RBI-Javad Hashemi

DEVELOPING A RISK-BASED
INSPECTION (RBI) SOFTWARE

ACCORDING TO API 581
Seyed Javad Hashemi
Supervisors:
Dr. S. Javadpour
Dr. M. Peikari
of Slides: 52
Abadan Faculty of Petroleum Engineering

JUNE 2009
Outline
2
Introduction
API RBI Method/Software

Development
AORC RBI Study Results
Software Verification/Method
Validation
Conclusions
Petroleum University of Technology
Factors Leading to Loss

3
-Causes of Large Property Damage Losses in the Hydrocarbon

Chemical Industries, 1960 - 1990
Mechanical Failure
Operational Error
nspection
Process Upset
Natural Hazard
Design Error
Sabotage/Arson
Others/Unknown
0
10
20
30
40
50
Percent of Losses
Reference: www.marshriskconsulting.com
Evolution of Inspection
Programs
Everything
inspected at the
same Interval.
Fixed
Interval
1900 - 1950
Reactive
(Backward Looking)
Condition
Based
1950 - 1990
Survey of Large Property Losses

5
Cost and Number of Large Property Damage Losses in the

Hydrocarbon-Chemical Industries, 1960 - 1990
80
Number
Cost
60
40
20
1962-71
1972-81
eference: www.marshriskconsulting.com
1982-91
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
NUMBER OF LOSSES
100
Evolution of Inspection
Programs
Everything
inspected at the
same Interval.
Fixed
Interval
1900 - 1950
Reactive
(Backward Looking)
Proactive
(Forward
Looking)
Condition
Based
Risk
Based
1950 - 1990
1990 - Now
Standard Development
7
API RBI project initiated

before May 1993 by an
industry sponsored
API 580-1st Edition-May

2002
Principles and min.

requirements
group.
Objective: develop
practical methods for RBI
API 581-2nd EditionSept. 2008

provides quantitative
calculation methods
Risk Definition
8
Failure: Loss of Containment

Risk =
Probability of Failure
Consequence of Failure
Outline
9
Introduction

Development
Validation
Conclusions
Establishments of Database
10
Populat
e
Databa
se
Probability
of Failure
Conseque
nce of
Failure
Risk
Ranking
Inspecti
on
Plannin
g
Main Sources:
Piping and Instrumentation Drawing (P&ID)
Process and Flow Diagram (PFD)
Design calculations
Isometric sketches
Operating parameters
Past inspection records
Probability of Failure
11
Populat
e
Databa
se
Probability
of Failure
Conseque
nce of
Failure
Risk
Ranking
Pf(t) = gff . Df(t) . FMS
gff: generic failure frequency

Df(t): damage factor
FMS: management systems factor
gff as a function of Hole Size
gff total
(failure/yea
Small
(failure/year)
Medium
Large
8.00 E-
2.00E-05
2.00E-06
3.00 E-05
Heat
06
8.00E-06
2.00E-05
2.00E-06
6.00E-07
3.06E-05
Exchanger
Pipe
Pump
2.80E-05
8.00 E-
0
2.00E-05
0
2.00E-06
2.60E-06
6.00E-07
3.06 E-05
3.06 E-05
r)
Equipment
Type
Compressor
Inspecti
on
Plannin
g
Rupture
05
Damage Factors (DF)

12
Populat
e
Databa
se
Pf(t) = gff . Df(t) . FMS
Probability
of Failure
Conseque
nce of
Failure
The basic function of the damage factor is to

statistically evaluate the amount of damage
that may be present as a function of time in
service and the effectiveness of an inspection
Risk
Ranking
Inspecti
on
Plannin
g
activity.
Damage Rate/Susceptibility
Inspection Effectiveness
Damage Factors
13
Thinning
Amine
Corrosion
Lining
Degradation
HighCracking
Temp. H22/H22S
Carbonate
HCl Corrosion
SCC
External
Damage
External
HF
Caustic
Corrosion
Corrosion
SCC
Brittle
Fracture
F Embrittlement
High
Under
Amine
Temp.
Ins.
Corrosion
Oxidation
SCC885
HTHA
Low
Temp.
Embrittlement
Sour
External
water
HIC/SOHIC
Corrosion
SCC
Fatigue
H
SO44HSC
Corrosion
Sigma
Phase
Under
Ins.
SCC
2
2
Temper Embrittlement
Naphthenic
PTAAcid Corr.
Acid Sour
ClSCC
Water Corr.
Cooling SSC
Water Corr.
Damage Factor Calculation

