Journal of Marine Science and Application

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 603–624 | Cite as

Optimal Risk-Based Maintenance Planning of Ship Hull Structure

  • Mohammad Reza Zareei
  • Mehdi IranmaneshEmail author
Research Article


Various structures such as marine structures age over time. In order to always maintain safety conditions, maintenance processes including inspection and repair should be implemented on them. Corrosion and fatigue cracks are two main factors that reduce the ultimate strength of the ship’s hull girder over time and thus increase the probability and risk of failure. At the time of inspection, the structural conditions must be checked so that, if necessary, the required repairs can be done on it. The main objective of this paper is to provide optimized maintenance plans of the ship structure based on probabilistic concepts with regard to corrosion and fatigue cracks. Maintenance activities increase the operational costs of ships; therefore, it is advisable to inspect and repair in the optimal times. Optimal maintenance planning of the ship structure can be conducted by formulating and solving a multi-objective optimization problem. The use of risk as a structural performance indicator has become more common in recent years. The objective functions of the optimization problem include minimizing the structure’s lifecycle maintenance costs, including inspection and repair costs, and also minimizing the maximum risk of structural failure during the ship’s life. In the following, to achieve better responses, reliability index has been added to the problem as the third objective function. The multi-objective optimization problem is solved using genetic algorithms. The proposed risk-based approach is applied to the hull structure of a tanker ship.


Ship hull girder Optimum maintenance planning Lifecycle cost Risk Failure consequence Inspection Repair Corrosion Fatigue cracks 


  1. ABS (2015). Rules for building and classing steel vessels, part5C specific vessel types (chapters 1–6). American Bureau of ShippingGoogle Scholar
  2. Akpan UO, Koko T, Ayyub B, Dunbar T (2002) Risk assessment of aging ship hull structures in the presence of corrosion and fatigue. Mar Struct 15(3):211–231. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ansys (2007) User’s manual. Canonsburg, ANSYS IncGoogle Scholar
  4. Bai J (2006) Time-variant ultimate strength reliability assessment of ship hulls considering corrosion and fatigue, Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley, 215–230Google Scholar
  5. Campanile A, Piscopo V, Scamardella A (2016) Time-variant bulk carrier reliability analysis in pure bending intact and damage conditions. Mar Struct 46:193–228. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T (2002) A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6(2):182–197. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Decò A, Frangopol DM (2013) Risk-informed optimal routing of ships considering different damage scenarios and operational conditions. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 119:126–140. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Decò A, Frangopol DM, Zhu B (2012) Reliability and redundancy assessment of ships under different operational conditions. Eng Struct 42:457–471. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DNV (2014) Fatigue assessment of ship structures. Classification Notes, No. 30.7. Høvik, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  10. Dong Y, Frangopol DM (2015) Risk-informed life-cycle optimum inspection and maintenance of ship structures considering corrosion and fatigue. Ocean Eng 101:161–171. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fujikubo M, Harada M, Yao T, Reza Khedmati M, Yanagihara D (2005) Estimation of ultimate strength of continuous stiffened panel under combined transverse thrust and lateral pressure part 2: continuous stiffened panel. Mar Struct 18(5–6):411–427. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gaspar B, Guedes Soares C (2013) Hull girder reliability using a Monte Carlo based simulation method. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 31:65–75. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gaspar B, Teixeira AP, Guedes Soares C, Wang G (2011) Assessment of IACS-CSR implicit safety levels for buckling strength of stiffened panels for double hull tankers. Mar Struct 24(4):478–502. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gordo JM, Guedes Soares C, Faulkner D (1996) Approximate assessment of the ultimate longitudinal strength of the hull girder. J Ship Res 40(1):60–69Google Scholar
  15. Guedes Soares C, Garbatov Y (1996) Fatigue reliability of the ship hull girder accounting for inspection and repair. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 51(2):341–351. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Guedes Soares C, Garbatov Y (1998) Reliability of maintained ship hull girders subjected to corrosion and fatigue. Struct Saf 20(3):201–219. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guedes Soares C, Garbatov Y (1999) Reliability of maintained ship hulls subjected to corrosion and fatigue under combined loading. J Constr Steel Res 52(1):93–115. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guedes Soares C, Moan T (1988) Statistical analysis of still water load effects in ship structures. SNAME Transactions 96:129–156Google Scholar
  19. Guedes Soares C, Dogliani M, Ostergaard C, Parmentier G, Pedersen PT (1996) Reliability based ship structural design. SNAME Transactions 104:375–389Google Scholar
  20. Hørte T, Wang G, White N (2007) Calibration of the hull girder ultimate capacity criterion for double hull tankers. Practical Design of Ships and Offshore Structures, Houston, 553–564Google Scholar
  21. Hu Y, Cui W, Terndrup Pedersen PT (2004) Maintained ship hull girder ultimate strength reliability considering corrosion and fatigue. Mar Struct 17(2):91–123. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hussein AW, Guedes Soares C (2009) Reliability and residual strength of double hull tankers designed according to the new IACS common structural rules. Ocean Eng 36(17–18):1446–1459. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. IACS (2008) Common structural rules for double hull oil tankers. International Association of Classification Societies (IACS), LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Khedmati MR, Zareei MR, Rigo P (2010) Empirical formulations for estimation of ultimate strength of continuous stiffened aluminium plates under combined in-plane compression and lateral pressure. Thin-Walled Struct 48(3):274–289. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kwon K, Frangopol DM (2012) System reliability of ship hull structures under corrosion and fatigue. J Ship Res 56(4):234–251. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Li D, Tang W, Zhang S (2005) Cost-benefit evaluation of inspection and repair planning for ship structures considering corrosion effects. ASME. International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 24th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering 2:69–78.
  27. Lin YT (1985) Ship longitudinal strength modeling. Ph.D. thesis, University of Glascow, ScotlandGoogle Scholar
  28. Luís RM, Teixeira AP, Guedes Soares C (2009) Longitudinal strength reliability of a tanker hull accidentally grounded. Struct Saf 31(3):224–233. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mansour AE (1997) Assessment of reliability of ship structures, Ship Structure Committee, Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, SSC-398Google Scholar
  30. MathWorks (2013) MATLAB user’s guide. The MathWorks, Inc., NatickGoogle Scholar
  31. Miroyannis A (2006) Estimation of ship construction costs. M.S. thesis, Massachusetts Institutes of Technology, Boston, 73–97Google Scholar
  32. Mondoro A, Frangopol DM, Soliman M (2016) Optimal risk-based management of coastal bridges vulnerable to hurricanes. Infrastructure Systems 04016046.
  33. Okasha NM, Frangopol DM (2010) Efficient method based on optimization and simulation for the probabilistic strength computation of the ship hull. J Ship Res 54(4):244–256Google Scholar
  34. Olsson A, Sandberg G, Dahlblom O (2003) On Latin hypercube sampling for structural reliability analysis. Struct Saf 25(1):47–68. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Paik JK, Mansour AE (1995) A simple formulation for predicting the ultimate strength of ships. J Mar Sci Technol 1(1):52–62. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Paik JK, Thayamballi AK (1997) An empirical formulation for predicting the ultimate compressive strength of stiffened panels. International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Honolulu, 328–338Google Scholar
  37. Paik JK, Thayamballi AK (2008) Reliability assessment of ships. In: E Nikolaidis, DM Ghiocel, S Singhal (eds) Engineering design reliability applications for the aerospace, automotive, and ship industries. CRC press, chapter 9, 9–1;9–38Google Scholar
  38. Paik JK, Thayamballi AK, Kim SK, Yang SH (1998) Ship hull ultimate strength reliability considering corrosion. J Ship Res 42(2):154–165Google Scholar
  39. Paik JK, Wang G, Thayamballi A.K., Lee JM, Park YI (2003) Time-dependent risk assessment of aging ships accounting for general/pit corrosion fatigue cracking and local denting damage. Annual meeting in San Francisco; 2003 Oct 17–20; San Francisco (CA): SNAME Transactions, pp 159–197Google Scholar
  40. Paik JK, Thayamballi AK, Lee JM (2004) Effect of initial deflection shape on the ultimate strength behavior of welded steel plates under biaxial compressive loads. J Ship Res 48(1):45–60Google Scholar
  41. Parunov J, Senjanovic I, Guedes Soares C (2007) Hull girder reliability of new generation oil tankers. Mar Struct 7(20):49–70. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rahman MK (1994) Multilevel optimization applied to hull girder design using three panel forms. Structural Optimization 7(1–2):126–137. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rahman MK, Caldwell JB (1992) Rule-based optimization of midship structures. Mar Struct 5(6):467–490. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Saydam D, Frangopol DM (2013) Performance assessment of damaged ship hulls. Ocean Eng 68:65–76. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tayyar GT, Nam JM, Choung J (2014) Prediction of hull girder moment-carrying capacity using kinematic displacement theory. Mar Struct 39:157–173. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wirsching PH, Ferensic J, Thayamballi A (1997) Reliability with respect to ultimate strength of a corroding ship hull. Mar Struct 10(7):501–518. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Xu MC, Teixeira AP, Guedes Soares C (2015) Reliability assessment of a tanker using the model correction factor method based on the IACS-CSR requirement for hull girder ultimate strength. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 42:42–53. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zayed A, Garbatov Y, Guedes Soares C (2013) Reliability of ship hulls subjected to corrosion and maintenance. Struct Saf 43:1–11. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zhu B, Frangopol DM (2013) Risk-based approach for optimum maintenance of bridges under traffic and earthquake loads. Struct Eng 139(3):422–434. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Harbin Engineering University and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Maritime Engineering DepartmentAmirkabir University of TechnologyTehranIran

Personalised recommendations