FPSO全生命周期结构风险研究
摘要
随着经济快速发展对能源需求的日益增加,开发海洋石油、天然气资源的海洋结构物应用日益广泛。伴随着油气资源开发带来的高收益,海洋结构物的风险和费用问题也日渐突出,这其中包括高昂的海洋结构物设计建造、使用维护、失效费用以及一旦发生事故造成的环境污染、人员伤亡、社会影响等后果。海洋结构物的风险问题一直是人们关注的焦点。
浮式生产储油船FPSO(Floating Production, Storage and Offloading unit)是目前采用系泊方式作业的一种主要浮式海洋平台,在服役期内需承受恶劣海况下的疲劳、腐蚀损伤,以及可能发生的碰撞、火灾、爆炸等事故对结构造成的不利影响。FPSO一旦失效的严重后果使其风险水平令人关注,因此针对FPSO进行全生命周期内的结构风险研究十分必要,该领域的探索正是目前海洋工程界十分关注的研究方向。FPSO全生命期内面临的结构风险包括多方面内容,本文选择了其中一些关键性的问题以及以往未引起充分关注的问题加以研究,期望更加全面地了解FPSO的结构风险特性,并得到有意义的结论为进一步深入研究和控制FPSO全生命期风险以及保障海洋石油工业生产安全提供基础和依据。本文所开展的主要工作及结论归纳如下:
首先简要分析了FPSO服役期间可能面临的各种风险以及对FPSO进行全生命期结构风险分析的必要性和意义。而后针对FPSO风险分析中涉及的各个不同领域,介绍了国内外的主要成果和研究进展。
针对FPSO不同于普通船舶的腐蚀特点,合理选用了腐蚀模型及腐蚀数据库,对所研究FPSO不同腐蚀程度下的极限强度进行了分析。通过构造极限状态方程计算了FPSO系泊服役期间的时变失效概率,明确了腐蚀差异对FPSO船体梁结构风险的影响程度并获得了满足风险准则要求的可服役时间,指出了控制腐蚀对于保证FPSO结构风险处于合理水平的重要意义。对单一载况的平均到达率和环境因子进行敏感性分析,获得其对FPSO结构风险的影响程度。研究结果发现环境因子的差异对FPSO结构风险的影响尤为突出。
考虑碰撞与腐蚀损伤的共同作用,对不同服役时间发生碰撞后FPSO船体梁进一步破坏的结构风险进行了研究。研究中引入碰撞发生时间的影响,认为碰撞后短时间内FPSO船体梁所承受的载荷仍继续服从原长期分布并据此对FPSO船体梁破损后仍处于系泊状态阶段的载荷组合方式进行了改进。研究区分了中剖面遭受破坏及其它部位发生破损对船体梁相应失效概率所产生的影响。计算结果反映出全面考察各个压载舱发生破损可能造成后果的必要性以及不同腐蚀模型与腐蚀数据库之间差异对碰撞损伤后结构风险水平造成的不同影响程度。结合剩余极限强度的余度指数,根据失效概率尝试提出了适用于碰撞损伤后短时期内仍处于系泊状态的FPSO船体梁结构风险接受准则。
考虑拖航速度、海况、FPSO自身状态(包括腐蚀状态以及结构完整性)等因素的影响,分别对全新状态入役、老龄状态退役以及碰撞损伤后返厂修理情况下的FPSO经受短期风暴作用时的船体梁结构风险进行评估。研究中引入了腐蚀损伤的作用,充分考虑了退役时间以及碰撞发生时间对拖航失效概率造成的影响,更加全面地反映出FPSO船体梁全生命期内的结构风险水平。所得结果反映出有义波高是影响拖航结构失效概率的最显著因素。以失效概率为基础,获得了不同条件下满足风险接受准则要求的最大允许有义波高,并将其作为判断FPSO船体梁拖航状态结构风险水平的辅助决策指标。
考虑检测结果对先验分布的更新作用,将基于风险的检测维护理论应用于FPSO腐蚀损伤的控制与费用优化。选取不同部位的船体板,在不同腐蚀程度、检测水平和失效接受准则条件下分别制定了检测规划,并根据费用优化的思想对各种组合情况下的总的期望费用、失效费用、检测费用以及维护费用进行了计算。通过对多种影响费用的因素进行分析讨论,可以发现受评估部位、腐蚀程度、失效接受准则、检测水平、维护准则等多种因素的影响,总的期望费用变化规律非常复杂,无法采用统一的规律概括所有构件的检测维护规划。这证明了对FPSO不同构件分别开展检测维护规划研究的必要性。同时结果显示腐蚀情况的恶化直接对检测维护规划费用存在不利影响,在今后的研究中考虑不同防腐措施的作用将设计建造费用纳入整个规划的费用优化计算是更加合理的。
对FPSO检测维护规划开展进一步的优化研究。通过提出改进的检测时间选择模型,获得了检测时间的备择集,计算了新模型下检测时间对应的总的期望费用。结果表明,研究中提出的优化方法所得检测时间下总的期望费用低于以往规划制定方法的费用值,有利于避免不必要的费用支出。依据最优检测时间,对不同条件下的最优失效接受准则进行了分析,对不同检测水平以及腐蚀程度带来的费用差异进行了讨论。研究还围绕实际工程中检测到缺陷的情况对不同部位受缺陷尺寸影响所造成的费用差异进行了探讨,验证了基于风险的检测维护规划方法的实用性。缺陷尺寸增大导致费用显著增长的现象再次证明了合理控制腐蚀对降低费用的重要性。同时费用数据指出了超期服役可能面临的不经济局面,为业主根据具体情况在FPSO超过设计寿命期后作出维护或退役决策提供参考依据。
With the increasing demand on energy resource stimulated by fast development of economy, offshore structures are widely used to explore ocean oil and gas resource. Accompanying with considerable benefits from exploitation, the problems of risk and cost relevant to offshore structures are becoming more and more prominent, which include the exorbitant cost of design, construction, service, maintenance and failure, and sequential environmental pollution, fatal loss and social impact caused by accident. The risk of offshore structure is always concerned by people.
FPSO (Floating Production, Storage and Offloading unit) is one of the main floating platforms positioned by mooring system. During its service, FPSO has to endure fatigue and corrosion damage under severe sea state. Possible accidents, such as collision, fire and explosion, etc., will affect structure adversely. The serious consequence aroused by the failure of FPSO by any possibility makes the risk level focused. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the structural risk of FPSO during its lifetime, which is also the research project concerned by offshore industry recently.
The structural risks of FPSO during lifetime include many aspects. Some key points and those problems neglected before are selected to be studied in order to learn characteristics of structural risk of FPSO generally and get useful results for further research and control on risk of FPSO during its lifetime, which benefits to secure the safety of offshore industry. The summary of main research works and results are listed below:
Firstly, the possible risks of FPSO during lifetime are analyzed briefly and the necessary and meaning of evaluating them are introduced. The latest domestic and international progresses are summarized according to different aspects of risk analysis of FPSO.
Considering the corrosion difference between FPSO and merchant ships, proper corrosion model and database are selected to calculate the ultimate strength of FPSO based on different corrosion level. Time-variant probabilities of failure of FPSO hull girder in mooring condition are calculated based on limit state function. The available service years corresponding to different corrosion level are worked out to reflect the influence of corrosion on FPSO structural safety, which emphasize the importance of controlling corrosion to maintain the risk level of FPSO. The sensitivity of arrival rate of a single loading condition and environmental factor are analyzed. It is obvious that the environmental factor has great effect on the structural risk of FPSO.
Taking damage of collision and corrosion into account together, the structural risk of damaged FPSO hull girder are evaluated when collision takes place at different service year. The loads of damaged FPSO still follow former long-term distribution within short period after collision because the time of collision occurrence is considered as a factor in this study. Therefore, the loads combination of damaged FPSO hull girder which is still in mooring condition after collision is adjusted. The probabilities of failure of FPSO hull girder are calculated separately based on different locations of damage due to collision, which are mid section of FPSO and other sections. The results show the necessary of evaluating all possible consequences, which can be caused by damage of each ballast tank. The results also show the difference of structural risk levels after collision induced by different corrosion model and database clearly. Combined with residual strength index, risk acceptance criteria of FPSO hull girder, which is still in mooring condition within short period after collision, is presented based on calculated probability of failure.
Taking some factors into account, such as towing speed, sea state, FPSO structure condition (including corrosion state and hull integrity), etc., the structural risk of FPSO is analyzed when it encounters a short-term storm under towing condition. Three possible structure conditions of towed FSPO are considered, which are new-built intact condition, retirement condition and collision damage condition, respectively. Time of retirement and collision occurrence is taken into account when calculating probabilities of failure under towing condition, which can reflect the structural risk levels of FPSO during lifetime more generally since corrosion damage effect is introduced into calculation. It can be found that the significant wave height is the most prominent factor to probabilities of failure under towing condition. Acceptable maximum significant wave heights satisfying risk acceptance criteria are derived according to different situations, and are taken as decision-making index to estimate structural risk level of FPSO hull girder under specific towing condition.
Since inspection result can update prior distribution, risk based inspection and maintenance theory is applied on FPSO corrosion damage control and cost optimization. Hull girder plates at different location are selected to make inspection schedule according to various combinations of corrosion extents, inspection levels and failure criteria. Then corresponding total expected costs, failure costs, inspections costs and maintenance costs are calculated based on demand of cost optimization. After comparing result of costs, it can be found that the variation of total expected costs is too complicated to be summarized as uniform rule to describe all structure components. It is caused by many factors, such as component location, corrosion extent, failure criteria, inspection level and maintenance criteria, etc. This phenomenon proves the necessary of inspection and maintenance study on different FPSO components. Obviously, deterioration of corrosion extent has unfavorable effect on costs. It is reasonable to bring design cost into cost optimization of whole schedule in further research by choosing different anti-corrosion methods at design stage.
