Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 18 (2005) 397–402

www.elsevier.com/locate/jlp

Application of risk based inspection in refinery and processing piping

Ming-Kuen Changa, Ren-Rong Changa, Chi-Min Shua,*, Kung-Nan Linb
a
Department of Safety, Health and Environmental Engineering, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology,
123, University Rd., Sec. 3, Touliu, Yunlin, Taiwan 640, ROC
b
Department of Marine Engineering, National Taiwan Ocean University, 2 Pei-Ning Rd., Keelung, Taiwan 202, ROC

Abstract
In refineries and processing plants, the enormous amount of piping is more complex in distribution than other types of equipment. In
general, compared with other types of equipment in these industries, more difficulty in inspection planning is encountered.
However, under-inspection or over-inspection can occur due to the lack of jurisdictional requirements on the inspection interval and
method for piping, or the inspection interval being based only on piping service classifications in the existing regulations, such as API 570.
This can result in unacceptable risks, along with costly loss of resources.
To lessen the piping risk level, more and more companies have adopted and applied risk based inspection (RBI) methodology, leading to
risk reduction and cost benefits since the last decade. This study applied RBI methodology to optimize the inspection strategy of the piping in
a refinery and petrochemical plants in Taiwan. Two actual case studies were corroborated better with quantitative RBI methodology than
without the methodology in terms of risk and cost reductions.
q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Piping risk level; Risk based inspection; Risk reduction; Inspection strategy; Quantitative RBI

