e

th CONDUIT
from Mechanical & Materials Engineering
Volume 7
Number 3

Technology and Development

of Risk Based Inspection
By Lynne C. Kaley
Risk Based Inspection (RBI) is a method techniques can also be applied to the
for quantifying risk to prioritize inspection chemical process, pulp and paper, fossil
program efforts. The potential benefit of fuel utility, and nuclear power industries.
RBI is to increase operating efficiencies
and unit run lengths of process facilities Overview
while reducing the level of risk. RBI def ines the risk of operating
A large percentage of risk in an equipment as the combination of the
operating plant is associated with a small consequence of failure and likelihood of
amount of equipment. RBI shifts inspection failure. Risk can be shown by the
and maintenance resources to increase mathematical equation:
coverage on high-risk items and decrease
Risk = Probability X Consequence
UE
effort on lower risk equipment.
Risk Based Inspection
SS
LI
American Petroleum Institute (API) is
drafting RP 580, the recommended programs:
C IA
SPE ON ED
practice for RBI. RP 580 will supplement · Screen operating
units to identify
BAS N
API 510, 570 and 653 codes.
areas of high risk
These codes state that “an RBI
K
assessment must include a systematic · Estimate the risk
RIS ECTIO
P
INS
evaluation of the likelihood of failure and value associated with
the consequence of failure ... and must each equipment item
be based on all forms of degradation that based on a consistent
could reasonably be expected.” methodology
They also note that “an RBI assessment · Prioritize the equipment based on
may be used to increase or decrease the measured risk
10-year inspection limit.” RP 580 is · Design an inspection program
intended to guide users to properly · Systematically manage the risk of
perform RBI assessments that will comply equipment failures.
with the appropriate inspection code. RBI determines what incidents could
occur ( consequence ) if a piece of
Background of RBI equipment fails, and how likely
API initiated RBI development in 1993. (probability) that incident is to occur. The
A group of participating companies consequence ref lects the outcome or
developed methods for implementing RBI effect of an equipment failure.
practices covering typical problems in the Organizations traditionally focus on the
refining and petrochemical industries. RBI (continued on page 2)
The Conduit 1
 RBI Technology and Development
(continued from page 1)
consequences of failure or on the
probability, without considering them
together, i.e. how likely it is that the
undesirable incident will occur. Only by
considering both factors can effective risk-
based decision making take place.
Consequence
A tolerable level of risk must be defined
recognizing that not every failure will lead
to an undesirable incident with serious
consequence. Understanding the two-
dimensional aspect of risk allows new
insight into the use of risk as an inspection
prioritization. RBI allows users to focus
attention on those equipment items whose
failure will result in serious consequences.
Not every equipment failure results in
a serious safety or economic event.
Conversely, some failures have potentially
serious consequences, but if the likelihood
of the incident is low, then the risk may
not warrant immediate action. However,
if the probability and consequence
combination (risk) is high, then a mitigation
action to predict or prevent the event is
recommended.
Probability
Probability refers to the chance that an
equipment failure will occur once or with
frequency over a specific time frame.
The Probability of Failure (POF)
increases with the number of degradation
mechanisms that can cause a failure. The
POF will generally increase for longer
periods of exposure. If the operating
environment does not change, for some
non-time dependent failure modes, the
inherent POF will not increase.
To effectively implement RP 580,
owner/users need to understand
potential damage mechanisms and
characterization techniques. If damage is
expected or experienced, inspection
2 The Conduit
planners need to identify the damage type
and location and then select appropriate
NDE methods, realizing their limitations.
Cost Optimization
The ultimate goal of inspection is the
safety and reliability of operating facilities.
RBI as a risk-based approach focuses
attention on the equipment and
associated deterioration mechanisms
representing the most risk.
When the risk associated with
equipment is determined and the relative
effectiveness of different inspection
techniques in reducing risk is quantified,
adequate information is available for
developing an optimization tool for
planning and implementing a risk based
inspection. Since not all inspection
programs are equally effective in detecting
in-service deterioration and reducing risks,
several methods are usually available with
different costs and effectiveness.
RBI provides a methodology for
determining the optimum combination of
methods and frequencies. Each available
inspection method can be analyzed and
its relative effectiveness in reducing failure
probability estimated.
For every dollar invested in RBI
implementation, industry experience has
typically shown a savings of $4 to $10 on
the cost of maintaining and inspecting
equipment.
Dobis and Kaley join M&M Engineering team
Jonathan Dobis and Lynne Kaley have
joined the M&M Engineering Refining,
Chemical and Petrochemical Industries
Engineering Team. Jon and Lynne join Team
Members Gerrit Buchheim, David Osage
and Greg Alvarado to provide materials,
corrosion, NDE, FFS, and RBI evaluations
to avoid operation interruption, reduce
maintenance costs, and improve
equipment performance.
Lynne has more than 20 years of
industry experience, including nine years
as a Metallurgical and Materials Engineer
at Amoco. She also spent 11 years as a
Manager/Consultant for DNV, managing
private and joint industry projects such
as the API Risk Based Inspection project.
Lynne will focus on project management
and product/technology development of
risk based management, systems
integration, training, and f itness for
service. She will based in Houston, Texas.
Jon has 20 years experience in the
process industries, including 10 years as a
Senior Reliability Engineer at BP, six years
in corporate materials for Hercules
Chemicals, and four years in technical and
business development for KLAD LLP.
Jon’s background includes materials and
corrosion design specification and review,
corrosion and materials problem solving,
remaining life prediction, fitness for service,
weld and heat treatment procedure
development, and risk assessment.
Jon will recommend the best available
inspection and equipment assessment
technologies to help owner/users improve
reliability, reduce maintenance and
operating costs, and extend the operating
life of existing equipment. Jon will maintain
an office near Baltimore, Maryland.
Joint Industry Project (JIP) Announcement
Risk Assessment of Rotating Equipment (RARE)
The RARE JIP is developing
risk-based tools for compressors.
The next group meeting will be held at the
Courtyard Marriott by Hobby Airport
on December 12-13, 2000.
For more information, contact Mark Tanner,
Project Manager, at (512) 407-3777 or
mark_tannner@mmengineering.com.

