API RBI Tank Case Study

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

2

Edition late 1990s • Significant changes to the Tank Module in version 8 release. 2007 . • Future improvements planned to the module 3 .Introduction • RBI provisions added to API 653 in Second Edition.

therefore R (t ) = POF (t ) ⋅ CA R (t ) = POF (t ) ⋅ FC for Area − Based Risk for Financial − Based Risk 4 . thinning or other damage mechanisms increases with time • In API RBI.General RBI Information • In general. since damage due to cracking. the consequence of failure is assumed to be independent of time. risk is calculated as a function of time as follows R (t ) = POF (t ) ⋅ COF • The probability of failure is a function of time.

Probability of Failure • The probability of failure used in API RBI is: POF ( t ) = gff ⋅ D f ( t ) ⋅ FMS where : POF ( t ) gff FMS − the probability of failure as a function of time − generic failure frequency − management systems factor Df (t ) − d damage factor as a function of time f t f ti f ti • The time dependency of probability of failure is the basis of using RBI for inspection planning 5 .

This allows for using the Level 2 consequence modeler 6 . product loss and environmental costs are considered • T k M d li Tank Modeling • Tank Bottom • Separate Shell Courses • As a pressure vessel.Atmospheric Storage Tank RBI • Level 1 consequence determination only • Result is in financial terms • Consequences from component damage.

What is a Tank Failure??   1 Dike Area 6 Surface Water Tank 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 7.129E-5 7.728 48.1 – Fluids and Fluid Properties for Atmospheric storage Tank Consequence Analysis Level 1 Consequence Analysis Representative Fluid C6-C8 C9-C12 C13-C16 C17-C25 C17-C25 C25+ C25+ Liquid Dynamic Viscosity (lbf-s/ft2) Fluid Molecular Weight Liquid Density (lb/ft3) Gasoline Light Diesel Oil Heavy Diesel Oil Fuel Oil Crude Oil Heavy Fuel Oil Heavy Crude Oil 100 149 205 280 280 422 422 42.169E-5 5.383 56.600E-4 9 600E 4 8 .706E-4 7.187 56 187 8.383 48.823 47.383E-5 2.706E-4 9.600E-4 9.702 45.187 56.

Atmospheric Storage Tank RBI Table 7.94E-6 3 94E 6 3.41 0 41 0.99 9 .94E-7 3 94E 7 3.94E-7 3.94E-3 3.94E-6 3.94E-4 3.94E-4 3.94E-8 3.33 0.33 0.94E-2 3.94E-8 3.50 0.94E-11 Hydraulic Conductivity for Water Upper Bound (in/sec) 3.94E-12 Soil Type Soil Porosity Coarse Sand Fine Sand Very Fine Sand Silt Sandy Clay Clay Concrete-Asphalt 0.45 0.94E-9 3.94E-3 3.2 – Soil Types and Properties for Atmospheric storage Tank Consequence Analysis Hydraulic Conductivity for Water Lower Bound (in/sec) 3.33 0.

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 • Release Rate Calculation – Liquid head is assumed to be constant with time – Leak into ground is as a continuous porous media.

Atmospheric Storage Tank RBI • Financial environmental cost from shell course leakage leak FCenviron leak leak ⎛ Bblindike ⋅ Cindike + Bblss −onsite ⋅ Css −onite + ⎞ =⎜ ⎟ leak ⎜ Bbl leak ⋅ C ⎟ ss − offsite ss − offite + Bblwater ⋅ Cwater ⎝ ⎠ • Financial environmental cost for a shell course rupture rupture p FCenviron rupture rupture ⎛ Bblindike ⋅ Cindike + Bblss −onsite ⋅ Css −onite + ⎞ =⎜ ⎟ rupture ⎜ Bbl rupture ⋅ C ⎟ ss − offsite ss − offite + Bblwater ⋅ Cwater ⎝ ⎠ • Total financial environmental cost for shell courses leak rupture FCenviron = FCenviron + FCenviron 11 .

a similar consequence calculation is used for the t k fl th tank floor 12 .Atmospheric Storage Tank RBI • Component damage cost for shell courses FCcmd ⎛ 4 ⎜ ∑ gff n ⋅ holecostn = ⎜ n =1 gfftotal ⎜ ⎜ ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⋅ matcost ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ • Outage Days and the cost of business interruption FC prod = ( Outagecmd + Outageaffa ) ( prodcost ) • Financial Consequence for shell courses FCttotall = FCenviron + FCcmd + FC prod t i d d • The above consequence calculation is for the tank shell courses.