1. Introduction the considerable numbers of factors, including complex

According to Council of Labor Affairs, Taiwan, the
inspection period on pressure vessel is 2 years. In contrast
with China, the inspection period is 3 or 4 years, depending
on the level of the pressure vessel. In Japan, it is from 2 to 4
years. Evidently, Taiwan may be much more stringent
country in terms of vessel inspection in Asia. According to
the statistical results (Mahoney, 1998), piping accounts for
the highest ratio among all equipment in the refinery and
petrochemical plants, primarily because they are enormous
and much more complicated than other types of equipment.
However, to effectively implement a piping inspection
relies highly on skilled inspectors who are familiar with the
environment in workplace.
For a long time, the lack of regulatory requirements
on piping safety and the inspection interval has been
a common problem in these industries. In view of
* Corresponding author. Tel.:C886 5 534 2601ext. 4416; fax: C886 5
531 2069.
E-mail address: shucm@yuntech.edu.tw (C.-M. Shu).
0950-4230/$ - see front matter q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2005.06.036
operational environment and expensive inspection cost, the
goal of this study included determining how to appro-
priately identify the high-risk piping in reference to
inspection planning. According to the existing codes, all
piping is simply categorized into three classes (American
Petroleum Institute, 1997). The frequency of inspection
and the simplified piping classification scheme are
established on either the basis of fluid content in piping
or the half remaining life. However, the actual conditions
and possible risk distribution of the piping are generally
not considered.
Internationally, the developing trend for equipment
inspection is risk based inspection (RBI) (American
Petroleum Institute, 2000). The optimal inspection fre-
quency is determined according to its risk exposure, which
can be used to avoid any unacceptable risks from under-
inspection of some items or from over-inspection of the
majority of items. The main objective of RBI is basically to
exploit the limited resources in coping with the really
meaningful risks. In many practical cases, this is usually up
to 20% of equipment items, which dominate no less than
80% of risk exposures (SIEP 98-5214, 1998). Since the
1990s, the industry has aimed to control risk at reasonable
cost.
398 M.-K. Chang et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 18 (2005) 397–402
This article attempted to incorporate the concepts of RBI,
with two case studies, corrosion loop concept (Chang &
Chen, 2001) and optimal next inspection date (Chang,
2004), based on the risk results.
2. Experimental
2.1. Establishment of database
In practice, the integrated information for piping
inspection should at least consist of, but not limit, the
following data, which may be adjusted in accordance with
situations in a real plant:
Basic data design and operating data, such as
diameter, thickness, material, thermal
insulation, inventory, design/operat-
ing temperature, design/operating
pressure, maximum allowable work-
ing pressure (MAWP), stream den-
sity, start-up date, machining,
welding relevant information and the
like.
Process descriptions block flow diagram (BFD), process
flow diagram (PFD) and piping and
instrumentation diagram (P&ID),
including streams, piping identifi-
cation numbers, design/operating
conditions, isolations and so on.
Inspection histories corrosion control, monitoring system
of piping and inspection histories,
which should be reviewed whenever
necessary.
The data also need verifying and updating regularly,
whenever inspection, repair, process or installation changes.
2.2. Creation of corrosion loop and adoption of RBI
The corrosion loop is defined as grouping the piping,
which has been exposed to similar corrosion mechanisms,
operating conditions and material group (Festen &
Ravedtein, 1997; Jansen, Fasten, & Pots, 1998), as shown
in Fig. 1. It may be directly applied to internal fluid streams
with similar material combinations to enable tracking of the
damaged mechanisms. Meanwhile, the corrosion loop is
also a useful feature for inspection planning: i.e. what are
the potential and existing corrosion types? Then, effective
inspection and corrosion rate evaluation are performed
based on the defined corrosion loop. By means of the
corrosion loop, an inspector can more clearly understand the
corrosion mechanisms of piping. This will enhance
inspection efficiency as well as plant safety.
RBI is a systematic analysis, establishing and ranking the
risk levels associated with the operation of each piping
Corrosion 50 mpy
CUI Corrosion 50 mpy
Corrosion 40 mpy
P-10001-4”-C01B-ST40
V-102
P-10002-6”-C01B-ST40
V-101
T-101
P-10004-2”-C01B-ST40
E-101
P-10003-2”-C01B-ST40
P-101
Fig. 1. Schematic example of corrosion loop.
(American Petroleum Institute, 2000). Accordingly, RBI
identifies 10–20% of items that cover 80–95% of the risk
exposures of the equipment (Lee & Teo, 2001). If the
inspection is as low as reasonable, the total risk can be
markedly reduced, with its applicability and cost reduction
being enhanced.
In theory, the risk in RBI is defined as the likelihood of
failure (LOF) times the consequence of failure (COF), so the
essential element of RBI methodology, as demonstrated in
Fig. 2, is an assessment of the LOF and the COF on piping,
i.e. hazardous, environmental and production loss. There are
various related but different approaches to RBI analysis.
Basically, there are three analytical levels: qualitative, semi-
quantitative and detailed quantitative.
Qualitative analysis (American Petroleum Institute,
2000) can be implemented by using a simple workbook to
audit the LOF as well as the COF. In practice, the LOF is
evaluated from the influencing factors, such as amount of
equipment, possible damaged mechanisms, effectiveness of
inspection, current equipment conditions, and the nature
of the process and equipment design. Damaged mechanisms
include general corrosion, fatigue cracking, low temperature
exposure, high temperature degradation and so forth. In
determining the consequence category, RBI considers two
major potential hazards: fire/explosion risk and toxic risk.
Here, fire/explosion risk is related to the chemical and
physical properties of the chemicals, leakage, discharge
amount and type, protection measures, etc. Toxic risk is
associated with quantity and toxicity, dispersion range,
population density and the like. The risk level of each piping
can be identified by the likelihood category and the
consequence category. The risk results can be used to
locate areas of potential concern and to decide which
 M.-K. Chang et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 18 (2005) 397–402 399

Failure Degradation/defect Corrosion loop

history type and type
determination

Probability Consequence
analysis analysis

Risk priority and

assessment

Risk reduction Piping inspection

measurement strategy

Fig. 2. A RBI methodology for a typical piping system.

portions of the process unit require the most inspection
attention or other methods of risk reduction. It can also be
executed to determine whether a full quantitative study is
justified.
In addition to the qualitative RBI method, the semi-
quantitative method takes account of the inspection results,
such as corrosion rate, historical records, and maintenance
information, and so on. Under certain circumstance, the
method can alleviate the discrepancies in risk assessment
induced by a person with subjective judgments.
According to the potential losses, the quantitative
method could determine risk levels. The LOF is the generic
failure frequency (GFF) for the specific type of equipment,
which is based on a compilation of available equipment
failure histories from various industries, and multiplied by
an equipment modification factor and management system
evaluation factor. The COF can be assessed with the losses,
i.e. hazard, environment, impact on business interruption
and maintenance expense, etc. The risk calculation concept
is depicted in Fig. 3. Therefore, the calculated quantitative

Likelihood of Consequence
RISK
failure (LOF) of failure (COF)

Management Generic failure Likelihood Injury ($)

factor frequency factor
(GFF)

Environment
cleanup ($)

Age
Adjacent
Damage repair ($)
mechanisms
and rates

Inspection
Downtime ($)
effectiveness

TOTAL ($)

Fig. 3. A concept of quantitative RBI.

