Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 8 June 2011
Received in revised form
7 August 2011
Accepted 8 August 2011
Periodic Internal Inspection Method often results in under-inspection or over-inspection for large-scale
crude oil tank. Therefore, how to determine reasonable internal inspection interval (INTII) has great
signicance on balancing the safe operation requirement and inspection cost for crude oil tanks. Here,
RBI (risk-based inspection) technology is used to quantitatively assess the risk of crude oil tanks in an oil
depot in China. The risk comparison between tank shell and bottom shows that the risk of tank depends
on the risk of tank bottom. The prediction procedure of INTII for crude oil tanks is also presented. The
INTII predicted by RBI method is gradually extended with the increasing of the acceptable risk level. The
method to determine the acceptable risk of crude oil tanks is proposed, by which 3.54E04 are taken as
the acceptable risk of the oil depot. The safety factor of 0.8 is proposed to determine the nal INTIIs for 18
crude oil tanks. The INTII requirement in China code SY/T 5921, 5e7 years, is very conservative and lower
than predicted service life of tanks. The INTIIs predicted by Gumbel method are smaller than by RBI
method for tanks with short INTII. Therefore, this paper recommends RBI method to predict the INTII for
crude oil tanks.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Internal inspection interval
Risk
RBI
The acceptable risk
Gumbel extreme value distribution
1. Introduction
With the rapid development of petroleum and chemical
industry, storage tank plays an increasing role in the storage of
crude oil. Owing to the advantages of saving steel, saving occupied
area and cost-effective construction, large-scale atmospheric
storage tanks are widely used (Bai & Liu, 1995; Jiang & Li, 2005; Li,
1996). However, these large-scale crude oil tanks have high
potential risk. Once the leakage of large-scale crude oil tank
happens, it not only causes serious environmental pollution, but
also in some cases causes re and even casualties.
Inspection of tank is intended to assess the tank integrity and
identify the problem that may lead to future loss of integrity. The
inspection can provide the information of deterioration state of
tank plates and reduce risk uncertainty of crude oil tank. Currently,
Periodic Internal Inspection is widely used by Chinas petroleum
and chemical industry for the management of crude oil tanks. In
China, the code SY/T 5921 (Oil and Gas Storage and Transportation
Standardization Technical Committee in China, 2000) has specic
requirement for INTII: for crude oil tank it is generally 5e7 years;
the maximum INTII for the new tank cannot exceed 10 years.
However, the Periodic Internal Inspection Method often results in
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: shuaij@cup.edu.cn (J. Shuai).
0950-4230/$ e see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2011.08.004
J. Shuai et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 25 (2012) 166e175
Riskt Pf t FC
167
(1)
Pf t gff Df t FMS
(2)
168
J. Shuai et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 25 (2012) 166e175
Table 1
Probability and nancial-based consequence categories in API RBI.
Probability category
Consequence category
Category
Range
Category
Range ($)
1
2
3
4
5
Df(t) 2
2 < Df(t) 20
20 < Df(t) 100
100 < Df(t) 1000
Df(t) > 1000
A
B
C
D
E
FC 10 000
10 000 < FC 100 000
100 000 < FC 1 000 000
1 000 000 < FC 10 000 000
FC > 10 000 000
J. Shuai et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 25 (2012) 166e175
169
Table 2
Basic information of crude oil tanks.
Tank no.
Last inspection
interval (years)
Capacity
(1 104 m3)
Tank
no.
Last inspection
interval (years)
Capacity
(1 104 m3)
Tank
no.
Last inspection
interval (years)
Capacity
(1 104 m3)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
11
15
10/8
15
16
6/12
9
6 (No data)
8
10
11
9
9
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
14
15
16
17
18
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
12
13
/
10
11
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
/
/
/
/
/
5
/
/
7
/
/
/
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
10
10
10
Table 3
Risk assessment results of crude oil tanks.
