Book contents
- Ship-Shaped Offshore Installations
- Cambridge Ocean Technology Series
- Ship-Shaped Offshore Installations
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Preface to the Second Edition
- Preface to the First Edition
- 1 Introduction to Ship-Shaped Offshore Installations
- 2 Structural Steel Selection and Construction
- 3 Ocean Environmental Conditions
- 4 Site-Specific Wave-Induced Hull Girder Loads
- 5 Serviceability Limit States
- 6 Fatigue Limit States
- 7 Ultimate Limit States
- 8 Accidental Limit States
- 9 Mooring System Engineering
- 10 Sloshing Impact Engineering
- 11 Seismic Impact Engineering
- 12 Aircraft Impact Engineering
- 13 Quantitative Risk Assessment and Management
- 14 Life-Cycle Corrosion Assessment and Management
- 15 Lifetime Healthcare and Safe Decommissioning
- Book part
- Index
- References
15 - Lifetime Healthcare and Safe Decommissioning
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 January 2022
Book contents
- Ship-Shaped Offshore Installations
- Cambridge Ocean Technology Series
- Ship-Shaped Offshore Installations
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Preface to the Second Edition
- Preface to the First Edition
- 1 Introduction to Ship-Shaped Offshore Installations
- 2 Structural Steel Selection and Construction
- 3 Ocean Environmental Conditions
- 4 Site-Specific Wave-Induced Hull Girder Loads
- 5 Serviceability Limit States
- 6 Fatigue Limit States
- 7 Ultimate Limit States
- 8 Accidental Limit States
- 9 Mooring System Engineering
- 10 Sloshing Impact Engineering
- 11 Seismic Impact Engineering
- 12 Aircraft Impact Engineering
- 13 Quantitative Risk Assessment and Management
- 14 Life-Cycle Corrosion Assessment and Management
- 15 Lifetime Healthcare and Safe Decommissioning
- Book part
- Index
- References
Summary
Both human bodies and engineering structures must receive regular and proper care through ongoing health monitoring, periodic condition assessments and predictions of likely future health conditions (shown in Figure 15.1) (Paik 2020). Refined and sophisticated technologies are used to minimise errors in human judgement during these processes, although simple and rapidly effective tools remain useful.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Ship-Shaped Offshore InstallationsDesign, Construction, Operation, Healthcare and Decommissioning, pp. 445 - 487Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
ABS (2003). Guide for Surveys Using Risk-Based Inspection for the Offshore Industry. American Bureau of Shipping, Houston, TX.Google Scholar
ABS (2013). Facilities on Offshore Installations. Rules for Building and Classing, American Bureau of Shipping, Houston, TX.Google Scholar
API (2004). Offshore Structures Design Practice. API RP 2A, American Petroleum Institute, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Beckman, R. (2013). ‘Global legal regime on the decommissioning of offshore installations and structures’. Nordquist, M. et al. (eds.), The Regulation of Continental Shelf Development, Rethinking International Standards. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden.Google Scholar
Chandler, J., White, D., Techera, E. J., Gourvenec, S. and Draper, S. (2017). ‘Engineering and legal considerations for decommissioning of offshore oil and gas infrastructure in Australia’. Ocean Engineering, 131: 338–347.Google Scholar
DNV (2015). Rules for Classification: Floating Production, Storage and Loading Units. DNV-RU-OU-0102, Det Norske Veritas, Oslo.Google Scholar
DNV (2016). Ultrasonic Thickness Measurements of Ships. DNV-CG-0285, Det Norske Veritas, Oslo.Google Scholar
Ekins, P., Vanner, R. and Firebrace, J. (2005). Decommissioning of Offshore Oil and Gas Facilities: A Comparative Assessment of Different Scenarios. Elsevier, London.Google Scholar
Fam, M. L., Konovessis, D., Ong, L. S. and Tan, H. K. (2018). ‘A review of offshore decommissioning regularions in five countries: Strengths and weaknesses’. Ocean Engineering, 160: 244–263.Google Scholar
Federal Register (2002). Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf: Decommissioning Activities. Final Rule, 30 CFR Parts 250, 256, 67(96), 35398-35412, Minerals Management Service (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement), Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Fernandez, R. P. and Cosma, E. P. (2020). ‘A future foretaste: Shipbuilding industrial tendencies’. International Journal of Maritime Engineering, 162 (Part A4): 397–420.Google Scholar
Fujimoto, Y., Kim, S. C., Shintaku, E. and Ohtaka, K. (1996). ‘Study on fatigue reliability and inspection of ship structures based on an enquete information’. Journal of Society of Naval Architects of Japan, 180: 601–609.Google Scholar
HSE (1997a). A Review of Monohull FSUs and FPSUs. Offshore Technology Report, OTO 1997/800, Health and Safety Executive, London.Google Scholar
