RBI-Oceaneering-apresentação

8/12/2019 RBI-Oceaneering-apresentao

1/40

1

Reza Shahrivar, RBA Projects Manager

Risk-Based Inspection

University of Aberdeen, 28/11/2012

1


2/40

2

Agenda

1

2

3

4

HISTORY

INTRODUCTION

BASIC CONCEPTDS

RISK-BASED INSPECTION (RBI)

If you fail to prepare, you prepare to fail.

Asset Integrity


3/40

33

History

Founded in 1964

Listed on NYSE (New York StockExchange)

67 locations in 21 Countries

Approximately 8200Employees

More than $1,9 billion yearlyrevenue (NOK 11 mrd) (2010)

Operate from 7500 msw

through to outer Space

Oceaneering International Inc.

Asset Integrity


4/40

44

35%

29%

13%

12%12%

Business Segment Revenue (2010)

ROV

Subsea Products

Subsea Projects

Inspection

Advanced Technologies

Solving Challenges from Sea to Space


Asset Integrity


5/40

5

Mechanical Failure

Operational Error

Process Upset

Natural Hazard

Design Error

Sabotage/Arson

Others/Unknown

0 10 20 30 40 50

Percent of Losses

Causes of Major Property Losses in the Oil Refining and

Petrochemical Industries

INTRODUCTION



6/40

6

Equipment Involved in Major Property Losses in the Oil

Refining and Petrochemical Industries

Reactors

Drums

Pumps/Compressors

Heat Exchangers

Towers

Heaters/Boilers

Others/Unknown

Percent of Losses

Piping Systems

Tanks

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

INTRODUCTION



7/40

7

Frequency and Cost of Major Property Losses in the Oil

Refining and Petrochemical Industries 1960 to 1990

100

80

60

40

20

0

Number

Cost

5

4

3

2

1

01962-71 1972-81 1982-91

BILLIONSOF

DOLLARS

Numberof

Losses

INTRODUCTION



8/40

8

How Risk is Used for Planning

TOLERABLE RISK LEVEL

BASELINE RISK LEVEL

Mitigation

Activity

Time in

Service

Probabilityof

Failure

INTRODUCTION



9/40

9

Maintain too late Excessive risk


BASELINE RISK LEVEL

Mitigation

Activity

Time in

Service

ProbabilityofF

ailure

INTRODUCTION1Oceaneering International Inc.


10/40

10

Maintain too early - Excessive cost


BASELINE RISK LEVEL

Mitigation

Activity

Time in

Service

ProbabilityofF

ailure

Mitigation

Activity

INTRODUCTION



11/40

11

Definition - Risk(1)

Risk is the chance of something bad happening. It is described as:

The combination of the probability of an event and its consequence.

BASIC CONCEPTS

Risk = Probabilityof Failurex onsequences

of Failure



12/40

12

API 580:

RBI is a risk assessment and management process that is focused on loss of

containment of pressurized equipment due to material deterioration.

BASIC CONCEPTS

RBI Definition



13/40

13

General Approach and Methodology

Identification of

dominating mechanisms

Prioritisation of high

risk components

Assessing inspection

intervals

Assessing inspection

methods

Whereto inspect

Whatto inspect

Whento inspect

Howto inspect

Risk-Based Inspection (RBI)



14/40

14

Management of RiskRisk-Based Inspection (RBI)



15/40

15

Evolution of Inspection Management

Condition

Based

Risk

Based

Fixed

Interval

Trend Analysis

Consequences

not Considered

Reactive

(Backward Looking)

Everything

inspected at

the same

interval

Risk Analysis

(Probability and

Consequences)

Proactive

(Forward Looking)




16/40

16

API Referenced Publications

API 510: Pressure Vessel Inspection Code API 570: Piping Inspection Code

API 579:Fitness-ForService

API 653:Tank Inspection

API 750:Management of Process Hazards API 752:Management of Hazards Associated With Location of

Process Plant Buildings

API 580:Risk-Based Inspection

API 581:Risk-Based Inspection Technology




17/40

17

The Historic Background Of RBI

IN 1993, 21 PETROLEUM AND

PETROCHEMICAL

COMPANIES HAVE

SPONSORED A PROJECT TO

DEVELOP RISK-BASED

INSPECTION (RBI)METHODOLOGY FOR

APPLICATION IN THE

REFININGAND

PETROCHEMICALINDUSTRY.




