THE PIPING INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT CHALLENGE
ASSET INTEGRITY INTELLIGENCETHE PIPING INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT CHALLENGELAZA KRSTIN, Principal Consultant at ABBFERNANDO VICENTE, Asset Integrity & Reliability Management Consultant at ABBVOLUME 23, ISSUE 2MARCH APRIL 2017
THE PIPING INTEGRITY MANAGEMENTCHALLENGEBY: LAZA KRSTIN, Principal Consultant at ABBFERNANDO VICENTE, Asset Integrity & Reliability Management Consultant at ABBINTRODUCTIONThe mechanical integrity of process piping is critical to effectively manage process safety, environmental hazards, and business risks in the oil & gas, chemical, petrochemical and powerindustries. Operating companies seek to achieve cost-effectiverisk management and stay in compliance with state and federalregulations. So, how does one determine the optimum levels ofinspection and maintenance for piping? The scale and complexity of the facility (thousands of feet of process piping in a typical refinery), significant costs related to inspection (insulationremoval, provision of access,) variety of inspection techniques,and other factors present significant challenges in establishing amechanical integrity strategy for piping. D oes the inspector know the key hazards and vulnerabilities/deterioration mechanisms for piping, and understand therisks to the business? Management: “We have a Risk-Based Inspection system” Reality: In the authors’ experience with clients around theworld, Risk-Based Inspection (RBI) approaches often do notadequately identify the specific vulnerabilities of piping, ortranslate these into effective inspection plans. Management: “Our inspection regime complies withAPI 570” Reality: This mention of API 570 (American PetroleumInstitute) usually means the site has a statistical approachThese challenges are compounded by piping and process complexbased on Thickness Measurement Locations (TML), in theities, misunderstandings and underestimating the importance ofbelief that corrosion is uniform, so its condition can be deterpiping. The reality is that many asset integrity management promined by thickness measurements at defined locations.grams focus on pressure vessels, heat exchangers, and fired heaters without considering the piping systems as an important asset. Let’s look more closely at some typical myths.A process piping system failure or leakage could have a signifi- Myth No.1: Pressure vessels are more important for plantcant impact on the business due to interruptions in production, orsafety than piping.a catastrophic effect if an explosion or fire occurs or a hazardous Reality: Contrary to what many plant personnel might think,fluid is released.piping is more likely to fail than a pressure vessel. IncidentThis article highlights some of the myths, the challenges, and thedata from a variety of sources shows that approximately 40%good practices related to piping integrity management activitiesof major plant losses are due to piping—the largest singlein order to help inspection and maintenance managers make thecause. For example, the UK’s Health and Safety Executiveright decisions to develop cost-effective piping inspection plansReport RR672 "Offshore Hydrocarbon Release 2001-2008"without compromising the asset’s reliability or performance.revealed that piping is the most common equipment typeto experience releases, together with associated equipmentPART 1 – THE CHALLENGEsuch as flanges and valves.The following statements from site management illustrate thenature of the “piping integrity management challenge”:The myth may arise from the situation in most countries wherelegislation focuses on pressure vessels rather than piping.Management: “We meet all our legal obligations” Myth No.2: The requirements for managing piping areReality:specified in legislation. So compliance with regulations The primary purpose of legislation is to protect workers,is sufficient to assure the integrity of piping.the public and the environment. Legislation does not cover Reality: Legislation in many countries does not cover piping,the risks to the business from an incident.or only covers certain categories of piping. For example, the In most countries, legislation does not adequately coverEuropean Pressure Equipment Directive applies only to thepiping (if at all).design and construction of new piping and does not applyto piping equal to or less than NPS 1 (Nominal Pipe Size Management: “Inspection is done by the official thirdin inches). In some other regions, “larger bore” piping hasparty inspector; we get a certificate for continuedmore focus than “small bore” piping (based on stored energyoperation from him”considerations). This can lead to an impression that small-boreReality:piping is not important. However, most mechanical engineersknow that many leaks involve small-bore piping because of How much piping is actually inspected?the range of loads to which it can be subjected, its inherent2Inspectioneering JournalMARCH APRIL 2017