M&M Employee Spotlight

The newest addition to M&M Engineering, Lynne Kaley is involved in engineering
consulting services for metallurgy, corrosion, risk based inspection, and fitness
for service for petrochemical facilities.
An internationally recognized industry expert and leader in the technology
development and use of risk based inspection technology for the refining and
petrochemical industries, Lynne is involved in various API Materials and Inspection
committee activities involved in RBI, inspection practices, fitness for service
and corrosion and materials practices. She also managed the MPC/API
Program for Detection and Evaluation of Wet H2S Damage in Steels.
She is a member of NACE, PVRC and API code committees and has
participated in various industry programs addressing equipment degradation. Lynne Kaley
A budding entrepreneur, Lynne has recently explored her passion for cooking by
preparing delicious meals for small groups. She also enjoys sailing her 25’ Catalina
in Galveston Bay.

The Conduit 3
Interrelationship of RBI and FFS
By Gerrit M. Buchheim
Two new technologies improve the safe,
cost-effective life management of aging
equipment. Risk Based Inspection (RBI)
and Fitness for Service (FFS) are
complementary technologies that augment
and enhance the use of API and ASME
design and API and NBIC inspection codes.
Most RBI applications involve ranking
equipment by risk to better focus
resources. RBI ranges from simple risk
screening to fully quantitative financial
decision analysis.
This process emphasizes the importance
of understanding the basis in the RBI
probability of failure (leak or loss of
containment) models and knowing when
to perform a detailed FFS analysis. It also
shows how RBI can indicate when more
rigorous scrutiny is needed. FFS and
remaining life studies then help owner/
users make the best run, repair, replace,
or interrupt service decisions.
RBI and FFS share a need to identify
and understand damage mechanisms and
the effectiveness of NDE techniques to
detect and characterize damage.
API is drafting RP 571, Conditions
Causing Failure in the Refining Industry,
which will review processes, identify
common damage mechanisms and list
techniques to f ind and characterize
damage morphologies.
Mechanical & Materials Engineering
Austin • Cleveland • Houston
Baltimore • Portland, OR
www.mmengineering.com
info@mmengineering.com
4 The Conduit
Interaction of RBI and FFS
Used together, RBI and FFS technologies
allow owner/users to optimize resources
and manage risk appropriately. FFS is used
in some simplif ied or qualitative RBI
methodologies to make risk based
decisions. Even at a higher or quantitative
level, RBI methodology uses a simple
more conservative FFS analysis to
determine probability of failure (POF).
If a piece of equipment fails the RBI POF
criteria, then the user should determine
what variables are driving the POF. If the
input data is above risk target limits, FFS
analysis can quantify, characterize and
monitor damage so appropriate decisions
can be made.
FFS uses partial safety factors and the
remaining strength factor (RSF) that are
calibrated for different probability of
failures. The user determines a particular
probability of failure, which typically
involves an understanding of the
consequences and an acceptable risk level.
Supplemental
Merging the Technologies
Most often, RBI and FFS merge at higher
API RP 579 Training
level RBI assessments, since to perform
financial decision analysis, FFS models are
an input into the assumed probability of
failure. RBI screening identifies which items
contribute most to the cumulative risk in
that unit.
Inspection, maintenance and testing can
be deferred for low risk components.
High risk items have a higher probability
of failure in RBI and are ideal for FFS
assessment.
While FFS and RBI increase the upfront
engineering effort and costs, the returned
savings in deferred maintenance, risk
reduction, shutdown scope reductions,
unneeded repairs, and avoided unplanned
downtime are typically from 2-5 times the
cost invested.
Risk Based Assessment of Steam Turbines
By G. Mark Tanner
Imagine a system in which the decision-making What if you could predict the increase of risk as
process across an industry had been compiled into you extend the Turnaround/Inspection interval by up
a process that will produce consistent risk-based to 10 more years (like Figure 3)?
results. For example, what if you could obtain a
comparison of the risk of sustained operation of 30

your turbine when compared to others in industry 25

Risk Index No. (RIN)

