack

Chloride ingress or penetration 30, 32, 33, 67, growth 70, 83, 86, 89, 92, 93, 144, 150, 151,
68, 73, 74, 97, 98, 99, 100, 102, 108–109, 130, 153, 157, 176, 189–195, 197, 217, 224,
131, 132, 133, 231, 232, 240, 285, 321, 323, 226–230, 254, 257, 269, 288, 289, 300
324, 326 initiation 40, 81, 151, 179, 256, 261, 297,
Clamps xvi, 89, 103, 172, 197, 240, 241, 242, 246, 300, 306
248, 249, 251, 252–254, 261–263, 265–276, size 94, 179, 188, 189, 195, 197
290–294, 303, 304, 306, 307–310, 312, through thickness (steel) 50, 51, 54, 90, 92,
315–317, 318, 319 106, 107, 125, 126, 127, 129, 153, 156, 190,
grouted 89, 246, 261, 266, 272, 273, 274, 191–199, 228, 254–257, 265, 303, 314, 325
292, 307–310 Cracking
friction 248, 307–310 concrete 28–33, 67–69, 75, 100, 131, 132, 133,
Class certificate 15, 182 221–223, 231–232, 277–285, 320–328
Close visual inspection (CVI) xvi, 20, 21, 23, 25, Creep 136, 270, 325
27, 28, 30, 52, 53, 54, 81, 86, 87, 90, 91, 92, CSWIP 85, 121
100–103, 116, 118, 121, 125, 126, 127, 129, Cullen report
130, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 164, 168, Piper Alpha disaster 16, 149
169, 174, 175, 181, 182, 184, 193, 337
Coatings 11, 21, 23, 25, 30, 32, 33, 38, 39, d
40, 60, 64, 68, 75, 81, 83, 101, 102, 105, 106, Damage tolerance 163, 174, 178
107, 111, 112, 113, 118, 127, 135, 164, 171, Damaged strength ratio (DSR) 178, 210, 216
172, 181, 184, 201, 223, 226, 240, 250, 277, Degradation mechanisms 23, 26, 41, 42, 59, 69,
284, 287, 290, 315, 316, 317, 318, 326, 166, 180, 285
327, 328 Delamination in concrete 28, 29, 30, 33, 73, 98,
Competency 11, 117–124, 291 99, 102, 108, 118, 130, 132, 133, 184, 223, 231,
Concrete 240, 307, 320, 324, 325, 327
caissons (storage cells) xv, 9, 10, 29, 32, 47, Dents 2, 37, 38, 41–42, 44, 49, 50, 52, 53, 56, 73,
68, 73, 75, 128, 130, 131, 132, 184, 220, 221, 81, 83, 87–89, 90, 100, 101, 103, 118, 126, 127,
227, 231 129, 137, 205–208, 213, 219, 229, 250,
chloride ingress and penetration 30, 32, 33, 260–263, 292, 293, 307, 316
67, 68, 73, 74, 97, 98, 99, 100, 102, 108–109, Detailed visual inspection (DVI) xvi, 30, 96,
130, 131, 132, 133, 231, 232, 240, 285, 321, 100–103, 129, 130, 133, 134, 136, 137, 156, 168
323, 324, 326 Department of Energy (UK) xiii, 14, 16, 27, 31,
cover 28, 31, 33, 39, 67, 68, 74, 75, 96, 97, 98, 44, 57, 66, 67, 75, 80, 82, 84, 85, 86, 93, 94, 96,
99, 100, 109, 130, 131, 133, 221, 222, 232, 240, 99, 103, 110, 130, 131, 132, 142, 143, 144, 146,
320, 326, 327, 328 189, 190, 191, 193, 195, 209, 218, 220, 221,
damage types 66–70, 75 241, 247, 248, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 254,
Concrete in the Oceans programme (CiO) 44, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 277, 278, 279,
66–68, 82, 96–100, 103, 130, 131, 220–221, 280, 281, 285, 295, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311,