vulnerability to failure (corrosion, vibration/fatigue, mechanical damage, etc.), and the sheer amount of small-bore pipingin a typical facility. It is worth noting that for most processplants (even large-scale refineries) the average pipe size (basedoverall length) is between NPS 2 to NPS 4. There are manythousands of feet of piping in a typical process plant, andmuch of it is not readily accessible for inspection.shutdowns and overhauls. A Bolted Flange Joint Assemblyis a complex mechanical device; therefore, a Joint IntegrityProgram (JIP) should be an integral part of every piping integrity management plan including quality of materials selected,well-trained competent technicians and effective management controls. The American Society of Mechanical Engineer’sASME PCC-1 “Guidelines for Pressure Boundary Bolted FlangeJoint Assembly” gives guidance for the training and qualification of bolted joint assembly personnel, and may be used todevelop joint assembly procedures for a broad range of sizesand services as well. ailures of small bore piping may be regarded as “minor incidents,”Fbut these can be early warnings of major weaknesses in management systems and plant practices. And each incident representsa potential disruption to production and places plant personnelunder increased risk.The Business PerspectiveAs organizations are coming under increasing pressure to deliver Myth No.3: Piping integrity is the responsibility of themore for less, the challenge for the inspection and maintenance“Inspection Team.”managers is to develop a cost-effective piping inspection plan. Reality: Piping integrity is everyone’s responsibility. ManyFrom the asset management point of view, “cost-effective” usupiping incidents are caused by operational excursions outside ally represents the lowest combined business impact of costs,of the design limits or ineffective management of change,risks and performance, or the maximization of net value, over thenot simply “deterioration” or “ineffective maintenance.”piping life cycle (design, construction and installation, commisImplementing an effective operational integrity programsioning, operation, maintenance and decommissioning).(e.g., Integrity Operating Windows) helps focus the inspectionplan (scheme of examination) on the key vulnerabilities andlocations where potential problems may occur. Myth No.4: Piping supports are not included inthe inspection plan; they are not part of thepressure envelope. Reality: The integrity of a piping system is not only dependent on the soundness of the “pressure envelope” but also onthe pipe supports. A proper support system is required to takethe weight of the pipe (including its contents, fittings, valves,etc.), to control movement of the piping, and protect sensitiveequipment, through all its operational modes.Figure 1. Optimum value achieved by optimizing total cost/risk/performanceimpact. Source “Asset Management – an anatomy” Institute ofAsset Management.I f supports are not properly designed, installed and maintained,excessive stress can be created in the piping system, and excessive loads can be transmitted to support structures and connected The challenge for managers is to answer the following questions:equipment. This may exhibit as pipe deformation, leaking joints, D o you understand the complexities and vulnerabilitiesdamage to connected equipment, and failure at welds and otherassociated with your piping systems (corrosion, creep, stress“high stress” points. If the excessive stress coincides with detecorrosion cracking, fatigue, etc.) and how these will changerioration mechanisms (e.g., internal and external corrosion andover time?stress corrosion cracking), premature pipe failure may occur. H ow much piping should you inspect and how often?Experience across the process industries indicates that corrosionAll of it, or some of it? How do you decide what and howunder pipe supports is a major area of concern for plant mainteoften to inspect?nance engineers and inspectors. API RP 574 (supplements the API570 piping inspection code), provides guidance how to inspect F or corrosion under insulation, should you remove 100% ofpiping supports.the piping insulation to fulfil the inspection plan? Myth No.5: Flanges are not an integrity issue - the maintenance team go round and tighten flanged joints withmanual torque wrenches. C an you demonstrate the business consequences on yourpiping systems when faced with management demands toreduce capital investment or maintenance budgets? Reality: Incident reports indicate that flanged joints areinvolved in a large proportion of piping failures. In addition,a number of operating companies cite a significant number of leaks from flanged joints during start-up following C an you easily identify which inspection could be deferredwhen there is funding or cash flow constraints? D o you have the appropriate data and information to supportyour piping integrity management decision-making?MARCH APRIL 2017Inspectioneering Journal3