18/40

18


API RP 580will outline conceptual approaches and necessary elementsto be included in a quality RBI effort. As such, it will be inclusive ofseveral approaches to RBI available from numerous sources.

API publication 581outlines the specific RBI methodology developed bythe API RBI sponsor group. As such, it is one step-by-step approach toRBI that will be acceptable relative to API RP 580.

Difference Between API 580 and 581



19/40

19


There are several methodologies for RBI, such as:BP North Sea Site Technical Practice (STP) NSSPU-GP 06-10-4This methodology used to carry out the Risk Based Inspection (RBI) forprocess pressure vessels, pressure storage vessels, pipework and non-pressure vessels.

Other Methodologies



20/40

20

Risk Assessment Methods

Qualitative (Expert Judgment)

Semi-quantitative (Rule Based Analysis)

Quantitative (Probabilistic, Statistical, Mathematical Modeling)

In general, risk assessment methods are

described as:




21/40

21

Continuum of RBI Approaches

QualitativeQuantitative

High

Detail of

Engineering

Analysis

Semi-quantitative


LOW



22/40

22

RISK-BASED INSPECTION PLANNING PROCESSRisk-Based Inspection (RBI)



23/40

23

RBI Data NeedsRisk-Based Inspection (RBI)


Typical data needed for an RBI analysis may include but is not limited to:

a) type of equipment;b) materials of construction;c) inspection, repair and replacement records;d) process fluid compositions;e) inventory of fluids;f) operating conditions;

g) safety systems;h) detection systems;i) damage mechanisms, rates, and severity;

j) personnel densities;k) coating, cladding, and insulation data;l) business interruption cost;m) equipment replacement costs;

n) environmental remediation costs.


24/40

24




25/40

25

Assessing Consequences of FailureRisk-Based Inspection (RBI)


The consequence of loss of containment is generally evaluated as loss of fluid to theexternal environment. The consequence effects for loss of containment can be generally

considered to be in the following categories:

a) safety and health impacts,b) environmental impacts,c) economic impacts.

Estimate the consequences of a failure from equipment items considering such factors asphysical properties of the contained material, its toxicity and flammability, type of releaseand release duration, weather conditions and dispersion of the released contents, escalationeffects, and mitigation actions. Consider the impact on plant personnel and equipment,population in the nearby communities, and the environment. Lost production, loss of rawmaterial and other losses should also be considered. Several credible consequencescenarios may result from a single failure mode (release) and consequences should be

determined by constructing one or more scenarios to describe a credible series of eventsfollowing the initial failure. For example, a failure may be a small hole resulting from generalcorrosion. If the contained fluid is flammable, the consequence scenarios could include:small release without ignition, small release with ignition and small release with ignition andsubsequent catastrophic failure (rupture) of the equipment item.


26/40

26



O i I i l I


27/40

27

Assessing Probability of Failure (POF)Risk-Based Inspection (RBI)


The POF analysis should address all damage mechanisms to which the equipment being

studied is or can be susceptible. Further, it should address the situation where equipment isor can be susceptible to multiple damage mechanisms (e.g. thinning and creep). Theanalysis should be credible, repeatable and documented.Regardless of whether a more qualitative or a quantitative analysis is used, the POF isdetermined by two main considerations:a) damage mechanisms and rates of the equipment items material of construction,

resulting from its operating environment (internal and external);b) effectiveness of the inspection program to identify and monitor the damage mechanismsso that the equipment can be repaired or replaced prior to failure.

O i I t ti l I


28/40

28

Main Damage Mechanisms)Risk-Based Inspection (RBI)


Potential deterioration mechanisms to be considered include: Carbonic acid (CO2) corrosion

H2S corrosion

Preferential Weld Corrosion

Erosion and erosion-corrosion Crevice corrosion

Flange face corrosion

Cavitation Deadleg corrosion Under deposit corrosion

Microbial corrosion

Oxygen corrosion Galvanic corrosion

External Corrosion under insulation (CUI)

Liquid Metal Embrittlement (LME) Chemical concentration corrosion

Fatigue/Vibration

Thermal Fatigue

Brittle Fracture

Cracking mechanisms such as Sulphide Stress Cracking (SSC), Hydrogen Induced Cracking (HIC), ChlorideStress Corrosion Cracking (CISCC) and amine stress corrosion

