Algorithm for Calculating the Inspection Interval of a Process Pipeline using a Risk-Oriented Approach according to the API 581 Methodology



Annotation:

The article is devoted to the actual problems of planning periodic inspections of the equipment. The main task of the inspection is to assess the actual and (or) predicted technical condition of the equipment by carrying out design, experimental (diagnostic), research and organizational actions. Inspection can be implemented based on of one of two approaches: regulated and risk-oriented.

The methodology given in the API 581 standard is used as the basis for conducting inspections. According to this methodology, risk is defined as a combination of probability and consequences of failure. An example is given related to calculating the inspection interval of the object under study. According to its results, the target date for the next inspection of the facility is set 8 years after the start of its operation.

The article compares inspection methods based on two different approaches. It is shown that a risk-oriented approach implies a more deep and detailed study of the objects using the advanced methods, including continuous ultrasound scanning, profile (digital) radiography, pulsed eddy current testing. It is indicated that the efficiency of inspection methods used in the risk-oriented approach is due to their choice, considering the mechanisms of degradation of the object and depending on the specific conditions of its operation.

Based on the results of the conducted work, it was concluded that the methodology for calculating inspection intervals based on the API 581 standard is an effective tool to ensure the optimal level of risk. With the development of the methods for organizing production, the methods for ensuring its safety should also be improved. The fact is noted that the application of the methodology of the risk-oriented approach in the Russian Federation is currently complicated due to the lack of an appropriate regulatory framework and methodological support. The emphasis was made on the need to resolve this problem, which will invariably lead to an increase in the efficiency of industrial production, including by the reduction of the equipment downtime during the preparation and conduct of the inspection.