HSE (1997b). The Abandonment of Offshore Pipelines: Methods and Procedures for Abandonment. Offshore Technology Report, OTH 535, Health and Safety Executive, London.Google Scholar
HSE (2000a). POD/POS Curves for Non-destructive Examination. Offshore Technology Report, OTO 2000-018, Health and Safety Executive, London.Google Scholar
HSE (2000b). Review of Current Inspection Practices for Topsides Structural Components. Offshore Technology Report, OTO 2000/027, Health and Safety Executive, London.Google Scholar
HSE (2009). Structural Integrity Monitoring: Review and Appraisal of Current Technologies for Offshore Applications. Research Report, RR 685, Health and Safety Executive, London.Google Scholar
IACS (2015). Guidelines for Coating Maintenance & Repair for Ballast Tanks and Combined Cargo/Ballast Tanks on Oil Tankers. Recommendation 87, International Association of Classification Societies, London.Google Scholar
ICF International (2015). Decommissioning Methodology and Cost Evaluation. BPA No. E13PA00010, Prepared for the US Department of the Interior Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Fairfax, VA.Google Scholar
ICS/OCIMF/IAPH (1996). International Safety Guide for Oil Tankers and Terminals (ISGOTT). ICS (International Chamber of Shipping), OCIMF (Oil Companies International Marine Forum), and IAPH (International Association of Ports and Harbors), Witherby & Co., London.Google Scholar
IMO (1989). Resolution A.672, paras 3.6, 3.8 and 3.12. International Maritime Organization, London.Google Scholar
ISO 16587 (2019). Mechanical Vibration and Shock: Performance Parameters for Condition Monitoring of Structures. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.Google Scholar
ISO 19901-3 (2014). Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries: Specific Requirements for Offshore Structures: Part 3: Topsides Structures. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.Google Scholar
ISO 19902 (2020). Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries: Fixed Steel Offshore Structures. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.Google Scholar
Kaiser, M. J. (2010). ‘Steel waste streams associated with decommissioning offshore structures in the Gulf of Mexico’. International Journal of Oil, Gas and Coal Technology, 3(2): 113–143.Google Scholar
Kaiser, M. J. and Liu, M. (2015). ‘Decommissioning cost estimation for deepwater floating structures in the US Gulf of Mexico’. Ships and Offshore Structures, 10(4): 436–455.Google Scholar
LR (2003). FPSO Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance: Study into Best Practice. R20821–5-UKOOA, Lloyd’s Register, Southampton.Google Scholar
NORSOK N-005 (2017). In-Service Integrity Management of Structures and Maritime Systems. Standards Norway, Oslo.Google Scholar
OGUK (2013). Guidelines on Stakeholder Engagement for Decommissioning Activities. Oil & Gas UK, London.Google Scholar
Paik, J. K. (2008). ‘Residual ultimate strength of steel plates with longitudinal cracks under axial compression: Experiments’. Ocean Engineering, 35: 1775–1783.Google Scholar
Paik, J. K. (2018). Ultimate Limit State Analysis and Design of Plated Structures. 2nd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.Google Scholar
Paik, J. K. (2020). Advanced Structural Safety Studies with Extreme Conditions and Accidents. Springer, Singapore.Google Scholar
Paik, J. K., Lee, J. M. and Lee, D. H. (2003a). ‘Ultimate strength of dented steel plates under axial compressive loads’. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 45: 433–448.Google Scholar
Paik, J. K. and Melchers, R. E. (2008). Condition Assessment of Aged Structures. CRC Press, New York.Google Scholar
Paik, J. K., Satish Kumar, Y. V. and Lee, J. M. (2005). ‘Ultimate strength of cracked plate elements under axial compression or tension’. Thin-Walled Structures, 43: 237–272.Google Scholar
Paik, J. K., Wang, G., Thayamballi, A. K., Lee, J. M. and Park, Y. I. (2003b). ‘Time-dependent risk assessment of aging ships accounting for general/pit corrosion, fatigue cracking and local dent damage’. Transactions SNAME, The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Alexandria, VA, 111: 159–197.Google Scholar
Ritchie, G. (2008). Offshore Support Vessels: A Practical Guide. The Nautical Institute, London.Google Scholar
Sjöbris, C. (2012). Decommissioning of SPM buoy. Master of Science Thesis, Department of Shipping and Marine Technology, Division of Marine Design, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg.Google Scholar
Trevisanut, S. (2020). ‘Chapter 18: Decommissioning of offshore installations: A fragmented and ineffective international regulatory framework’. The Law of the Seabed, Brill-Nijhoff, Leiden, doi: 10.1163/9789004391567_020.Google Scholar
TSCF (2019). Guidance Manual for Tanker Structures. The Tanker Structure Cooperative Forum, Witherby, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Twomey, B. G. (2010). ‘Study assesses Asia-Pacific offshore decommissioning costs’. Oil & Gas Journal, 15: 51–55, 15 March.Google Scholar