221–222, 279 323, 325, 326
Conductor frames 10, 106, 126 Department of Energy guidance notes 14, 16,
Corrosion 27, 31–32, 80, 82, 86–87, 241, 247–248, 251
allowance 23, 24, 39, 40, 45, 64, 188, Design fatigue factor (DFF) 178
250, 318 Design life xvii, 3, 38, 39, 61, 111, 142, 150, 165,
fatigue 42, 45, 288 172, 191, 196, 239, 250, 318, 319, 337
pitting 40, 45, 53, 60, 64, 70, 83, 84, 90, 100, Diver, diving 46, 80, 81, 85, 86, 87, 90, 91, 94, 96,
101, 112, 118, 134, 135, 215, 218, 229, 268, 100, 105, 107, 112, 113, 114, 118, 119, 120,
286, 287, 318 121, 125, 127, 134, 142, 151, 161, 162, 163,
stress corrosion 288 168, 169, 188, 265, 266, 267, 284, 300, 303,
CP see Cathodic protection 304, 305, 319, 337
344 Index
DNV, DNVGL (Det Norske Veritas) 15, 80, 125, Fatigue analysis 165, 176, 178, 180, 215, 229,
172, 176, 180, 182, 199, 221, 241, 248, 253, 308
329, 339 Fatigue crack growth see Crack growth
DNVGL‐OS‐E301 25 Fatigue damage xvi, 21, 32, 46, 53, 66, 153, 180,
DNVGL‐CG‐0051 100 181, 183, 225, 239, 261, 288, 293
DNVGL‐OS‐C102 226 Fatigue SN design curves 167, 178, 194, 226,
DNV‐OSS‐102 145, 146, 149, 226 228, 302
DNVGL RP‐C201 313 Fatigue limit state (FLS) xvi, 181
DNVGL RP‐C203 295 Fatigue stress concentrations see Stress
DNVGL RP‐C208 209, 224 concentration factors
DNVGL RP‐C210 91, 95, 105, 125, 126, 180 Fatigue utilisation index (FUI) xvi, 146
DNVGL RP‐C301 327 Finite element analysis (FEA) 142, 154, 195,
Drill cuttings 29, 45, 50, 68, 74, 75, 107, 127, 196, 197, 198, 199, 202, 204, 206, 215, 216,
128, 129, 131, 137, 229, 232, 328 217, 224, 226, 249, 252, 262, 263, 264, 267,
Drones 113, 116, 127, 131, 133, 167 288, 290, 301, 339
Dropped objects 22, 23, 27, 31, 38, 41, 45, 46, 47, Flaw xvi, 54, 81, 83, 84, 103, 106, 122, 216, 227,
49, 50, 51, 52, 68, 69, 73, 84, 87, 89, 92, 100, 228, 257
129, 130, 131, 132, 137, 153, 205, 210, 211, Flooded member detection (FMD) xvi, 20, 23,
220, 221, 229, 231, 240, 244, 246, 250, 252, 54, 81, 87, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95, 101, 106–108,
280, 294, 320, 322, 327 113, 118, 125, 126, 127, 129, 130, 146, 150,
DSR see Damaged strength ratio 153, 156, 164, 169, 174, 175, 181, 182, 192,
Ductility 42, 58, 265, 286, 304, 340 193, 195, 196, 197, 213, 340
Duty holder xvi, 16, 119 Floating production, storage and offloading vessel
Dye penetrant 103 (FPSO) xvi, 9, 39, 40, 62, 148, 250
Floating storage and offloading units
e (FSO) xvi, 8
Eddy current (EC) xvi, 81, 90, 92, 93, 94, 101, 102, Floating storage unit (FSU) xvi, 8
105, 118, 125, 126, 129, 136, 144, 168, 169, 337 Foundations 7, 8, 9, 29, 31, 68, 69, 96, 98, 128,
Embrittlement 38, 42, 70, 72, 74, 111, 112, 130, 131, 146, 152, 153, 170, 211, 223
230, 317 Fracture mechanics 176, 189, 195, 197, 198, 215,
Epoxy (injection, resins, repair) 31, 32, 39, 40, 216, 224, 226, 249, 265
