Slides - Three Key Impacts of A Data-Driven Approach On Your MI Program and Turnaround Strategy

Three Key Impacts of a Data-Driven Approach
on Your MI Program & Turnaround Strategy
Lewis Makin Ryan Myers

VP, Solutions & Marketing Product Manager
Objective
Discuss how facilities can use their data to:
1. Improve Integrity Operating Window (IOW) Management
2. Optimize Turnaround Scoping
3. Identify the Biggest Threats to Reducing Risks and Costs of
Specific Condition Monitoring Locations (CMLs)
Understand how to leverage quantification of data uncertainty

across your system to improve mechanical integrity and
turnaround performance.
Property of Pinnacle
Perception that inspection dollars ($) are being wasted
• Industry still experiencing significant leaks, particularly on piping.

• How do we identify the right inspections and the right time to inspect?
• How do we justify the required spend and quantify business value?
Hard to justify where inspection is valuable
• How do we decide which inspection locations are valuable?

• How do we confidently defer inspections?
• How do we handle dynamic operating conditions and excursions?
Current industry approaches are highly dependent on expert and user input
• Significant time spent on data “clean-up”.

• Re-inspecting assets with “high confidence” due to uncertainty.
• Unable to quickly process through all of the data to identify real threats.
The Problem
Consequence
Current POF models:
1. Are deterministic. We do not quantify the
degree of uncertainty within our current
data set.
2. Primarily considers two variables to
Probability
determine a POF: a thickness value and a
degradation rate
Current Risk
Quantifying Uncertainty
SINGLE CML WALL THICKNESS
Uncertainty-Based RBI Approach
1. Quantifies uncertainty in data
2. Leverages multiple data inputs to
calculate uncertainty in our model that
could influence our degradation rate
3. Uncertainty modeling allows us to:
• Adjust inspection plans based on actual
operating conditions recommend changes
to improve asset life
• Strategically optimize TAR Strategy –
scope and intervals
• Prioritize which CMLs influence POF
• Identify areas that do not have enough
CMLs
1 2 3
Improve Integrity Optimize Identifying the

Operating Turnaround Biggest Threats
Window (IOW) Scoping to Reducing
Management Risks and Costs
of Specific CMLs
Integrity Operating Windows - Overview
Integrity Operating Windows (IOWs) are sets of limits assigned to specific variables that
could affect the integrity and reliability of a process unit.
Critical limit high Failure occurs quickly

IOWs enable owner/operators to more
Failure occurs with sustained
effectively manage risk, optimize cost, Standard level high
operations
and maintain their MI/RBI Programs:
Target Range High
• Improve communication and Stable,
collaboration across departments Reliable, Target – Optimal Safe to operate indefinitely
Profitable
Target Range Low
• Dynamic updates to engineering
models and task plans Failure occurs with sustained
Standard level low
operations
• Rapid response to critical
Critical limit low Failure occurs quickly
Integrity Operating Windows - Today
• Manually set by Subject Matter Experts
Temperature
(SMEs)
• Monitor critical reliability parameters
• Alarm when a window is breached
IOW Alert • Manual, time-consuming, delayed analysis
if long-term plans should be adjusted
Collect Data Risk Analysis Inspection Planning
Thickness Readings
Current Risk
Typical Results
High Initial Value and Difficulty in Sustaining Sub-Optimal

Ability to Prevent the Program –> Analysis and
Catastrophic Failures Reduced Effectiveness & Recommendations
Business Value
Root Issues
Not Integrated with the Not Linked to Business Insufficient Degradation

Risk-Based Inspection Results and Reliability Modeling Capabilities
(RBI) Program Metrics
Real-Time Degradation Modeling
Temperature
Today
What-If Analysis
HSE Risk ($, soft,
Today
Degradation Rate ↓ ETC.) ↓
Probability of
Uncontrolled Failure (%) ↓ Lifecycle Cost ($) ↓
Controlled Availability (%) ↑
Value-Driven Alerting
Temperature
Degradation Rate 50% Increase ↑
Probability of Failure
(%) 10% Increase ↑
Availability (%) 2% Decrease ↓
Lifecycle Cost ($) 30% Increase ↑
1 2 3

of Specific CMLs
TAR Planning Today
TAR Planning (Scope & Intervals) differ across owner/operators.
However, there are common themes:
• Preset intervals, budgets, & scope + pressure to push out/reduce
without any negative impacts
• Incorporate outputs from Risk-Based Inspection (RBI) program
• Multiple rounds of qualitative discussions to refine scope
• Scope decisions largely based on current asset health
• Escalate critical items if budget constraint is breached; difficult to
justify the value case and the long-term impact
Challenges and Root Issues
• Recency Bias: results in conservative inspection and
maintenance
• Qualitative: bartering, trading, and/or whoever is loudest
• People intensive: heavily rely on experience
• External dynamic changes can cause a ripple effect on planning

requiring significant human capital to redevelop the plan
• Ineffective TAR scoping leads to both waste and surprises
Asset health drives significant decisions to determine what is in

and out of scope.
Apply Uncertainty Models to
Relevant Failure Modes
Forecast System Availability
Thinning Cracking Fouling
What If Analysis & Optimization
1 2 3

of Specific CMLs
Using Uncertainty Quantification to Drive
Condition Monitoring Optimization
Statistical Modeling for Assets
Observed Area Unobserved Area

