See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/282814423

European Standardization of Risk Based Inspection Framework (RBIF)

Conference Paper · October 2015

CITATIONS READS

0 744

3 authors, including:

Aleksandar S. Jovanovic
Universität Stuttgart
204 PUBLICATIONS   293 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

POEMA - PRODUCTION OF COATINGS FOR NEW EFFICIENT AND CLEAN COAL POWER PLANT MATERIALS View project

Smart Resilience Indicators for Smart Critical Infrastructures View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Aleksandar S. Jovanovic on 13 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

European Standardization of Risk
Based Inspection Framework
(RBIF)

MPA-Seminar 2015

A. Jovanovic, A. Carlebur, F. Quintero

Steinbeis Advanced Risk Technologies, Germany
October 05, 2015
Outline

 What is the Risk Based Inspection Framework (RBIF)

project?

 RBIF: Standardization Process

 Contents of the RBIF Standard

 RBIF Procedure
 Annex A: Examples and VGB-Standard-S-506-R-
00;2012-03

STEINBEIS ADVANCED RISK TECHNOLOGIES

RBIF: Risk Based Inspection Framework

 Objective
Contribute to the development of the European Standard (EN) for Risk
Based Inspection during the in-service activities which are still not
harmonized throughout the EU.
International standards for RBI such as API 580/581 are available, but
it is difficult for EU Industries to refer to international standard since
they do not have legal standing and do not address European Issues.

STEINBEIS ADVANCED RISK TECHNOLOGIES

RBIF: Risk Based Inspection Framework

The RBIF standard is being

developed within the CEN
Technical Committee (TC) 319
dedicated to maintenance, and
with NEN (Dutch Standard
Body) holding the secretariat.

The project is supported by ~27 1. Améthyste – France

2. Beijing Municipal Institute of Labor
European companies Protection BMILP – China
3. Bayer Technology Services – Germany
4. DEKRA Industrial Oy – Finland
5. Det Norske Veritas (DNV) Maritime, Oil
and Gas – Norway
6. EnBW Kraftwerke AG – Germany
7. Lloyd's Register Energy – EMEA –
Netherlands
8. Shell Global Solutions International BV –
Netherlands
9. Steinbeis Advanced Risk Technologies –
Germany
10. TUV Austria Services GmbH – Austria
11. TÜV SÜD – Germany
12. TUV Rheinland Group – South Africa

STEINBEIS ADVANCED RISK TECHNOLOGIES

RBIF: Risk Based Inspection Framework

 The standard is developed in the

frame of the CWA (CEN Workshop
Agreement) 15740:2008
document, which specifies the
essential elements for risk based
assessment of industrial assets
according to the RIMAP (Risk-based
Inspection and Maintenance
Procedures for European Industry)
approach.

 The main purpose of the RIMAP

approach enhanced by the
current RBIF project, is to ensure
that defined and accepted levels of
risk related to safety, health,
environment and
business/production/operation are
achieved by using resource-efficient
and risk-based (risk-informed)
methods of inspection.

STEINBEIS ADVANCED RISK TECHNOLOGIES

RBIF: Risk Based Inspection Framework

 The RBIF Standard will be primarily, but not

exclusively, applicable to oil &gas, petrochemical,
chemical, power, and steel industry, but it will be,
however limited to non-nuclear applications.

 The future RBIF Standard will not only help customers

on the market to find more “standardized”
approaches for decision making but also it will show
a more detailed analysis path, compared to other
more global solutions.