14
Populat
e
Databa
se
Probability
of Failure
Conseque
nce of
Failure
Risk
Ranking
Inspecti
on
Plannin
g
Inspection
Category
Inspection
Effectiveness
Category
Inspection Example
Highly
Effective
Usually
Effective
50 to 100% examination of the surface (partial

internals removed), and accompanied by
thickness measurements
Nominally 20% examination (no internals
removed), and spot external ultrasonic
thickness measurements
Visual examination with thickness
measurements
C
D
E
Fairly
Effective
Poorly
Effective
Ineffective
Visual examination
No Inspection
Example: Thinning DF Calculation

15
Populat
e
Databa
se
Probability
of Failure
Conseque
nce of
Failure
Risk
Ranking
Inspecti
on
Plannin
g
Determining the base damage factor for thinning

Inspection Effectiveness
Art
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
1 Inspection
C
B
2 Inspection
C
B
3 Inspection
C
B
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
5
3
2
1
4
2
1
1
3
1
20
17
10
6
1
13
6
1
1
10
3
90
70
50
20
3
50
20
4
1
40
10
250 200 130
70
7
170
70
10
1
130
35
400 300 210 110
15
290 120
20
1
260
60
520 450 290 150
20
350 170
30
2
240
80
650 550 400 200
30
400 200
40
4
320 110
750 650 550 300
80
600 300
80
10
540 150
900 800 700 400 130 700 400 120
30
600 200
105 900 810 500 200 800 500 160
40
700 270
0
120 110 970 600 270 100 600 200
60
900 360
0
0
0
135 120 113 700 350 110 750 300 100 100 500
0
0
0
0
0
Equipment
150 140 Age
125 850 500 130 900 400 230 120 620

t Cr,cm agerc Cr,bm (age0 agerc)
0
0
0
Art max 1 0rd
Design
Thickness
190 170 140 100 700 160 110 670
530 130 880
tmin CA
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
Corrosion Rate
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
5
6
9
20
50
60
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
5
10
20
80
40
130
90
250
210
,0.0
550
500
Damage Factor Combination

16
Populat
e
Databa
se
Probability
of Failure
Conseque
nce of
Failure
API 581 Damage Factors:

1. Thinning- Df thin
2. Component Linings- Df elin
3. External Damage- Df extd
4. Stress Corrosion Cracking- Df scc
5. High Temperature Hydrogen Attack- Df htha
Risk
Ranking
Inspecti
on
Plannin
g
6. Mechanical Fatigue (Piping Only)- Df mfat