Further optimization on FPSO inspection and maintenance schedule is carried out. Improved model for selecting inspection time is presented to derive congregation of optional inspection time. And costs corresponding to new model are calculated, consequently. It can be seen that the inspection time achieved from new model has lower costs than former schedule, which is benefit to avoiding unnecessary expenditure. Based on derived optimized inspection time, optimized risk acceptance criteria are analyzed according to different conditions and the differences of costs distinguished by inspection level and corrosion extent are also discussed. The difference of costs induced by dimension of defects detected on various components in industrial application is analyzed, which proves the practicability of risk based inspection and maintenance method. The costs rise with increase of dimension of defects, which emphasizes the importance of controlling corrosion to reduce costs again. The data of costs shows the probable uneconomical situation of FPSO during its overage service, which is helpful to make maintenance or retirement decision for owners when FPSO exceeds its designed service life.
浮式生产储油船FPSO(Floating Production, Storage and Offloading unit)是目前采用系泊方式作业的一种主要浮式海洋平台,在服役期内需承受恶劣海况下的疲劳、腐蚀损伤,以及可能发生的碰撞、火灾、爆炸等事故对结构造成的不利影响。FPSO一旦失效的严重后果使其风险水平令人关注,因此针对FPSO进行全生命周期内的结构风险研究十分必要,该领域的探索正是目前海洋工程界十分关注的研究方向。FPSO全生命期内面临的结构风险包括多方面内容,本文选择了其中一些关键性的问题以及以往未引起充分关注的问题加以研究,期望更加全面地了解FPSO的结构风险特性,并得到有意义的结论为进一步深入研究和控制FPSO全生命期风险以及保障海洋石油工业生产安全提供基础和依据。本文所开展的主要工作及结论归纳如下:
首先简要分析了FPSO服役期间可能面临的各种风险以及对FPSO进行全生命期结构风险分析的必要性和意义。而后针对FPSO风险分析中涉及的各个不同领域,介绍了国内外的主要成果和研究进展。
针对FPSO不同于普通船舶的腐蚀特点,合理选用了腐蚀模型及腐蚀数据库,对所研究FPSO不同腐蚀程度下的极限强度进行了分析。通过构造极限状态方程计算了FPSO系泊服役期间的时变失效概率,明确了腐蚀差异对FPSO船体梁结构风险的影响程度并获得了满足风险准则要求的可服役时间,指出了控制腐蚀对于保证FPSO结构风险处于合理水平的重要意义。对单一载况的平均到达率和环境因子进行敏感性分析,获得其对FPSO结构风险的影响程度。研究结果发现环境因子的差异对FPSO结构风险的影响尤为突出。
考虑碰撞与腐蚀损伤的共同作用,对不同服役时间发生碰撞后FPSO船体梁进一步破坏的结构风险进行了研究。研究中引入碰撞发生时间的影响,认为碰撞后短时间内FPSO船体梁所承受的载荷仍继续服从原长期分布并据此对FPSO船体梁破损后仍处于系泊状态阶段的载荷组合方式进行了改进。研究区分了中剖面遭受破坏及其它部位发生破损对船体梁相应失效概率所产生的影响。计算结果反映出全面考察各个压载舱发生破损可能造成后果的必要性以及不同腐蚀模型与腐蚀数据库之间差异对碰撞损伤后结构风险水平造成的不同影响程度。结合剩余极限强度的余度指数,根据失效概率尝试提出了适用于碰撞损伤后短时期内仍处于系泊状态的FPSO船体梁结构风险接受准则。
考虑拖航速度、海况、FPSO自身状态(包括腐蚀状态以及结构完整性)等因素的影响,分别对全新状态入役、老龄状态退役以及碰撞损伤后返厂修理情况下的FPSO经受短期风暴作用时的船体梁结构风险进行评估。研究中引入了腐蚀损伤的作用,充分考虑了退役时间以及碰撞发生时间对拖航失效概率造成的影响,更加全面地反映出FPSO船体梁全生命期内的结构风险水平。所得结果反映出有义波高是影响拖航结构失效概率的最显著因素。以失效概率为基础,获得了不同条件下满足风险接受准则要求的最大允许有义波高,并将其作为判断FPSO船体梁拖航状态结构风险水平的辅助决策指标。
考虑检测结果对先验分布的更新作用,将基于风险的检测维护理论应用于FPSO腐蚀损伤的控制与费用优化。选取不同部位的船体板,在不同腐蚀程度、检测水平和失效接受准则条件下分别制定了检测规划,并根据费用优化的思想对各种组合情况下的总的期望费用、失效费用、检测费用以及维护费用进行了计算。通过对多种影响费用的因素进行分析讨论,可以发现受评估部位、腐蚀程度、失效接受准则、检测水平、维护准则等多种因素的影响,总的期望费用变化规律非常复杂,无法采用统一的规律概括所有构件的检测维护规划。这证明了对FPSO不同构件分别开展检测维护规划研究的必要性。同时结果显示腐蚀情况的恶化直接对检测维护规划费用存在不利影响,在今后的研究中考虑不同防腐措施的作用将设计建造费用纳入整个规划的费用优化计算是更加合理的。
对FPSO检测维护规划开展进一步的优化研究。通过提出改进的检测时间选择模型,获得了检测时间的备择集,计算了新模型下检测时间对应的总的期望费用。结果表明,研究中提出的优化方法所得检测时间下总的期望费用低于以往规划制定方法的费用值,有利于避免不必要的费用支出。依据最优检测时间,对不同条件下的最优失效接受准则进行了分析,对不同检测水平以及腐蚀程度带来的费用差异进行了讨论。研究还围绕实际工程中检测到缺陷的情况对不同部位受缺陷尺寸影响所造成的费用差异进行了探讨,验证了基于风险的检测维护规划方法的实用性。缺陷尺寸增大导致费用显著增长的现象再次证明了合理控制腐蚀对降低费用的重要性。同时费用数据指出了超期服役可能面临的不经济局面,为业主根据具体情况在FPSO超过设计寿命期后作出维护或退役决策提供参考依据。
With the increasing demand on energy resource stimulated by fast development of economy, offshore structures are widely used to explore ocean oil and gas resource. Accompanying with considerable benefits from exploitation, the problems of risk and cost relevant to offshore structures are becoming more and more prominent, which include the exorbitant cost of design, construction, service, maintenance and failure, and sequential environmental pollution, fatal loss and social impact caused by accident. The risk of offshore structure is always concerned by people.
FPSO (Floating Production, Storage and Offloading unit) is one of the main floating platforms positioned by mooring system. During its service, FPSO has to endure fatigue and corrosion damage under severe sea state. Possible accidents, such as collision, fire and explosion, etc., will affect structure adversely. The serious consequence aroused by the failure of FPSO by any possibility makes the risk level focused. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the structural risk of FPSO during its lifetime, which is also the research project concerned by offshore industry recently.
The structural risks of FPSO during lifetime include many aspects. Some key points and those problems neglected before are selected to be studied in order to learn characteristics of structural risk of FPSO generally and get useful results for further research and control on risk of FPSO during its lifetime, which benefits to secure the safety of offshore industry. The summary of main research works and results are listed below:
Firstly, the possible risks of FPSO during lifetime are analyzed briefly and the necessary and meaning of evaluating them are introduced. The latest domestic and international progresses are summarized according to different aspects of risk analysis of FPSO.
Considering the corrosion difference between FPSO and merchant ships, proper corrosion model and database are selected to calculate the ultimate strength of FPSO based on different corrosion level. Time-variant probabilities of failure of FPSO hull girder in mooring condition are calculated based on limit state function. The available service years corresponding to different corrosion level are worked out to reflect the influence of corrosion on FPSO structural safety, which emphasize the importance of controlling corrosion to maintain the risk level of FPSO. The sensitivity of arrival rate of a single loading condition and environmental factor are analyzed. It is obvious that the environmental factor has great effect on the structural risk of FPSO.
Taking damage of collision and corrosion into account together, the structural risk of damaged FPSO hull girder are evaluated when collision takes place at different service year. The loads of damaged FPSO still follow former long-term distribution within short period after collision because the time of collision occurrence is considered as a factor in this study. Therefore, the loads combination of damaged FPSO hull girder which is still in mooring condition after collision is adjusted. The probabilities of failure of FPSO hull girder are calculated separately based on different locations of damage due to collision, which are mid section of FPSO and other sections. The results show the necessary of evaluating all possible consequences, which can be caused by damage of each ballast tank. The results also show the difference of structural risk levels after collision induced by different corrosion model and database clearly. Combined with residual strength index, risk acceptance criteria of FPSO hull girder, which is still in mooring condition within short period after collision, is presented based on calculated probability of failure.
Taking some factors into account, such as towing speed, sea state, FPSO structure condition (including corrosion state and hull integrity), etc., the structural risk of FPSO is analyzed when it encounters a short-term storm under towing condition. Three possible structure conditions of towed FSPO are considered, which are new-built intact condition, retirement condition and collision damage condition, respectively. Time of retirement and collision occurrence is taken into account when calculating probabilities of failure under towing condition, which can reflect the structural risk levels of FPSO during lifetime more generally since corrosion damage effect is introduced into calculation. It can be found that the significant wave height is the most prominent factor to probabilities of failure under towing condition. Acceptable maximum significant wave heights satisfying risk acceptance criteria are derived according to different situations, and are taken as decision-making index to estimate structural risk level of FPSO hull girder under specific towing condition.
Since inspection result can update prior distribution, risk based inspection and maintenance theory is applied on FPSO corrosion damage control and cost optimization. Hull girder plates at different location are selected to make inspection schedule according to various combinations of corrosion extents, inspection levels and failure criteria. Then corresponding total expected costs, failure costs, inspections costs and maintenance costs are calculated based on demand of cost optimization. After comparing result of costs, it can be found that the variation of total expected costs is too complicated to be summarized as uniform rule to describe all structure components. It is caused by many factors, such as component location, corrosion extent, failure criteria, inspection level and maintenance criteria, etc. This phenomenon proves the necessary of inspection and maintenance study on different FPSO components. Obviously, deterioration of corrosion extent has unfavorable effect on costs. It is reasonable to bring design cost into cost optimization of whole schedule in further research by choosing different anti-corrosion methods at design stage.
