Integrity inspection planning updated with cost of risk
Yury SokolovA QUANTY Pty Ltd, PO Box 255, Kippa-Ring, Qld 4021, Australia.
B Email: contact@quanty.com.au
The APPEA Journal 57(2) 647-651 https://doi.org/10.1071/AJ16001
Accepted: 20 March 2017 Published: 29 May 2017
Abstract
The industry expenditure savings motive requires a cost/benefit analysis to optimise Integrity Management budgets. The challenge of estimating precise risk costs requires that numeric Probabilities of Failure (PoF) be known at the highest possible level of confidence, as equipment items specific PoFs govern the actual probability of financial losses and safety implications.
The first-hand information on the equipment actual integrity condition is contained in numeric results of integrity inspections. In practice, these results are seldom analysed statistically, being collapsed into single ‘worst case’ values. This simplification prevents assessing of equipment specific actual PoFs and from quantifying failure risks when using traditional methods.
We developed a new-generation inspection planning and assessment strategy applied to oil and gas pressure equipment. Evaluating equipment PoFs enables assessing risk costs and optimising the budgets, as well as setting justified internal inspection coverage and frequency objectives. This is achieved by a statistical analysis of numeric inspection data. Existing inspection data (such as ultrasonic testing spot-checks) can be used for a first-pass analysis. Statistical plotting of such data automatically visualises the data quality, and the relevant recommendations for improving inspection coverage or tools are drawn where necessary.
We found that two criteria drive integrity decision making: failure total costs and annual fatality expectancies. These criteria are mutually complementary. Both need to be considered for a safe and profitable plant operation. Equipment individual risk control strategy is then developed from safety compliance and budget savings maximising standpoints, thereby also enabling confident design and procurement decisions.
This is a new-generation strategy suitable for bringing together all branches of plant management and for improving confidence of the parties. We see it as an evolutionary update to Risk Based Inspection and Maintenance practice, which is now in high demand due to cost pressures.
Keywords: annual fatality, Asset Integrity Management, CoRBI, corrosion, cost control, damage, inspection intervals, NDT, NPV, PoF, pressure equipment, Probability of Failure, RBI, Risk Based Inspection, risk matrix, safety, spot checks, UT.
Dr Yury Sokolov (EA CPEng, RPEQ) graduated in 1999 as a mechanical engineer in Moscow, Russia, and shortly thereafter received his PhD (2003) on a life extension method. Since graduation, Yury has gained years of engineering experience in material strength and fatigue issues, troubleshooting across several industries and countries. In recent years, his focus extended into risk-based integrity management problems and tools. He recently established an engineering company QUANTY (Brisbane, Australia) to develop and implement new practical integrity management methods in response to modern market challenges. |
References
API (2016). ‘API 570 – Piping Inspection Code: In-Service Inspection, Repair, and Alteration of Piping Systems.’ (American Petroleum Institute: Washington DC.)AS/NZS (2006). ‘AS/NZS 3788 : 2006 – Pressure Equipment – In-service inspection’. (Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand.)
DNV (2011). ‘Recommended Practice DNV-RP-G103 – Non-Intrusive Inspection.’ (Det Norske Veritas.) Available at: https://rules.dnvgl.com/docs/pdf/DNV/codes/docs/2011-01/RP-G103.pdf [Verified 31 March 2017].
HIPAP (2011). Risk criteria for land use safety planning. Hazardous Industry Planning Advisory Paper No 4 (HIPAP 4). Department of Planning of NSW Government.
HSE (2002). HSE RR 016 – Guidelines for use of statistics for analysis of sample inspection of corrosion. Research report for HSE UK prepared by TWI Limited.
Safe Work Australia (2012). Guide for major hazard facilities – Safety case: demonstrating the adequacy of safety management and control measures. Safe Work Australia.
Sokolov, Y. (2016). Improving confidence in on-stream inspections of pressure equipment. Inspectioneering Journal 22, 37–42.