STEINBEIS ADVANCED RISK TECHNOLOGIES

RBIF: Standardization Process
Status: Risk
Based Inspection
Framework Publication
(RBIF) of the
Standard

No 2,2M
Registration Start
of the WI Enquiry

Send draft to
6M 2M 3M 8M Formal Vote? Publication
Tanslation of the
Standard

Send draft End

to Enquiry Enquiry Yes 0,5 M 2M 2M 2,2M

Edition of Formal
the Draft Vote

Technical Work

CEN/CMC Processing &

Translation
STEINBEIS ADVANCED RISK TECHNOLOGIES
Enquiry or Formal Vote
RBIF: Standardization Process

 In February 2015, the RBIF was accepted as a PWI

(Preliminary Work Item) 00319020

 It is expected that at the end of October the Draft is

sent for Enquiry

 Due to the high European Support showed with the

RBIF project it is expected to have a 71% positive
weighted after the enquiry. This will allow to skip the
Formal Vote and the standard can be published earlier

STEINBEIS ADVANCED RISK TECHNOLOGIES

Contents of the RBIF Standard

RBIF Framework
• RBIF Principles,
• Requirements (Personnel, for performing PoF/CoF/Risk
analysis)

RBIF Procedure
• Initial analysis and planning,
• Data collection and validation,
• Multilevel risk analysis,
• Decision Making/Action Plan,
• Execution and reporting,
• Evergreen phase/Performing review

Annex (Examples)
• Screening and detailed risk assessment,
• Assessment of damage susceptibility(Ref. VGB 506),
• Reliability Assessment (Ref. VGB 506)
• Type of damage vs. Prioritized methods of inspection…
STEINBEIS ADVANCED RISK TECHNOLOGIES
• ...
Contents of the RBIF Standard

RBIF Framework
• RBIF Principles,
• Requirements (Personnel, for performing PoF/CoF/Risk
analysis)

RBIF Procedure
• Initial analysis and planning,
• Data collection and validation,
• Multilevel risk analysis,
• Decision Making/Action Plan,
• Execution and reporting,
• Evergreen phase/Performing review

Annex (Examples)
• Screening and detailed risk assessment,
• Assessment of damage susceptibility(Ref. VGB 506),
• Reliability Assessment (Ref. VGB 506)
• Type of damage vs. Prioritized methods of inspection…
STEINBEIS ADVANCED RISK TECHNOLOGIES
• ...
RBIF Procedure

STEINBEIS ADVANCED RISK TECHNOLOGIES

RBIF Procedure: Initial Analysis and Planning
1. Definition of objectives (e.g. company health and
safety objectives, optimize timing (prioritization)
and extent of next inspection);

2. Definition of the systems, sub-systems (loops) and

components to be considered, as well as the
respective boundaries (e.g.: preheating system from
inlet x to outlet y [P&ID No. xyz] including pressure
vessels xyz, heat-exchangers xyz, and pumps xyz,
etc.);

3. Definition of the scope of analysis, including operating

conditions and exceptional situations to be covered
(e.g. start-up/shutdown, disturbances, accidents
etc.), as well as the operating period covered;

4. Definition of data sources available (e.g. design data,

equipment history, component inspection data, PHA
studies, etc.);

5. Definition of regulations to be consider;

6. Team specifications;

7. Tools (software) to be used;

8. Accuracy of the acceptance of the methodology and

objectives with relevant institutions concerned (e.g.
management and external, approved bodies and
authorities).

STEINBEIS ADVANCED RISK TECHNOLOGIES

RBIF Procedure: Data collection and
validation
Data collection and validation

Data collected shall include:

 plant level data,

 design and available manufacturing and

construction data,

 operation,

 maintenance and inspection,

 safety systems (e.g. fire detection

systems, etc.),

 research to other relevant international

available experience and

 business related economic data

(optional)

STEINBEIS ADVANCED RISK TECHNOLOGIES

RBIF Procedure: Multilevel Risk Analysis

Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

PoF = GFF x Modification Factor PoF = GFF x Modification Factor

P.L2-1.1 Industry experience
P.L1-1. Damage/failure statistics
P.L2-1.2. Component age since installed

P.L2-2.1. Design concerns

P.L1-2. Damage related to design, P.L2-2.2. Potential material problems
material or assembly
P.L2-2.3. Corrosion s uscep tibility due to material type
Probability/Likelihood
(of failure, PoF) P.L2-2.4. Rep airs / damage

P.L2-3.1. Quality of water/steam chemistry

GFF – Selection from table
P.L2-3.2. Potential for mechanical fatigue stress
GFF – Generic Failure Frequency
P.L2-3.3. Potential for thermal fatigue stresses

