Download as PDF, PPTX
![11
Intertek Approach
AWARE
Decision
Analysis
No detection +
No Repair
Equipment
Failure
Equipment
Risk
Assessment
No detection +
No Repair
Detection + No
Repair
Detection +
Repair
Detection + No
Repair
Equipment
Failure
Equipment
Risk
Assessment
No detection +
No Repair
Detection + No
Repair
Detection +
Repair
No detection +
No Repair
Equipment
Failure
Equipment
Risk
AssessmentDetection +
Repair
Risk
Mitigation
Plan
Inspection
Plan
Risk Matrix
Data
Analysis
[Determine
POF/COF]
Data Input
in AWARE
Data
Collection](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/b490718b-9d68-4048-baf7-094443cd0e91-160707155201/75/RBI-for-Power-Generation-11-2048.jpg)
![13
− Reliability Models for
certain key equipment
(High Energy Piping or
Pressure Vessels),
where damage
mechanisms and
uncertainties are well
understood and
statistical distributions
are available. In this
scenario, the model uses
the following equation to
determine POF:
• 𝑃𝑓 𝑡 = 𝑔𝑓𝑓. 𝐷𝑓 𝑡 . 𝐹 𝑀,
where 𝑃𝑓 𝑡 is the function
of a generic failure
frequency 𝑔𝑓𝑓, damage
factor 𝐷𝑓(𝑡), and a
management system
factor 𝐹 𝑀
− Statistical Models. These
models are based on
generic data collected
either using frequencies
available in the AWARE
database or other models
developed by Intertek
Engineering. We will also
rely on EPRI data to
develop and determine the
POF.
• Where appropriate, two
parameter Weibull models
will be used to estimate
failure frequency, 𝑃𝑓 𝑡 =
1 − exp[−
𝑡
𝐶𝐿′
𝐵
] ; where:
CL’ is the updated
characteristic life and B is the
shape factor
• For some key boiler pressure
parts Intertek’s probabilistic
failure rate damage models
such as TUBETECH or
SAFESEAM, or SAFEGIRTH
will be used to estimate the
likelihood (i.e., probability,
frequency) of failure
− Expert Judgment. will be
relied upon when the
information on likely
damage mechanism or
failure frequency is
found inadequate.
Likelihood of Failure](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/b490718b-9d68-4048-baf7-094443cd0e91-160707155201/75/RBI-for-Power-Generation-13-2048.jpg)
RBI for Power Generation
- 1. 6/21/2016 Tom Burnett &Nikhil Kumar Intertek Risk Based Inspection for Power Plants AWARE UGM 2016
- 2. 222 Evolving Business Models Centralized Distributed CapEx OpEx Static/Dumb Connected/Smart
- 3. 3 Intertek Smart Platform AWARE+ CostCom Condition Assessment Failure Analysis/ BTFR High Energy Piping Flow Accelerated Corrosion Power Plant Cycling Fitness for Service Econometrics Life Extension (Risk Adjusted)
- 4. 4 Why do RBI •Improve plant and worker safety – Avoidance of catastrophic failure • Increased availability and reliability of equipment • Better understanding of equipment and processes • Focus resources in correct areas • Save money • Improved turnaround planning • Specific inspection and maintenance activities • Avoid failures and downtime • Detailed equipment inspection plans • Follow industry best practices • Make informed management decisions
- 5.
- 6. 6 What is Risk Cost Reliability ReliabilityAnalysis Total Cost Outage Cost Capital & Maintenance Cost Risk = (Likelihood of Failure) x (Consequence of Failure)
- 7. 7 What about APIcompliance? API RP 580 was intended to provide guidance and provide basic elements for developing and implementing a RBI program. It is an introduction to concepts and principles of RBI, with the intent of producing a documented methodology. AWARE is fully compliant with these guidelines. API 581 has been updated over time and now includes step by step analysis procedures similar to ASME FFS-1 as well as ASME Section VIII
- 8. 8 Why was RBIDeveloped • Most pressure equipment contain flaws • Most flaws are innocuous - Don’t cause problems • Few flaws cause catastrophic failure • Must find (inspect) those critical flaws in high risk service - Cost effectively • Typically 80% of the risk is associated with < 20% of the pressure equipment Loss of containment events resulting in major insurance losses in petrochemical process plants. Only about half of the causes of loss of containment can be influenced by inspection activities (41% of mechanical failures plus some portion of the “unknown” failures). Other mitigation actions are required.
