Research Papers

Generic Approach for Risk Assessment of Offshore Piping Subjected to Vibration Induced Fatigue

[+] Author and Article Information
Arvind Keprate

Department of Mechanical and Structural
Engineering and Material Science,
University of Stavanger,
Stavanger 4036, Norway
e-mail: arvind.keprate@uis.no

R. M. Chandima Ratnayake

Department of Mechanical and Structural
Engineering and Material Science,
University of Stavanger,
Stavanger 4036, Norway
e-mail: chandima.ratnayake@uis.no

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received March 15, 2017; final manuscript received July 20, 2017; published online October 3, 2017. Assoc. Editor: James Lambert.

ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Part B 4(2), 021006 (Oct 03, 2017) (12 pages) Paper No: RISK-17-1044; doi: 10.1115/1.4037353 History: Received March 15, 2017; Revised July 20, 2017

Vibration induced fatigue (VIF) failure of topside piping is one of the most common causes of the hydrocarbon release on offshore oil and gas platforms operating in the North Sea region. An effective inspection plan for the identification of fatigue critical piping locations has the potential to minimize the hydrocarbon release. One of the primary challenges in preparation of inspection program for offshore piping is to identify the fatigue critical piping locations. At present, the three-staged risk assessment process (RAP) given in the Energy Institute (EI) guidelines is used by inspection engineers to determine the likelihood of failure (LoF) of process piping due to VIF. Since the RAP is afflicted by certain drawbacks, this paper presents an alternative risk assessment approach (RAA) to RAP for identification and prioritization of fatigue critical piping locations. The proposed RAA consists of two stages. The first stage involves a qualitative risk assessment using fuzzy-analytical hierarchy process (FAHP) methodology to identify fatigue critical systems (and the most dominant excitation mechanism) and is briefly discussed in the paper. The fatigue critical system identified during stage 1 of RAA undergoes further assessment in the second stage of the RAA. This stage employs a fuzzy-logic method to determine the LoF of the mainline piping. The outcome of the proposed RAA is the categorization of mainline piping, into high, medium, or low risk grouping. The mainline piping in the high-risk category is thereby prioritized for inspection. An illustrative case study demonstrating the usability of the proposed RAA is presented.

Copyright © 2018 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Keprate, A. , and Ratnayake, R. M. C. , 2016, “ Enhancing Offshore Process Safety by Selecting Fatigue Critical Piping Locations for Inspection Using Fuzzy-AHP Based Approach,” Process Saf. Environ. Prot., 102, pp. 71–84. [CrossRef]
EI, 2007, Guidelines for the Avoidance of Vibration Induced Fatigue Failure in Process Pipework, The Energy Institute, London.
EI, 2013, Guidelines for the Design, Installation and Management of Small Bore Tubing Assemblies, The Energy Institute, London.
Keprate, A. , and Ratnayake, R. M. C. , 2016, “ Handling Uncertainty in the Remnant Fatigue Life Assessment of Offshore Process Pipework,” ASME Paper No. IMECE2016-65504.
Khan, F. , Thodi, P. , Imtiaz, S. , and Abbassi, R. , 2016, “ Real-Time Monitoring and Management of Offshore Process System Integrity,” Curr. Opin. Chem. Eng., 14, pp. 61–71. [CrossRef]
DNV, 2010, “ Risk Based Inspection of Offshore Topsides Static Mechanical Equipment,” Det Norske Veritas, Høvik, Norway, Standard No. DNV-RP-G101.
Chang, M. K. , Chang, R. R. , Shu, C. M. , and Lin, K. N. , 2005, “ Application of Risk Based Inspection in Refinery and Processing Piping,” J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., 18(4–6), pp. 397–402. [CrossRef]
Keprate, A. , Ratnayake, R. M. C. , and Sankararaman, S. , 2017, “ Minimizing Hydrocarbon Release From Offshore Piping by Performing Probabilistic Fatigue Life Assessment,” Process Saf. Environ. Prot., 106, pp. 34–51. [CrossRef]
Mamdani, E. H. , and Assilian, S. , 1975, “ An Experiment in Linguistic Synthesis With a Fuzzy Logic Controller,” Int. J. Man-Mach. Stud., 7(1), pp. 1–13. [CrossRef]
Swindell, R. , 2003, “ Vibration Fatigue in Process Pipework: A Risk Based Assessment Methodology,” Bureau Veritas, Southampton, UK.
Sii, H. S. , Ruxton, T. , and Wang, J. , 2001, “ A Fuzzy Logic Based Approach to Qualitative Safety Modelling for Marine Systems,” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 73(1), pp. 19–34. [CrossRef]
Singh, M. , and Markeset, T. , 2009, “ A Methodology for Risk Based Inspection Planning of Oil and Gas Pipes Based on Fuzzy Logic Framework,” Eng. Failure Anal., 16(7), pp. 2098–2113. [CrossRef]
Ratnayake, R. M. C. , 2014, “ Application of a Fuzzy Inference System for Function Failure Risk Rank Estimation: RBM of Rotating Equipment and Instrumentation,” J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., 29, pp. 216–224. [CrossRef]
Hong, Y. , Pasman, H. J. , Sachdeva, S. , Markowski, A. S. , and Mannan, M. S. , 2016, “ A Fuzzy Logic and Probabilistic Hybrid Approach to Quantify Uncertainty in Layer of Protection Analysis,” J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., 43, pp. 10–17. [CrossRef]
Sankararaman, S. , Daigle, M. J. , and Goebel, K. , 2014, “ Uncertainty Quantification in Remaining Useful Life Prediction Using First-Order Reliability Methods,” IEEE Trans. Reliab., 63(2), pp. 603–619. [CrossRef]
Sankararaman, S. , 2015, “ Significance, Interpretation, and Quantification of Uncertainty in Prognostics and Remaining Useful Life Prediction,” Mech. Syst. Signal Process., 52–53, pp. 228–247. [CrossRef]
Dubois, D. , Foulloy, L. , Mauris, G. , and Prade, H. , 2004, “ Probability-Possibility Transformations, Triangular Fuzzy Sets, and Probabilistic Inequalities,” Reliab. Comput., 10(4), pp. 273–297. [CrossRef]
Pota, M. , Esposito, M. , and Pietro, G. D. , 2013, “ Transforming Probability Distributions Into Membership Functions of Fuzzy Classes: A Hypothesis Test Approach,” Fuzzy Sets Syst., 233, pp. 52–73. [CrossRef]
Ross, T. J. , 2010, Fuzzy Logic With Engineering Applications, 3rd ed, Wiley, Chichester, UK, Chap. 5. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Qualitative assessment during stage 1 of the RAP (Adapted from Ref. [2])

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Important steps during stage 1 of proposed RAA

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Uncertainty sources during RFL assessment of offshore piping

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Steps to estimate RFL using PCG model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

A simplified process flow diagram of an offshore platform

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Hierarchy tree for mainline piping in various units

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Analysis result of stage 1 of the proposed RAA

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Schematic of the proposed generic RAP

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Rule view and computation of LoF for line 1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Rule view and computation of LoF for line 2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Important steps during stage 2 of the proposed RAA

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Schematic depicting structure of fuzzy logic method (Adapted from Ref. [14])

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Schematic of three-staged RAP. Adapted from Ref. [10].

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

MFs for input and output variables of stage 2 of RAA




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Articles from Part A: Civil Engineering
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In