P.L2-3.4. Local mechanical over-stressing

P.L1-3. Damage caused by P.L2-3.5. Local hot spots
operating conditions P.L2-3.6. Nominal operating temperature (relative to design operating
temperature)

P.L2-3.7. Corrosion s usceptibility due to operating conditions Detailed analysis

P.L2-3.8. Temperature excursions based on (e.g.):
P.L2-3.9. Number of cold start-ups or shutdowns over design number acc. to standard [%]

P.L2-3.10. Number of warm start-ups or shutdowns over design number acc. to standard [%]
> strain measurements
P.L2-3.11. Number of hot start-ups or shutdowns over design number acc. to standard [%]
> hardness meas.
Risk P.L2-3.12. Typical s tart-up rate/loading rate
> A-parameter
Creep
P.L2-3.13. Calculated exhaustion > FE Analysis
Fatigue
> crack assessment
P.L2-4.1. External inspection status
>...
P.L2-4.2. External inspection status

P.L2-4.3. Pressure testing status

P.L1-4. Inspection status & findings P.L2-4.4. Qualitative inspection effectiven ess category

P.L2-4.5. Replica damage class

P.L2-4.6. Damage/degradation presen t

C.L2-1.1. Number of persons

C.L1-1. Health and safety C.L2-1.2. Injury type/severity of harm - S
Consequences (of consequences C.L2-1.3. Occupancy parameter/frequency and duration of exposure to
failure, CoF) hazard of a person/persons - F
C.L2-1.4. Inevitability parameter, taking into account the vulnerability Av
GCC – Selection from table C-L1-2. Environmental C.L2-2.1. Environment
GCC – Generic Consequence Class consequences
C.L2-2.2. Estimated area affected by failure (outside plant)

C.L2-3.1. Lost megawatt hours (lost production)

C.L1-3. Economic consequences C.L2-3.2. Estimated cost in the area affected by failure
C.L2-3.3. Rep air cos t

Factor-Based CoF Factor-Based CoF

STEINBEIS ADVANCED RISK TECHNOLOGIES

RBIF Procedure: Multilevel Risk Analysis

Qualitative Semi-Quantitative Quantitative

Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

PoF = GFF x Modification Factor PoF = GFF x Modification Factor

P.L2-1.1 Industry experience
P.L1-1. Damage/failure statistics
P.L2-1.2. Component age since installed

P.L2-2.1. Design concerns

P.L1-2. Damage related to design, P.L2-2.2. Potential material problems
material or assembly
P.L2-2.3. Corrosion s uscep tibility due to material type
Probability/Likelihood
(of failure, PoF) P.L2-2.4. Rep airs / damage

P.L2-3.1. Quality of water/steam chemistry

GFF – Selection from table
P.L2-3.2. Potential for mechanical fatigue stress
GFF – Generic Failure Frequency
P.L2-3.3. Potential for thermal fatigue stresses

P.L2-3.4. Local mechanical over-stressing

P.L1-3. Damage caused by P.L2-3.5. Local hot spots
operating conditions P.L2-3.6. Nominal operating temperature (relative to design operating
temperature)

P.L2-3.7. Corrosion s usceptibility due to operating conditions Detailed analysis

P.L2-3.8. Temperature excursions based on (e.g.):
P.L2-3.9. Number of cold start-ups or shutdowns over design number acc. to standard [%]

P.L2-3.10. Number of warm start-ups or shutdowns over design number acc. to standard [%]
> strain measurements
P.L2-3.11. Number of hot start-ups or shutdowns over design number acc. to standard [%]
> hardness meas.
Risk P.L2-3.12. Typical s tart-up rate/loading rate
> A-parameter
Creep
P.L2-3.13. Calculated exhaustion > FE Analysis
Fatigue
> crack assessment
P.L2-4.1. External inspection status
>...
P.L2-4.2. External inspection status

P.L2-4.3. Pressure testing status

P.L1-4. Inspection status & findings P.L2-4.4. Qualitative inspection effectiven ess category

