You are on page 1of 26

# API RBI Tank Case Study

Presentation Overview
• Introduction
• General RBI Information
• Atmospheric Storage Tank RBI Overview
• Tank Case Study
• RBI Results
• Lessons Learned

2
Introduction

## • RBI provisions added to API 653 in Second

Edition late 1990s
Edition,
• Significant changes to the Tank Module in
version 8 release,, 2007
• Future improvements planned to the module

3
General RBI Information

## • In general, risk is calculated as a function of time as

follows
R (t ) = POF (t ) ⋅ COF

## • The probability of failure is a function of time, since

damage due to cracking, thinning or other damage
mechanisms increases with time
• In API RBI, the consequence of failure is assumed to be
independent of time, therefore

## R (t ) = POF (t ) ⋅ CA for Area − Based Risk

R (t ) = POF (t ) ⋅ FC for Financial − Based Risk

4
Probability of Failure

## POF ( t ) = gff ⋅ D f ( t ) ⋅ FMS

where :
POF ( t ) − the probability of failure as a function of time
gff − generic failure frequency
D f ( t ) − damage
d factor
f t as a function
f ti off time
ti
FMS − management systems factor

## • The time dependency of probability of failure is the

basis of using RBI for inspection planning

5
Atmospheric Storage Tank RBI

## • Level 1 consequence determination only

• Result is in financial terms
• Consequences from component damage, product loss
and environmental costs are considered
• Tank
T kM Modeling
d li
• Tank Bottom
• Separate Shell Courses
• As a pressure vessel.
This allows for using the
Level 2 consequence
modeler

6
What is a Tank Failure??

1 Dike Area

6 Tank

Surface Water
Offsite 3
2 Onsite

Subsurface Soil 4

Ground Water 5

7
Atmospheric Storage Tank RBI
• Fluid properties determined by fluid selection
• Hydraulic conductivity and fluid seepage velocity
determined from density and viscosity
Table 7.1 – Fluids and Fluid Properties for Atmospheric storage Tank Consequence Analysis
Level 1
Consequence Liquid Dynamic
Liquid Density
Fluid Analysis Molecular Weight Viscosity
(lb/ft3)
Representative (lbf-s/ft2)
Fluid

## Heavy Crude Oil C25+ 422 56 187

56.187 9 600E 4
9.600E-4

8
Atmospheric Storage Tank RBI

Table 7.2 – Soil Types and Properties for Atmospheric storage Tank Consequence Analysis
Hydraulic Conductivity Hydraulic Conductivity
for Water Lower for Water Upper
Soil Type Soil Porosity
Bound Bound
(in/sec) (in/sec)

Silt 3 94E 6
3.94E-6 3 94E 7
3.94E-7 0 41
0.41

## Concrete-Asphalt 3.94E-11 3.94E-12 0.99

9
Atmospheric Storage Tank RBI
• Release Rate Calculation
– Liquid head is assumed to be constant with time
– Leak into ground is as a continuous porous media, by the
soil porosity for tank foundations
– Product leakage flow rate through a small hole is a function
of the soil and fluid properties as well as liquid head (fill
height)
– Tank rupture assumes all product in the tank is lost
– Bernoulli or Girard equation used depending on hydraulic
conductivity
• API RBI for atmospheric storage tanks is currently based
on financial consequences only which requires the use of
a Financial Risk Target

10
Atmospheric Storage Tank RBI
• Financial environmental cost from shell course leakage

⎛ Bblindike
leak
⋅ Cindike + Bblssleak − onsite ⋅ Css − onite +

leak
FCenviron =⎜ ⎟
⎜ Bbl leak ⋅ C + Bbl leak
⋅ C ⎟
⎝ ss − offsite ss − offite water water ⎠
• Financial environmental cost for a shell course rupture

⎛ Bblindike
rupture
⋅ Cindike + Bblssrupture
− onsite ⋅ Css − onite +

rupture
p
FCenviron =⎜ ⎟
⎜ Bbl rupture ⋅ C ⎟
ss − offite + Bblwater ⋅ Cwater
rupture
⎝ ss − offsite ⎠
• Total financial environmental cost for shell courses

FCenviron = FCenviron
leak
+ FCenviron
rupture

11
Atmospheric Storage Tank RBI
• Component damage cost for shell courses

⎛ 4 ⎞
⎜ ∑ gff n ⋅ holecostn ⎟
FCcmd = ⎜ n =1 ⎟ ⋅ matcost
⎜ gfftotal ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
• Outage Days and the cost of business interruption

## FC prod = ( Outagecmd + Outageaffa ) ( prodcost )

• Financial Consequence for shell courses

t t l = FCenviron
FCtotal i + FCcmdd + FC prodd
• The above consequence calculation is for the tank shell
courses, a similar consequence calculation is used for
th tank
the t k floor
fl

12
Case Study Background

## • Refinery is located near, IA

• The refinery wanted to use RBI to defer the inspections
on two AST.
• Local regulators are pushing for internal inspections on
these tanks
• A similar service argument for other tanks very close to
these tanks was used.
– Similar Service is a provision added to API 653 in late
2008, but it was not valid at the time of the analysis.
– This argument was not accepted by the regulators.