O i I t ti l I


29/40

29



O i I t ti l I


30/40

30

Calculate RiskRisk-Based Inspection (RBI)


Referring back to the risk equation:

Risk = Probability ConsequenceRisk Matrix

For risk ranking methodologies that use consequence and probability categories, presentingthe results in a risk matrix is a very effective way of communicating the distribution of risksthroughout a plant or process unit without numerical values. An example risk matrix is shownin Figure below. In this figure, the consequence and probability categories are arrangedsuch that the highest risk ranking is toward the upper right-hand corner. It is usuallydesirable to associate numerical values with the categories to provide guidance to thepersonnel performing the assessment (e.g. probability category C ranges from 0.001 to0.01). Different sizes of matrices may be used (e.g. 5 5, 4 4, etc.). Regardless of thematrix selected, the consequence and probability categories should provide sufficientdiscrimination between the items assessed.Risk categories may be assigned to the boxes on the risk matrix. An example risk

categorization (higher, medium, lower) of the risk matrix is shown in the Figure. In thisexample, the risk categories are symmetrical. They may also be asymmetrical where forinstance the consequence category may be given higher weighting than the probabilitycategory. A risk matrix depicts results at a particular point in time.

Oceaneering International Inc


31/40

31

Risk Matrix





32/40

32





33/40

33

Risk ManagementRisk-Based Inspection (RBI)


Based on the ranking of items and the risk threshold, the risk management process begins.For risks that are judged acceptable, no mitigation may be required and no further action

necessary.For risks considered unacceptable and therefore requiring risk mitigation, there are variousmitigation categories that should be considered.a) DecommissionIs the equipment really necessary to support unit operation?b) Inspection/Condition MonitoringCan a cost-effective inspection program, with repair asindicated by the inspection results, be implemented that will reduce risks to an acceptablelevel?

c) Consequence MitigationCan actions be taken to lessen the consequences related to anequipment failure?d) Probability MitigationCan actions be taken to lessen the POF such as metallurgychanges or equipment redesign?



34/40

34

Risk Management with Inspection ActivitiesRisk-Based Inspection (RBI)


As mentioned, risk can be managed by inspection. Obviously, inspection does not arrest or mitigate damage mechanismsor in and of itself it does not reduce risk, but the information gained though effective inspection can better quantify the ctualrisk. Impending failure of pressure equipment is not avoided by inspection activities unless the inspection precipitates risk

mitigation activities that change the POF. Inspection serves to identify, monitor, and measure the damage echanism(s).Also, it is invaluable input in the prediction of when the damage will reach a critical point. Correct application of inspectionswill improve the user's ability to predict the damage mechanisms and rates of deterioration. The better the predictability, theless uncertainty there will be as to when a failure may occur. Mitigation (repair, replacement, changes, etc.) can then beplanned and implemented prior to the predicted failure date. The reduction in uncertainty and increase in predictabilitythrough inspection translate directly into a better estimate of the probability of a failure and therefore a reduction in thecalculated risk. However, users should be diligent to assure that temporary inspection alternatives, in lieu of morepermanent risk reductions, are actually effective.The foregoing does not imply that risk-based inspection plans and activities are always the answer to monitoring

degradation and therefore reducing risks associated with pressure equipment. Some damage mechanisms are very difficultor impossible to monitor with just inspection activities (e.g. metallurgical deterioration that may result in brittle fracture,many forms of stress corrosion cracking, and even fatigue). Other damage mechanisms precipitated by short-term, event-driven operating changes can happen too fast to be monitored with normal inspection plans, be they risk-based, condition-based or time-based. Hence the need for a establishing and implementing a comprehensive program for IOWs, along withadequate communications to inspection personnel when deviations occur and a rigorous MOC program for changes fromthe established parameters.Risk mitigation (by the reduction in uncertainty) achieved through inspection presumes that the organization will act on theresults of the inspection in a timely manner. Risk mitigation is not achieved if inspection data that are gatheredare not properly analyzed and acted upon where needed. The quality of the inspection data and the analysis orinterpretation will greatly affect the level of risk mitigation. Proper inspection methods and data analysis tools aretherefore critical.