P.L2-4.5. Replica damage class

P.L2-4.6. Damage/degradation presen t

C.L2-1.1. Number of persons

C.L1-1. Health and safety C.L2-1.2. Injury type/severity of harm - S
Consequences (of consequences C.L2-1.3. Occupancy parameter/frequency and duration of exposure to
failure, CoF) hazard of a person/persons - F
C.L2-1.4. Inevitability parameter, taking into account the vulnerability Av
GCC – Selection from table C-L1-2. Environmental C.L2-2.1. Environment
GCC – Generic Consequence Class consequences
C.L2-2.2. Estimated area affected by failure (outside plant)

C.L2-3.1. Lost megawatt hours (lost production)

C.L1-3. Economic consequences C.L2-3.2. Estimated cost in the area affected by failure
C.L2-3.3. Rep air cos t

Factor-Based CoF Factor-Based CoF

Initial expert
Screening Intermediate
based Detailed
5 Modification 25 Modification Factors
assumption STEINBEIS Analysis
Factors for GFFADVANCED RISK
for TECHNOLOGIES
GFF
of GFF
RBIF Procedure: Is the risk acceptable?

If NO, perform Level 2 assessment…

Action as for High Risk, consider

V.High
replacement

High
Medium Risk High Risk
High
Level 3

PoF
(detailed analysis, based on e.g.)
Medium
 Detailed NDT
 Strain measurements
Low  Hardness measurements
Low Low Risk Medium Risk  A-parameter
 FE analysis
 Crack assessment
Negligible  ...

Low High
CoF
Decision making /
Action Plan

Execution and Reporting

Performance Review /
Evergreen Phase

STEINBEIS ADVANCED RISK TECHNOLOGIES

Annex A: Examples
 Examples within the RBIF Standard are referring to the

VGB-Standard-S-506-R-00;2012-03
(Formely VGB-R 506e)

Describes possibilities and methods for the condition

monitoring and inspection of steam boiler plant
components, pressure vessel installations and high-
pressure water and steam pipes.

STEINBEIS ADVANCED RISK TECHNOLOGIES

Annex A: Examples

 Main objective: Propose a set of

measures in the form of different
inspection modules.
 The modules allow carrying out
inspections of the components
under internal pressure,
simultaneously using the entire
discretional area, including the
extension of inspection periods.

Accordance with BetrSichV 15 (Ordinance on

Industrial Safety and Health), the plant
owner subject to supervisions shall fix he
inspection periods on the basis of a hazard
assessment/technical safety assessment
according to VGB Guideline R 104 – O) STEINBEIS ADVANCED RISK TECHNOLOGIES
Annex A3: Examples

 The example Level 1 Probability Factors (Assessment

of damage Susceptibility in RBIF is adapted from he
Annex 5 from VGB-Standard-S-506)

STEINBEIS ADVANCED RISK TECHNOLOGIES

P.L1-1. Damage/failure statistics

QUESTION Provide a value for the “Damage/Failure Statistics” Factor, according to the scale below.

Hints Are you aware of this type of component failing in your operating company, or the industry? If yes, how often?

Explanation We look at both critical damage, unacceptable for further operation, and failure statistics, and how this knowledge influences the
Generic Failure Frequency (GFF). Example: if a vessel has GFF of 5·10-4, the high level of damages and failures can increase the PoF to
e.g. 8·10-4(NOTE: An example only!).

N/A Not applicable: Not relevant, not applied. Nicht relevant: Nicht betrachtet in der Analyse.
ANSWER
(Value/Scale) Very low: Shows no evidence of failure (Long Sehr niedrig: kein Hinweis auf möglichen Schaden - Schadensstatistiken (intern und
VL
operating experience) extern) beruht auf lange Betriebserfahrung
Low: Shows no evidence of failure (Short operating Niedrig: kein Hinweis auf möglichen Schaden - Schadensstatistiken (intern und extern)
L
experience) beruht auf kurzer Betriebserfahrung
Medium: Isolated cases only (internal or external Mittel: Schadensstatistiken (intern und extern) zeigen nur vereinzelte Schäden
M statistics)
High: Failures have occurred in similar components Hoch: Schadensstatistiken (intern und extern) zeigen Schäden an vergleichbaren
H (internally or externally) Komponenten
Very high: Failures regularly occur on similar Sehr hoch: Schadensstatistiken (intern und extern) zeigen vermehrt Schäden an
VH*
components / Statistics not available* vergleichbaren Komponenten / Schadensstatistiken nicht verfügbar*