(CMLs)
CMLs
Uninspected How much does my observed data tell me about
areas
the unobserved area?
- If only normal corrosion, quite a bit
- If highly anomalous damage, less so
The total asset performance (POF, lowest projected

thickness, etc.) is ultimately dependent on how the
observed and unobserved areas interact together
Observed Area:
Which CMLs to Inspect?
Consider CMLs for Inspection if they reduce uncertainty for the system:
- Prioritize CMLs where inspection can affect POF
- Consider change at the system level (roll up CML POFs)
Example:
Changes to CMLs 1/2 produce system change

Changes to CML3 will not change System
=> Prioritize CML1 and CML2
CML3 will matter again in a future inspection
Unobserved Area: The Influence
of Data on Corrosion Rates
SME assumes:
Gen. Est. Rate
DM Est. Rate
Gen. SME Rate
• 3 mpy normal corrosion rate

DM SME Rate
• 20 mpy anomalous corrosion rate
Data shows:
• Higher/broader normal rate
• Lower anomalous rate
Model adjusts rates to incorporate both

SME and data rate.
We use these rates to estimate damage

on the remainder of asset
Optimization
We can pull two levers when
optimizing:
1) Which pre-existing CMLs

will we inspect (update
unmitigated POF curve to
mitigated POF curve)
2) Inspect additional area –

tradeoff (potentially
modified) DM corrosion
rate with inspection data Pre-Optimization Post-Optimization
corrosion rate
Case Study: Value of CML
Optimization on VDU
Objective Optimization Boundary Assumptions Effort
Conditions
• Eliminate CMLs that don’t • Ten Year Evaluation – • Each measurement
which CMLs are • 2 Months
add value costs $350, including
statistically relevant in • 40 hours from Unit
• Add CMLs where damage scaffolding
that time-period Inspector
may be undetected • Measurements not
• Circuit should stay below • 10 Hours from Process
• Deliver Prioritized List of providing value are sunk
risk threshold through Engineer
CMLs across Unit cost
optimization date
• If risk threshold cannot be • CML prioritization is
maintained within 10 based on ability to
years, all CMLs with PoF > reduce uncertainty
0% will be recommended
for inspection.
Case Study: Value of CML
Optimization on VDU Piping
Value Category VDU
Total Active CMLs 6709
$1.5MM Recommended CMLs to Inspect 1339
saved over 10- Recommended CMLs to Defer 5370

year period
Additional CMLs Recommended 421 (27)
New Total Active CMLs 1760
Closing Remarks
• Owner/operators are facing increased pressure to improve
Mechanical Integrity & TAR performance.
• This is a challenge due to the nature of siloed data, disparate
programs, and lack of analytics capability to effectively &
efficiently process the data to drive smarter decisions.
• By leveraging the quantification of uncertainty and effectively
integrating advanced analytics into MI programs,
owner/operators can better use their data to:
- Improve Integrity Operating Window (IOW) Management
- Optimize Turnaround Scoping
- Identifying the Biggest Threats to Reducing Risks and Costs of Specific
Condition Monitoring Locations (CMLs)

Slides - Three Key Impacts of A Data-Driven Approach On Your MI Program and Turnaround Strategy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Slides - Three Key Impacts of A Data-Driven Approach On Your MI Program and Turnaround Strategy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Three Key Impacts of a Data-Driven Approach

on Your MI Program & Turnaround Strategy

Lewis Makin Ryan Myers

Understand how to leverage quantification of data uncertainty

• Industry still experiencing significant leaks, particularly on piping.

Hard to justify where inspection is valuable

• How do we decide which inspection locations are valuable?

• Significant time spent on data “clean-up”.

SINGLE CML WALL THICKNESS

Improve Integrity Optimize Identifying the

Critical limit high Failure occurs quickly

High Initial Value and Difficulty in Sustaining Sub-Optimal

Not Integrated with the Not Linked to Business Insufficient Degradation

Controlled Availability (%) ↑

Availability (%) 2% Decrease ↓

Lifecycle Cost ($) 30% Increase ↑

Improve Integrity Optimize Identifying the

• Qualitative: bartering, trading, and/or whoever is loudest

• People intensive: heavily rely on experience

• External dynamic changes can cause a ripple effect on planning

• Ineffective TAR scoping leads to both waste and surprises

Asset health drives significant decisions to determine what is in

Thinning Cracking Fouling

Improve Integrity Optimize Identifying the

Observed Area Unobserved Area

The total asset performance (POF, lowest projected

- Consider change at the system level (roll up CML POFs)

Changes to CMLs 1/2 produce system change

CML3 will matter again in a future inspection

• 3 mpy normal corrosion rate

• 20 mpy anomalous corrosion rate

Model adjusts rates to incorporate both

We use these rates to estimate damage

1) Which pre-existing CMLs

2) Inspect additional area –

Total Active CMLs 6709

$1.5MM Recommended CMLs to Inspect 1339

saved over 10- Recommended CMLs to Defer 5370

New Total Active CMLs 1760

You might also like