67, 112, 131, 231, 232, 248, 259, 263, 264, 265, Fracture toughness 198, 216, 227, 269
267, 273, 277, 278, 279, 280, 282, 283, 284, Friction clamps 248, 307–310
285, 288, 318, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326,
327, 328 g
Erosion 2, 31, 42–43, 60, 67, 72, 73, 75, 106, 131, Gamma ray backscatter 99
133, 223, 232, 328 Gauges 28, 41–42, 52, 90, 142, 145, 146, 151,
Evacuated, evacuation 16, 54, 55, 214, 329 154, 158
Exposure tests, concrete 221 GBS (Gravity Based Structures) 9, 31, 67, 128,
130, 168, 172
f General visual inspection (GVI) xvii, 19, 21, 23,
Fabrication 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 67, 80, 81, 84, 87, 89, 90, 92,
errors, defects and fault 223, 224, 230, 232, 99, 100–103, 113, 116, 118, 125, 127, 128, 129,
249, 273, 290, 317, 328 130, 131, 132, 133, 135, 136, 137, 164, 168,
and repair quality 40, 225, 248, 301, 302, 303, 169, 174, 175, 181, 182, 183, 184, 189, 193,
304, 305, 307, 308, 321, 322, 323, 324 196, 209, 246, 337
Failure assessment diagram (FAD) 189, 216, Gulf of Mexico (GoM) 1, 4, 52, 54, 79, 91, 174,
227, 228 212, 273, 304
Failure rate 4, 5, 6, 47, 62, 165 Gouges 37, 38, 53, 62, 87, 320
Index 345
Grind repair 21, 121, 169, 197, 202, 240, 248, in‐service inspection 2, 4, 16, 18, 22, 24, 106,
254–257, 271, 272, 273, 274, 286, 290, 292, 119, 120, 124, 145, 161, 170, 173, 174,
293, 294, 295–297, 298, 301, 302, 313, 181, 225
314, 320 inspectability 340
Grout xvii, 7, 30, 31, 32, 43, 47, 54, 68, 69, 89, intervals 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27, 33, 80, 83,
107, 127, 128, 131, 154, 164, 170, 202, 220, 163, 165, 166, 174, 175, 177, 178, 179, 183,
225, 240, 241, 242, 246, 248, 250–254, 257, 184, 196, 199, 200, 201, 222, 339, 340
259, 260–274, 276–280, 282, 283, 284, 285, planning 3, 16, 19, 20, 21, 25, 33, 39, 52, 53, 85,
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 307, 308, 309, 86, 89–93, 119, 120, 121, 124, 125, 161–186,
310–312, 315, 316, 317, 318, 321, 322, 325, 188, 189, 200, 209, 240, 250, 273, 319
327, 328 risk informed and risk based 33, 59, 60, 165,
Grouted connections 43, 128, 154, 250, 251, 253, 166, 177, 180
257, 259, 273, 291 strategy, 14, 21, 23, 33, 34, 120, 161, 172, 174 see
Grouted clamps 89, 246, 261, 266, 272, 273, 274, also inspection planning
292, 307–310 updating 176, 188
Inspection methods
h acoustic emission xv, 90, 109, 141, 142, 144,
Half‐cell 109, 110, 111 146, 149, 150, 151–152, 157
Hammer peening 240, 272, 273, 288, 289, 290, air gap monitoring 145, 148, 150, 152, 157
292, 294, 297–298 alternating current field measurement
Health and Safety Executive (HSE) 14, 15, 24, (ACFM) xv, 90, 93, 94, 101, 105, 106, 118,
49, 50, 59, 61, 62, 63–65, 65, 66, 71, 85, 87–89, 125, 126, 129, 136, 337
94, 106, 113, 117, 119, 146–150, 156, 175–176, alternation current potential drop (ACPD)