400 M.-K. Chang et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 18 (2005) 397–402

risk calculation can directly assist the inspector to evaluate Table 2

the risk exposures. Two case results on RBI studies

Risk ranking Plant

2.3. Determination on the optimal inspection frequency Chemical plant Refinery (FCC plant)
(Propane plant)

According to API 570, the inspection frequency should Numbers Percentages Numbers Percentages
be scheduled at the half remaining life or established on the High 0 0.00 4 0.68
basis of fluid content, depending on whichever is shorter, as Medium-high 6 2.88 361 61.7
Medium 88 42.31 184 31.45
suggested in Table 1 (American Petroleum Institute, 2000).
Low 114 54.81 36 6.15
However, determining the inspection frequency may Total 208 100 585 100
possibly not only lead to under-inspection of some high-
risk items, but also waste resources on many low-level
risk items. Therefore, the best inspection interval should the possible risk distribution of the piping is generally not
be dictated by combining the piping risk level and considered. To learn the difference between full plant and
inspection effectiveness. The confidence rating is given as piping on RBI results, this article presented two case studies
less than 0.5 for high-level risk items, and more than 0.5 for piping with quantitative RBI. The information of two
for low-level risk items (Chang & Chen, 2001). Inspection plants is given as follows:
effectiveness means the possibility and veracity of the Plants arrangement:
inspection method, which relates to the inspector’s
personal ability and fitness for the selected inspection (1) RBI study for fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) plant, a
method. The highest inspection effectiveness is always thirty years service life with 585 piping for analysis.
defined as 1.0. Accordingly, the inspection interval can be (2) RBI study for propane chemical plant, a 14 years
expressed in Eq. (1) as follows: service life with 208 piping for analysis.
To identify the defects, one should use different
Estimate steps:
inspection methods for piping defects with various
corrosion types, different piping locations and operating Data collecting / Site survey / Data confirming /
conditions. Both a qualified No-Destructive Examination Piping history review /Define corrosion loop /
(NDE) inspector and right inspection procedures are Define plant information / RBI analysis/ Final
essential requirements for carrying out piping inspection. ranking results.
NID Z hCRL (1)
Estimate software:
where NID, next inspection date (year);
With DNV ORBIT Onshore (Det Norske Veritas, 2001)
h - inspection effectiveness ratio (value range 0–1); software for quantitative RBI methodology.
C confidence rating (value range 0–1, based on the risk
ranking); The study evaluated the risk of both units based on the
RL remaining life (year). probability of failure of the piping that could result in a leak
and hence cause hazard and financial consequences. It also
took into account the current confidence in the condition
2.4. Two case studies on processing piping with RBI based on the nature of the inspections previously performed
methodology and their ability to characterise the extent and rate of the
different damage mechanisms. This was achieved by
Actually, most risk occurred at a few equipments, which applying the DNV/API RBI methodology (Lee & Teo,
mostly based on full plant practice results. That means 2001) using the software (Det Norske Veritas, 2001) version
2.3.14 for analysis. The risk overview is presented in
Table 1 Table 2 and Figs. 4 and 5. Here, Figs. 4 and 5 demonstrate
Recommended maximum inspection intervals (American Petroleum that 20% piping and 10% piping account for 75 and 95%
Institute, 1997)
risk for FCC plant and propane plant, respectively.
Type of circuit Thickness Visual external
measurements
Class 1 5 years 5 years
Class 2 10 years 5 years 3. Results and discussion
Class 3 10 years 10 years
Injection points 3 years By piping class Based on the two case studies, we can obtain valuable
Soil-to-air interfaces NA By piping class
results as follows: (1) Piping also has similar risk
NA, not applicable. distribution, compared with full plant. That means most
 M.-K. Chang et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 18 (2005) 397–402 401