13
Tank Description

• T-1
– Diesel Product Tank
– Installed in 1956, floor replaced in 1992
– 30’ diameter, 40’ tall
– Sits on a ring wall with no release prevention
– No internal inspection since floor replacement

• T-17
T 17
– Heavy Gas Oil Tank
– Installed in 1993
– 120’ di
diameter, 48’ tall
ll
– Sits on a graded concrete slab
– No internal inspection since installation

14
T-143

15
T-1

16
API RBI Risk Targets

## • When a risk target is

exceeded in API RBI, an
inspection is generated to
reduce uncertainty
• Fixed equipment primarily
uses an Area Risk Target
g
– Many case studies
– 27-40 ft2/yr target from
experience
• Tank RBI uses a Financial risk
target
– No well defined case studies
for Tank RBI Risk Targets
– Trial and error method with
client input
- Inspection costs and production interruption are considered
• Used \$15,000/yr risk target consistent with targets used in PRV RBI

17
Key Inputs

## • Operating conditions – Height, Temperature

• Foundation – Release Prevention?
• Containment Information
• Production Impact
• Environmental Impact
• Previous inspections
– Corrosion rates
– Damage to insulation
– Overall condition

18
Damage Mechanisms

## • Tank Bottom Corrosion

• Thinning Damage
• External Damage (CUI)
• No environmental cracking mechanisms active

19
Tank Bottom Corrosion

20
Thinning Damage
Base Metal Measured Base Metal Calculated
Component Component Type
Rate (mpy)* Rate (mpy)

## T-143-BTM TANKBOTTOM - 9.5

T-143-Course 2 COURSE-1 0 -

T-143-Course 3 COURSE-2 0 -

T-143-Course 4 COURSE-3 0 -

T 143 C
T-143-Course 4 COURSE 4
COURSE-4 0 -

## T-173-BTM TANKBOTTOM - 11.0

T-173-Course 1 COURSE-1 0 -

T-173-Course 2 COURSE-2 0 -

T-173-Course 3 COURSE-3 0 -

T-173-Course 4 COURSE-4 0 -

21
External Damage

## External Base Material

Component Component Type Insulation Type
Environment Calculated Rate (mpy)

T 143 Course 1
T-143-Course COURSE 1
COURSE-1 Mineral Wool Marine 84
8.4

## T-173-Presusre Vessel DRUM Fiberglass Marine 8.4

22
RBI Results
• Inspection Planning
External
Thinning Cracking RBI
Component Component Damage
Component Inspection Inspection Inspection
Description Type Inspection
Category Category Date
Category

## T-143-BTM T-143-Bottom TANKBOTTOM C 2015-02-01

T-143-Pressure
T-143-Shell DRUM C 2015-10-24
Vessel

## T-173-BTM T-173-Bottom TANKBOTTOM C 2017-03-15

23
RBI Results - Inspection Plans
• T-1 Bottom – C-level bottom thinning by February of 2015.
– Scanning of 5 to 10+% of the floor plates while supplementing scanning near
the shell and the floor
– 100% visual inspection of the floor
– Scanning should progressively increase if damage is found.
• T-17 Bottom – C-level bottom thinning by March of 2017.
– S
Scanning
i off 5 tto 10+% off the
th floor
fl plates
l t while
hil supplementing
l ti scanning
i near
the shell and the floor
– 100% visual inspection of the floor
– Scanning should progressively increase if damage is found.
• T-1
T 1 Pressure
P Vessel
V l – Modeled
M d l d as a pressure vessel,
l CC-level
l l external
t l
shell inspection recommendation to be completed by October of 2015.
– 95 to 100% external visual inspection of the insulation
– Follow-up with profile or real time radiography of 33 to 65% of suspect areas
– Follow-up of corroded areas with 95 to 100% visual inspection of the exposed
surface with UT, RT or pit gauge.
– This inspection does NOT require an entry.

24
RBI Results – Risk Drivers

• T-1 Bottom
– 15+ years of service with no corrosion data for the bottom
– Conservative estimate for tank bottom corrosion rate of 9.5 mpy
– The calculated bottom thickness at this date using 9.5 mpy corrosion rate
is 0.101” which is at the minimum thickness of 0.10” for tanks without leak
detection as prescribed in API 653.
• T-17 Bottom
– 15+ years of service with no corrosion data for the bottom
– Conservative estimate for tank bottom corrosion rate of 11.0 mpy
g 11.0 mpy
– The calculated bottom thickness at this date using py corrosion rate
is 0.056” which is above the minimum thickness of 0.05” for tanks with
leak detection as prescribed in API 653.
• T-1 Pressure Vessel
– Estimated external corrosion rate of 8.4 mpypy
– The insulation has failed on the tank creating a potential CUI concern.

25
Lessons Learned

## • Received regulatory approval for the Internal

Inspection deferral
• Found a few bugs in the software
– Volume display
– Course height changes
• Suggestions for future improvements
– Change location of some inputs
• Operating height
• Specific Gravity
• Release and foundation settings
– Make course height component specific
– Fluids
• Adding more fluids
• Using
g Level 2 modeler

26