177, 189, 191, 193, 195, 199, 220–221, 241, xv, 94, 101, 105, 118, 144
247–248, 267–269, 270, 279, 280, close visual xvi, 20, 21, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30, 52,
281, 285–286 53, 54, 81, 86, 87, 90, 91, 92, 100–103, 116,
Design and Construction Regulations 118, 121, 125, 126, 127, 129, 130, 132, 133,
(DCR) 16, 27 134, 135, 136, 137, 164, 168, 169, 174, 175,
HSG65 16, 18, 119 181, 182, 184, 193, 337
Safety Case Regulations xviii, 16 eddy current xvi, 81, 90, 92, 93, 94, 101, 102,
High strength steel xvii, 38, 42, 43, 68, 70, 105, 118, 125, 126, 129, 136, 144, 168,
74, 111, 112, 130, 197, 198, 220, 230, 289, 320 169, 337
Hole drilling 197, 254, 255, 256, 288, 290, 294, flooded member xvi, 20, 23, 54, 81, 87, 90, 91,
298–300, 314 92, 93, 95, 101, 106–108, 113, 118, 125, 126,
HSE see Health and Safety Executive 127, 129, 130, 146, 150, 153, 156, 164, 169,
Hull 4, 5, 8–9, 18, 21, 40, 72, 73, 74, 104, 106, 174, 175, 181, 182, 192, 193, 195, 196, 197,
111, 133–137, 145, 151, 152, 168, 172, 182, 213, 340
215, 217, 218, 250, 275, 286, 312, 318, 319 general visual (GVI) xvii, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25, 28,
Hydrogen embrittlement 42, 70, 72, 74, 111, 29, 30, 67, 80, 81, 84, 87, 89, 90, 92, 99,
112, 130, 230, 317 100–103, 113, 116, 118, 125, 127, 128, 129,
Hydrogen induced cracking (HIC, HISC) 130, 131, 132, 133, 135, 136, 137, 164, 168,
xvii, 42, 303 169, 174, 175, 181, 182, 183, 184, 189, 193,
196, 209, 246, 337
i leak detection 81, 129, 136, 142, 146, 149, 150,
Inspection 152, 153, 158
baseline 4, 5, 19, 22, 27, 163, 166, 174, 177, 195 magnetic particle (MPI) xvii, 24, 27, 51, 52,
calendar based 6, 21, 163, 165, 166, 180, 80, 81, 84, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 101, 102,
181, 183 104–106, 118, 121, 125, 126, 129–130, 136,
condition based 6, 166 174, 183, 248, 295, 337
346 Index
Inspection methods (cont’d) Mobile offshore drilling units (MODU) xvi, xvii,
strain monitoring 25, 28, 136, 142, 145, 146, 6, 15, 25, 37, 55, 56, 87, 134, 146, 173
150, 151, 154–155, 157, 158, 268, 339 Monitoring
ultrasonic testing (UT) xix, 21, 51, 52, 80, 81, acoustic emission xv, 84, 90, 107, 109, 141,
84, 86, 90, 91, 93, 94, 99, 101, 103–104, 107, 142, 144, 146, 149, 150, 151–152, 153, 157
116, 121, 122, 129, 130, 132, 133, 136, 144, acoustic fingerprinting 141, 150, 155, 158
155, 174, 268, 297 air gap monitoring 145, 148, 150, 152, 157
ISO 16587 145 natural frequency (vibration) xix, 136, 141,
ISO 19900 337 142, 143, 146–150, 153–154, 156, 158, 225,
ISO 19901–9 14, 17, 18, 22, 23, 119, 128, 163, 316, 338
181, 225 global positioning system (GPS) 129, 137,
ISO 19902 14, 16, 17, 18, 22–23, 27, 33, 34, 52, 141, 152, 157, 164
111, 119, 121, 128, 145, 163, 174, 181, 188, leak detection 81, 129, 136, 142, 146, 149, 150,