Table 3
Risk ranking distributed after highly efficient inspection

Risk Plant
ranking Chemical plant Refinery (FCC plant)
(Propane plant)
Numbers Percentages Numbers Percentages
High 0 0 1 0.17
Medium– 3 1.44 136 23.25
high
Medium 90 43.27 385 65.81
Low 115 55.29 63 10.7
Total 208 100 585 100

be performed on higher risk items. Table 3 displays the

Fig. 4. Risk distribution of 585 FCC plant piping.
risk allocated among the less piping. (2) It shows the risk of
refinery plant is higher than that of chemical plant, for it has
more complex operation and contents and more potential
corrosion mechanism existed. (3) Because of no inspection
history for most piping, an unexpected failure may occur
when degradation happens faster than expected. This is one
of the reasons that higher risk may always exist. (4) Risk
information can supply a guiding for inspection planning.
An inspection program can affect only the value of the
likelihood of failure, not the consequence. No matter how
much inspection is performed, the consequence is
unchanged. Therefore, where a high-risk item is driven by
the consequence value, other actions may be considered
with better and accurate analysis, such as quantitative risk
assessment (QRA), and upgrading of mitigation system.
Furthermore, we suggested that highly efficient inspection
calculated risk distribution on both cases.
Based on qualitative RBI results, we found the risk of
FCC plant, after an efficient inspection, reduced by 77%,
and the risk cost lessened from USD 254,396,123 to 59,207,
499; in contrast, propane plant by 19%, from USD 12,110,
875 to 10,264,074, respectively.
4. Conclusions
It is essential that high-level risk piping be properly
managed, and that sufficient resources (manpower and
budget) be allocated to this effort. The RBI methodology
includes a ranking process for piping LOF and COF. It also
includes the corrosion loop concept, which points out the
potential corrosion mechanisms for guiding the inspection
method selected. Since there is a very large variety and
quantity of piping, and inspectors typically have limited
resources in terms of time, budget and manpower, a
powerful management system should be implemented for
establishing data, scheduling plan, keeping a history,
conducting life analysis and sharing information.
Currently, a general piping inspection strategy focuses
only on the control of piping risk to ensure proactively safer
operation and production efficiency. An integral inspection
methodology on piping should consist not only of an
efficient inspection strategy and reasonable inspection
planning, but also of reliable inspection methods, pro-
fessional analysis and continuous improvement of the
piping inspection management system. In total, it will
consider safety, efficiency, quality, even better management
and cost control. It aims at when, where and how to inspect
properly. Founded on the ideal inspection philosophy, an
optimal inspection strategy and tactics for piping is
indispensable for related process plants.

References

American Petroleum Institute (1997). Inspection, repair, alteration, and

Fig. 5. Risk distribution of 208 propane plant piping.
rerating of in-service piping system. Washington, DC, USA: API
Standard 570 (Supplement 2).
402 M.-K. Chang et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 18 (2005) 397–402
American Petroleum Institute (2000). Base resource documentation for risk
based inspection (1st ed.). Washington, DC, USA: API Publication 581.
Chang, R. R., & Chen, J. J. (2001). Risk management application on
refinery piping inspection The 17th annual conference of Asia pacific
occupational safety and health organization, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC pp.
404–414.
Chang, R. R. (2004). Remaining life prediction of error caused by
temperature effects in ultrasonic thickness measurement 12th Annual
conference of non-destructive testing, Section 4C-A18, Taiwan, ROC.
Det Norske Veritas (2001). ORBIT RBI Onshore, Version 2.3.14, UK.
Festen,M. M., & Ravedtein,M. H.(1997). Guidelinefor risk basedinspection.
Hague, The Netherlands: Shell Research and Technical Service.
Jansen, H. J. M., Fasten, M. M., & Pots, B. F. M. (1998). Piping risk based
inspection and outline of methodology. Amsterdam, The Netherlands:
Shell International Exploration and Production, B.V..
Lee, C. G., & Teo, Y. S. (2001). Det norske veritas RBI study for the
ammonia storage plant. Taiwan, ROC: Taiwan Fertilizer Kaohsiung
Ammonia Terminal.
Mahoney, D. (1998). Large property damage losses in the hydrocarbon
chemical industries—a thirty years review (17th ed.). New York: J and
H Marsh and McLennan.
SIEP 98-5214 (1998). Maintenance management guideline: Risk based
inspection in explorations and production. Amsterdam, The Nether-
lands: Shell International Exploration and Production, B.V..