Further optimization on FPSO inspection and maintenance schedule is carried out. Improved model for selecting inspection time is presented to derive congregation of optional inspection time. And costs corresponding to new model are calculated, consequently. It can be seen that the inspection time achieved from new model has lower costs than former schedule, which is benefit to avoiding unnecessary expenditure. Based on derived optimized inspection time, optimized risk acceptance criteria are analyzed according to different conditions and the differences of costs distinguished by inspection level and corrosion extent are also discussed. The difference of costs induced by dimension of defects detected on various components in industrial application is analyzed, which proves the practicability of risk based inspection and maintenance method. The costs rise with increase of dimension of defects, which emphasizes the importance of controlling corrosion to reduce costs again. The data of costs shows the probable uneconomical situation of FPSO during its overage service, which is helpful to make maintenance or retirement decision for owners when FPSO exceeds its designed service life.
引文
[1] Aker Offshore Partners A S, Target levels for reliability-based assessment of offshore structures during design and operation, Sudbury, HSE books, 1999.
[2] Akpan Unyime O, Koko T S, Ayyub B, etc., Risk assessment of aging ship hull structures in the presence of corrosion and fatigue, Marine Structures, 2002, 15(3): 211-231.
[3] Ali MD, Michael C, Rajiv K A, etc., Collision risks associated with FPSOs in deep water Gulf of Mexico, Proceedings of the Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, 1999, 2(2): 359-368.
[4] American Bureau of Shipping, Guide for Assessing Hull-Girder Residual Strength for Tankers, American Bureau of Shipping, New York, USA, 1995.
[5] American Bureau of Shipping, Guide for surveys using risk-based inspection for the offshore industry, American Bureau of Shipping, Houston, Texas, USA, 2003.
[6] American Bureau of Shipping, ABS SAFE HULL system for tankers guide for assessing hull girder residual strength of ship, American Bureau of Shipping, New York, USA, 1995.
[7] Aven T, Kristensen V, Perspectives on risk: review and discussion of the basis for establishing a unified and holistic approach. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2005, 90(1): 1-14.
[8] Aven T, Vinnem J E, On the use of risk acceptance criteria in the offshore oil and gas industry, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2005, 90(1): 15–24.
[9] Ayyub B M, Akpan U O, Rushton P A, etc., Risk-informed inspection of marine vessels, Ship Structures Committee, Washington D C, 2002, SSC-421.
[10] Bea R G, Reliability-based re-qualification criteria for offshore platforms, Proceedings of 12th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, ASME, New York, 1993,Ⅱ: 351-361.
[11] Bhattacharya Baidurya, Basu Roger, Ma Kai-tung, Developing target reliability for novel structures: the case of the Mobile Offshore Base, Marine Structures, 2001, 14(1-2): 37-58.
[12] Bj?rn?y O H, Jahre-Nilsen C, Marley M J, etc., RBI planning for pipelines, Proceedings of 20th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Brazil, 2001: OMAE2001-PIPE4007.
[13] Bloch A, S?rensen J Dalsgaard, Faber M H, Simplified approach to inspection planning, 8th ASCE Specialty Conference on Probabilistic Mechanics and Structural Reliability, PMC2000-188.
[14] Brandsaer A, Risk assessment in the offshore industry, Safety Science, 2002, 40(1-4): 231-269.
[15] Broughton P, Davies R L, Jenkins J, Removal of the Maureen steel gravity platform, Proceedings of the Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston,Texas, USA, 1999, 3: 593-606.
[16] Caldwell J B, Ultimate longitudinal strength, Transactions of RINA, 1965, 107: 411-430.
[17] Canadian Standards Association, General requirements, design criteria, the environment, and loads, a national standard of Canada, CAN/CSA-S471-92, 1992.
[18] Chen D Y, Trivedi K S, Optimization for condition-based maintenance with semi-Markov decision process, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2005, 90(1): 25-29.
[19] Chen H B, Moan T, Collision risk analysis of FPSO-tanker offloading operation, Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Oslo, Norway, 2002, 2: 101-112.
[20] Chen H B, Moan T, FPSO-shuttle tanker collision risk reduction, Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 2005, 127(4): 345-352.
[21] Chen H B, Moan T, Probabilistic modeling and evaluation of collision between shuttle tanker and FPSO in tandem offloading, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2004, 84(2): 169-186.
[22] Chen Y K, Kutt L M, Piaszczyk C M, etc., Ultimate strength of ship structures, SNAME Transaction, 1983, 91: 149-168.
[23] Chou K C, Yuan J, Fuzzy-Bayesian approach to reliability of exiting structures, Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE, 1993, 119(11): 3276-3290.
[24] Dawson J, Bruce K, John D G, Corrosion risk management and safety management for offshore processing facilities, Noble Denton Europe Ltd, Sudbury, HSE books, 1999.
[25] Det Norske Veritas, Structural reliability analysis of marine structures, Classification notes no. 30.6, DNV, Norway, 1992.
[26] Dey P K, Ogunlana S O, Naksuksakul S, Risk-based maintenance model for offshore oil and gas pipeline: A case study, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 2004, 10(3): 169-183.
[27] DiMattiaa D G, Khanb F I, Amyotte P R, Determination of human error probabilities for offshore platform musters, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2005, 18(4-6): 488–501.
[28] Ditlevsen Ove, Reliability against defect generated fracture, Journal of Structural Mechanics, 1981, 9(2): 115-137.
[29] Emi H, Yuasa M, Kumano A, etc., A study on life assessment of ships and offshore structures-3rd Report: Corrosion control and condition evaluation for a long life service of the ship, Journal of the Society of Naval Architects of Japan, 1993, 174:735-747.
[30] Ersdal G, Assessment of existing offshore structures for life extension [Dissertation], University of Stavanger, Norway, 2005.
[31] Estrada C, Escobedo D, Development of a cost-benefit model for inspection of offshore jacket structures in Mexico, Proceedings of 22nd International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Mexico, 2003: OMAE2003-37062.
[32] Faber M H, Straub D, Goyet J, Unified approach to risk-based inspection planning for offshore production facilities, Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 2003, 125(2): 126-131.
[33] Faber Michael H, Daniel Straub, S?rensen John D, etc., Field implementation of RBI for Jacket structures, Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Cancun, Mexico, 2003, OMAE2003-37304.
[34] Facciolli Renato, Carlo Ferretti, Gian Mario Bozzo, Aged offshore structures: strength and fatigue re-assessment, Mediterranean Petroleum Conference and Exhibition, Tripoli, Libya, 1997: 1-10.
[35] Fagan C, Managing risk associated with Novel Gas Development projects, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, 2004: OTC16578.
[36] Fang Chuang, Das Purnendu K, Survivability and reliability of damaged ships after collision and grounding, Ocean Engineering, 2005, 32(3-4): 293–307.
[37] Flin R, Mearns K, Gordon R, etc., Risk perception by offshore workers on UK oil and gas platforms, Safety Science, 1996, 22(1-3): 131-145.
[38] Florentino S, Valle O, Optimal inspection scheduling methodology for fixed offshore structures based on reliability analysis, Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, ASME, Lisbon, Portugal, 1998: OMAE98-1212.
[39] Florentino Saul, David de Leon, Optimal inspection methodology for offshore structures based on an economic decision theory, Proceedings of 23rd International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 2004, OMAE2004-51214.
[40] Franck S, Mustapha R, Risk based inspection of jackets submitted to through-wall cracks, Proceedings of 22nd International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Cancun, Mexico, 2003: OMAE2003-37330.
[41] Garbatov Y, Guedes Soares C, Bayesian updating in the reliability assessment of maintained floating structures, Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 2002, 124(3): 139-145.
[42] Gilbert R B, Ward E G, Wolford A J, A comparative risk analysis of FPSO’s with other deepwater production systems in the Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, 2001: OTC 13173.
[43] Giribone R, Valette B, Principles of failure probability assessment(PoF), International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, 2004, 81(11-12): 797–806.
[44] Goyet J, Rouhan A, Michael Havbro Faber, Industrial implementation of riskbased inspection planning lessons learnt from experience: (1) the case of FPSO’s, Proceedings of 23rd International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Canada, 2004: OMAE2004-51572.
[45] Guedes Soares C, Doglianim M, Ostergaard C, etc., Reliability based ship structural design, Transactions of SNAME, 1996, 104: 375-389.
[46] Guedes Soares C, Garbatov Y, Cost and reliability based strategies for fatigue maintenance planning of floating structures, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2001, 73(3): 293-301.
[47] Guedes Soares C, Garbatov Y, Reliability of maintained, corrosion protected plates subjected to non-linear corrosion and compressive loads, Marine Structures, 1999, 12(6): 425-445.
[48] Han S M, Ito H, Suh Y S, Collision analysis using analytical approach, Proceedings of the 15th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Seoul, South Korea, 2005: 618-625.
[49] Hara S, Yamakawa K, Hoshino K, etc., At-sea towing of a Mega-Float unit, Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 2004, 8(3): 138–146.
[50] Hara S, Yamakawa K, Kokubun K, etc., Towing experiment of box-shaped floating structure with shallow draft, Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Yokohama, Japan, 1997, 6: 5-14.
[51] Hauge B S, Optimizing intervals for inspection and failure-finding tasks, Annual Reliability and Maintainability symposium, Seattle, Washington, USA, IEEE, 2002: 14-19.
[52] Health and Safety Executive, Rationalization of FPSO design issues, Noble Denton Europe Ltd, Sudbury, HSE books, 2001.
[53] Hellevik S G, Langen I, S?rensen J D, Cost optimal reliability based inspection and replacement planning of piping subjected to CO2 corrosion, International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, 1999, 76: 527–538.
[54] Holdbrook S J, Risk based inspection planning for an FPSO hull – lessons for design, Proceedings of the 14th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Toulon, France, 2004: 526-532.
[55] Huang E T, Faulting J R, Stability assessment of a concrete platform under ocean tow, Proceedings of the 15th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Seoul, South Korea, 2005: 140-147.
[56] International Organization for Standardization, General principles on reliability for structures, ISO2394, 1998.
[57] ISSC, Design principles and criteria, Proceedings of the 13th International Ship and Offshore Structures Congress, Trondheim, Norway, 1997, Committee IV.1.
[58] ISSC, Structural design of floating production systems, Proceedings of the 13th International Ship and Offshore Structures Congress, Trondheim, Norway, 1997,Committee V.6.
[59] Jon D, Rajiv K A, Chuck P, etc., Risk assessment technology and its application to tanker based floating production storage and offloading (FPSO) systems, Proceedings of the Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, 1999, 2(2): 347-357.
[60] Julian W, Guilherme N, Directional aspects of collision risk between passing ships and platforms: a North Sea case study, Proceedings of the 14th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Toulon, France, 2004: 533-539.