189, 204, 205, 207, 208, 211, 215, 225, 228, 152, 153, 158
229, 250, 289, 308, 310, 311, 312 strain monitoring 25, 28, 136, 142, 145, 146,
ISO 19903 27–31, 75, 119, 184 150, 151, 154–155, 157, 158, 268, 339
ISO 19904–1 18, 183 Mooring synthetic rope 61–65, 133–137
ISO 2394 163 Mooring chain 8, 9, 24, 25, 26, 27, 42, 43, 56,
61–65, 70, 71, 73, 74, 106, 133–137, 141, 150,
j 155, 158, 182, 183, 228–230, 319–320
Jacket see fixed steel offshore structure Mooring wire 8, 9, 26, 43, 61–65, 73, 133–137,
Jack‐up xvii, 6, 7, 8, 42, 74, 112, 130, 197, 205, 230 228, 229, 319–320
k n
Kenter shackle, Kenter link xvii, 27, 135, 320 Non‐destructive testing (NDT) and non‐
Kielland see Alexander L. Kielland accident destructive examination (NDE) xvii, 19, 23,
27, 51, 79–140, 144, 146, 151, 152, 168, 174,
l
177, 181, 182, 298, 300, 337
Leak detection 81, 129, 136, 142, 146, 149, 150,
NORSOK N‐001 17, 337
152, 153, 158
NORSOK N‐003 17
Limit state xv, xvi, xvii, xix, 47, 209, 210, 219,
NORSOK N‐004 17, 203, 204, 207, 208, 211
227, 316
NORSOK N‐005 17, 18, 23–24, 27, 32–33, 81,
m 119, 128, 145, 163, 183, 184, 329
Magnetic particle inspection (MPI) xvii, 24, 27, NORSOK N‐006 17, 128, 162, 225, 226,
51, 52, 80, 81, 84, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 101, 102, 249, 329
104–106, 118, 121, 125, 126, 129–130, 136, Norwegian Maritime Directorate (NMD) and
174, 183, 248, 295, 337 Norwegian Maritime Authority (NMA) 25
Marine fouling and growth 19, 21, 31, 38, 44, Norwegian Petroleum Directorate
45, 47, 54, 70–72, 74, 85, 86, 87, 90, 99, 100, (NPD) 17, 163
101, 102, 107, 118, 127, 129, 130, 133, 134,
135, 137, 163, 164, 168, 171, 175, 181, 182, o
229, 232, 240, 268, 277, 278, 290, 294, 317, Oil storage cells xv, 9, 10, 29, 32, 47, 68, 73, 75,
318, 323, 328 128, 130, 131, 132, 184, 220, 221, 227, 231
Microbiologically induced cracking (MIC), Oxygen concentration and availability 38, 39,
sulphate reducing bacteria (SRB) xvii, 30, 64, 70, 75, 97, 99, 109, 131, 231, 254
64, 68, 70, 74, 75, 129, 133, 137, 229, 232
Mineral Management Service (MMS) 15, 47–49, p
53, 56, 173–174, 201, 209–214, 241, 263, 265, Paint and painting 40, 106, 112, 131, 250, 314
270, 273–274 Passive fire protection (PFP) xviii, 101, 106
Index 347
Peening 240, 272, 273, 288, 289, 290, 292, Repair corrosion protection system 319–320
294, 297–298 Repair clamps and sleeves xvi, 89, 103, 172, 197,
Performance standards 171 240, 241, 242, 246, 248, 249, 251, 252–254,
Petroleum Safety Authority (PSA) 17, 68–69, 261–263, 265–276, 290–294, 303, 304, 306,
113, 119, 178, 248–250 307–310, 312, 315–317, 318, 319
regulations 17, 119 Repair of concrete by injection 242, 277, 278,
Piles 6, 7, 8, 38, 43, 49, 57, 74, 111, 127, 128, 129, 282, 285, 321, 322, 324, 325–326, 328
154, 164, 168, 170, 172, 211, 213, 225, 239, Repair of concrete by material replacement 321,