(like Figure 1)? 20

15

[Note: In the following four figures, RIN is the 10

Risk Index Number, which is the risk of failure in 5

days of lost production over a six-year interval.] 0

10 (33%)

11 (47%)

12 (62%)

13 (78%)

14 (96%)

15 (116%)

16 (137%)
7 (4%)

8 (11%)

9 (21%)
Y e a rs B e tw e e n O u ta g e O v e rh a u l (% in c r e a s e o f b a s e lin e ris k )

60

50
Figure 3. Risk increase with
extension of time between overhauls.
Risk Index No. (RIN)

40

And, what if you could compare your company’s fleet

30
of turbines to others in an industrial database (like
20 Figure 4)?
10 60

50
0
Risk Index No. (RIN)

40
50

32

17

12

18

57

21

28

14

24

36

41
7

Turbine ID
30

20

10
Figure 1. Comparison of risk
0
for your turbine to industry data. 50 25 32 5 17 44 12 43 18 26 57 22 21 35 28 20 14 29 24 59 7 33 36 23 41 49
T u rb in e ID

What if you could predict the contribution of Figure 4. Comparison of corporate fleet
various turbine components to the overall turbine of turbines to industry.
risk (like Figure 2)?
The Steam Turbine Risk Assessment Program
9
(STRAP) identifies the high risk areas of steam turbines
and helps focus and prioritize resources on justifiable
Risk Index No. (RIN)

6
maintenance and operation practices, spare decisions,
5 and upgrades to minimize lost production time and
4
lost revenue. STRAP is a technical tool that uses risk-
3

2
based models to bring important engineering and
1
reliability factors into the decision-making process with
0

Rotor Seals (18%) Casing Bearings Coupling

relevant recommendations to reduce risk and costs.
Assembly (14%) (6%) (6%) STRAP is also a financial tool because it brings the
(53%)
economic consequences of the technical factors into
the decision-making process.
Figure 2. Contribution of turbine For more information please contact Mark Tanner
components to overall risk. at mark_tanner@mmengineering.com.