Tank no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Tank bottom
Tank shell
Probability
category (Pf)
Consequence
category
Risk
category
Probability
category (Pf)
Consequence
category
Risk
category
1
2
2
3
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
3
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
1
3
3
3
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium high
Medium high
Medium high
/
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
/
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
/
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
/
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
170
J. Shuai et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 25 (2012) 166e175
Fig. 3. The result of risk matrix for all crude oil tanks.
service to clear gas and oil for inspection and repair work. By the
internal inspection, the real deterioration rate of crude oil tank can
be determined, and following repair works also can ensure longtime safe operation of tanks in the future. As showed in Fig. 9,
corrosion rates of tank bottom for all crude oil tanks are higher than
that of tank shell except Tank 6. Due to lower corrosion rate and
thicker thickness of tank shell, the tank shells are eroded more
slightly than that of tank bottom. By the POF and risk calculation for
many tanks, Guo et al. (2010) and Yuan, Xu, Wang and Li (2009)
draw a conclusion that the POF and risk of tank bottom are much
larger than that of tank shell. Figs. 4e7 also present the consistent
conclusion with Guo et al. (2010) and Yuan et al. (2009). Therefore,
the INTII of crude oil tank depends on INTII of tank bottom. Due to
lack of corrosion information about uninspected tanks, the INTIIs of
uninspected tanks are not predicted in this paper.
4.1. INTII prediction based on RBI
In this method, the INTII is dened as the in-service time from
last inspection until the risk of tank bottom reach the acceptable
risk of oil depot. The procedure in Fig. 10 is used to predict INTII
based on RBI technology. 1.42E04, 3.54E04 and 7.08E04 are
respectively taken as the acceptable risk to predict INTII, which
correspond to damage factor Df(t) 100, 250 and 500 for tanks
with capacity of 50 000 m3. The damage factor Df(t) 100 is transition value from Medium Risk to Medium High Risk in risk matrix.
Fig. 4. POF ranking of tank bottom for all crude oil tanks.
Fig. 5. POF ranking of tank shell for all crude oil tanks.
J. Shuai et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 25 (2012) 166e175
171
Fig. 6. Risk ranking of tank bottom for all crude oil tanks.
Fig. 8. Pareto analysis for the risk distribution of all tanks.
too high, it allow crude oil tanks to continue operation under the
condition of high risk, which may cause the leakage of tank; if the
acceptable risk is too low, it decrease the inspection interval of tank,
which increase the inspection cost and business interruption loss.
Therefore, the basic principle on the determination of the acceptable risk for oil depot is: on the premise of ensuring safe operation
of crude oil tanks, as far as possible to extend the inspection
interval.
When minimum remaining thickness of tank bottom is less than
the minimum acceptable bottom thicknesses, the tank bottom
should be repaired or replaced. So the risk at the time when the
thickness of tank bottom is eroded to the minimum acceptable
bottom thickness is considered as the Maximum Acceptable Risk
(MAR) of tank. In standard API 653 (American Petroleum Institute,
2009), if tank bottom/foundation are designed with means or no
means for detection and containment of a bottom leak, the
minimum acceptable bottom thicknesses at next inspection are
0.05 (1.27 mm) or 0.1 in (2.54 mm), respectively. The minimum
acceptable thickness of 2.54 mm is selected in this paper. When the
minimum remaining thickness of tank bottom is 2.54 mm, The
MARs assessed by API RBI and INTIIs predicted by corrosion rate
procedure of all tanks are showed in Table 5.
It can be seen from Table 5 that the INTIIs for all tanks are higher
than 5e7 years specied by code SY/T 5921. The INTII of Tank 3 is
9.71 years, while the others are higher than 11 years. The INTIIs for
Tank 1, 2, 3 and 35 are slightly higher than that obtained by RBI
method at acceptable risk of 7.08E04 in Table 4; the remaining
tanks are higher than that of RBI method with the acceptable risk of
Fig. 7. Risk ranking of tank shell for all crude oil tanks.
Fig. 9. The corrosion rate comparisons between tank shell and bottom.
172
J. Shuai et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 25 (2012) 166e175
xk
Fx R exp exp
(3)
f x
xk
xk
exp
exp
(4)
Nf
Table 4
INTIIs predicted by API RBI for crude oil tanks.
Tank no.