251, 252, 253, 272, 274–275, 276, 277, 291, 323–325, 327
303, 306, 307 Repair doubler plates 272, 274, 275, 287, 288,
Piper Alpha accident 16, 149 289, 294, 305, 313, 314, 316, 318
Plated structure 155, 215–218, 250, 286–289, Repair grinding 21, 121, 169, 197, 202, 240, 248,
298, 300 254–257, 271, 272, 273, 274, 286, 290, 292,
Potential mapping 31, 109–111 293, 294, 295–297, 298, 301, 302, 313,
Prestressed concrete 9, 30, 31, 68, 69, 73, 74, 314, 320
108, 128, 132, 133, 218–221, 230, 231, 232, Repair grout xvii, 31, 32, 47, 89, 202, 220, 240,
248, 277, 278, 285, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 241, 242, 246, 248, 250–254, 257, 259,
325, 326–328 260–274, 276–280, 282, 283, 284, 285, 290,
Prestressing tendons xviii, 30, 32, 68, 69, 220, 291, 292, 293, 294, 307, 308, 309, 310–312,
248, 278, 285, 326–328 315, 316, 317, 318, 321, 322, 325, 327, 328
Probability of detection (PoD) 52, 91, 93–95, Repair hole drilling 197, 254, 255, 256, 288, 290,
105, 107, 124–126, 163, 167 294, 298–300, 314
PSA see Petroleum Safety Authority Repair mooring systems 319–320
Push‐over analysis xviii, 178, 209–214 Repair peening 240, 272, 273, 288, 289, 290, 292,
294, 297–298
q Repair concrete reinforcement and prestressing
Quality assurance and control 121, 122, 250, tendons 320–322, 326–328
260, 288, 289, 298, 321, 323 Repair welding
friction 290, 294, 301–305, 314–315
r hyperbaric 144, 156, 242, 246, 248, 251,
Rebound hammer (Schmidt hammer) 254–257, 271, 273, 274, 275, 286–289, 290,
33, 98, 99, 102, 104, 108, 118, 130, 132, 133 292, 294, 301–305, 314–315
Redundancy xviii, 11, 57, 127, 136, 144, 147, wet 242, 246, 251, 252, 273, 274, 275,
148, 154, 155, 158, 164, 180, 181, 188, 196, 276, 286–289, 290, 292, 294, 301–305,
200, 211, 225, 229, 230, 240 314–315
Reference electrode 98, 109, 110, 181 Reserve strength ratio (RSR) xviii, 178,
Reinforcement (Concrete) 27–33, 37, 39, 66–69, 209–214
73–75, 96–100, 102, 108–111, 118, 128–133, Residual strength xviii, 57, 58, 178, 201, 202,
183–184, 222, 223, 230–232, 240, 248, 204, 205, 206, 207, 216–218, 228–230, 252,
276–286, 318, 320–328 261, 262, 263, 264
Reliability see structural reliability analysis Residual stress 254, 255, 268, 269, 297–298, 300,
Remote operated vehicles (ROV) xviii, 6, 24, 49, 314, 315
62, 69, 80–81, 85, 87, 90, 91, 92, 102, 103, 104, Risers 7, 23, 25, 53, 56, 73, 111, 116, 127, 129,
105, 106, 107, 111, 112–116, 118, 119, 120, 121, 145, 149, 155, 158, 170, 172, 214, 224, 229,
127, 128, 130, 131, 133, 134, 135, 136, 156, 162, 249, 294, 306
163, 168, 169, 183, 188, 225, 266, 300, 318 Resistivity of concrete 31, 98, 100, 109, 248
Repair adhesives and bonded type repair 241, Risk matrix 165–166
249, 257–260, 273, 278, 285, 288, 290, 294, Robustness xviii, 11, 40, 163, 165, 174, 211,
306–307, 315, 316, 317 212, 213
348 Index
s Sulphate attack 30, 96, 99

