ANALYSIS OF RELIABILITY, MAINTENANCE AND RISK BASED

INSPECTION OF PRESSURE SAFETY VALVES

Venilton Fortunato Francisco Machado

Mechanical Engineering Dep, Instituto Superior Tcnico, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001, Lisboa, Portugal, 2014

Abstract

The present study focused on doing a survey about the current state of the art of
applying the RBI (Risk Based Inspection) methodology on pressure safety valves (PSVs) in the
process industry, as well as, analyzing the reliability of applying the Weibull distribution
according to standard API RP 581 and determining an optimum inspection interval of PSVs.

From the maintenance reports data of two companies (a petrochemical and oil
company), it was possible to analyze the reliability and determine the Weibull parameters
(shape parameter and life characteristic) of the PSVs and also to determine the failure
probability of the PSV as described in the API RP 581. In addition, the optimal inspection
intervals for PSVs were also calculated.

Introduction
There is a general question in the oil and gas industry, as well as, in the chemical
industry: how long should the pressure safety valve (PSV) be allowed to operate before being
inspected and tested? This question has not been seen as a serious problem so far, but with
the recent global financial crisis and some accidents, many companies dealing with PSVs have
come to realize the need to reduce spending by eradicating unnecessary inspections and tests,
while maintaining the integrity of the PSV.

The need for inspection and maintenance is due to several factors such as the
degradation of wear or corrosion, low reliability of components, human errors, legislative or
external factors, (e.g.) aggressive or temporal environments. In these actions, mostly based on
time, many resources are spent, whether human or material.

1
 Pressure safety valves

The pressure safety valve as shown in figure 1, also called PRD (Pressure Relief
Valve), pressure relief or simply as safety valve, is an automatic device, moved by a spring
which opens with a pre-established pressure, relieving excess the of pressure and closes
providing good seal when conditions return to normal. It is widely used in the process industry.

A PSV is, in many cases, the ultimate protective device for the equipment integrity. It is
important to ensure that the PSV can operate at all times and all circumstances, and should
also be understood as a valve for overpressure protection.

Pressure safety valves are subdivided into two groups: conventional PSV figure 1 a)
and Balanced PSV figure 1 b).

b)
a)

Figure 1 - a) Convencional PSV; b) Balanced PSV

Standard API RP 580 and 581 applied to PSVs

The standard API RP 580 is often used to ensure the smooth operation and proper
installation of PSVs project. This standard provides information on the use of risk analysis to
develop an effective inspection plan.

The standard API RP 581 provides quantitative procedures to establish an inspection

program using risk-based methods for pressurized fixed equipment, including pressure vessel,
piping, tankage, pressure relief devices and heat exchanger tube bundles.

2
Estimation of optimum and testing interval for PSV- Case study

In the three case studies hereby presented, it was analysed the report data of two
companies, a petrochemical and an oil company. The aim of this study was to estimate an
optimal inspection interval of PSVs. All tables used in the three cases are described in API RP
581. The duration of inspection time considered was 5 years.

Case 1

From the maintenance report of a Petrochemical Industry was possible to obtain the
data as shown in table 1.

Table 1 - Data of petrochemical company

Total of PSVs 37
PSV opens below Set Pressure 7
PSVs with leakage 5
PSV opens at (0.9 TP/SP < 1.3) 18
PSV opens above set pressure 1.3 SP 7
Fluid Temperature T < 260

The 37 PSVs operated under the following conditions:

- Severity: mild T < 500 (< 260);

- Types of PSVs: Conventional; from graph 7.6 , = 0.15 (see API RP 581)
- Discharge for closed system and the demand rate( ): 0.25 (assuming the average
values for all overpressure conditions).

From table 1, data of leakage PSVs will not be used, since it is intended to establish an
optimum inspection interval of PSVs that fails to open. The results of the 32 PSVs tests are
shown in table 2, ranked in increasing order of division on TP/SP where TP is the test pressure
and SP is the set pressure.