Do you know if your people have the right competencesand capabilities to manage your piping integrity management plan?To answer these questions properly, organizations should developand implement a sound piping integrity management plan.PART 2 – IMPROVEMENT USING GOODPRACTICESvariables in order to achieve the desired results (i.e., productwithin specification, safe operation, reliability, etc.). These limits are generally called operating limits or operating envelopes.It is important that operating boundaries are established,and documented, including allowable excursions duringstart-up and shut-down of facilities. It is equally importantthat systems are in place to communicate when piping hasbeen operated outside of the agreed limits, so that appropriateaction can be taken.In Part 1, we looked at the challenges faced by operating companies to cost-effectively manage the integrity of their pip A good practice for piping is the establishment, implemening systems. The scale and complexity of piping systems in atation, and maintenance of integrity operating windowstypical process plant presents technical, organizational, and(IOWs). IOWs are a specific subset of these key operatingpractical challenges. Legislation in most countries does notlimits that focus on maintaining the integrity or reliabilityprovide much help:of process equipment. Typically, IOWs address issues that The primary purpose of legislation is to protect workers, theinvolve process variables that, when not adequately monitoredpublic, and the environment.or controlled, can impact the likelihood and rates of deterioration, which may result in a loss of containment. IOWs are It tends to ignore piping - this is interpreted to mean thatthe link between operation and inspection, and help to detectpiping is less of a concern (and requires less attention) thanand communicate changes in the process that can threatenpressure vessels.the integrity and reliability of pressure systems. Excursions Legislation does not address risks to the business in general—outside of IOWs should be communicated to relevant personloss of inventory, loss of business, damage to reputation.nel who can assess the implications for piping integrity. Manycompanies have set up automatic notification via dashboardsConsequently, operating companies should do more than theor emails so that all the relevant information can be presentedlegislation requires—they should manage the wider businessfor assessment as quickly as possible. API RP 584 providesrisks. The “better companies” do!guidance how to implement IOWs.Applying industry practices is required throughout the entire lifeInspection and Maintenancecycle of the piping. The life cycle will include the following stages: Inspection, maintenance, and repair of piping systems can be1. Design, construction and installation (early failure stage)difficult due to piping configuration and geographical layout.The piping inspection plan could consume a large portion of2. Commissioning, operation and maintenancethe maintenance budget if it is not designed, planned, and(in-service stage)implemented properly. Generally, process plants (depending3. Decommissioning (wear-out stage)of the plant size) can have between 1,000-5,000 piping systems.For that reason, inspection resources for piping should beDesign, Construction and Installationappropriately focused using systematic, consistent techniques,Piping systems need to be designed, manufactured, fabricated,such as RBI and/or criticality analysis, to identify which sysinstalled, inspected, and tested in compliance with their specificatem to inspect and what inspection methods to employ. Thetions. However, experience shows that specific areas of weaknessinspection plan should identify what, where, when, and howexist during this early stage. For example, it is not uncommonpiping should be inspected.for the piping to be incorrectly installed (e.g., pipe is over-stressedduring assembling process, wrong welding procedures, bad prac- API 570 “Piping Inspection Code” and API 580/581 “Risk Basedtices during the welding process, including fit-up and joint prepaInspection” are two of the most widely recognized standardsration, bad practices during support and insulation installation,to help specify the in-service inspection and condition-monetc.). This is generally due to lack of technical understandingitoring program for piping systems. Other sources of goodof the installation requirements of equipment by the construcpractice include guidance from Regulatory Bodies (e.g., UK’stion group, and of the consequences of such shortcomings—theHealth and Safety Executive), and industry associations (e.g.,potential to introduce or accelerate damage mechanisms.NACE; EEMUA).Operation and Maintenance (useful life)Good Practices for Piping InspectionThis stage of the life cycle is where operation and maintenance Plan Developmentshould be aligned in order to extend as much of the piping’s use- We can all learn from others. Why not use lessons learned andful life as possible.adapt them to our own situation? For piping inspection, the mainareas of good practice are described below.Operation In order to maintain the integrity and reliability of pressure1. Focus on “critical piping”equipment during operation of any process unit, a set of operThe concept of asset criticality is a particular element of riskating ranges and limits needs to be established for key process4Inspectioneering JournalMARCH APRIL 2017