7. Brittle Fracture- Df brit
TOTAL DF is the combination of individual
damage factors.
17
Populat
e
Databa
se
Probability
of Failure
Q
ESDV
BREACH SIZE
Conseque
nce of
Failure
P, T
ESDV
Risk
Ranking
Inspecti
on
Plannin
g
DCS
Equipment
Type
CALCULATION
Compressor
OF
CONSEQUENCE
Heat
FACTOR
Exchanger
Pipe
Pump
PROBABILISTIC
ACCIDENT
SCENARIOS
EVALUATION OF
CONSEQUENCES
gff as a function of Hole Size
gff total
(failure/year)
(failure/yea FIRE
EXPLOSION
r)
Small
Medium
Large
Rupture POLLUTION,
ETC.
8.00 E06
8.00E-06
2.00E-05
2.80E-05
8.00 E-
2.00E-06
3.00 E-05
2.00E-05
0
MITIGATION
PROTECTION
2.00E-06
6.00E-07
0
2.00E-05
0
2.00E-06
3.06 E-05
3.06 E-05
2.60E-06
6.00E-07
3.06E-05
18
Populat
e
Databa
se
Probability
of Failure
Consequence Area (CA): CA = aXb
Conti. Release:
Inst. Release:
Conseque
nce of
Failure
Risk
Ranking
Inspecti
on
Plannin
g
Consequence Categories:
1. Area-Based Consequences
2. Financial Consequences
19
Populat
e
Databa
se
Probability
of Failure
Conseque
nce of
Failure
Risk
Ranking
Inspecti
on
Plannin
g
Risk Ranking
20
Probability
of Failure
Conseque
nce of
Failure
Risk
Ranking
Inspecti
on
Plannin
g
Area-Based Risk
R t Pf t CA
Likelihood Category
Populat
e
Databa
se
Financial Risk
R t Pf t FC
G
N
I
S
E A SK
CR RI
IN
High Risk
Medium High Risk
Medium Risk
Low Risk
Consequence Category
Risk Ranking
21
Populat
e
Databa
se
Probability
of Failure
Conseque
nce of
Failure
Risk
Ranking
Inspecti
on
Plannin
g
Inspection Planning
22
Populat
e
Databa
se
Probability
of Failure
Total
Risk
Risk
Conseque
nce of
Failure
Thinning
Risk
Risk
Target
A+B+C
SCC Risk
Risk
Ranking
A
B
Inspecti
on
Plannin
g
C
Installation
Date
Inspection
Date
RBI
Date
Brittle Fracture
Risk
tim
e
Risk Target
23
Populat
e
Databa
se
Conseque
nce of
Failure
Risk
Ranking
Inspecti
on
Plannin
g
1000
Damage Factor
Probability
of Failure
100
DF Target
3
20
2
High Risk
Medium High Ris
Medium Risk
Low Risk
1
0
Consequence Category
Inspection Planning
24
Populat
e
Databa
se
Probability
of Failure
Conseque
nce of
Failure
Risk
Ranking
Inspecti
on
Plannin
g
Inspection Planning
25
Populat
e
Databa
se
Probability
of Failure
Conseque
nce of
Failure
Risk
Ranking
Inspecti
on
Plannin
g
Outline
26
Introduction

Development
Validation
Conclusions
Scope
27
Qualitative Analysis: 49 Units
Quantitative RBI in CDU 100:
37 Vessels
67 Heat Exchangers and Air Coolers
75 Safety Valves
59 Piping Corrosion Loops (114 Line Numbers)
TOTAL: 218 Equipment
Equipment Tree
28
Populat
e
Databa
se
Plant
Unit
Probability
of Failure
Conseque
nce of
Failure
Risk
Ranking
Section
System
Equipment
Inspecti
on
Plannin
g
Component
Establishments of Database
29
Populat
e
Databa
se
Probability
of Failure
Conseque
nce of
Failure
Risk
Ranking
Inspecti
on
Plannin
g
Corrosion Loops
30
Populat
e
Databa
se
Probability
of Failure
Conseque
nce of
Failure
Risk
Ranking
Inspecti
on
Plannin
g
Corrosion Loops
31
Corrosion Loops Definition

Criteria:
Active Damage Mechanisms
Corrosion Rate
Fluid Type/Phase
Metal/Fluid Combination
Risk Distribution
32
Area-Based Risk Distribution
20%
20%
8%
39%
12%
100
90
80
70
Equipment
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
86
Count
43
27
44
18
Criticality
Area-Based Risk Comparison at May