The Conduit 5
 Financial Risk Optimization Process Facilitates
Plant Component Repair/ Replace Decisions
By David A. Mauney (Structural Integrity Associates)
Since many U.S. industrial plants were
built in the 50’s and 60’s, numerous critical
components are in their advanced life
cycle stages, where failure rate is exponen-
tial. Maintenance expenses are necessary
to maintain equipment reliability.
Predictive maintenance challenges
include deciding which components to
repair or replace and when. Financial Risk
Optimization produces a maximized
economic value, which prioritizes
components and recommends optimal
maintenance schedules.
Net Present Value (NPV)
One way to achieve the “Value Added”
goal of maximizing return on maintenance
dollars is by using NPV as a decision-making
criterion. NPV accounts for the cash flow
over the equipment life. In order to
receive production benefits, maintenance
expenditures are viewed as investments.
NPV puts all expenditures into a
common language for comparison
purposes. Converting maintenance costs
and engineering analysis results into cash
flow and NPV terms helps decision makers
compare them equitably.
Financial Risk Optimization goals are to
implement inspect, repair and replace
projects that produce positive NPV’s and
plan implementations that maximize NPV.
The resulting prioritized list of project
implementation years is the schedule for
maximized NPV. The overall NPV is the
“Value Added” by the whole optimization
process across multiple components.
Making Financial Decisions
Decision analysis models predictive
maintenance costs and their effects on
future reliability. It also helps bridge the
gap between engineering analysis,
expressed in terms of probability of
failure, and f inancial analysis in the
6 The Conduit
decision-making process. Spreadsheet
modeling makes the tool easy to review.
Short- and Long-Term Decisions
Financial Risk Optimization saves money
by considering a component’s long-range
life, not just short-range decisions. Since
it is desirable to operate a component
for many years, the model examines the
financial impact over the whole period.
Short-term effects are accounted for by
updating the input data and rerunning the
optimization each year. This update gives
a long-range view of a component’s
service life, while taking into account the
short range by inputting plan
implementation one year at a time.
Specific elements of the model are:
• Repair or replace costs for the
component of concern
• The lost production consequences
with the project implemented
• Realistic constraints such as annual
budget limits
• The lost production consequences
if the project is not implemented.
The modeling rationale is that certain
production losses would occur if the
project were not implemented. The
decision to implement is constrained by
the maintenance budget for the project
year and can help plan optimum future
maintenance budgets.
Case Studies
Carolina Power & Light Co. used this
analysis process on nine critical
components on each of 19 fossil units,
resulting in more than $50 million increase
in NPV over existing engineering-based
replacement dates.
A large oil f ield used f inancial
optimization to determine which of
thousands of well heads needed repair
to increase the oil flow rate.
Tenfold Plus – More than an RBI Case Study
By Greg Alvarado
Recent changes to the American
Petroleum Institute (API) pressure vessel,
piping and above ground storage tank
inspection codes allow the use of Risk
Based Inspection (RBI) to establish
inspection frequencies and overall plans.
Owner/operators no longer have the
same limitations imposed in earlier codes.
Customer Perspective
This spring, an ethylene plant operator
considered the feasibility of conducting an
RBI analysis of a large unit. They wanted
to take measured, manageable steps to
apply this technology to equipment
inspection plans. They had no prior
experience with RBI.
Over 225 pieces of fixed equipment
were scheduled for internal inspection
during the upcoming turnaround.
Approximately 100 items were already
slated for internal access for operational
and/or maintenance reasons. This left 126
equipment items as candidates for avoiding
internal inspection.
Initial Feasibility Study
The feasibility study took approximately
3 days of the owner/user’s time and 2½
days of on-site consulting time. A former
owner/user, the project consultant has
extensive industry experience and a strong
background in NDE, inspection, materials
engineering, corrosion and RBI
implementation.
Copies of Process Flow Diagrams
(PFD’s) and Piping and Instrument
Diagrams (P&ID’s) provided a roadmap
for later discussions and review.
By involvement in the feasibility study,
plant employees benefited from exposure
to the process and interaction with the
consultant. In addition, any information
gathered during the feasibility study could
be used for the actual RBI study.
Elements of the feasibility study included:
• Interviews with representatives
from inspection, maintenance and
operations, including discussions on
process stability, past problem
areas and mitigation measures
• Review of P&ID’s and PFD’s
• Focused review of inspection
records, inspection database
management system and inspection
practices.
The feasibility study resulted in the
recommendation that the inspection
frequencies of 50-80% of the equipment
could be extended beyond seven years,
taking them to the next planned
turnaround.
The owner/user estimated that the
average inspection cost for the equipment
was $6,000. Savings from shortened
turnaround time were not considered.
The owner/user expected to achieve
savings from $378,000 to $600,000.
A systemized method of operations,
inspection and maintenance practices to
produce risk rankings and establish
inspection strategies would produce a
safer and more reliable operation.
RBI Study Results
A comprehensive RBI study was then
conducted. Turnaround scope and
inspection plans were developed for each
piece of equipment.
Based on the actual RBI results, only
four pieces of equipment required internal
inspection in the upcoming turnaround
(out of an expected 25 items, based on
the most conservative anticipated results
of the feasibility study).
Implementation of the recommended
plan resulted actual return on investment
exceeding 10:1. Further improvements in
equipment reliability, availability, and
safety are anticipated.
The Conduit 7
 The Conduit is distributed free of If you don’t already receive your own copy of The Conduit,
charge by Mechanical & Materials please mail or fax a copy of this form to:
Engineering. We hope you will find the
articles informative and useful, and that
they stimulate new ideas or acquaint you
M&M Engineering
with technical developments that you can Attn: Nancy Thomas
use to improve the way your business 4616 W. Howard Ln. #2500 • Austin, TX 78728-6302
operates. Fax (512) 407-3766
The word conduit comes from the
Latin word conducere, meaning “to lead
together.” We see The Conduit as a Name ________________________________________________
passageway for two-way communication;
we welcome your comments, questions,
Title __________________________________________________
and suggestions, as well as any articles Company ______________________________________________
you submit for publication.
M&M Engineering grants readers Address _______________________________________________
limited permission to make photocopies City ________________________ State ________ Zip __________
of this publication, in whole or in part,
for the readers’ nonprofit-making use Phone _______________________ Fax _____________________
and distribution.
For additional copies contact:
E-mail ________________________________________________

❑ Please delete my name from your mailing list.

Nancy Thomas, Editor
4616 W. Howard Ln. #2500
❑ Please correct my information as listed above.
Austin, TX 78728-6302
(512) 407-3764 Comments on this issue (V7N3) ______________________________
(800) 421-9185
nancy_thomas@mmengineering.com ___________________________________________________________

the
CONDUIT Presorted
Standard
U.S. Postage
4616 W. Howard Ln. #2500 PAID
Austin, TX 78728-6302 Austin, TX
Permit No. 272