Table 2 - Pressure tests results

/ [%] [%]
0,7 1 3,125 3,125
0,73 2 6,25 9,375
0,75 1 3,125 12,5
0,8 1 3,125 15,625
0,85 2 6,25 21,875
0,9 3 9,375 31,25
1 10 31,25 62,5
1,03 2 6,25 68,75
1,1 2 6,25 75
1,2 1 3,125 78,125
1,3 2 6,25 84,375
1,35 2 6,25 90,625
1,4 2 6,25 96,875
1,5 1 3,125 100

3
 Considering a range of study of 0.7 TP/SP 1.5, with pressure tests results, a graph
was built (TP/SP ratio and the cumulative frequency), as shown in figure 2.

Cumulative distribuition Curve

1,50 100,0%
1,40 96,9%
1,35 90,6%
1,30 84,4%
1,20 78,1%
1,10 75,0%
TP/SP

1,03 68,8%
1,00 62,5%
0,90 31,3%
0,85 21,9%
0,80 15,6%
0,75 12,5%
0,73 9,4%
0,70 3,1%

Figure 2 - Ratio TP/SP and cumulative frequency

According to fluid severity: mild, T < 500 (< 260) of the PSVs data, it is determined
the Weibull parameters from table 7.5 (see API 581), therefore, = 1.8 and =
37.875years. Table 3 presents the calculations according to standard API RP 581.

Table 3 Calculation according to API RP 581

Formulas Results
See API RP 581 0.75
1
= 1.3 e ~4 0.8
3.375
Table 7.6 1
= 22.725 [years]


,
, = 1

6.34%

, , = 1 , 93.66%

, , = 1 , 14.3%

, , = , 0.2 , + 0.2 , 6.69%


= 1

22.034 [years]
ln 1 ,

,

6.69%
, = 1

, , = , , 0.25%
1
= ln1

, 10 [months]

For the first case of study (case1), which is the case of a petrochemical Industry, 32
PSVs were studied. The results show that for the current case of the Company, which operates
under mild conditions in terms of severity of fluid ( < 260), it has small probability of failure at

4
opening of 0.25 % in a range of 5 years of inspection, and the optimum inspection time for this
case is once every 10 months.

Case 2

From the maintenance report of the oil company, it was possible to obtain the data
shown in table 4.

Table 4 - Data of PSVs from an Oil Company

Total de PSVs 34
PSV Opens at (0.9 TP/SP < 1.3) 26
Opens above set pressure 1.3 SP 2
PSVs with leakage 6
Fluid Temperature T > 260

The 28 PSVs operated under the following conditions:

- Severity service: severe T > 500 (> 260);

- Types of PSVs: Conventional
- Discharge for closed system and the demand rate ( ): 0.25 (average overpressure).

From table 4, data of leakage PSVs will not be used, since it is intended to establish an
optimum inspection interval of PSVs that fails to open. The results of the 28 PSVs tests are
shown in table 5, ranked in increasing order of division on TP/SP.

Table 5 - Pressure test results

TP/SP Frequency %Frequency Cumulative Frequency
0,923 1 3,57 3,57
0,934 2 7,14 10,71
0,945 1 3,57 14,29
0,954 1 3,57 17,86
0,959 1 3,57 21,43
0,962 2 7,14 28,57
0,963 1 3,57 32,14
0,966 1 3,57 35,71
0,971 2 7,14 42,86
0,972 2 7,14 50,00
0,973 1 3,57 53,57
0,978 1 3,57 57,14
0,980 5 17,86 75,00
0,981 1 3,57 78,57
0,985 1 3,57 82,14
0,987 2 7,14 89,29
1,013 1 3,57 92,86
1,302 1 3,57 96,43
1,352 1 3,57 100,00

5
 Considering a range of study of 0.92 TP/SP 1.35, with pressure test results a graph
was built (TP/SP ratio and the cumulative frequency), as shown in figure 3.

100,0
Cumulative frequency[%]
80,0

60,0

40,0

20,0

0,0
0,8 1 1,2 1,4
TP/SP

Figure 3 - Ratio TP/SP and cumulative frequency.

According to fluid severity service: severe T > 500 (> 260) of the PSVs data, it is
determined the Weibull parameters from table 7.5 (see API 581), therefore, = 1.8 and
= 13.2 years. From graph 7.6 (see API 581) , = 0.15 and table 6 presents the
calculations according to API RP 581.

