Share:


Optimum inspection interval for tanker in unified inspection regime

Abstract

Inspections on board tankers contribute to the prevention of accidents, which can have a significant impact to humans and environment. Therefore a high amount of tanker inspections is performed by various stakeholders. This practice could be made more efficient by introducing unified inspection regime, which covers existing areas of inspection, eliminates overlapping and has the potential to improve safety. In this paper an important aspect in defining inspection regime, inspection interval, is determined considering contradictory goals: lowering the costs of inspection and increasing useful service life of tanker structure and equipment, without compromising safety. A probabilistic approach has been applied to establish inspection schedule, which fulfils a range of requirements. Due to the many varieties of tanker types, their conditions, range of size and age span, the paper focuses on the 10 years AFRAMAX tanker. Results indicate that optimal inspection interval in the unified inspection regime for that tanker should be 3 months. Using modified input parameters, similar approach could be used for other tanker types.

Keyword : oil tanker, tanker inspections, inspection regime, optimum inspection interval, useful service life time, inspection costs, maritime safety

How to Cite
Grbić, L., Čulin, J., Hess, M., & Hess, S. (2020). Optimum inspection interval for tanker in unified inspection regime. Transport, 35(3), 247-254. https://doi.org/10.3846/transport.2020.12692
Published in Issue
May 21, 2020
Abstract Views
80
PDF Downloads
48
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

References

Ahmad, S. 2003. Reinforcement corrosion in concrete structures, its monitoring and service life prediction – a review, Cement and Concrete Composites 25(4–5): 459–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0958-9465(02)00086-0

Bielić, T.; Hess, M.; Grbić, L. 2017. Unified tanker survey and inspection regime in terms of reducing psychophysical strain of the crew, Promet – Traffic & Transportation 29(4): 455–461. https://doi.org/10.7307/ptt.v29i4.2362

Christer, A. H.; Waller, W. M. 1984. Delay time models of industrial inspection maintenance problems, Journal of the Operational Research Society 35(5): 401–406. https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.1984.80

Chung, H.-Y.; Manuel, L.; Frank, K. H. 2006. Optimal inspection scheduling of steel bridges using nondestructive testing techniques, Journal of Bridge Engineering 11(3): 305–319. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2006)11:3(305)

Cunningham, A.; Wang, W.; Zio, E.; Wall, A.; Allanson, D.; Wang, J. 2011. Application of delay-time analysis via Monte Carlo simulation, Journal of Marine Engineering & Technology 10(3): 57–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/20464177.2011.11020252

Forsyth, D. S.; Fahr, A. 1998. An evaluation of probability of detection statistics, in RTO Meeting Proceedings 10: Airframe Inspection Reliability under Field/Depot Conditions, 13–14 May 1998, Brussels, Belgium, 10-1–10-5.

Frangopol, D. M. 2011. Life-cycle performance, management, and optimisation of structural systems under uncertainty: accomplishments and challenges, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering: Maintenance, Management, Life-Cycle Design and Performance 7(6): 389–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732471003594427

Frangopol, D. M.; Lin, K.-Y.; Estes, A. C. 1997. Life-cycle cost design of deteriorating structures, Journal of Structural Engineering 123(10): 1390–1401. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1997)123:10(1390)

Frangopol, D. M.; Soliman, M. 2013. Damage to ship structures under uncertainty: evaluation and prediction, in G. Z. Voyiadjis (Ed.). Handbook of Damage Mechanics, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8968-9_34-1

Graziano, A.; Cariou, P.; Wolff, F.-C.; Mejia, M. Q.; Schröder-Hinrichs, J.-U. 2018. Port state control inspections in the European Union: do inspector’s number and background matter?, Marine Policy 88: 230–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.11.031

Graziano, A.; Schröder-Hinrichs, J.-U.; Ölcer, A. I. 2017. After 40 years of regional and coordinated ship safety inspections: destination reached or new point of departure?, Ocean Engineering 143: 217–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2017.06.050

Grbić, L.; Čulin, J.; Bielić, T. 2018. Inspections on board oil tankers: present situation and suggestion for improvement, Scientific Journal of Maritime Research – Multidisciplinarni znanstveni časopis Pomorstvo 32(1): 132–140. https://doi.org/10.31217/p.32.1.13

Heij, C.; Bijwaard, G. E.; Knapp, S. 2011. Ship inspection strategies: effects on maritime safety and environmental protection, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 16(1): 42–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2010.07.006

Kim, S.; Frangopol, D. M. 2011a. Inspection and monitoring planning for RC structures based on minimization of expected damage detection delay, Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 26(2): 308–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.probengmech.2010.08.009

Kim, S.; Frangopol, D. M. 2011b. Optimum inspection planning for minimizing fatigue damage detection delay of ship hull structures, International Journal of Fatigue 33(3): 448–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2010.09.018

Kim, S.; Frangopol, D. M. 2012. Probabilistic bicriterion optimum inspection/monitoring planning: applications to naval ships and bridges under fatigue, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering: Maintenance, Management, Life-Cycle Design and Performance 8(10): 912–927. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2011.574811

Kim, S.; Frangopol, D. M.; Soliman, M. 2013. Generalized probabilistic framework for optimum inspection and maintenance planning, Journal of Structural Engineering 139(3): 435–447. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000676

Knapp, S.; Franses, P. H. 2010. Comprehensive review of the maritime safety regimes: present status and recommendations for improvements, Transport Reviews 30(2): 241–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441640902985934

Knapp, S.; Heij, C. 2017. Evaluation of total risk exposure and insurance premiums in the maritime industry, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 54: 321–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.06.001

Knapp, S.; Van de Velden, M. 2011. Global ship risk profiles: safety and the marine environment, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 16(8): 595–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2011.08.001

Liu, X.; Wirtz, K. W. 2006. Total oil spill costs and compensations, Maritime Policy & Management: the Flagship Journal of International Shipping and Port Research 33(1): 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088830500513352

Paris, P.; Erdogan, F. 1963. A critical analysis of crack propagation laws, Journal of Basic Engineering 85(4): 528–533. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3656900

Paulauskas, V. 2009. The safety of tankers and single point mooring during loading operations, Transport 24(1): 54–57. https://doi.org/10.3846/1648-4142.2009.24.54-57

Pollock, A. 2007. Probability of detection for acoustic emission, Journal of Acoustic Emission 25: 231–237.

Šelih, J.; Kne, A.; Srdić, A.; Žura, M. 2008. Multiple-criteria decision support system in highway infrastructure management, Transport 23(4): 299–305. https://doi.org/10.3846/1648-4142.2008.23.299-305

Ventikos, N. P.; Sotiralis, P.; Drakakis, M. 2018. A dynamic model for the hull inspection of ships: the analysis and results, Ocean Engineering 151: 355–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2017.11.020