References: VGB-S-506, adapted

Comments/ 1. If there is any doubt regarding the interpretation of the text, the German wording prevails
Warnings: 2. Alternatively, the L/M/H scale can be used
* - This value to be assumed/applied if value for this factor is unknown, or data are not available

STEINBEIS ADVANCED RISK TECHNOLOGIES

P.L1-2. Failure/damage related to design, material or
assembly

QUESTION Provide a value for the “Failure/damage related to design, material or assembly” factor, according to the scale below.

Hints To answer the question, two things must be considered:

1) What is the length of operating experience with regards to the material and/or design of the component (in your operating
company, and industry-wide)?
2) Are you aware of any issues with the material, design or assembly of the component in your company, or industry-wide,
particularly in the first years of component operation?

Explanation: This factor considers whether there is an increased probability of failure (or critical damage unacceptable for further operation) in the
first years of operation of the component, due to the component design, material of construction or the assembly.

N/A Not applicable: Not relevant, not applied.
ANSWER
(Value/Scale) Very low: Damage/failure related to design,
VL material or assembly not expected (Long
operating experience)
Low: Damage/failure related to design, material or
L assembly not expected (Short operating
experience)
Medium: Early-life damage/failure related to
M
design, material or assembly sporadically expected
High: Early-life damage/failure related to design,
H material or assembly regularly expected
Very high: Increased rate of early-life
VH* damage/failure related to design, material or
assembly expected
Nicht relevant: Nicht betrachtet in der Analyse.
Sehr niedrig: Konstruktions-, Material- oder Montagefehler sind nicht zu erwarten
(Lange Betriebserfahrung)
Niedrig: Konstruktions-, Material- oder Montagefehler sind nicht zu erwarten (Kurze
Betriebserfahrung)
Mittel: Es ist mit Konstruktions-, Material- oder Montagefehler in den ersten Jahren
vereinzelt zu rechnen
Hoch: Es ist mit Konstruktions-, Material- oder Montagefehler in den ersten Jahren zu
rechnen
Sehr hoch: Es werden vermehrt Konstruktions-, Material- oder Montagefehler in den
ersten Jahren auftreten

References: VGB-S-506, adapted

Comments/ 1. If there is any doubt regarding the interpretation of the text, the German wording prevails
Warnings: 2. Alternatively, the L/M/H scale can be used
* - This value to be assumed/applied if value for this factor is unknown, or data are not available

STEINBEIS ADVANCED RISK TECHNOLOGIES

P.L1-3. Damage caused by operating conditions

QUESTION Provide a value for the “Damage caused by operating conditions” factor, according to the scale below.

Hints Are you aware of the possibility of damage occurring due to the combination of the material and operating conditions/process fluids
used? If yes, consider the frequency of occurrence, and the rate of the degradation.

Explanation: Takes into account damage arising from the operating conditions, or the combination of process fluid and material used, and also the
frequency of this damage occurring. Example: X20CrMoV121 main steam piping operating in the creep range (~530°C) is susceptible
to creep damage - this is normal and the component(s) are designed with this in mind, thus the answer can be Medium in this case.
High and Very High answers can be given if the known damage state exceeds normal expectations, or if the operating conditions
influencing the damage exceed normal boundaries.