[61] Kaminski M L, Krekel M, Reliability analysis of fatigue sensitive joints in FPSO, Proceedings of 14th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, ASME, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1995, Ⅱ: 175-186.
[62] Kamlesh S V, Nigel D P B, Xuan P P, Fishtailing instabilities in emergency towing of disabled tankers, Proceedings of the 15th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Seoul, Korea, 2005: 350-357.
[63] Kanegaonkar H B, Possibilistic inspection planning technique based on fuzzy reliability concepts, Proceedings of the 11th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Stavanger, Norway, 2001, Ⅳ: 516-521.
[64] Khan F I, Amyotte P R, DiMattia D G, HEPI: A new tool for human error probability calculation for offshore operation, Safety Science, 2006, 44(4): 313-334.
[65] Khan F I, Haddara M M, Risk-based maintenance (RBM): a quantitative approach for maintenance/inspection scheduling and planning, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2003, 16(6): 561-573.
[66] Kjellén U, Sklet S, Integrating analyses of the risk of occupational accidents into the design process Part I: A review of types of acceptance criteria and risk analysis methods, Safety Science, 1995, 18(3): 215-227.
[67] Kjellén U, Adapting the application of risk analysis in offshore platform design to new framework conditions, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 1998, 60(2): 143- 151.
[68] Kokubun K, Hara S, Yamakawa K, etc., Towing experiment of an unit model of floating structures, Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, 1998: OMAE98-4336.
[69] Krueger J, Smith D, A practical approach to fire hazard analysis for offshore structures, Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2003, 104(1-3): 107-122.
[70] Lahar Baliwangi, Kenji Ishida, Hidetoshi Arima, etc., Optimizing ship machinery maintenance scheduling through risk analysis and life cost analysis, Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Hamburg, Germany, 2006, OMAE2006-92201.
[71] Landet E, Lotsberg I, Sigursson G, Risk based inspection of an FPSO, Proceedings of the Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston TexasUSA, 2000, 2: 739-748.
[72] Lee J O, Yeo I C, Yang Y S, A trial application of FSA methodology to the hatchway watertight integrity of bulk carriers, Marine Structures, 2001, 14(6): 651-667.
[73] Li D Q, Zhang S K, Tang W Y, Risk based optimal inspection and repair planning for ship structures subjected to corrosion deterioration, China Ocean Engineering, 2004, 18(2): 185-196.
[74] Li D Q, Zhang S K, Inspection uncertainty and model uncertainty for ship structures subjected to corrosion deterioration, Journal of Ship Mechanics, 2004, 8(4): 55-69.
[75] Lotsberg I, Sigurdsson G, Wold P T, Probabilistic inspection planning of the Asgard a FPSO hull structure with respect to fatigue, Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 2000, 122(2): 134-140.
[76] Lotsberg I, Target reliability index, a literature survey, Report No.91-2023, A.S. Veritas Research, Norway, 1991.
[77] Lotsberga I, Olufsena O, Sollanda G, etc., Risk assessment of loss of structural integrity of a floating production platform due to gross errors, Marine Structures, 2004, 17(7): 551-573.
[78] Loukasis Theodore A, Chryssostomidis Chryssostomos, Seakeeping Standard Series for Cruiser-Stern Ships, Transactions of SNAME, 1975, 82: 67-127.
[79] MacMillan A, Fischer K P, Carlsen H, etc., Newbuilding FPSO corrosion protection-a design and operation planning guideline, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, 2004: OTC16048.
[80] Mansour A E, Yang J M, An experimental Investigation of ship hull ultimate strength, Transactions of SNAME, 1990, 98: 411- 439.
[81] Mansour A E, A Note on the Extreme Wave Load and the Associated Probability of Failure, Journal of Ship research, 1986, 30(2): 123-126.
[82] Mansour A E, Extreme value distributions of wave load and their application to marine structures, Proceeding of Marine Structural Reliability Symposium, Arlington, USA, 1987: 159-167.
[83] Mathisen Jan, Larsen Kjell, Risk-Based Inspection Planning for Mooring Chain, Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 2004, 126(3): 250-251.
[84] Melchers R E, Corrosion uncertainty modeling for steel structures, Constructional Steel Research, 1999, 52(1): 3-19.
[85] Melchers R E, On the ALARP approach to risk management, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2001, 71(2): 201-208.
[86] Melchers R E, Probabilistic modeling of immersion corrosion of steels in marine waters, Proceedings of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2001: OMAE2001/S&R-2108.
[87] Melchers R E, Probabilistic modeling of immersion marine corrosion, StructuralSafety and Reliability, Rotterdam, Balkema, 1998, 3:1143-1149.
[88] Melchers R E, Structural reliability: analysis and prediction, Ellis Horwood, New York, 1987, 111-117.
[89] Moan T, Karsan D, Wilson T, Analytical risk assessment and risk control of floating platforms subjected to ship collisions and dropped objects, Proceedings of the 25th Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, 1993, 1: 407-415.
[90] Morikawa M, Ishikawa K, Suzuki H, etc., On-site experiment for towing procedure of pre-fabricated tendon of TLP, Proceedings of the International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Osaka, Japan, 1994, 1: 84-90.
[91] Nilsen T, Aven T, Models and model uncertainty in the context of risk analysis, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2003, 79(3): 309-317.
[92] Nilsen T, Gudmestad O T, Dalane J I, etc., Utilisation of principles from structural reliability in quantitative risk analysis: example from an offshore transport problem, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 1998, 61(1-2): 127-137.
[93] Oh M H, Kim J, Jang, Y S, etc., Impact analysis of greater plutonic FPSO considering ship collision, Proceedings of the International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Seoul, South Korea, 2005: 626-633.
[94] ?ien K, Risk indicators as a tool for risk control, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2001, 74(2): 129-145.
[95] Onoufriou T, Frangopol D M, Reliability-based inspection optimization of complex structures: a brief retrospective, Computers and Structures, 2002, 80(12): 1133-1144.
[96] Paik J K, Kim S K, Lee S K, Probabilistic corrosion rate estimation model for longitudinal strength members of bulk carriers, Ocean Engineering, 1998, 25(10): 837-860.
[97] Paik J K, Lee J M, Hwang J S, etc., A time-dependent corrosion wastage model for the structures of single- and Double-hull tankers and FSOs and FPSOs, Marine Technology, 2003, 40(3): 201-217.
[98] Paik J K, Lee J M, Park Young II, etc., Time-variant ultimate longitudinal strength of corroded bulk carriers, Marine Structures, 2003, 16(8): 567–600.
[99] Paik J K, Mansour A E,A simple formulation for predicting the ultimate strength of ships, Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 1995(1): 52-62.
[100] Paik J K, Thayamballi A K, Che J S, Ultimate strength of ship hulls under combined vertical bending, horizontal bending and shearing forces, Transactions of SNAME, 1996, 104: 31–59.
[101] Paik J K, Thayamballi A K, Park Y II, etc., A time-dependent corrosion wastage model for seawater ballast tank structures of ships, Corrosion science, 2004, 46(2): 471-486.
[102] Paik Jeom Kee, Thayamballi Anil Kumar, Ultimate Limit State Design of Steel-Plated Structures, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, UK, 2003.
[103] Paik Joem Kee, Thayamballi Anil K, Yang Soo Hong, Residual Strength Assessment of Ships after Collision and Grounding, Marine Technology, 1998, 35(1): 38-54.
[104] Pedersen P T, Zhang S M, On impact mechanics in ship collisions, Marine Structures, 1998, 11(10): 429-449.
[105] Pula R, Khan F I, Veitch B, etc., Revised fire consequence models for offshore quantitative risk assessment, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2005, 18(4-6): 443–454.
[106] Qi En-rong, Cui Weicheng, Wan Zhengquan, etc., Study of residual strength index of damaged ship hulls, Journal of Ship Mechanics, 2004, 8(3): 76-84.
[107] Qin S P, Cui W C, Effect of corrosion models on the time-dependent reliability of steel plated elements, Marine Structures, 2003, 16(1): 15-34.
[108] Ramberg L A, Skramstad E, Classification of LNG FPSOs-a viable route for risk management, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, 2002: OTC14097.
[109] Rettedal W K, Mong H N, Hausberg G, Risk analysis-heavy lifts; NORNE FPSO gas export project, Proceedings of 22nd International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Cancun, Mexico, 2003: OMAE2003-37069.
[110] Rouhan A, Schoefs F, Probabilistic modeling of inspection results for offshore structures, Structural Safety, 2003, 25(4): 379-399.
[111] Rouhan Antoine, Goyet Jean, Michael Havbro Faber, Industrial implementation of risk based inspection planning-lessons learned from experience, Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 2004: OMAE2004-51573.
[112] Sagrilo L V S, de Lima E C P, Henriques C C D, etc., Using structural reliability inspection analysis in inspection planning of offshore structures, Proceeding of the 7th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, 1997, 4: 174-178.
[113] Schofield S, Offshore QRA and the ALARP principle, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 1998, 61(4-6): 31-37.
[114] Smith C S, Influence of local compressive failure on ultimate longitudinal strength of a ship’s hull, PRADS’ 77, Tokyo, 1977: 73-79.
[115] Smith E J, Risk management in the North Sea offshore industry: history, status and challenges, Acta Astronautica, 1995, 37: 513-523.
[116] Southwell C R, Bultman J D, Hummer Jr C W, Seawater corrosion handbook, Noyes Data Corporation, New Jersey, USA, 1979: 374-387.
[117] Stahl B, Aune S, Gebara J M, etc., Acceptance Criteria for Offshore Platforms, Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 2000, 122(3): 153-156.
[118] Straub D, Faber M H, System effects in generic risk based inspection planning, Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 2004, 126(3): 265–271.
[119] Straub Daniel, Faber Michael H, Computational aspects of risk-based inspection planning, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 2006, 21: 179–192.
[120] Straub Daniel, Generic Approaches to Risk Based Inspection Planning for Steel Structures[Dissertation], Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, 2004.
[121] Sun H H, Bai Y, Reliability assessment of a FPSO hull girder subjected to degradations of corrosion and fatigue, Proceedings of the 10th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Seattle, USA, ISOPE, 2000: ISOPE-2000-YB-007.
