RIMAP

Risk Based Inspection and

Maintenance Procedures for
European Industry
EU-Funded Programme:
COMPETITIVE AND SUSTAINABLE GROWTH
2001-04-04

RIMAP
EU-funded project (GROWTH Programme)
Budget: 3.6 mill (EU: 1.7 mill )

RTD: 2.8
Demo: 0.9
Network: 0.9

Duration: March 2001 to March 2004

Number of participants;

RTD and Demo: 16

Network: 30++

RIMAP

Partisipant
3

Det Norske Veritas (DNV)

Norway

Bureau Veritas (BV)

France

Staatliche Materialprfungsanstalt (MPA)

Germany

VTT Manufacturing Technology

Finland

TV Engineering Service (TV)

Germany

TNO INSTITUTE OF INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

Netherlands

Norsk Hydro (NH)

Netherlands

MITSUI BABCOCK ENERGY LIMITED (MBEL)

UK

ExxonMobil Chemical (Exxon)

UK

Energie Baden-Wrttemberg AG (EnBW)

Germany

Siemens AG (Siemens)

Germany

Electricity Supply Board (ESB)

Ireland

Corus

UK

The Dow Chemical Company (DOW)

Netherlands

Solvay

Belgium

Joint Research Centre of the European Communities (JRC)

RIMAP

Netherlands

Type of industries

petrochemical,
chemical,
(pulp & paper),
steel works,
power industry.

RIMAP

the techniques can be

extended and used in other
industry sectors

RBMI towards Excellence

Profitability

Long term goal

Integration
of tools &
best practice

Excellence:
Optimal plants - throughout
plant lifetime

Short term goals

Previous practice
Detailed requirements:
- owners own
- authorities requirements

Past

Best practices and analysis tools:

- risk based inspection (RBI)
- reliability centred maintenance (RCM)
- plant specific RAM/QRA
- plant specific LCC
- logistics support

Current
RIMAP

2000+

Maintenance Planning
Maintenance Planning

Corrective
maintenance

Preventive
maintenance

Predetermined
maintenance

Calendar
based

Op.time
based

Condition
monitoring

Continuous
monitoring

Periodic
Inspection

Planned
corrective

Predictive
maintenance

RBI
RIMAP

Unplanned
corrective

RBMI Philosophy
Performance
Indicators
Consequence and
Probability of Failure
Safety, Environment,
Assets Loss

Evaluation and Analysis of

results

Maintenance
Management
Execution & Reporting
Risk Ranking
Inspection &
Maintenance
Programme
RIMAP

Background
Prescriptive
legislation

Goal setting
standards

But the industry don't know how to do this?!

Large variety in quality of assessments
No basis for audits by legislative bodies

RIMAP

Objective (1)

to define a unified approach

to making risk based
decisions within the field of
inspection and maintenance
safety/environment
constraints
cost-optimised

a technical framework for a

European standard

RIMAP

Risk = Probability *
consequence
Consequence :
- personnel safety,
- quality of product,
- environmental damage,
- economic loss

10

Objectives (2)
Developing a unified approach to risk based maintenance
and inspection planning
Setting requirements to the contents of an analysis,
personnel qualifications and tools
Forming the basis for a future standardisation in this area.

RIMAP

11

Risk
=Consequence of failure

Personnel
Environment
Economic
Quality

Probability for failure

RIMAP

Failure mode,
Material/Environment;
degradation;type & rate,....
Damage tolerance

12

RIMAP Work packages

Research and
development (RTD)
Demonstration

Network

RIMAP

13

RIMAP WP-relations
Update on RBMI
WP3: Risk
Assessment
Methods

WP4:
Insp./testing,
maintenance
program

State of practice
from inv. industries

Demo:
chemical,
power, steel,...