35/40

35

RISK-BASED INSPECTION PLANNING PROCESSRBI Reassessments





36/40

36

Risk Management with Inspection ActivitiesRisk-Based Inspection (RBI)


As mentioned, risk can be managed by inspection. Obviously, inspection does not arrest or mitigate damage mechanismsor in and of itself it does not reduce risk, but the information gained though effective inspection can better quantify the ctualrisk. Impending failure of pressure equipment is not avoided by inspection activities unless the inspection precipitates risk

mitigation activities that change the POF. Inspection serves to identify, monitor, and measure the damage echanism(s).Also, it is invaluable input in the prediction of when the damage will reach a critical point. Correct application of inspectionswill improve the user's ability to predict the damage mechanisms and rates of deterioration. The better the predictability, theless uncertainty there will be as to when a failure may occur. Mitigation (repair, replacement, changes, etc.) can then beplanned and implemented prior to the predicted failure date. The reduction in uncertainty and increase in predictabilitythrough inspection translate directly into a better estimate of the probability of a failure and therefore a reduction in thecalculated risk. However, users should be diligent to assure that temporary inspection alternatives, in lieu of morepermanent risk reductions, are actually effective.The foregoing does not imply that risk-based inspection plans and activities are always the answer to monitoring

degradation and therefore reducing risks associated with pressure equipment. Some damage mechanisms are very difficultor impossible to monitor with just inspection activities (e.g. metallurgical deterioration that may result in brittle fracture,many forms of stress corrosion cracking, and even fatigue). Other damage mechanisms precipitated by short-term, event-driven operating changes can happen too fast to be monitored with normal inspection plans, be they risk-based, condition-based or time-based. Hence the need for a establishing and implementing a comprehensive program for IOWs, along withadequate communications to inspection personnel when deviations occur and a rigorous MOC program for changes fromthe established parameters.Risk mitigation (by the reduction in uncertainty) achieved through inspection presumes that the organization will act on theresults of the inspection in a timely manner. Risk mitigation is not achieved if inspection data that are gatheredare not properly analyzed and acted upon where needed. The quality of the inspection data and the analysis orinterpretation will greatly affect the level of risk mitigation. Proper inspection methods and data analysis tools aretherefore critical.


37/40



38/40

38

When to Conduct an RBI ReassessmentRisk-Based Inspection (RBI)


After Significant Changes

Significant changes in risk can occur for a variety of reasons. Qualified personnel should evaluate each significantchange to determine the potential for a change in risk. It may be desirable to conduct an RBI reassessment after

significant changes in process conditions, damage mechanisms/rates/severities or RBI premises.After a Set Time Period

Although significant changes may not have occurred, over time many small changes may occur and cumulativelycause significant changes in the RBI assessment. Users should set default maximum time periods for reassessments.The governing inspection codes (such as API 510, API 570, and API 653) and jurisdictionalregulations, if any, should be reviewed in this context.After Implementation of Risk Mitigation Strategies

Once a mitigation strategy is implemented, it is prudent to determine how effective the strategy was in reducing therisk to an acceptable level. This should be reflected in a reassessment of the risk and appropriate update in thedocumentation.Before and After Maintenance Turnarounds

As part of the planning for a maintenance turnaround, it is usually useful to perform an RBI reassessment. This canbecome a first step in planning the turnaround to ensure that the work effort is focused on the higher risk equipmentitems and on issues that might affect the ability to achieve the premised operating run time in a safe, economic, andenvironmentally sound manner.Since a large number of inspection, repairs, and modifications are performed during a typical maintenanceturnaround, it may be useful to update an assessment soon after the turnaround to reflect the new risk levels.



39/40

39

RBA Team MembersRisk-Based Inspection (RBI)


Depending on the application, some of the disciplines listed below may not be required. Some teammembers may be part-time due to limited input needs. It is also possible that not all the team members

listed may be required if other team members have the required skill and knowledge of multipledisciplines. It is usually useful to have one of the team members serve as a facilitator for discussionsessions and team interactions.

Team Leader

Equipment Inspector or Inspection Specialist

Corrosion Specialist

Process Specialist

Operations and Maintenance PersonnelManagement

Risk Analyst

Environmental and Safety Personnel

Financial/Business Personnel


40/40

For more information please visit:

www.oceaneering.com/asset-integrity

Or contact:

Reza Shahrivar,

[email protected]

Thank You for Your Attention!

A t I t it

Documents

RBI-Oceaneering-apresentação