- 9. 9 • As withother industries, the goal for the electric generation industry as a whole is to predict and prevent failures before they occur. • The implementations rely on both Qualitative Risk Analysis, as well as a Quantitative Risk Analysis, which includes in-depth reliability and financial analysis. • Level I – Qualitative risk, simple • Level II – Qualitative risk analysis, supplemented with quantitative methods • Level III – Quantitative risk analysis, in depth analysis RBI – Qualitative or Quantitative? Rank Process Units Review and Adjust COF Rating Identify Consequence Modifiers Calculate Preliminary Consequence Index Gather Data for Consequence Estimate Review of Process and Operational Data Consequence of Failure (COF) Risk Rank = COF x LOF Development of Equipment Worksheet Equipment Documentation Review Review and Adjust LOF Rating Calculate Initial Damage Rank Identify Failure Modes Identify Potential Damage Mechanisms Identify Industry Specific Unit Exp.(Interviews - Process, Maint. Engrs./Insp.) Likelihood of Failure (LOF) Risk Directed Inspection Plan - Scope &
- 10. 10 What does inspectionplanning involve: • Determining risk in terms of likelihood of failure and consequence of failure • Inspection scope, schedule, and cost planning and risk reduction estimations • Presentation of the results in terms of a risk matrix • Evaluation of the costs and risk reduction of countermeasures Inspection Planning
- 11. 11 Intertek Approach AWARE Decision Analysis No detection+ No Repair Equipment Failure Equipment Risk Assessment No detection + No Repair Detection + No Repair Detection + Repair Detection + No Repair Equipment Failure Equipment Risk Assessment No detection + No Repair Detection + No Repair Detection + Repair No detection + No Repair Equipment Failure Equipment Risk AssessmentDetection + Repair Risk Mitigation Plan Inspection Plan Risk Matrix Data Analysis [Determine POF/COF] Data Input in AWARE Data Collection
- 12. 12 Factors: • Incorrect Design •Incorrect Material (size, schedule, metallurgy) • Construction Defects (lay-up, welds) • In Service Induced Defects (corrosion, erosion, fatigue, creep, creep/fatigue, etc.) • Cycling • Operational and Maintenance Caused Defects • Define Damage Potential • Identify Potential Failure Mechanisms • Determine Potential Failure Modes for Damage Mechanisms • Assign Damage Rank Based on: • Possibility of Occurrence • Failure Mode if Undetected • Consider Mitigating/Aggravating Factors and Assign an Overall Likelihood of Failure Rank to Component Considering: • Corrosion, erosion, fatigue, creep, creep/fatigue, etc. • Operating Considerations • Thermal Cycles, Stress Cycles, Transients and Off Normal Operations • Inspection Considerations - Scope, Frequency, and Technique • Quality of Documentation and Plant Experience Likelihood of Failure
- 13. 13 − Reliability Modelsfor certain key equipment (High Energy Piping or Pressure Vessels), where damage mechanisms and uncertainties are well understood and statistical distributions are available. In this scenario, the model uses the following equation to determine POF: • 𝑃𝑓 𝑡 = 𝑔𝑓𝑓. 𝐷𝑓 𝑡 . 𝐹 𝑀, where 𝑃𝑓 𝑡 is the function of a generic failure frequency 𝑔𝑓𝑓, damage factor 𝐷𝑓(𝑡), and a management system factor 𝐹 𝑀 − Statistical Models. These models are based on generic data collected either using frequencies available in the AWARE database or other models developed by Intertek Engineering. We will also rely on EPRI data to develop and determine the POF. • Where appropriate, two parameter Weibull models will be used to estimate failure frequency, 𝑃𝑓 𝑡 = 1 − exp[− 𝑡 𝐶𝐿′ 𝐵 ] ; where: CL’ is the updated characteristic life and B is the shape factor • For some key boiler pressure parts Intertek’s probabilistic failure rate damage models such as TUBETECH or SAFESEAM, or SAFEGIRTH will be used to estimate the likelihood (i.e., probability, frequency) of failure − Expert Judgment. will be relied upon when the information on likely damage mechanism or failure frequency is found inadequate. Likelihood of Failure
- 14. 14 Possible Consequence: (a) formationof a vapor cloud that could ignite, causing injury and equipment damage (b) release of a toxic chemical that could cause health problems (c) a spill that could cause environmental damage (d) a rapid release of superheated steam that could cause damage and injury (e) a forced unit shutdown that could have an adverse economic impact (f) minimal safety, health, environmental, and/or economic impact • Calculate Consequence Value • Worst Case Pressure & Temperature • Volume of Contained Fluid/Gas • Density Factor • NFPA Factors (Flammability, Toxicity, Reactivity, Other) • Assign Consequence Rank to Component Considering Mitigating/Aggravating Factors • Location Relative to Other Equipment • Location Relative to Concentrations of Personnel • Environmental Factors (Reportable Release Quantities) Consequence of Failure
- 15. 15 • Calculate PreliminaryConsequence Value (PCV) • Product of Worst Case: Temperature, Volume, Pressure and Density factors. • Sum of MSDS Factors: Flammability, Toxicity, Reactivity, Other (steam). • Final Product (PCV) • Modify PCV by considering Mitigating, Aggravating Factors • Location Relative to Other Equipment • Location Relative to Concentrations of Personnel • Environmental Factors (Reportable Release Quantities) • Fire detection and suppression devices Estimating Consequence Four Categories Based Consistent With Industry Approach Consequence of Component Failure Considerable 1 Serious 2 Some 3 Minor or No Impact on Personnel 4 Rank Consequence Based on Potential For Harm to Site Personnel & Environment
- 16. 16 RBI pitfalls RBI willnot compensate for • inaccurate or missing information • inadequate design or faulty equipment • improper installation and/or operation • operating outside the acceptable design envelope • not effectively implementing the inspection plan • lack of qualified personnel or team work • lack of sound engineering or operational judgment • failure to promptly take corrective action or implement appropriate mitigation strategies
- 17. 17 Risk Management Reducing likelihoodof failure is not only restricted to inspections: • Inspection and Maintenance • Understanding damage • Correct NDE techniques • MOC/Record Keeping/Report • Repair, Replace, Control • Operational Controls • Online Monitoring • Materials RBI focuses on “inspectable risk”. RBI is not intended to replace other practices that have proven satisfactory or substitute for the judgment of a responsible, qualified inspector or engineer.
- 18. 18 Life Optimization Program •What is Intertek’s AIM Life Optimization Program: • API 580 Compliant • System Risk Analysis Tool • Justification for future maintenance costs and maintenance planning aid • A Living document • Flexible and adaptable to changing management and operations • Easy to use and inexpensive, with a quick ROI. A typical RBI implementation results in an inspection plan as the primary output. Instead, Intertek’s program goes beyond the basic requirements of RBI and its objectives are: • Organizing and maintaining key inspection and overhaul reports from past years • Developing inspection and real-time data acquisition plans needed to assess equipment health • Developing a database structure to organize the vast data in a way that is easily retrieved and disseminated