Workshop on
utilisation of methods

Discuss revised
methods

User requirements

Time

WP5:
Validation and
comparison

RTD

WP2:
Generic
Method

RIMAP

Exchange of experience,
Recommendations
Standardisation

TN

Point of
departure

Demo

WP1:
Current
Practice

14

WP1: State of art

Define terminology
Document state of
art/practice in different
industry sectors

inspection

planning
maintenance planning
evaluate pro/con

RIMAP

Establish user requirements

Identify available SW & tools
Local and EU legislation
limitations

15

WP2: RBMI Framework

Generic framework for RBMI
decision
risk based
linked to overall safety/
environmental criteria
combine qualitative &
quantitative assessment
data requirements
regulatory aspects

RIMAP

Applied to:
Pressure containing
equipment
facilities; electrical, rotating,
instrument
Safeguarding (protective)
devices

16

WP3: Risk Assessment methods

1: Probability of failure
assessment
- damage mechanisms
- lifetime estimation
2: Consequence of failure
assessment
3: Inspection/monitoring
efficiency
4: Human aspects
5: Risk aggregation

RIMAP

Calculation of PoF
Degradation
Degradation
Mechanism
Mechanism

Damage
Damage

Loads
Loadsv.v.
Strength
Strength

Failure
FailureMode
Mode

Corrosion
Corrosion
Fatigue
Fatigue

Pitting
Pitting
Cracks
Cracks

Geometry
Geometry
Material
Materialtype
type

Pinhole
Pinholeleak
leak
Brittle
Brittlefracture
fracture

Erosion
Erosion

Wall
Wallloss
loss

Stress
Stressintensity
intensity
Remaining
Remainingwall
wall

Burst
Burst
..
..

Inspection
Inspection

PoF
PoF

Consequences
Consequences

Knowledge of Materials Tells Us What Failure Mode to Expect

RIMAP

18

WP4: RIMAP Applicaiton workbooks

Deliverables:
General workbook
Workbooks per industry
sector

1: Working process for the

development of
inspection/maintenance
programme
How,

when, why

2: Risk reduction
3: Optimisation methods
- safety/environment
- cost-benefit

RIMAP

Selection of
of inspection
inspection scheduling
scheduling programme
programme -- Example
Example
Selection

19

A s-w e l d e d B u tt-w e l d : F a ti g u e l i fe = 2 0 y e a rs
O p ti m a l I n sp e c ti o n p la n fo r d iffe re n t ta rg e t l e v e ls
T ar g e t
T ar g e t
T ar g e t
T ar g e t

=
=
=
=

1 .0 E- 0 2

1 .e - 2
1 .e - 3
1 .e - 4
1 .e - 5

1 .0 E- 0 3

Annual Failure Probability

Annual Failure Probability

1 .0 E- 0 2

1 .0 E- 0 4

1 .0 E- 0 5

1 .0 E- 0 6

T arg e t
T arg e t
T arg e t
T arg e t

1 .0 E- 0 3

=
=
=
=

1 .e - 2
1 .e - 3
1 .e - 4
1 .e - 5

1 .0 E- 0 4

1 .0 E- 0 5

1 .0 E- 0 6

1 .0 E- 0 7

1 .0 E- 0 7

6
8
10
12
S e rv i c e ti m e (y e a rs)

14

16

18

20

6
8
10
12
S e rv i c e ti m e (y e a rs)

14

16

18

20

A s-w e l d e d B u tt-w e l d : F a ti g u e l i fe = 6 0 y e a rs
O p ti m a l I n sp e c ti o n p l a n fo r d i ffe r e n t ta r g e t l e v e l s

1 .0 E- 0 2

Annual Failure Probability

A s-w e l d e d B u tt-w e l d : F a ti g u e l i fe = 4 0 y e a r s
O p ti m a l I n sp e c ti o n p l a n fo r d i ffe r e n t ta r g e t l e v e l s

T ar g e t
T ar g e t
T ar g e t
T ar g e t

1 .0 E- 0 3

=
=
=
=

1 .e - 2
1 .e - 3
1 .e - 4
1 .e - 5

Cost terms:
Expected Failure cost

1.44 106 NOK

1 .0 E- 0 4

Expected Inspection cost 1000 NOK

1 .0 E- 0 5

1 .0 E- 0 6

1 .0 E- 0 7

6
8
10
12
S e r v i c e ti m e (y e a r s)