3.54E04
7.08E04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
18
32
35
70.06
12.26
6.40
8.80
15.68
37.57
9.46
13.07
13.10
8.55
34.13
14.50
8.77
15.26
23.55
9.99
12.51
16.74
87.99
15.56
8.12
11.17
19.90
47.68
12.01
16.59
16.63
10.85
43.32
18.40
11.13
19.37
29.88
12.68
15.88
21.53
104.28
18.55
9.69
13.32
23.73
56.86
14.32
19.79
19.83
12.94
51.66
21.94
13.27
23.10
35.64
15.12
18.93
25.74
D
yx 1 Cx 0:7797 lnln Ra 0:4501
(5)
INTIIs
(years)
MARs
Tank no.
INTII
(years)
MAR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
105.16
18.64
9.71
11.44
20.84
49.66
13.21
18.67
18.44
7.33E04
7.20E04
7.13E04
3.86E04
4.24E04
4.15E04
5.13E04
5.62E04
5.28E04
11
12
13
14
15
17
18
32
35
11.04
43.56
20.33
12.64
21.23
34.27
14.36
18.57
30.10
3.77E04
3.61E04
5.20E04
5.86E04
5.06E04
6.08E04
5.78E04
6.57E04
1.31E05
J. Shuai et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 25 (2012) 166e175
173
Table 6
Suggested INTIIs of crude oil tanks.
Fig. 11. INTIIs comparison between Gumbel method and RBI method.
35, the INTIIs predicted by the Gumbel method are higher than by
RBI method; it is quite the contrary with that of the others tanks.
There are two reasons for that: the rst is the difference between
the measured maximum corrosion rate and the maximum corrosion rate predicted by Gumbel MEVD; the second is the difference
caused by the principle of two prediction methods.
Fig. 12 shows the comparison between predicted corrosion rate
and measured corrosion rate. It can be seen that the corrosion rates
of all tanks predicted by Gumbel MEVD are higher than the
measured corrosion rate except Tank 2, 6, and 15. Due to relatively
low corrosion rate of Tank 2, 6 and 15, the inspection intervals
predicted by two methods are both higher than 15 years. However,
in this paper more attention is paid to crude oil tanks with short
inspection interval. The inspection interval of Tank 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 14
and 18 predicted by Gumbel method is lower than 10 years, and the
corresponding ratios between predicted corrosion rate and
measured corrosion rate are 1.64, 1.31, 1.71, 2.36, 2.67, 1.44 and 2.10,
respectively. The predicted corrosion rates of Tank 3, 11 and 18 are
higher than the others, and up to 1.52 mm/a, 1.22 mm/a and
1.05 mm/a, respectively. Therefore, by the comparison of two
methods, it can be drawn that Gumbel method is more conservative than RBI method for tanks with short INTII. RBI method is
recommended to predict the INTII of tank.
Fig. 12. The comparisons between predicted corrosion rate and measured corrosion
rate.
Tank no.
Internal inspection
interval (years)
Tank
no.
Internal inspection
interval (years)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
20
12.5
6.5
8.9
15.9
20
9.6
13.2
13.3
11
12
13
14
15
17
18
32
35
8.7
20
14.7
8.9
15.5
20
10.1
12.7
17.2
174
J. Shuai et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 25 (2012) 166e175
and Han (in press) argue that the inspection interval of 5e7 years in
SY/T 5921 should be extended to 8e10 years. In Table 4, INTIIs of all
tanks predicted by RBI method with the acceptable risk of
3.54E04 are higher than 8 years. Therefore, the predicted INTIIs
above correspond with Shuais research results.
However, the Periodic Internal Inspection Method has a number
of disadvantages for the management of crude oil tanks:
1) The tanks without severe corrosion defects are open to inspect,
which will cause unnecessary expenditure in inspection and
business interruption loss, e.g. Tank 1, 6, 12 and 17.
2) Some tanks with high deterioration rate are not timely
inspected and repaired, which will lead to potential safety
hazard or in some cases may cause leakage accident of tank.
3) Periodic Internal Inspection Method not only does not consider
the effect of COF on the risk of tanks, but also does not consider
inuence of the plants management system on the integrity of
crude oil tanks. A good plants management can reduce the POF
of tank.
4) It lacks the freedom to benet from good operating experience
and focus nite inspection resources on the areas of the
greatest concern (Wintle & Kenzie, 2001).
RBI is a method which use risk as a basis to prioritize and manage
inspection. RBI shift from passive inspection to active inspection.
Different crude oil tanks have different inspection intervals, which
can be exibly determined by the risk of tank. RBI technology not
only quantitatively assesses the risk of storage tank and improves
risk level of oil depot by paying attention to high-risk tanks, but also
can predict inspection interval of crude oil tank. However, in the
consequence analysis of atmospheric storage tank, API RBI only
considers the inuence of leak on storage tank risk, but does not
consider the inuence of ammable and explosive consequences.
Although the possibility of failure of re and explosion for crude oil
tanks are very small, it may cause catastrophic accident.
As we mention above, crude oil tank might be loaded in crude
oil from different area or with different corrosivity, so the corrosion
rate of crude oil tank is not constant over the interval between two
internal inspections. The corrosion rate calculated from the difference of thickness between two inspections is the average corrosion
rate. So the short-term corrosion rate (actual corrosion rate) is
signicantly different from the long-term corrosion rate (average
corrosion rate). However, it is difcult to measure the actual
corrosion rate of tank without opening tank. In addition, corrosion
rate of pitting for tank bottom has randomness. The determination
of corrosion rate of pitting is not the research scope of this paper. In
this paper we just focus on the general corrosion in prediction of
INTII for crude oil tank. Therefore, we assume that general corrosion is the dominant damage mechanism and corrosion rate is
constant over the interval between two internal inspections in all
crude oil tanks.
The determination of reasonable INTII for crude oil tank has
a great signicance in balancing the safe operation requirement
of crude oil tanks and inspection costs. However, now it is
difcult to conrm that 3.54E04 are the most reasonable
acceptable risk for oil depot. Because there are still 19 uninspected tanks with the uncertainty on corrosion rate, and the
determination of the acceptable risk of 3.54E04 is based on
corrosion data of 18 inspected tanks. RBI risk assessment is
a continuous improvement and dynamic process. After several
years, all tanks will have at least one internal inspection, and
then we can obtain more information and have a better
understanding of deterioration rate for all crude oil tanks. The
nit is possible for us to determine the acceptable risk for the
whole oil depot. But the acceptable risk of 3.54E04 is also
reasonable for 18 inspected crude oil tanks. Therefore, determining the acceptable risk for the oil depot and considering the
inuence of re and explosion on risk assessment and INTII
prediction of crude oil tank will be our next work.
6. Conclusions
(1) The risk of tank shell is much smaller than the risk of tank
bottom for all crude oil tanks in an oil depot in China. So the
risk of crude oil tank is determined dominantly by the risk of
tank bottom. 25% Equipment items account for 90% of the total
risk in crude oil depot.
(2) According to risk assessment and risk ranking of 19 uninspected tanks and the requirement of INTII in code SY/T 5921 in
China, they should be immediately inspected to determine the
corrosion state of tanks and reduces risk uncertainty, in
particular, Tank 36, 37, 38 and 16 should take priority for
inspection.
(3) In RBI method, the predicted INTII of crude oil tank gradually
increases with the increasing of the acceptable risk. Based on
comparison analysis among calculated MARs of 18 inspected
tanks, the acceptable risk proposed by Mai and inspection
experience, 3.54E04 are taken as the acceptable risk. The
safety factor of 0.8 is used to adjust the INTIIs of 18 inspected
crude oil tanks.
(4) The INTIIs predicted by Gumbel method are more conservative
than RBI methods for tanks with short INTII.
(5) By the comparison of three standards in inspection interval, it
can be concluded that the INTII requirement of 5e7 years in
code SY/T 5921 in china is more conservative than that of
standard API 653 and EEMUA 159.
References
API 580 American Petroleum Institute. (2002). Risk-based inspection. Washington,
D.C.: API Publishing Services.
API 581 American Petroleum Institute. (2008). Risk-based inspection technology.