2015
33
Current Plan
RBI Recommended
Plan
Reduction Percent
4457.42
2576.48
42.20%
Area Based
Risk (ft2/year)
1400
1200
1000
800
Risk (Ft2/year)
R
BI
600
400
200
0
V-120
E-111
V-117
E-140
AE-140
E-121
AE-140
E-135
AE-140
E-135
BE-140
E-140
EE-121
FE-122
BE-122
CDV-106
BV-110
A11-28A
LNBLN
10-40A
V-109
LN
10-41A
V-107
V-101
E-105
LN
LN10-34A
10-24A
V-105
LN
10-154A
LN
10-17A
Equipment
Name
LN
10-18A
LN
10-19A
LN
10-42A
E-119
B11-9A
E-119
AE-125
LNLN
11-12A
LN
11-29A
E-117
LN
11-20A
LN
11-33A
LN
10-20A
LN
11-10A
E-118
AE-118
E-118
BE-118
E-118
CE-118
E-118
DE FGH
E-118
Financial Risk Comparison at May 2015

34
Financial
Based Risk
(ft2/year)
Current Plan
RBI Recommended
Plan
Reduction Percent
37,792,672.00
18,764,932.00
50.35%
5000000
4500000
4000000
3500000
3000000
2500000
Risk ($/year)
2000000
RBI
CBI
1500000
1000000
500000
0
V-120
E-135
AE-140
E-135
BE-140
V-117
E-111
E-121
A
EE-122
FE-121
E-140
BC
E-140
E-140
D
B
B
V-106
V-101
V-110
V-109
LN
10-40A
V-107
LN
11-28A
E-119
B
E-119
A
V-111
LN
10-41A
V-105
E-125
LN
10-24A
V-121
V-116
CA10-17A
V-116
V-116
B10-18A
E-105
E-140
A
LN
10-19A
LN
10-154A
E-117
LN
10-34A
E-122
AE-118
E-118
AE-118
E-118
B
Equipment Name LNLN
E-118
C
E-118
D
EE-130
FG
E-118
E-118
HBA
E-131
E-138
Inspection Planning
35
Populat
e
Databa
se
Probability
of Failure
Conseque
nce of
Failure
Risk
Ranking
Inspecti
on
Plannin
g
Current Plant Overhaul Interval: 3 to

4 years
Study Objective: Extending the O.I. to
5 years
Inspection Plan:
Where
to inspect?
What to inspect?
How to inspect?
When to inspect?
?
Software Report
36
37
Next Inspection Date (Case

1)
Damage Factor vs. Time Plot for Vessel V-113
38

2)
Damage Factor vs. Time Plot for Shell Side of Heat Exchanger
E-105
39

3)
Damage Factor vs. Time Plot for Tube Side of Heat Exchanger
E-116 A
40

4)
Damage Factor vs. Time Plot for Shell Side of Heat Exchanger
E-119 B
Inspection Interval Distribution (Based on

Current Plan)
41
Inspection Interval (month)

140
120.00%
Equipment
Count
120
100.00%
100
80.00%
80
60.00%
60
0.42
20
0
40.00%
0.32
40
20.00%
0.12
10
11
12
0.00%
Inspection Interval Distribution (Based on

RBI Plan)
42
Inspection Interval (month)

140
120.00%
Equipment Count
Comulative %
120
100.00%
100
80.00%
80
60.00%
60
40.00%
40
20
0
20.00%
0.12
0.05
10
11
12
0.00%
Two categories of critical equipments:
High damage factor
High Consequence of failure
High Risk
Medium High Risk
Medium Risk
Low Risk
LOF
43
CDU 100 Critical

Equipments
COF
Outline
44
Introduction

Development
Validation
Conclusions
Software Verification
45
Comparison of manually calculated results

(Expected Output) with Actual Output of software .
V-101
Atm. Distillation Column
Validation of RBI Methods

46
Organizatio
n
TORC
RBI Provider
(Consultant)
EORC
Shell
Software
RISKWISE
Risk Analysis
Approach
Qualitative
S-RBI
Semi
Quantitative
S&QGRC
T-OCA
AORC
Risk
Master
Semi
Quantitative
Quantitative
Inspection
Planning
Approach
Inspection
Grading
Inspection
Grading
Confidence
Factor
Inspection
Grading
Risk vs. Time Plot
and Risk Target
AORC: Abadan Oil Refining Company