N/A Not applicable: Not relevant, not applied.
ANSWER
(Value/Scale) Very low: Not susceptible under all foreseeable and
known operating conditions / not expected due to
VL
the process fluid and material used (Long
operating experience)
Low: Not susceptible under all foreseeable and
known operating conditions / not expected due to
L the process fluid and material used (Short
operating experience)
Medium: Susceptible due to the known operating
conditions and type of construction / damage may
M occasionally occur due to the process fluids and
materials used
High: Expected to occur due to the known operating Hoch: Es können Schäden aufgrund der bisher bekannten Betriebsbedingungen
H conditions / damage expected due to the process
fluids and the material used
Very high: Increased rate of damage due to the
VH* known operating conditions / very probable due to
the process fluids and materials used
Nicht relevant: Nicht betrachtet in der Analyse.
Sehr niedrig: Nicht anfällig unter allen vorhersehbaren und bisher bekannten
Betriebsbedingungen / aufgrund der eingesetzten Werkstoffe und des Prozessmediums
nicht zu erwarten (Lange Betriebserfahrung)
Niedrig: Nicht anfällig unter allen vorhersehbaren und bisher bekannten
Betriebsbedingungen / aufgrund der eingesetzten Werkstoffe und des Prozessmediums
nicht zu erwarten (Kurze Betriebserfahrung)
Mittel: Anfällig aufgrund der bisher bekannten Betriebsbedingungen und bauartbedingt
/ aufgrund der eingesetzten Werkstoffe und Medien könnten vereinzelt Schäden
auftreten
auftreten / aufgrund der eingesetzten Werkstoffe und Medien werden Schäden erwartet
Sehr hoch: Es können vermehrt Schäden aufgrund der bisher bekannten
Betriebsbedingungen auftreten / aufgrund der eingesetzten Werkstoffe und des
Mediums sind Schäden sehr wahrscheinlich

References: VGB-S-506, adapted

Comments/ 1. If there is any doubt regarding the interpretation of the text, the German wording prevails
Warnings: 2. Alternatively, the L/M/H scale can be used
* - This value to be assumed/applied if value for this factor is unknown, or data are not available

STEINBEIS ADVANCED RISK TECHNOLOGIES

P.L1-4. Inspection status & findings

QUESTION Provide a value for the “Inspection status & findings” factor, according to the scale below.

Hints Internal and external inspection refers to the position where the inspection was carried out, i.e. on the inside or outside surfaces of the
component.

Definition / This factor considers whether this component or sub-component (e.g. weld, bend), has been inspected within the prescribed periods for
Explanation: internal and external inspection and pressure testing, as applicable, and whether damage or degradation has been discovered by the
inspection. It also conservatively considers components deserving special attention, if no inspection has previously been performed.
Note: Please refer to the appendix below for the prescribed periods for internal and external inspection and pressure testing applicable
to your country.

N/A Not applicable: Not relevant, not applied. Nicht relevant: Nicht betrachtet in der Analyse.
Scale:
Very low: The last inspection was within the Sehr niedrig:
VL prescribed period, and no damage indications were
found

Medium: The last inspection was outside the Mittel:

M prescribed period, and no damage indications were
found
High: The last inspection was within the prescribed Hoch:
H period, and damage indications were found
Very high: The last inspection was outside the Sehr hoch:
VH* prescribed period, and damage indications were
found OR no inspection performed at all

References:

Comments/ 1. If there is any doubt regarding the interpretation of the text, the German wording prevails
Warnings: 2. Alternatively, the L/M/H scale can be used
3. Please refer to the appendix on the following slide for prescribed periods of internal and external inspection and pressure testing
* - This value to be assumed/applied if value for this factor is unknown, or data are not available

STEINBEIS ADVANCED RISK TECHNOLOGIES

To Conclude

 2004 – “RIMAP Method“ was developed for risk-based

decisions with respect to inspections and maintenance
which was tested in different industries
 2008 – CWA 15740:2008 was published as main
outcome of RIMAP project
 2012 – The second edition of the VGB Standard was
published (VGB-Standard-S-506-R-00;2012-03)
 2016 – European Standard for Risk Based
Inspection Framework

Common goal: To ensure that defined and accepted levels of risk

related to safety, health, environment and
business/production/operation are achieved by using risk-based
methods of inspection. S A
TEINBEISR T
DVANCED ISK ECHNOLOGIES
 Thank you!

STEINBEIS ADVANCED RISK TECHNOLOGIES

View publication stats