Figure 2. ABB Criticality analysis process.management—this is the recognition that assets have differingimportance (value), or represent different vulnerabilities, to theorganization. Criticality will usually include, but is not limitedto, the risks of asset failure or non-performance. The piping criticality ranking is used to help prioritize inspection work, definemaintenance strategy, and to identify the most critical pipingsystems (see Figure 2). Some criticality criteria examples areexplained below: Legislation: Legislation in some countries may require pipingto be classified in particular ways. As explained previously inthis paper, the scope of such legislation often does not providea sufficiently comprehensive approach to managing pipingrisk throughout its lifecycle. The result is that in addition tocomplying with relevant legislation, companies need to consider additional criteria. Industry/Company Standards: Industry standards mayspecify additional requirements for classification (e.g., API570). API 581 provides a comprehensive quantified risk-basedapproach. However, these may or may not be too detailed forthe majority of piping in a particular facility. Many companieshave found that a qualitative approach using word modelsis more effective in classifying the piping by consideringthe broad consequence of piping failure. The consequenceassessment considers explosion, fire, toxicity, environmentalimpact, and other potential effects associated with a failure.These should also include the business impacts (such as loss ofproduction, loss of reputation, and cost of repair/remediation).The word models used as the basis for this approach should beTable 1. An example of a word model for assessing business consequence.Business Consequence1Negligible loss of production2Minimal throughput loss 1 weekMajor throughput loss 1 day3Plant shutdown for daysMajor reduction 1 to 5 daysUnit down for 1 week4Significant production lossUnit down 1 week5Major loss of productivityWeeks off lineSite ShutdownTable 2. An example of a word model for assessing likelihood of thefailure scenario.Likelihood of Failure1No history of occurrence or remote probability.Unreasonable to expect failure to occur and not aware of failures on similarplants elsewhere.2No real history of problems or slight probability.No failure since commissioning but failure possible or has occurred on similarplants elsewhere.3Some history or probability of occurrence.1 failure since commissioning or significant issue on similar plants elsewhere e.g.reasonable doubt exists that the equipment will last for the proposed run length.4High probability of occurrence. One failure in the last five years, e.g. highcorrosion rate, would lead to failure if unattended.5High probability of occurrence.More than 1 failure in past 5 years, or at least one failure in the last run or evidencethat a problem will occur in this run.MARCH APRIL 2017Inspectioneering Journal5
developed to suit the particular circumstances of the company(e.g., process technology, range of hazards, local environment,etc.). Such a pragmatic approach is easily understood by all theparties involved in piping integrity, it can be readily applied tothe majority of plant piping, and the impact of planned plantmodifications can be readily assessed. Failure Mode, Effect and Criticality Analysis (FMECA):FMECA is a systematic procedure for the analysis of a systemto identify the potential failure modes, their probability offailure, and their effects on system performance. It can be aqualitative or quantitative analysis. Mil-Std-1629, IEC 60812and NORSOK Z-008 are examples of standards that provideguidelines for FMECA analysis.2. Understand the ways in which the piping can failAn effective risk-based assessment can only be carried out with asound knowledge of the ways in which in the piping can fail. Thisincludes an understanding of its vulnerabilities, such as: Damage mechanisms (e.g., internal corrosion,external corrosion) Design limitations (e.g., number of cycles to avoidfatigue failure, locations of high stress) Local effects (e.g., injection points, dead legs) Vulnerable components (e.g., bellows expansion joints,pipe supports) Current condition of the piping.A widely used method for determining piping inspection intervals is based on the “half of the remaining life” concept. However,this type of fixed-time approach may not be most appropriate forall piping. This is particularly the case where the fluid composition cha
mechanical integrity strategy for piping. These challenges are compounded by piping and process complex - ities, misunderstandings and underestimating the importance of piping. The reality is that many asset integrity management pro-grams fo
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được
piping classes and the numerous piping specifications necessary to fabricate, test, insulate, and paint the piping systems, is titled either the piping material engineer or the piping spec(ification) writer. 1.2. Job Scope Whatever the title, the piping material engineer (PME) is a very important person within the Piping Design Group and .
used when setting windows hooks . Relies on the user api hook . User Api Hook Special hooking mechanism introduced to support Windows themes RegisterUserApiHook Can only be registered by privileged processes Requires the TCB privilege Caller must be running as SYSTEM Allows Windows to load a theme client module into every GUI application . Smashing the Atom . Theme Subsystem Introduced in .