[122] Sun H H, Bai Y, Time-variant reliability assessment of FPSO hull girders, Marine Structures, 2003, 16(3): 219-253.
[123] Sun H H, Guedes Soares C, Reliability-based structural design of ship-type FPSO units, Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 2003, 125(2): 108-113.
[124] Sun Haihong, Guedes Soares, Reliability-based inspection of corroded ship-type FPSO hulls, Journal of Ship Research, 2006, 50(2): 171-180.
[125] Tam V H Y, Lee R, Gas explosion modelling of FPSO, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 1998, 11(1): 67–73.
[126] Toula Onoufriou, Reliability based inspection planning of offshore structures, Marine Structures, 1999, 12(6): 521-539.
[127] TSCF, Guidance manual for tanker structures, Tanker Structure Co-operative Forum in association with International Association of Classification Societies, Witherby & Co. Ltd, 1997.
[128] Ueda Y, Rashed S M H, Paik J K, Plate and stiffened plate units of the idealized structural unit method -Under in- plane loading, Journal of Society Naval Architecture of Japan, 1985, 156: 366-376. (in Japanese)
[129] UK Department of Energy, The Public Inquiry to the Piper Alpha Disaster, London HMSO, 1990.
[130] Van Dyck J, Veneziano D, Lebas G, Risk of towing operations, Proceedings of the International Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering Symposium, Houston, Texas, USA, 1990, 2: 151-159.
[131] Wan M W A M, Mohamad B E, Tubular joints reliability and fracture analyses for development of underwater inspection of offshore steel structures, Proceedings of the 7th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, 1997, 4:119-124.
[132] Wang G, Ohtsubo H, Impact load of a supply vessel, Proceedings of the 9th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, 1999, 4: 463-471.
[133] Wang G, Spencer J, Elsayed T, Estimation of corrosion rates of structuralmembers in oil tankers, Proceedings of International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, ASME, Cancun, Mexico, 2003: OMAE2003-37361.
[134] Wang G, Spencer J, Sun H H, Assessment of corrosion risks to aging ships using an experience database, Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 2005, 127(2): 167-174.
[135] Wang J J, Lu R, Lu N, Truss Spar strength and fatigue analysis for wet tow, Proceedings of the International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, 2003: 264-271.
[136] Wang J, Foinikis P, Formal safety assessment of containerships, Marine Policy, 2001, 25(2): 143-157.
[137] Wim A de V, Els M de W, Ship-Platform Collisions: Comparison of Collision Frequency Models, Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Florence, Italy, 1996, 2: 451-456.
[138] Wirsching Paul H, Ferensic Jame, Thayamballi Anil, Reliability with Respect to Ultimate Strength of a Corroding Ship Hull, Marine Structures, 1997, 10(7): 501-518.
[139] Wolford A J, Lin J C, Liming J K, etc., Integrated risk based design of FPSO topsides, structural and marine systems, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, 2001: OTC 12948.
[140] Xu L B, Chen G M, Fuzzy reliability assessment for offshore structures considering inspection and maintenance, Proceedings of 22nd International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Mexico, 2003: OMAE2003-37186.
[141] Xu T, Bai Y, Wang M, etc., Risk based ‘optimum’ inspection for FPSO hulls, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, 2001: OTC12949.
[142] Yamamoto N, Ikegami K, A study on the degradation of coating and corrosion of ship’s hull based on the probabilistic approach, Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 1998, 120(2): 121-128.
[143] Yamamoto N, Kumano A, Matoba M, Effect of corrosion and its protection on hull strength, Journal of the Society of Naval Architecture of Japan, 1994, 176: 281-289.
[144] Zhang R X, Mahadevan S, Model uncertainty and Bayesian updating in reliability-based inspection, Structural Safety, 2000, 22(2): 145-160.
[145] 安伟光, 陈燕, 孙克淋, 基于检测结果的海洋工程结构 TLP 系索系统疲劳可靠性分析, 哈尔滨工程大学学报, 2004, 25(6): 700-704.
[146] 陈国明, 海洋结构裂纹检测与维修优化, 石油大学学报, 2000, 24(5): 73-75.
[147] 陈立, 钱茹, FPSO 对开发边际油田的商业价值, 中国海洋平台, 1999, 14(5): 6-9.
[148] 程志虎, 第一专题: 水下无损检测技术综述(一) 对象、目的与方法, 无损检测, 1997, 19(9): 266-269.
[149] 贡金鑫, 工程结构可靠度计算方法, 大连, 大连理工大学出版社, 2003, 251-280.
[150] 郭昌捷, 唐翰岫, 周炳焕, 受损船体极限强度分析与可靠性评估, 中国造船, 1998, (4): 49-56.
[151] 何福志, 万正权, 船体结构总纵极限强度的简化逐步破坏分析, 船舶力学, 2001, 5(5): 21-35.
[152] 何炎平, 秦耀良, 李宏伟, 30 万吨级 FPSO 拖航运动响应和波浪载荷分析, 造船技术, 2005, (1): 13-16.
[153] 胡毓仁, 陈伯真, 船舶及海洋工程结构疲劳可靠性分析, 北京, 人民交通出版社, 1996, 21-24.
[154] 胡云昌, 黄海燕, 余建星, 基于概率影响图的海洋平台安全风险评估方法, 中国造船, 1998, 36(3): 38-46.
[155] 胡云昌, 于洪洁, 郭振邦等, 导管架式海洋平台可靠性检测与维修策略研究, 船舶, 1995(3): 27-36.
[156] 江晓俐, 基于船舶总纵极限强度的可靠性研究[学位论文], 武汉理工大学, 2005.
[157] 金伟良, 龚顺风, 宋剑等, 大型船舶碰撞引起的海洋导管架平台结构损伤分析, 海洋工程, 2003, 21(2): 20-25.
[158] 李碧英, 周美, 海洋钢结构物腐蚀防护的研究, 中国海洋平台, 2001, 16(5-6): 45-49.
[159] 李典庆, 唐文勇, 张圣坤, 海洋工程风险接受准则研究进展, 海洋工程, 2003, 21(2): 96-102.
[160] 李典庆, 张圣坤, 唐文勇, 船舶结构腐蚀检测及腐蚀模型不确定性分析, 上海交通大学学报, 2003, 37(8): 1141-1145.
[161] 李典庆, 张圣坤, 唐文勇, 基于风险的船体结构腐蚀优化检测及维修规划, 上海交通大学学报, 2004, 38(11): 1875-1879.
[162] 李典庆, 张圣坤, 唐文勇, 基于风险的海洋结构物无损检测功能的分级, 海洋工程, 2004, 22(1): 80-87.
[163] 李典庆, 张圣坤, 海洋结构物风险评估方法的研究进展, 中国海洋平台, 2003, 18(3): 6-12.
[164] 李典庆, 基于风险的船体结构检测及维修规划[学位论文], 上海交通大学, 2004.
[165] 李奇, 李延渊, 黄贤滨等, 基于风险检测的风险评估方法, 安全、健康和环境, 2004, 4(2): 35-38.
[166] 李青霞, 周波, 陈俊达, 超声波船体腐蚀检测的现状及发展趋势, 测试技术学报, 1998, 12(3): 203-206.
[167] 李润培, 陈伟刚, 顾永宁, 近海固定平台碰撞的准静态分析, 海洋工程, 1995, 13(2): 14-21.
[168] 李文龙, 谭家华, 超大型海洋浮式储油系统的风险评估, 海洋工程, 2004,22(3): 1-8.
[169] 刘大扬, 李文军, 魏开金, 钢在南海榆林海域暴露 16 年的腐蚀, 舰船科学技术, 2001, 23(2): 47-59.
[170] 吕秀艳, 刘德辅, 牟善军等, 基于随机分析和概率预测的固定式海洋平台结构风险评估研究, 中国海洋平台, 2005, 20(5): 6-16.
[171] 马士德, 段继周, 李伟华等, 南海油田 W12-1 平台水下钢结构腐蚀与防护检测情况讨论, 全面腐蚀控制, 2006, 26(2):26-28.
[172] 马延德, 关伟姝, 孙德壮等, 浮式生产储油船(FPSO)迁航性能计算, 中国海洋平台, 2005, 20(5): 35-38.
[173] 聂炳林, 国内外水下检测与监测技术的新进展, 中国海洋平台, 2005, 20(6): 43-45.
[174] 祁恩荣, 崔维成, 彭兴宁等, 船舶碰撞和搁浅后剩余强度可靠性评估, 船舶力学, 1999, 3(5): 40-46.
[175] 祁恩荣, 崔维成, 彭兴宁等, 破损船体非对称弯曲极限强度分析及可靠性评估, 中国造船, 2000, 41(2): 41-48.
[176] 邵炎林, 何炎平, 海洋结构物中典型圆管构件的碰撞损伤研究, 中国海洋平台, 2006, 21(2): 35-40.
[177] 宋剑, 海洋平台结构在偶然灾害作用下的可靠性研究[学位论文], 浙江大学, 2005: 24-42.
[178] 宋儒鑫, 陆鑫森, 海上结构物损伤检测的探测概率分析, 上海交通大学学报, 1996, 30(10): 122-128.
[179] 孙树民, 海洋平台结构的发展, 广东造船, 2000, 4: 32-37.
[180] 唐文勇, 李典庆, 张圣坤, 基于风险的船体结构检测及维护研究综述, 船舶力学, 2005, 9(5): 143-154.
[181] 王平, 程志虎, 胡毓仁等, 海洋工程结构的疲劳可靠性更新研究, 船舶, 2000(2): 40-44.
[182] 王平, 陈伯真, 胡毓仁, Hohenbichler 方法在结构系统疲劳可靠性分析中的应用, 中国海洋平台, 1997, 12(5): 200-204.
[183] 王瑞利, 李斌, 高强, 漏磁检测与超声波检测技术应用比较, 管道技术与设备, 2006, (5): 15-17.
[184] 王晓燕, 海洋工程的安全风险评估研究, 山东科学, 2005, 18(5): 43-47.
[185] 夏兰廷, 黄桂桥, 张三平, 金属材料的海洋腐蚀与防护, 北京, 冶金工业出版社, 2003.
[186] 许亮斌, 陈国明, 基于模糊贝叶斯理论更新概率可靠性模型, 石油大学学报, 2003, 27(6): 53-56.