Washington, D.C.: API Publishing Services.
API 653 American Petroleum Institute. (2009). Tank inspection, repair, alteration, and
reconstruction. Washington, D.C.: API Publishing Services.
Bai, M., & Liu, Z. W. (1995). Economic benet analysis of large-scale oil tank.
Petroleum Engineering Construction, 1(6), 8e10.
Cao, C. (1988). Statistical analysis of corrosion test data. Beijing: Chemical Industry
Press.
Chang, M. K., Chang, R. R., Shua, C. M., & Lin, K. N. (2005). Application of risk based
inspection in renery and processing piping. Journal of Loss Prevention in the
Process Industries, 18, 397e402.
Chien, C. H., Chen, C. H., & Chao, Y. J. (2009). A strategy for the risk-based
inspection of pressure safety valves. Reliability Engineering and System Safety,
94, 810e818.
CWA 15740 e The European Committee for Standardization. (2008). Riskbased inspection and maintenance procedures for European industry
(RIMAP).
Dai, G., Li, W., & Long, F. F. (2002). An acoustic emission method for the in service
detection of corrosion in vertical storage tanks. Materials Evaluation, 60(8),
976e978.
EEMUA 159 The Engineering Equipment and Material Users Association. (2003a).
Users guide to inspection, maintenance and repair of aboveground vertical cylindrical steel storage tanks, Vol. 1. London: EEMUA.
EEMUA 159 The Engineering Equipment and Material Users Association. (2003b).
Users guide to inspection, maintenance and repair of aboveground vertical cylindrical steel storage tanks, Vol. 2. London: EEMUA.
Guo, B., Shen, G. T., Zhang, W. L., Li, F. H., Wang, W. H., Zhao, Y. X., et al. (2010).
Application of RBI technology in atmospheric storage tanks. Pressure Vessel
Technology, 27(4), 55e60.
Jiang, S. Q., & Li, X. X. (2005). Research and development of high strength steel plate
for large oil storage tank. China Steel, 1, 20e23.
Li, G. Y., Wang, A. F., & Yang, S. X. (2005). Calculation of the remaining life of
corroded tanks. Journal of Daqing Petroleum Institute, 29(1), 67e68.
Li, H. B. (1996). Development of large-size oil tanks. Petroleum Renery Engineering,
26(6), 24e26.
Liang, C. H., Zhuang, S. L., & Jiang, H. F. (2000). Development of corrosion life
prediction system for petrochemical equipment materials. Petro-Chemical
Equipment, 17(4), 51e54.
J. Shuai et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 25 (2012) 166e175
Liu, X. N. (2005). Reliability prediction of corrosion residual life of steel pressure
vessel and pipeline. China Petroleum Machinery, 33(2), 35e38.
Mai, Y. S., Zhang, P., & Li, G. H. (2011). A study on the method and application of the
integrity assessment on large e sized storage tank of Sinopec Guangzhou. PetroChemical Equipment Technology, 32(1), 1e7.
Shuai, J., & Han, K. J. (2010). The remaining life prediction and INTII analysis for
large-scale crude oil storage tank. In Proceedings of the 8th international pipeline
conference. Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Shuai, J., Xu, X. R., & Han, K. J. The study of overhaul period for crude oil tank. Acta
Petrolei Sinica, in press.
175
SY/T 5921 Oil and Gas Storage and Transportation Standardization Technical
Committee in China. (2000). Code for repair of vertical cylindrical weld steel crude
oil tanks. Beijing: Petroleum Industry Press.
Wintle, J. B., & Kenzie, B. W. (2001). Best practice for risk based inspection as a part
of plant integrity management. TWI research report.
Xiao, J., Liu, L. C., & Ou, Y. H. (2005). Reliability calculation for corrosion of bottom
plate of oil tank. Corrosion & Protection, 26(5), 205e207, 219.
Yuan, G. J., Xu, C. Y., Wang, W. H., & Li, G. H. (2009). Application of quantitative RBI
technology in large storage tank group. Petrochemical Safety and Environmental
Protection Technology, 25(3), 23e26.