Safety critical element (SCE) and Safety and Surveillance and survey xix, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23,
environmental critical elements (SECE) 24, 26, 28, 31, 34, 46, 47, 57, 67, 83, 84, 86, 87,
xviii, 16, 23, 119, 123, 182 92, 96, 98, 99, 102, 108, 111, 118, 128, 135,
Schmidt hammer (rebound hammer) 33, 98, 99, 136, 161, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 180,
102, 104, 108, 118, 130, 132, 133 181, 188, 213, 218, 243, 244, 268, 338 see also
Scour xviii, 19, 22, 29, 33, 38, 45, 54, 68, 69, 74, inspection
84, 96, 100, 101, 118, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131,
133, 135, 137, 163, 164, 171, 175, 181, 221,
t
Tension leg platforms 6, 8, 9, 39, 275
223, 229, 232, 317, 322, 328
Tidal zone 97, 98, 99
Sea‐Gem accident 4
Topside xix, 7, 8, 9, 29, 32, 34, 45, 49, 55, 73, 106,
Semi‐submersible platform 8, 9, 39, 41, 44, 57,
115, 116, 121, 128, 142, 153, 156, 172, 240,
59, 61, 63, 67, 105, 106, 119, 134, 144, 146,
242, 260, 294
148, 151, 152, 172, 180, 205, 215, 216, 248,
Tubular joints and members 15, 93–95, 124,
290, 293, 301, 302, 312
182, 189–215, 228, 248, 250–276, 295, 297,
Ship‐shaped structure 6, 8, 9, 57–59, 105, 106,
298, 300, 306, 308, 309, 312
119, 134, 148, 152, 215, 216, 217, 241, 248,
250, 288, 290, 293, 298, 301, 302 u
Simonet 150, 155 UKOSRP programme 144, 261
S‐N fatigue curves 167, 178, 194, 226, 228, 302 Ultrasonic inspection xix, 21, 51, 52, 80, 81, 84,
Splash zone xix, 9, 23, 24, 28, 29, 31, 32, 38, 39, 86, 90, 91, 93, 94, 99, 101, 103–104, 107, 116,
40, 45, 49, 53, 64, 67, 68, 69, 72, 74, 75, 79, 85, 121, 122, 129, 130, 132, 133, 136, 144, 155,
86, 96, 97, 98, 100, 110, 112, 113, 116–117, 174, 268, 297
118, 126, 127, 130, 131, 133, 142, 163, 164, Ultrasonic peening 297, 314
181, 183, 211, 212, 213, 220, 222, 232, 240,
263, 252, 254, 276, 277, 302, 318, 320, 321, v
324, 326, 327, 328 Visual inspection, see also close visual inspection
Station keeping xix, 6, 18, 25, 137, 152, 182 (CVI), General visual inspection (GVI) and
Stress concentration and stress concentration Detailed visual inspection (DVI) 100–103
factor (SCF) xviii, xix, 31, 40, 46, 58, 196,
201, 215, 219, 224, 253, 261, 265, 279, 288, w
293, 294, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 305, 308, Watertight integrity xix, 6, 18, 39, 75, 152,
310, 312, 314, 315 182, 318
Stress intensity factor 197, 198, 216, 226, 227, Wear 24, 26, 37, 42–43, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 72,
269, 298 73, 129, 133, 134, 135, 137, 223, 229, 232, 317,
Structural integrity management 2, 3, 11, 13–34, 320, 328
119, 121, 123, 128, 135, 145, 161, 162, 163, Welding
167, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 180, 182, friction 290, 294, 301–305, 314–315
183, 184, 191, 222, 338, 339 hyperbaric 144, 156, 242, 246, 248, 251,
Structural monitoring see monitoring 254–257, 271, 273, 274, 275, 286–289, 290,
Structural reliability analysis xix, 165, 292, 294, 301–305, 314–315
166, 176–180 wet 242, 246, 251, 252, 273, 274, 275, 276,
Subsidence xix, 3, 28, 33, 38, 74, 100, 129, 130, 286–289, 290, 292, 294, 301–305, 314–315
133, 152, 162, 170, 171, 224, 229, 232, 249, Wire ropes 8, 9, 26, 43, 61–65, 73, 133–137, 228,
317, 328 229, 319–320