Formulas Results
- 0.75
1
= 3.375 1.3 e ~4 0.8
Table 7.6 1
= 7.920 [years]


,
, = 1


35.40%

, , = 1 , 64.60%

, , = 1 , 2.3%

, , = , 0.2 , + 0.2 , 31.2%


= 1

8.631 [years]
ln 1 ,

,

31.20%
, = 1

, , = , , 1.2%
1
= ln1

, 9 [months]

For the second case of study (case 2), which is the case of the oil industry, 28 PSVs
were studied. The results show that for the current case of the company, which operates under
severe conditions in terms of severity of fluid ( > 260), it has a probability of failure at

6
opening of 1.2% in a range of 5 years of inspection, and the optimum inspection time for this
case is once every 9 months.

Case 3

In this case, data from oil company (see table 4) is hereby analysed. 6 PSVs failed due
to leakage, and therefore, it is estimated and analysed the growth of the probability of failure
with the inspection time duration.

The 6 PSVs operated in a severe condition in terms of fluid severity ( > 500 (>
260)), from table 7.12 (see API 581) have = 1.6 and = 13.1 years. Since the PSV
has a metal seat, the adjustment factor is = 1.

Formulas Results
- 1
Table 7.6 (API 581) 0.6
= 7.86 [years]


,
, = 1


38.43%

, , = 1 , 61.57%

, , = 1 , 6.16%

, , = , 0.2 , + 0.2 , 34.32%


= 1

8.59 [years]
ln 1 ,



34.32%
= 1
1
= ln1

4.9 years

For a better understanding of the results obtained, figure 4 shows the growth of the
probability of failure due to leakage with the optimal inspection time.

Probability of failure due to

leakage vs Inspection time
10 58,00%
9 55,49%
Inspection time [years]

8 51,90%
7 47,15%
6 41,26%
5 34,32%
4 26,57%
3 18,42%
2 10,51%
1 3,78%
0,5 1,32%

Figure 4 - growth of the probability of failure due to leakage 7

 For the present case, if the company performs inspections once every 0.5 years (6
months), the probability of failure of PSV due to leakage is 1.32%, and if the company conducts
inspections once every 5 years, the probability of failure is 34.32%.

Conclusion

Pressure safety valves play an important daily role in the process industry by protecting
facilities, human lives and invested capital. The only way to know if the PSV is operating well is
to develop an effective inspection plan. This plan must guarantee the reliability of the PSV and
ensure that the PSV can operate at all times and all circumstances.

The three cases studies analyzed in this article were used to determine the probability
of failure of the PSVs and to estimate the optimal inspection intervals according to standard API
581.

In the first case (petrochemical industry), according to pressures test results and the
severity of the service (mild) it was possible to determine the probability of failure of the PSV
and the optimal inspection time (once every 10 months).

In the second case (oil company), according to pressure test results of the maintenance
reports and the services severity (severe), the probability of failure is great than 35.40%. it is
advised that inspection has to be performed twice a year, or once every 9 months for better
control of the failure.

In the third case (the same oil company), 6 PSVs failed due to leakage and the optimal
inspection time estimated is once every 6 months.

The results show that the proposed solution, despite some limitations, is feasible for the
development of this work, thus leaving a solid basis for a better risk analysis according to
standard API RP 581

Bibliography

American Petroleum Institute, Risk-Based Inspection, API RP 580, November 2009

American Petroleum Institute, Risk-Based Inspection Technology, API RP 581,

September 2008.

American Petroleum Institute, Seat Tightness of Pressure Relief Valves, API 527, July,
1991.

American Petroleum Institute, Pressure Vessel Inspection, code: In-Service Inspection,

Rating, Repair, and Alteration, API 510-Downstream segment, June, 2006

8
 Leser, LESER GmbH &Co.KG, 2013. [Online].Available:www.leser.com. Acedido [29
setembro 2013].

M.S.Jones Inspeo Baseada no Risco Vlvulas de segurana de Equipamentos sob

presso, Lisboa, 2009.

R. Assis, Apoio Deciso em gesto da Manuteno fiabilidade e manutibilidade,

Lisboa, Lidel, 2004

R.B.Abertnethy, The new Weibull handbook, north Palm Beach, Florida, 2000.