[187] 张立, 金伟良, 考虑检修因素的海洋工程结构疲劳可靠性分析, 强度与环境, 2001, (3): 22-30.
[188] 张圣坤, 白勇, 唐文勇, 船舶与海洋工程风险评估, 北京, 国防工业出版社, 2003.
[2] Akpan Unyime O, Koko T S, Ayyub B, etc., Risk assessment of aging ship hull structures in the presence of corrosion and fatigue, Marine Structures, 2002, 15(3): 211-231.
[3] Ali MD, Michael C, Rajiv K A, etc., Collision risks associated with FPSOs in deep water Gulf of Mexico, Proceedings of the Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, 1999, 2(2): 359-368.
[4] American Bureau of Shipping, Guide for Assessing Hull-Girder Residual Strength for Tankers, American Bureau of Shipping, New York, USA, 1995.
[5] American Bureau of Shipping, Guide for surveys using risk-based inspection for the offshore industry, American Bureau of Shipping, Houston, Texas, USA, 2003.
[6] American Bureau of Shipping, ABS SAFE HULL system for tankers guide for assessing hull girder residual strength of ship, American Bureau of Shipping, New York, USA, 1995.
[7] Aven T, Kristensen V, Perspectives on risk: review and discussion of the basis for establishing a unified and holistic approach. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2005, 90(1): 1-14.
[8] Aven T, Vinnem J E, On the use of risk acceptance criteria in the offshore oil and gas industry, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2005, 90(1): 15–24.
[9] Ayyub B M, Akpan U O, Rushton P A, etc., Risk-informed inspection of marine vessels, Ship Structures Committee, Washington D C, 2002, SSC-421.
[10] Bea R G, Reliability-based re-qualification criteria for offshore platforms, Proceedings of 12th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, ASME, New York, 1993,Ⅱ: 351-361.
[11] Bhattacharya Baidurya, Basu Roger, Ma Kai-tung, Developing target reliability for novel structures: the case of the Mobile Offshore Base, Marine Structures, 2001, 14(1-2): 37-58.
[12] Bj?rn?y O H, Jahre-Nilsen C, Marley M J, etc., RBI planning for pipelines, Proceedings of 20th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Brazil, 2001: OMAE2001-PIPE4007.
[13] Bloch A, S?rensen J Dalsgaard, Faber M H, Simplified approach to inspection planning, 8th ASCE Specialty Conference on Probabilistic Mechanics and Structural Reliability, PMC2000-188.
[14] Brandsaer A, Risk assessment in the offshore industry, Safety Science, 2002, 40(1-4): 231-269.
[15] Broughton P, Davies R L, Jenkins J, Removal of the Maureen steel gravity platform, Proceedings of the Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston,Texas, USA, 1999, 3: 593-606.
[16] Caldwell J B, Ultimate longitudinal strength, Transactions of RINA, 1965, 107: 411-430.
[17] Canadian Standards Association, General requirements, design criteria, the environment, and loads, a national standard of Canada, CAN/CSA-S471-92, 1992.
[18] Chen D Y, Trivedi K S, Optimization for condition-based maintenance with semi-Markov decision process, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2005, 90(1): 25-29.
[19] Chen H B, Moan T, Collision risk analysis of FPSO-tanker offloading operation, Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Oslo, Norway, 2002, 2: 101-112.
[20] Chen H B, Moan T, FPSO-shuttle tanker collision risk reduction, Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 2005, 127(4): 345-352.
[21] Chen H B, Moan T, Probabilistic modeling and evaluation of collision between shuttle tanker and FPSO in tandem offloading, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2004, 84(2): 169-186.
[22] Chen Y K, Kutt L M, Piaszczyk C M, etc., Ultimate strength of ship structures, SNAME Transaction, 1983, 91: 149-168.
[23] Chou K C, Yuan J, Fuzzy-Bayesian approach to reliability of exiting structures, Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE, 1993, 119(11): 3276-3290.
[24] Dawson J, Bruce K, John D G, Corrosion risk management and safety management for offshore processing facilities, Noble Denton Europe Ltd, Sudbury, HSE books, 1999.
[25] Det Norske Veritas, Structural reliability analysis of marine structures, Classification notes no. 30.6, DNV, Norway, 1992.
[26] Dey P K, Ogunlana S O, Naksuksakul S, Risk-based maintenance model for offshore oil and gas pipeline: A case study, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 2004, 10(3): 169-183.
[27] DiMattiaa D G, Khanb F I, Amyotte P R, Determination of human error probabilities for offshore platform musters, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2005, 18(4-6): 488–501.
[28] Ditlevsen Ove, Reliability against defect generated fracture, Journal of Structural Mechanics, 1981, 9(2): 115-137.
[29] Emi H, Yuasa M, Kumano A, etc., A study on life assessment of ships and offshore structures-3rd Report: Corrosion control and condition evaluation for a long life service of the ship, Journal of the Society of Naval Architects of Japan, 1993, 174:735-747.
[30] Ersdal G, Assessment of existing offshore structures for life extension [Dissertation], University of Stavanger, Norway, 2005.
[31] Estrada C, Escobedo D, Development of a cost-benefit model for inspection of offshore jacket structures in Mexico, Proceedings of 22nd International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Mexico, 2003: OMAE2003-37062.
[32] Faber M H, Straub D, Goyet J, Unified approach to risk-based inspection planning for offshore production facilities, Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 2003, 125(2): 126-131.
[33] Faber Michael H, Daniel Straub, S?rensen John D, etc., Field implementation of RBI for Jacket structures, Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Cancun, Mexico, 2003, OMAE2003-37304.
[34] Facciolli Renato, Carlo Ferretti, Gian Mario Bozzo, Aged offshore structures: strength and fatigue re-assessment, Mediterranean Petroleum Conference and Exhibition, Tripoli, Libya, 1997: 1-10.
[35] Fagan C, Managing risk associated with Novel Gas Development projects, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, 2004: OTC16578.
[36] Fang Chuang, Das Purnendu K, Survivability and reliability of damaged ships after collision and grounding, Ocean Engineering, 2005, 32(3-4): 293–307.
[37] Flin R, Mearns K, Gordon R, etc., Risk perception by offshore workers on UK oil and gas platforms, Safety Science, 1996, 22(1-3): 131-145.
[38] Florentino S, Valle O, Optimal inspection scheduling methodology for fixed offshore structures based on reliability analysis, Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, ASME, Lisbon, Portugal, 1998: OMAE98-1212.
[39] Florentino Saul, David de Leon, Optimal inspection methodology for offshore structures based on an economic decision theory, Proceedings of 23rd International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 2004, OMAE2004-51214.
[40] Franck S, Mustapha R, Risk based inspection of jackets submitted to through-wall cracks, Proceedings of 22nd International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Cancun, Mexico, 2003: OMAE2003-37330.
[41] Garbatov Y, Guedes Soares C, Bayesian updating in the reliability assessment of maintained floating structures, Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 2002, 124(3): 139-145.
[42] Gilbert R B, Ward E G, Wolford A J, A comparative risk analysis of FPSO’s with other deepwater production systems in the Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, 2001: OTC 13173.
[43] Giribone R, Valette B, Principles of failure probability assessment(PoF), International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, 2004, 81(11-12): 797–806.
[44] Goyet J, Rouhan A, Michael Havbro Faber, Industrial implementation of riskbased inspection planning lessons learnt from experience: (1) the case of FPSO’s, Proceedings of 23rd International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Canada, 2004: OMAE2004-51572.
[45] Guedes Soares C, Doglianim M, Ostergaard C, etc., Reliability based ship structural design, Transactions of SNAME, 1996, 104: 375-389.
[46] Guedes Soares C, Garbatov Y, Cost and reliability based strategies for fatigue maintenance planning of floating structures, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2001, 73(3): 293-301.
[47] Guedes Soares C, Garbatov Y, Reliability of maintained, corrosion protected plates subjected to non-linear corrosion and compressive loads, Marine Structures, 1999, 12(6): 425-445.
[48] Han S M, Ito H, Suh Y S, Collision analysis using analytical approach, Proceedings of the 15th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Seoul, South Korea, 2005: 618-625.
[49] Hara S, Yamakawa K, Hoshino K, etc., At-sea towing of a Mega-Float unit, Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 2004, 8(3): 138–146.
[50] Hara S, Yamakawa K, Kokubun K, etc., Towing experiment of box-shaped floating structure with shallow draft, Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Yokohama, Japan, 1997, 6: 5-14.
[51] Hauge B S, Optimizing intervals for inspection and failure-finding tasks, Annual Reliability and Maintainability symposium, Seattle, Washington, USA, IEEE, 2002: 14-19.
[52] Health and Safety Executive, Rationalization of FPSO design issues, Noble Denton Europe Ltd, Sudbury, HSE books, 2001.
[53] Hellevik S G, Langen I, S?rensen J D, Cost optimal reliability based inspection and replacement planning of piping subjected to CO2 corrosion, International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, 1999, 76: 527–538.
[54] Holdbrook S J, Risk based inspection planning for an FPSO hull – lessons for design, Proceedings of the 14th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Toulon, France, 2004: 526-532.
[55] Huang E T, Faulting J R, Stability assessment of a concrete platform under ocean tow, Proceedings of the 15th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Seoul, South Korea, 2005: 140-147.
[56] International Organization for Standardization, General principles on reliability for structures, ISO2394, 1998.
[57] ISSC, Design principles and criteria, Proceedings of the 13th International Ship and Offshore Structures Congress, Trondheim, Norway, 1997, Committee IV.1.
[58] ISSC, Structural design of floating production systems, Proceedings of the 13th International Ship and Offshore Structures Congress, Trondheim, Norway, 1997,Committee V.6.
[59] Jon D, Rajiv K A, Chuck P, etc., Risk assessment technology and its application to tanker based floating production storage and offloading (FPSO) systems, Proceedings of the Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, 1999, 2(2): 347-357.
[60] Julian W, Guilherme N, Directional aspects of collision risk between passing ships and platforms: a North Sea case study, Proceedings of the 14th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Toulon, France, 2004: 533-539.
[61] Kaminski M L, Krekel M, Reliability analysis of fatigue sensitive joints in FPSO, Proceedings of 14th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, ASME, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1995, Ⅱ: 175-186.