Underwater Inpsection of Offshore Structures

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Underwater Inpsection of Offshore Structures

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Underwater Inpsection of Offshore Structures

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the book about?

What is the book about?

What topics related to offshore structures are discussed in the book?

What topics related to offshore structures are discussed in the book?

Underwater Inspection and

Repair for Offshore Structures

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Cover Design: Wiley

Set in 9.5/12.5pt StixTwoText by SPi Global, Pondicherry, India

1 Introduction to Underwater Inspection and Repair 1

2 Statutory Requirements for Inspection and Repair of Offshore Structures 13

2.5 ­ tandards and Guidance Notes for Concrete Structures 27

3 Damage Types in Offshore Structures 37

3.8.4 Summary Table of Damage to Different Types of Structures 75

4 Inspection Methods for Offshore Structures Underwater 79

5 Structural Monitoring Methods 141

6 Inspection Planning, Programme and Data Management 161

6.3.3 Floating Steel Structures 182

7 Evaluation of Damage and Assessment of Structures 187

8 Repair and Mitigation of Offshore Structures 239

8.3.1 Grout Repairs to Steel Offshore Structures 250

8.9.1 Introduction 320

9 Conclusions and Future Possibilities 337

Clamp A fabricated steel construction encompassing an existing tubular member or a nodal

Node Joining point for brace members in a jacket-type structure

Introduction to Underwater Inspection and Repair

Before anything else, preparation is the key to success3.

Underwater Inspection and Repair for Offshore Structures, First Edition.

These offshore structures are continuously exposed to:

1.2 ­Why Do We Inspect and Repair Structures

Minimize life Ensure safe

Detect degradation Regulatory

Identify changes and reduce

Corrosive Variable and As-is condition

Figure 1 The elements of why we inspect structures.

Hull member -Total member

Baseline inspection Periodic inspection Special inspection

Ageing mechanisms increasingly influence structure

1.3 ­Types of Offshore Structures

1.3.1 Fixed Steel Structures

Grounded systems: Floating systems:

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g)

Water depth: < 30 m 30–60 m > 60 m

1.3.2 Floating Structures

1.3.3 Concrete Platforms

is usually supported on up to four concrete columns/shafts extending from the caisson

1.4 ­Overview of this Book

Repair and Plan

Section 1.3 is partly based on Ersdal, Sharp and Stacey (2019).

Statutory Requirements for Inspection and Repair

1 Source: Henry Wadsworth Longfellow.

Underwater Inspection and Repair for Offshore Structures, First Edition.

2.2 ­Examples of Country Statutory Requirements

Subsea Evaluation and Inspection

2.2.2 Regulation in the US Offshore Industry

2.2.3 Regulation in the UK Offshore Industry

2.2.4 Regulation in the Norwegian Offshore Industry

2.3 ­Standards and Recommended Practices for Steel Structures

2.3.2 API RP-2A and API RP-2SIM (Structural Integrity Management)

2.5 tandards and Guidance Notes for Concrete Structures 27

1.2 Why Do We Inspect and Repair Structures

1.3 Types of Offshore Structures

1.4 Overview of this Book

2.2 Examples of Country Statutory Requirements

2.3 Standards and Recommended Practices for Steel Structures

2.4 Standards and Recommended Practices for Mooring Systems

2.5 Standards and Guidance Notes for Concrete Structures

3.2 Previous Studies on Damage to Offshore Structures

3.3 Previous Studies on Damage to Fixed Steel Structures