References:
1. Wang G., Cheng Q., Zhao W., Liao Q., Zhang H. Review on the transport capacity management of oil and gas pipeline network: Challenges and opportunities of future pipeline transport. Energy Strategy Reviews. 2022. Vol. 43. DOI: 10.1016/j.esr.2022.100933
2. Arya A.K., Jain R., Yadav S., Bisht S., Gautam S. Recent trends in gas pipeline optimization. Materials Today: Proceedings. 2022. Vol. 57. pp. 1455–1461. DOI: 10.1016/j.matpr.2021.11.232
3. Lapteva U.V., Kuzyakov O.N., Andreeva M.A. System for determining the state of the object surface based on fuzzy output rules. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 2022. Vol. 2182. DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/2182/1/012006
4. Bukleshev D.O. Analysis of causes of emergency situations in operation of main gas pipelines. Fundamentalnye i prikladnye issledovaniya v sovremennom mire = Fundamental and applied research in the modern world. 2018. № 23. pp. 89–95. (In Russ.).
5. Zang X., Pan X., Jiang J. An Analysis of Accident Risk in the Russian Energy Sector: 2004–2020. 2022. 94 p. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.4257900
6. Kishawy H.A., Gabbar H.A. Review of pipeline integrity management practices. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping. 2010. Vol. 87. Iss. 7. pp. 373–380. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpvp.2010.04.003
7. Xie M., Tian Z. A review on pipeline integrity management utilizing in-line inspection data. Engineering Failure Analysis. 2018. Vol. 92. pp. 222–239. DOI: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2018.05.010
8. Othman S.A.S., Napiah M.N.M.A., Zakaria N.S., A Karim K.H., Koi S.L., Azad M.F.A.A.K., Supian A.M. Automation Via Robotic Process Automation in Pipeline Integrity Management Towards ALARP Risk Level. ADIPEC. 2022. DOI: 10.2118/211063-MS
9. Hu T., Guo J. Development and application of new technologies and equipment for in-line pipeline inspection. Natural Gas Industry B. 2019. Vol. 6. Iss. 4. pp. 404–411. DOI: 10.1016/j.ngib.2019.01.017
10. Fan Z., Niu X., Miao B., Meng H. Hybrid Coded Excitation of the Torsional Guided Wave Mode T (0,1) for Oil and Gas Pipeline Inspection. Applied Sciences. 2022. Vol. 12. Iss. 2. pp. 777. DOI: 10.3390/app12020777
11. Ma Q., Tian G., Zeng Y., Li R., Song H., Wang Z., Gao B., Zeng K. Pipeline In-Line Inspection Method, Instrumentation and Data Management. Sensors. 2021. Vol. 21. Iss. 11. DOI: 10.3390/s21113862
12. STO Gazprom 2-2.3-253—2009. Organization standard. Methodology for assessing the technical condition and integrity of the gas pipelines. Available: https://files.stroyinf.ru/Data1/59/59641/index.htm (accessed: February 22, 2023). (In Russ.).
13. On approval of the federal norms and rules in the field of industrial safety «Rules for the safe operation of technological pipelines»: Order of Rostechnadzor of December 21, 2021 № 444. Available: https://base.garant.ru/404776649/ (accessed: February 22, 2023). (In Russ.).
14. Zhiyu M., Jinshan H., Liang C., Zhigang Z., Weiping M. Research on the Advancement of Russia Oil Pump Unit Operation and Maintenance Standards. Automation in Petro-Chemical Industry. 2016. Iss. 5. pp. 22–24. URL: http://caod.oriprobe.com/articles/49608466/Research_on_Advancement_of_Russia_Oil_Pump_Unit_Operation_and_Maintena.htm (accessed: February 22, 2023). 
15. Trasatti S.P. Risk-Based Inspection and Integrity Management of Pipeline Systems. Degradation Assessment and Failure Prevention of Pipeline Systems. Cham: Springer, 2021. pp. 89–98. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-58073-5_7
16. Shafiee M., Soares C.G. New Advances and Developments in Risk-based Inspection (RBI) of Marine Structures. Proceedings of the 30th European Safety and Reliability Conference and the 15th Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management Conference. Singapore: Research Publishing, 2020. pp. 4485–4492. DOI: 10.3850/978-981-14-8593-0
17. Crawley F. Failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) and failure modes, effects and criticality analysis (FMECA). A Guide to Hazard Identification Methods. ResearchGate. 2020. pp. 103–109. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-819543-7.00012-4
18. Bevilacqua M., Ciarapica F.E., Giacchetta G., Paciarotti C., Marchetti B. Innovative Maintenance Management Methods in Oil Refineries. Quality and Reliability Management and Its Applications. London: Springer, 2016. pp. 197–226. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4471-6778-5_7
19. Brikov A.V., Aleksandrovich S.I. Calculation of the inspection interval using the risk-based inspection methodology according to API RP 581. Gazovaya promyshlennost = Gaz Industry. 2023. № 2. pp. 44–53. (In Russ.).
20. Suarez Kh., Finkelshteyn M., Lisanov M.V., Kruchinina I.A. Foreign Experience of Using Risk-Oriented Approach During Operation of Technical Devices at Oil and Gas Objects. Bezopasnost Truda v Promyshlennosti = Occupational Safety in Industry. 2015. № 8. pp. 24–30. (In Russ.).
21. Singurov A.A., Deryabin P.G. Risk-based inspection in Sakhalin Energy Company. Gazovaya promyshlennost = Gaz Industry. 2018. № 12. pp. 114–121. (In Russ.).
22. Risk-Based Inspection Methodology. API Recommended Practice 581. Third Edition, April 2018. Washington: American Petroleum Institute, 2020. 33 p.
23. Siswantoro N., Priyanta D., Ramadhan J., Zaman N.B. Implementation of Risk-Based Inspection (RBI) in Condensate Separator and Storage Vessel: A Case Study. International Journal of Marine Engineering Innovation and Research. 2021. Vol. 6. № 1. pp. 1–10. DOI: 10.12962/j25481479.v6i1.7565
24. Kaley L.C. API RP 581 Risk-Based Inspection Methodology-Documenting and Demonstrating the Thinning Probability of Failure Calculations. Savannah: Trinity Bridge LLC, 2014. 42 p.
DOI: 10.24000/0409-2961-2023-4-75-83
Year: 2023
Issue num: April
Keywords : risk-oriented approach process pipeline failure risk calculation algorithm inspection interval API 581 standard production efficiency
Authors:
  • Brikov A.V.
    Cand. Sci. (Eng.), Deputy Head of the sector, alex_v_brikov@list.ru LLC Sakhalin Energy, Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, Russia
  • Aleksandrovich S.I.
    Lead Inspector LLC Arctic LNG 2, Novy Urengoy, Russia
  • Belkin D.S.
    Deputy Director Engineering School of Non-Destructive Testing and Safety of Tomsk Polytechnic University, Tomsk, Russia
  • Shteyn A.M.
    Cand. Sci. (Eng.), Senior Research Assistant Engineering School of Non-Destructive Testing and Safety of Tomsk Polytechnic University, Tomsk, Russia
  • Osipov S.P.
    Cand. Sci. (Eng.), Lead Researcher Engineering School of Non-Destructive Testing and Safety of Tomsk Polytechnic University, Tomsk, Russia