[62] Kamlesh S V, Nigel D P B, Xuan P P, Fishtailing instabilities in emergency towing of disabled tankers, Proceedings of the 15th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Seoul, Korea, 2005: 350-357.
[63] Kanegaonkar H B, Possibilistic inspection planning technique based on fuzzy reliability concepts, Proceedings of the 11th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Stavanger, Norway, 2001, Ⅳ: 516-521.
[64] Khan F I, Amyotte P R, DiMattia D G, HEPI: A new tool for human error probability calculation for offshore operation, Safety Science, 2006, 44(4): 313-334.
[65] Khan F I, Haddara M M, Risk-based maintenance (RBM): a quantitative approach for maintenance/inspection scheduling and planning, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2003, 16(6): 561-573.
[66] Kjellén U, Sklet S, Integrating analyses of the risk of occupational accidents into the design process Part I: A review of types of acceptance criteria and risk analysis methods, Safety Science, 1995, 18(3): 215-227.
[67] Kjellén U, Adapting the application of risk analysis in offshore platform design to new framework conditions, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 1998, 60(2): 143- 151.
[68] Kokubun K, Hara S, Yamakawa K, etc., Towing experiment of an unit model of floating structures, Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, 1998: OMAE98-4336.
[69] Krueger J, Smith D, A practical approach to fire hazard analysis for offshore structures, Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2003, 104(1-3): 107-122.
[70] Lahar Baliwangi, Kenji Ishida, Hidetoshi Arima, etc., Optimizing ship machinery maintenance scheduling through risk analysis and life cost analysis, Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Hamburg, Germany, 2006, OMAE2006-92201.
[71] Landet E, Lotsberg I, Sigursson G, Risk based inspection of an FPSO, Proceedings of the Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston TexasUSA, 2000, 2: 739-748.
[72] Lee J O, Yeo I C, Yang Y S, A trial application of FSA methodology to the hatchway watertight integrity of bulk carriers, Marine Structures, 2001, 14(6): 651-667.
[73] Li D Q, Zhang S K, Tang W Y, Risk based optimal inspection and repair planning for ship structures subjected to corrosion deterioration, China Ocean Engineering, 2004, 18(2): 185-196.
[74] Li D Q, Zhang S K, Inspection uncertainty and model uncertainty for ship structures subjected to corrosion deterioration, Journal of Ship Mechanics, 2004, 8(4): 55-69.
[75] Lotsberg I, Sigurdsson G, Wold P T, Probabilistic inspection planning of the Asgard a FPSO hull structure with respect to fatigue, Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 2000, 122(2): 134-140.
[76] Lotsberg I, Target reliability index, a literature survey, Report No.91-2023, A.S. Veritas Research, Norway, 1991.
[77] Lotsberga I, Olufsena O, Sollanda G, etc., Risk assessment of loss of structural integrity of a floating production platform due to gross errors, Marine Structures, 2004, 17(7): 551-573.
[78] Loukasis Theodore A, Chryssostomidis Chryssostomos, Seakeeping Standard Series for Cruiser-Stern Ships, Transactions of SNAME, 1975, 82: 67-127.
[79] MacMillan A, Fischer K P, Carlsen H, etc., Newbuilding FPSO corrosion protection-a design and operation planning guideline, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, 2004: OTC16048.
[80] Mansour A E, Yang J M, An experimental Investigation of ship hull ultimate strength, Transactions of SNAME, 1990, 98: 411- 439.
[81] Mansour A E, A Note on the Extreme Wave Load and the Associated Probability of Failure, Journal of Ship research, 1986, 30(2): 123-126.
[82] Mansour A E, Extreme value distributions of wave load and their application to marine structures, Proceeding of Marine Structural Reliability Symposium, Arlington, USA, 1987: 159-167.
[83] Mathisen Jan, Larsen Kjell, Risk-Based Inspection Planning for Mooring Chain, Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 2004, 126(3): 250-251.
[84] Melchers R E, Corrosion uncertainty modeling for steel structures, Constructional Steel Research, 1999, 52(1): 3-19.
[85] Melchers R E, On the ALARP approach to risk management, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2001, 71(2): 201-208.
[86] Melchers R E, Probabilistic modeling of immersion corrosion of steels in marine waters, Proceedings of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2001: OMAE2001/S&R-2108.
[87] Melchers R E, Probabilistic modeling of immersion marine corrosion, StructuralSafety and Reliability, Rotterdam, Balkema, 1998, 3:1143-1149.
[88] Melchers R E, Structural reliability: analysis and prediction, Ellis Horwood, New York, 1987, 111-117.
[89] Moan T, Karsan D, Wilson T, Analytical risk assessment and risk control of floating platforms subjected to ship collisions and dropped objects, Proceedings of the 25th Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, 1993, 1: 407-415.
[90] Morikawa M, Ishikawa K, Suzuki H, etc., On-site experiment for towing procedure of pre-fabricated tendon of TLP, Proceedings of the International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Osaka, Japan, 1994, 1: 84-90.
[91] Nilsen T, Aven T, Models and model uncertainty in the context of risk analysis, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2003, 79(3): 309-317.
[92] Nilsen T, Gudmestad O T, Dalane J I, etc., Utilisation of principles from structural reliability in quantitative risk analysis: example from an offshore transport problem, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 1998, 61(1-2): 127-137.
[93] Oh M H, Kim J, Jang, Y S, etc., Impact analysis of greater plutonic FPSO considering ship collision, Proceedings of the International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Seoul, South Korea, 2005: 626-633.
[94] ?ien K, Risk indicators as a tool for risk control, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2001, 74(2): 129-145.
[95] Onoufriou T, Frangopol D M, Reliability-based inspection optimization of complex structures: a brief retrospective, Computers and Structures, 2002, 80(12): 1133-1144.
[96] Paik J K, Kim S K, Lee S K, Probabilistic corrosion rate estimation model for longitudinal strength members of bulk carriers, Ocean Engineering, 1998, 25(10): 837-860.
[97] Paik J K, Lee J M, Hwang J S, etc., A time-dependent corrosion wastage model for the structures of single- and Double-hull tankers and FSOs and FPSOs, Marine Technology, 2003, 40(3): 201-217.
[98] Paik J K, Lee J M, Park Young II, etc., Time-variant ultimate longitudinal strength of corroded bulk carriers, Marine Structures, 2003, 16(8): 567–600.
[99] Paik J K, Mansour A E,A simple formulation for predicting the ultimate strength of ships, Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 1995(1): 52-62.
[100] Paik J K, Thayamballi A K, Che J S, Ultimate strength of ship hulls under combined vertical bending, horizontal bending and shearing forces, Transactions of SNAME, 1996, 104: 31–59.
[101] Paik J K, Thayamballi A K, Park Y II, etc., A time-dependent corrosion wastage model for seawater ballast tank structures of ships, Corrosion science, 2004, 46(2): 471-486.
[102] Paik Jeom Kee, Thayamballi Anil Kumar, Ultimate Limit State Design of Steel-Plated Structures, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, UK, 2003.
[103] Paik Joem Kee, Thayamballi Anil K, Yang Soo Hong, Residual Strength Assessment of Ships after Collision and Grounding, Marine Technology, 1998, 35(1): 38-54.
[104] Pedersen P T, Zhang S M, On impact mechanics in ship collisions, Marine Structures, 1998, 11(10): 429-449.
[105] Pula R, Khan F I, Veitch B, etc., Revised fire consequence models for offshore quantitative risk assessment, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2005, 18(4-6): 443–454.
[106] Qi En-rong, Cui Weicheng, Wan Zhengquan, etc., Study of residual strength index of damaged ship hulls, Journal of Ship Mechanics, 2004, 8(3): 76-84.
[107] Qin S P, Cui W C, Effect of corrosion models on the time-dependent reliability of steel plated elements, Marine Structures, 2003, 16(1): 15-34.
[108] Ramberg L A, Skramstad E, Classification of LNG FPSOs-a viable route for risk management, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, 2002: OTC14097.
[109] Rettedal W K, Mong H N, Hausberg G, Risk analysis-heavy lifts; NORNE FPSO gas export project, Proceedings of 22nd International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Cancun, Mexico, 2003: OMAE2003-37069.
[110] Rouhan A, Schoefs F, Probabilistic modeling of inspection results for offshore structures, Structural Safety, 2003, 25(4): 379-399.
[111] Rouhan Antoine, Goyet Jean, Michael Havbro Faber, Industrial implementation of risk based inspection planning-lessons learned from experience, Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 2004: OMAE2004-51573.
[112] Sagrilo L V S, de Lima E C P, Henriques C C D, etc., Using structural reliability inspection analysis in inspection planning of offshore structures, Proceeding of the 7th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, 1997, 4: 174-178.
[113] Schofield S, Offshore QRA and the ALARP principle, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 1998, 61(4-6): 31-37.
[114] Smith C S, Influence of local compressive failure on ultimate longitudinal strength of a ship’s hull, PRADS’ 77, Tokyo, 1977: 73-79.
[115] Smith E J, Risk management in the North Sea offshore industry: history, status and challenges, Acta Astronautica, 1995, 37: 513-523.
[116] Southwell C R, Bultman J D, Hummer Jr C W, Seawater corrosion handbook, Noyes Data Corporation, New Jersey, USA, 1979: 374-387.
[117] Stahl B, Aune S, Gebara J M, etc., Acceptance Criteria for Offshore Platforms, Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 2000, 122(3): 153-156.
[118] Straub D, Faber M H, System effects in generic risk based inspection planning, Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 2004, 126(3): 265–271.
[119] Straub Daniel, Faber Michael H, Computational aspects of risk-based inspection planning, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 2006, 21: 179–192.
[120] Straub Daniel, Generic Approaches to Risk Based Inspection Planning for Steel Structures[Dissertation], Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, 2004.
[121] Sun H H, Bai Y, Reliability assessment of a FPSO hull girder subjected to degradations of corrosion and fatigue, Proceedings of the 10th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Seattle, USA, ISOPE, 2000: ISOPE-2000-YB-007.
[122] Sun H H, Bai Y, Time-variant reliability assessment of FPSO hull girders, Marine Structures, 2003, 16(3): 219-253.
[123] Sun H H, Guedes Soares C, Reliability-based structural design of ship-type FPSO units, Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 2003, 125(2): 108-113.