14

16

18

20

RIMAP

Expected Repair Cost

10000 NOK

Discount rate:

6%

Selection of
of inspection
inspection scheduling
scheduling programme
programme -- Example
Example
Selection

20

E xpe c te d R IS K C o s t ; F a tig ue life = 2 0 yr

4 .E+0 4

E xpe c te d R IS K C o s t ; F a tig ue life = 4 0 yr

1 .E+0 4

O ptimum P f Tar g e t = 0 .0 0 0 1

Ins pe c tion C os t

Ins pe c tion C os t

Expected Cost

Expected Cost

8 .E+0 3

Failu r e C os t

3 .E+0 4

O ptimu m P f Tar g e t = 0 .0 0 0 1

R e pair C os t
Total R is k C os t
2 .E+0 4

Failu r e C os t
R e pair C os t
Total R is k C os t

6 .E+0 3

4 .E+0 3

1 .E+0 4
2 .E+0 3

0 .E+0 0
1 .0 E-0 5

1 .0 E-0 4

1 .0 E-0 3

1 .0 E-0 2

Ta rg e t A nnual Failure Probability

0 .E+0 0
1 .0 E-0 5

1 .0 E-0 4

1 .0 E-0 3

1 .0 E-0 2

Targe t A nnual Failure Probability

E xpe c te d R IS K C o s t ; F a tig ue life = 6 0 yr

5 .E+0 3

O ptimum P f Tar g e t = 0 .0 0 1

N u m b er o f in s p ec tio n a s fu n c tio n o f targ e t

failu re p ro b ab ility a n d fatig u e life

Ins pe c tion C os t

Expected Cost

4 .E+0 3

Failu r e C os t
R e pair C os t
Total R is k C os t

3 .E+0 3

T ar ge t Pf
1.0E -0 5
1.0E -0 4
1.0E -0 3
1.0E -0 2

2 .E+0 3

1 .E+0 3

0 .E+0 0
1 .0 E-0 5

1 .0 E-0 4

1 .0 E-0 3

Ta rge t A nnual Failure Probability

1 .0 E-0 2

RIMAP

20
9
5
2
0

F a tig ue life (ye a r s)

40
5
3
1
0

Optimal Target = 10-4

=> Scheduling program

60
3
2
0
0

21

RIMAP Demo: Demonstration

Per industry group:
Petrochemical industry (Exxon & DNV)
Power Industry (MPA, EnBW, Simens, ESB)
Steel works (Corus)
Chemical industry (Dow, Solvay, Hydro)

RIMAP

22

RIMAP WP-relations
Update on RBMI
WP3: Risk
Assessment
Methods

WP4:
Insp./testing,
maintenance
program

State of practice
from inv. industries

Demo:
chemical,
power, steel,...

Workshop on
utilisation of methods

Discuss revised
methods

User requirements

Time

WP5:
Validation and
comparison

RTD

WP2:
Generic
Method

RIMAP

Exchange of experience,
Recommendations
Standardisation

TN

Point of
departure

Demo

WP1:
Current
Practice

23

RIMAP Innovation
The integration of maintenance (RCM) and inspection
(RBI) into a uniform decision process
The use of probabilistic decision analysis for process
systems
Combining the theoretical modelling of plant failure ("hard"
knowledge) with plant experience ("soft" knowledge)
Technology transfer between industry sectors, i.e..

RIMAP

24

Goals & Benefits

For the plants/end-users:
reduced operational and
failure costs.
a clear philosophy for
planning
For the inspection companies:
Tailoring of tools and
methods
know limitations

RIMAP

Regulators:
basis to set proper
requirements
basis for standardisation
Consultants:
enhanced services for the
industry in particular during
plant-networking and
outsourcing.

25

RIMAP; Risk Based Maintenance and Insepection

Improved control of high risk failures - more attention

to high risk components.
Improve cost effectiveness of inspection resources
Balance focus on safety and economical risk - current
practice tends to focus on safety only.
Documented and traceable program.
Systematic use of experience data - basis for:

CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT
RIMAP