EORC: Esfahan Oil Refining Company
TORC: Tehran Oil Refining Company
S&QGRC: Sarkhoon & Qeshm Gas Refining Company
Outline
47
Introduction

Development
Method Validation/Software
Verification
Conclusions
Conclusions
48
Main RBI benefits:
focused inspection plans

cost saving
Applying the RBI recommended inspection plan in

AORC will reduce area-based risk up to 42.20%.
Inspection intervals distribution of CDU 100 unit

reveal that it is possible to extend the inspection
interval of 88.08% of equipments from current 3 - 4
years to 5 years without compromising safety issues.
Conclusions
49
API RBI has also some weaknesses, however,

generally, in comparison with other existing RBI
methods, it appears to be more consistent and
practice oriented.
Considering the time dependency of failure risk.
Using reproducible quantitative approach
Considering the overall area-based and financial

consequences separately.
Evaluation of both active and inactive/potential damage

mechanisms.
Recommendation
50
New studies can be conducted to develop software

modules for risk analysis of pressure relief devices
(PRDs) and exchanger bundles.
There is still a need to develop RBI software for

topside equipment on offshore platforms and also
transmission pipelines, based on related
references and methodologies.
New studies can be conducted to develop software

modules for petrochemical plants, capable of
conducting Level 2 consequence analysis.
Thanks for your attention.
Main References
52
1. API RP 581, Risk Based Inspection Technology, second edition (2008).

2. AB-505, Risk-Based Inspection Requirements for Pressure
Equipment, Alberta Boiler Safety Association (ABSA), Alberta (2008).
3. API RP 580, Risk Based Inspection, first edition (2002).
4. API RP 571, Damage Mechanisms Affecting Fixed Equipment in the
Refining Industry, first edition (2003).
5. API 510, Pressure Vessel Inspection Code, second edition (1997).

RBI-Javad Hashemi

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

RBI-Javad Hashemi

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

DEVELOPING A RISK-BASED

INSPECTION (RBI) SOFTWARE

Abadan Faculty of Petroleum Engineering

API RBI Method/Software

AORC RBI Study Results

Factors Leading to Loss

-Causes of Large Property Damage Losses in the Hydrocarbon

Petroleum University of Technology

Petroleum University of Technology

Survey of Large Property Losses

Cost and Number of Large Property Damage Losses in the

Petroleum University of Technology

Petroleum University of Technology

API RBI project initiated

API 580-1st Edition-May

Principles and min.

API 581-2nd EditionSept. 2008

Petroleum University of Technology

Failure: Loss of Containment

Petroleum University of Technology

API RBI Method/Software

AORC RBI Study Results

Piping and Instrumentation Drawing (P&ID)

Process and Flow Diagram (PFD)

Past inspection records

Petroleum University of Technology

Pf(t) = gff . Df(t) . FMS

gff: generic failure frequency

Petroleum University of Technology

Damage Factors (DF)

Pf(t) = gff . Df(t) . FMS

The basic function of the damage factor is to

Petroleum University of Technology

Damage Factor Calculation

50 to 100% examination of the surface (partial

Example: Thinning DF Calculation

Determining the base damage factor for thinning

Petroleum University of Technology

Damage Factor Combination

API 581 Damage Factors:

6. Mechanical Fatigue (Piping Only)- Df mfat

Petroleum University of Technology

Consequence Area (CA): CA = aXb

Petroleum University of Technology

API RBI Method/Software

AORC RBI Study Results

Qualitative Analysis: 49 Units

Quantitative RBI in CDU 100:

Petroleum University of Technology

Petroleum University of Technology

Corrosion Loops Definition

Petroleum University of Technology

Area-Based Risk Distribution

Petroleum University of Technology

Area-Based Risk Comparison at May

Financial Risk Comparison at May 2015

Petroleum University of Technology

Current Plant Overhaul Interval: 3 to

Petroleum University of Technology

Next Inspection Date (Case

Damage Factor vs. Time Plot for Vessel V-113

Petroleum University of Technology