[124] Sun Haihong, Guedes Soares, Reliability-based inspection of corroded ship-type FPSO hulls, Journal of Ship Research, 2006, 50(2): 171-180.
[125] Tam V H Y, Lee R, Gas explosion modelling of FPSO, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 1998, 11(1): 67–73.
[126] Toula Onoufriou, Reliability based inspection planning of offshore structures, Marine Structures, 1999, 12(6): 521-539.
[127] TSCF, Guidance manual for tanker structures, Tanker Structure Co-operative Forum in association with International Association of Classification Societies, Witherby & Co. Ltd, 1997.
[128] Ueda Y, Rashed S M H, Paik J K, Plate and stiffened plate units of the idealized structural unit method -Under in- plane loading, Journal of Society Naval Architecture of Japan, 1985, 156: 366-376. (in Japanese)
[129] UK Department of Energy, The Public Inquiry to the Piper Alpha Disaster, London HMSO, 1990.
[130] Van Dyck J, Veneziano D, Lebas G, Risk of towing operations, Proceedings of the International Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering Symposium, Houston, Texas, USA, 1990, 2: 151-159.
[131] Wan M W A M, Mohamad B E, Tubular joints reliability and fracture analyses for development of underwater inspection of offshore steel structures, Proceedings of the 7th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, 1997, 4:119-124.
[132] Wang G, Ohtsubo H, Impact load of a supply vessel, Proceedings of the 9th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, 1999, 4: 463-471.
[133] Wang G, Spencer J, Elsayed T, Estimation of corrosion rates of structuralmembers in oil tankers, Proceedings of International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, ASME, Cancun, Mexico, 2003: OMAE2003-37361.
[134] Wang G, Spencer J, Sun H H, Assessment of corrosion risks to aging ships using an experience database, Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 2005, 127(2): 167-174.
[135] Wang J J, Lu R, Lu N, Truss Spar strength and fatigue analysis for wet tow, Proceedings of the International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, 2003: 264-271.
[136] Wang J, Foinikis P, Formal safety assessment of containerships, Marine Policy, 2001, 25(2): 143-157.
[137] Wim A de V, Els M de W, Ship-Platform Collisions: Comparison of Collision Frequency Models, Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Florence, Italy, 1996, 2: 451-456.
[138] Wirsching Paul H, Ferensic Jame, Thayamballi Anil, Reliability with Respect to Ultimate Strength of a Corroding Ship Hull, Marine Structures, 1997, 10(7): 501-518.
[139] Wolford A J, Lin J C, Liming J K, etc., Integrated risk based design of FPSO topsides, structural and marine systems, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, 2001: OTC 12948.
[140] Xu L B, Chen G M, Fuzzy reliability assessment for offshore structures considering inspection and maintenance, Proceedings of 22nd International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Mexico, 2003: OMAE2003-37186.
[141] Xu T, Bai Y, Wang M, etc., Risk based ‘optimum’ inspection for FPSO hulls, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, 2001: OTC12949.
[142] Yamamoto N, Ikegami K, A study on the degradation of coating and corrosion of ship’s hull based on the probabilistic approach, Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 1998, 120(2): 121-128.
[143] Yamamoto N, Kumano A, Matoba M, Effect of corrosion and its protection on hull strength, Journal of the Society of Naval Architecture of Japan, 1994, 176: 281-289.
[144] Zhang R X, Mahadevan S, Model uncertainty and Bayesian updating in reliability-based inspection, Structural Safety, 2000, 22(2): 145-160.
[145] 安伟光, 陈燕, 孙克淋, 基于检测结果的海洋工程结构 TLP 系索系统疲劳可靠性分析, 哈尔滨工程大学学报, 2004, 25(6): 700-704.
[146] 陈国明, 海洋结构裂纹检测与维修优化, 石油大学学报, 2000, 24(5): 73-75.
[147] 陈立, 钱茹, FPSO 对开发边际油田的商业价值, 中国海洋平台, 1999, 14(5): 6-9.
[148] 程志虎, 第一专题: 水下无损检测技术综述(一) 对象、目的与方法, 无损检测, 1997, 19(9): 266-269.
[149] 贡金鑫, 工程结构可靠度计算方法, 大连, 大连理工大学出版社, 2003, 251-280.
[150] 郭昌捷, 唐翰岫, 周炳焕, 受损船体极限强度分析与可靠性评估, 中国造船, 1998, (4): 49-56.
[151] 何福志, 万正权, 船体结构总纵极限强度的简化逐步破坏分析, 船舶力学, 2001, 5(5): 21-35.
[152] 何炎平, 秦耀良, 李宏伟, 30 万吨级 FPSO 拖航运动响应和波浪载荷分析, 造船技术, 2005, (1): 13-16.
[153] 胡毓仁, 陈伯真, 船舶及海洋工程结构疲劳可靠性分析, 北京, 人民交通出版社, 1996, 21-24.
[154] 胡云昌, 黄海燕, 余建星, 基于概率影响图的海洋平台安全风险评估方法, 中国造船, 1998, 36(3): 38-46.
[155] 胡云昌, 于洪洁, 郭振邦等, 导管架式海洋平台可靠性检测与维修策略研究, 船舶, 1995(3): 27-36.
[156] 江晓俐, 基于船舶总纵极限强度的可靠性研究[学位论文], 武汉理工大学, 2005.
[157] 金伟良, 龚顺风, 宋剑等, 大型船舶碰撞引起的海洋导管架平台结构损伤分析, 海洋工程, 2003, 21(2): 20-25.
[158] 李碧英, 周美, 海洋钢结构物腐蚀防护的研究, 中国海洋平台, 2001, 16(5-6): 45-49.
[159] 李典庆, 唐文勇, 张圣坤, 海洋工程风险接受准则研究进展, 海洋工程, 2003, 21(2): 96-102.
[160] 李典庆, 张圣坤, 唐文勇, 船舶结构腐蚀检测及腐蚀模型不确定性分析, 上海交通大学学报, 2003, 37(8): 1141-1145.
[161] 李典庆, 张圣坤, 唐文勇, 基于风险的船体结构腐蚀优化检测及维修规划, 上海交通大学学报, 2004, 38(11): 1875-1879.
[162] 李典庆, 张圣坤, 唐文勇, 基于风险的海洋结构物无损检测功能的分级, 海洋工程, 2004, 22(1): 80-87.
[163] 李典庆, 张圣坤, 海洋结构物风险评估方法的研究进展, 中国海洋平台, 2003, 18(3): 6-12.
[164] 李典庆, 基于风险的船体结构检测及维修规划[学位论文], 上海交通大学, 2004.
[165] 李奇, 李延渊, 黄贤滨等, 基于风险检测的风险评估方法, 安全、健康和环境, 2004, 4(2): 35-38.
[166] 李青霞, 周波, 陈俊达, 超声波船体腐蚀检测的现状及发展趋势, 测试技术学报, 1998, 12(3): 203-206.
[167] 李润培, 陈伟刚, 顾永宁, 近海固定平台碰撞的准静态分析, 海洋工程, 1995, 13(2): 14-21.
[168] 李文龙, 谭家华, 超大型海洋浮式储油系统的风险评估, 海洋工程, 2004,22(3): 1-8.
[169] 刘大扬, 李文军, 魏开金, 钢在南海榆林海域暴露 16 年的腐蚀, 舰船科学技术, 2001, 23(2): 47-59.
[170] 吕秀艳, 刘德辅, 牟善军等, 基于随机分析和概率预测的固定式海洋平台结构风险评估研究, 中国海洋平台, 2005, 20(5): 6-16.
[171] 马士德, 段继周, 李伟华等, 南海油田 W12-1 平台水下钢结构腐蚀与防护检测情况讨论, 全面腐蚀控制, 2006, 26(2):26-28.
[172] 马延德, 关伟姝, 孙德壮等, 浮式生产储油船(FPSO)迁航性能计算, 中国海洋平台, 2005, 20(5): 35-38.
[173] 聂炳林, 国内外水下检测与监测技术的新进展, 中国海洋平台, 2005, 20(6): 43-45.
[174] 祁恩荣, 崔维成, 彭兴宁等, 船舶碰撞和搁浅后剩余强度可靠性评估, 船舶力学, 1999, 3(5): 40-46.
[175] 祁恩荣, 崔维成, 彭兴宁等, 破损船体非对称弯曲极限强度分析及可靠性评估, 中国造船, 2000, 41(2): 41-48.
[176] 邵炎林, 何炎平, 海洋结构物中典型圆管构件的碰撞损伤研究, 中国海洋平台, 2006, 21(2): 35-40.
[177] 宋剑, 海洋平台结构在偶然灾害作用下的可靠性研究[学位论文], 浙江大学, 2005: 24-42.
[178] 宋儒鑫, 陆鑫森, 海上结构物损伤检测的探测概率分析, 上海交通大学学报, 1996, 30(10): 122-128.
[179] 孙树民, 海洋平台结构的发展, 广东造船, 2000, 4: 32-37.
[180] 唐文勇, 李典庆, 张圣坤, 基于风险的船体结构检测及维护研究综述, 船舶力学, 2005, 9(5): 143-154.
[181] 王平, 程志虎, 胡毓仁等, 海洋工程结构的疲劳可靠性更新研究, 船舶, 2000(2): 40-44.
[182] 王平, 陈伯真, 胡毓仁, Hohenbichler 方法在结构系统疲劳可靠性分析中的应用, 中国海洋平台, 1997, 12(5): 200-204.
[183] 王瑞利, 李斌, 高强, 漏磁检测与超声波检测技术应用比较, 管道技术与设备, 2006, (5): 15-17.
[184] 王晓燕, 海洋工程的安全风险评估研究, 山东科学, 2005, 18(5): 43-47.
[185] 夏兰廷, 黄桂桥, 张三平, 金属材料的海洋腐蚀与防护, 北京, 冶金工业出版社, 2003.
[186] 许亮斌, 陈国明, 基于模糊贝叶斯理论更新概率可靠性模型, 石油大学学报, 2003, 27(6): 53-56.
[187] 张立, 金伟良, 考虑检修因素的海洋工程结构疲劳可靠性分析, 强度与环境, 2001, (3): 22-30.
[188] 张圣坤, 白勇, 唐文勇, 船舶与海洋工程风险评估, 北京, 国防工业出版社, 2003.