Case Study Background • Refinery is located near. – This argument was not accepted by the regulators. but it was not valid at the time of the analysis. – Similar Service is a provision added to API 653 in late 2008. • Local regulators are pushing for internal inspections on these tanks • A similar service argument for other tanks very close to these tanks was used. 13 . IA • The refinery wanted to use RBI to defer the inspections on two AST.

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 . floor replaced in 1992 30’ diameter.Tank Description • T-1 – – – – – Diesel Product Tank Installed in 1956.

T-143 15 .

T-1 16 .

Inspection costs and production interruption are considered • Used $15.API RBI Risk Targets • When a risk target is exceeded in API RBI.000/yr risk target consistent with targets used in PRV RBI 17 . 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 .

Temperature Foundation – Release Prevention? Containment Information Production Impact Environmental Impact Previous inspections – Corrosion rates – Damage to insulation – Overall condition 18 .Key Inputs • • • • • • Operating conditions – Height.

Damage Mechanisms • • • • Tank Bottom Corrosion Thinning Damage External Damage (CUI) No environmental cracking mechanisms active 19 .

Tank Bottom Corrosion 20 .

0 - * Measured rates came from provided UT data 21 .Thinning Damage Component T-143-BTM T-143-Course 2 T-143-Course 3 T-143-Course 4 T-143-Course 4 T 143 C T-143-Pressure Vessel T-173-BTM T-173-Course 1 T-173-Course 2 T-173-Course 3 T-173-Course 4 T-173-Course 5 T-173-Presusre Vessel Component Type TANKBOTTOM COURSE-1 COURSE-2 COURSE-3 COURSE-4 COURSE 4 DRUM TANKBOTTOM COURSE-1 COURSE-2 COURSE-3 COURSE-4 COURSE-5 DRUM Base Metal Measured Rate (mpy)* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.0 5.0 Base Metal Calculated Rate (mpy) 9.5 11.

4 22 .9 8.9 10.External Damage Component T-143-Course T 143 Course 1 T-143-Course 2 T-143-Course 3 T-143-Course 4 T-143-Pressure Vessel T-173-Course 1 T-173-Course 2 T-173-Course 3 T-173-Course 4 T-173-Course 5 T-173-Presusre Vessel Component Type COURSE-1 COURSE 1 COURSE-2 COURSE-3 COURSE-4 DRUM COURSE-1 COURSE-2 COURSE-3 COURSE-4 COURSE-5 DRUM Insulation Type Mineral Wool Mineral Wool Mineral Wool Mineral Wool Mineral Wool Fiberglass Fiberglass Fiberglass Fiberglass Fiberglass Fiberglass External Environment Marine Marine Marine Marine Marine Marine Marine Marine Marine Marine Marine Base Material Calculated Rate (mpy) 8.4 8.4 84 8.9 10.9 10.9 10.4 8.4 8.4 10.

RBI Results • Inspection Planning Component Component Description Component Type Thinning Inspection Category Cracking Inspection Category External Damage Inspection Category RBI Inspection Date T-143-BTM T-143-Bottom TANKBOTTOM C 2015-02-01 T-143-Pressure Vessel T-143-Shell DRUM C 2015-10-24 T-173-BTM T-173-Bottom TANKBOTTOM C 2017-03-15 23 .

24 . – This inspection does NOT require an entry. • T-17 Bottom – C-level bottom thinning by March of 2017. RT or pit gauge. – S Scanning of 5 t 10+% of the floor plates while supplementing scanning near i f to f th fl l t hil l ti i the shell and the floor – 100% visual inspection of the floor – Scanning should progressively increase if damage is found. – 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. – 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. • T-1 Pressure Vessel – M d l d as a pressure vessel. C l T 1P V l Modeled l C-level external l t l shell inspection recommendation to be completed by October of 2015.Inspection Plans • T-1 Bottom – C-level bottom thinning by February of 2015.RBI Results .

5 mpy corrosion rate is 0. • T-17 Bottom – 15+ years of service with no corrosion data for the bottom – Conservative estimate for tank bottom corrosion rate of 11.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 9.0 mpy g py – The calculated bottom thickness at this date using 11.056” which is above the minimum thickness of 0.10” for tanks without leak detection as prescribed in API 653.101” which is at the minimum thickness of 0. • T-1 Pressure Vessel – Estimated external corrosion rate of 8.4 mpy py – The insulation has failed on the tank creating a potential CUI concern.05” for tanks with leak detection as prescribed in API 653.0 mpy corrosion rate is 0. 25 .5 mpy – The calculated bottom thickness at this date using 9.

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 Level 2 modeler g 26 .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful