WORK PROCESS

A Risk Based Inspection (RBI) approach allows the operator to prioritize the inspection plan based on the prediction of failure versus the traditional time-based or condition based inspection plan. When implemented and maintained properly, it improves reliability and safety while reducing unplanned outages and repair costs.

By understanding the effects of deterioration mechanisms, either due to time, process, or environmental impacts, the RBI approach helps identify the risk prior to meeting an unacceptable level and allow owner/operators to react and mitigate prior to reaching unacceptable events such as thru-wall failure.

PROBLEM STATEMENT

Risk Based Inspection has been around for 20+ years at this stage. Though the various approaches and calculations have been vetted, most of the analysis has been performed outside of the EAM (Enterprise Asset Management) and ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) system. The primary value of the RBI analysis is to schedule and perform work to address the risk of failure. Performing these functions outside of the EAM and ERP leads to duplicate data, overlapping work, and gaps in the data and work processes to address functional failures.

SOLUTION

Perform the RBI analysis as an embedded work process inside SAP. Eliminating the need for duplicate assets and asset related data in multiple systems, while streamlining the work planning and PDCA (Plan, Do, Check, Act) work processes.

SOFTWARE COMPONENTS

VALUE TO CUSTOMER

Risk Based Inspection has been proven to be a value tool in not only avoiding failures, but focusing limited resources on critical assets, while avoiding costly inspections that bring little value to the Damage Mechanism being addressed. Below are a few benefits that can be realized with a Risk Based Inspection approach.

  • Help operators increase turn around schedules and avoiding shutdown inspection activities while maintaining production.

  • Predicting any failure prior to occurrence, whether catastrophic of minor, can have a large impact on reputation in the market space and the community. Understanding and mitigating failures, using tools like RBI, can help owner/operators maintain licensing permits and avoid shutdowns due to regulatory non-compliance.

  • Generally requires 50% to 90% fewer inspection points than a traditional API inspection program while reducing the risk of failures by 80% to 95%.

  • Extends plant shutdown intervals and reduces the number of equipment items being opened by 30% to 60%.

  • Help operators understand if the plant is not being ran as designed or if a new feedstock is causing more harm than expected to remaining life of equipment.

  • Identifies when to perform Fitness for Service Assessments.

  • At the FEED stage of the Asset Life-Cycle, when executing a RBI analysis helps produce the optimal construction and in-service inspection plans.


API 5813rd comparison to AsInt's RBI+ methodolgy

At AsInt, our philosophy and software allows users to choose what RBI (Risk Based Inspection) you would like to use. The “templatized” approach allows for scaling and adapting to fully qualitative to full quantitative.

Some of the models, or templates, we have deployed to customer tenants include:

  • European PED (Pressure Equipment Directive)

  • NR13 - Brazilian Pressure Equipment approach

  • API 5813rd - Fully quantitive American Petroleum Institute (API) methodology

  • RBI+ - AsInt semi-quantitative methodology, blending API 5813rd with a less restrictive Consequence model.

  • Other customer Risk Methodologies defined by customer internal processes.

AsInt developed the RBI+ methodology for customers who are embarking on Risk Based Inspection journey, but:

  1. Do not have all the data to run a fully quantitative approach.

  2. Have more fluids in their plant than the API 5813rd consequence methodology allows. RBI+ bases the consequence on the large NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) fluid listing.

  3. Do not have the internal technical expertise to execute the model, or the internal knowledge to document and explain to regulators (internal or external).

Customers can choose the API 5813rd to implement, however if you are interested in the RBI+ methodology, the below is an overview of the differences.

Mechanism or Consequence API 5813rd RBI+ approach
API 5813rd comparison to RBI+ model. Primary differences are the Loss of Containment Consequence modeling, the RBI+ approach greatly simplifies the consequence modeling. Providng a good balance of data required vs descrimination of the outputs.
Thinning Derived from API 581 3rd Derived from API 581 3rd
Internal Lining and Coating Derived from API 581 3rd Derived from API 581 3rd
External Corrosion API 581 3rd damage factor with transitional threshold logic API 581 3rd damage factor with transitional threshold logic
Corrosion Under Insulation (CUI) API 581 3rd damage factor with transitional threshold logic API 581 3rd damage factor with transitional threshold logic
External Coating API 581 3rd damage factor with transitional threshold logic API 581 3rd damage factor with transitional threshold logic
Brittle Fracture API 581 3rd damage factor with transitional threshold logic API 581 3rd damage factor with transitional threshold logic
Caustic Stress Corrion Cracking (SCC) API 581 3rd damage factor with transitional threshold logic API 581 3rd damage factor with transitional threshold logic
Chloride Stress Corrion Cracking (SCC) API 581 3rd damage factor with transitional threshold logic API 581 3rd damage factor with transitional threshold logic
Hydrogen Stress Cracking API 581 3rd damage factor with transitional threshold logic API 581 3rd damage factor with transitional threshold logic
Loss of Containment Consequence Derived from API 581 3rd Simplified based on the NFPA fluid category + release and mass effect
Loss of Production Consequence Derived from API 581 3rd Simplified based equipment downtime

IMAGES AND VIDEOS