API RBI Software

The API RBI Software Difference

Developed by subject matter experts from top multinational refiners, and backed by the American Petroleum Institute (API), the technology behind API RBI software reflects industry best practices and the expertise of the best minds in the industry.

API consensus process for technology
The technology was developed through an ANSI-approved consensus process, and all technology enhancements continue to be reviewed and balloted by owner/user companies through an API committee. Once approved, the technology is programmed into the software and a field test is conducted for validation. Periodically these results are compared to known incidents to check the answer against industry experience.

Technical basis documentation
The technology is thoroughly documented and updated in API 581, available for purchase from API. The software is a validation of solid technology, as its output is tested against this documentation for accuracy.

Quantitative vs. qualitative
A truly quantitative tool calculates risk over time, that is, risk due to an increasing Probability of Failure (PoF) as in-service damage potentially occurs. API RBI is the only RBI tool that provides metrics and calculates PoF due to ongoing damage. This PoF will generate a location in the Risk Matrix that could move (increase) over time, depending on the impact of damage rate on equipment integrity.

Risk-based cost benefit and decision-making
Because a discreet risk is calculated and can change with time, a cost benefit approach can be used to determine the date where inspection is required. The ability to generate cost benefit (in terms of risk reduction/$ spent) leads to more information for risk management and budgeting.

Risk-based to recommend inspection intervals
API RBI technology uses a true risk-based interval. The methodology offers the option to set a maximum interval (in practice 20 to 25 years) and recommends re-evaluation of the RBI study and basis at a minimum of every 10 years (shorter if operating conditions change). That is, the decision logic generating a recommended inspection is not limited by or based on half-life calculations or prescriptive interval approaches. Credit is earned for knowledge and capitalized on in the risk analysis. Half-life calculations or prescriptive interval approaches do not enter into the inspection recommendations - only risk. The impact of this approach is MORE emphasis on high risk equipment (increasing inspection costs) and LESS emphasis on low risk equipment (decreasing inspection costs). The net result is usually a reduction of overall costs, while still reducing risk.

Various companies have developed RBI approaches based on API 580, which is a qualitative versus quantitative approach. Most tend to be “black-box” or they are too generic to accurately define an auditable inspection/ maintenance plan providing measures of inspection program improvement. The primary goal API RBI is sound technology that produces PoF, CoF and risk numbers you can trust.

Featured Expert

Philip Henry
P.E.

Mr. Henry is responsible for engineering consulting services in the areas of Pressure Relief, Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow. He is a specialist in the design, installation...

learn more

Philip Henry, P.E.

Mr. Henry is responsible for engineering consulting services in the areas of Pressure Relief, Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow. He is a specialist in the design, installation, sizing and selection of pressure relief devices and relieving systems, and is currently chairman of the API Pressure Relieving System Subcommittee’s Task Force on API 520 related to the design and installation of pressure relieving systems. He conducts audits of pressure relieving systems to ensure compliance with OSHA PSM legislation and ASME, API and DIERs Standards, Codes and Publications. He also teaches the official API Pressure Relieving Systems course.

He is actively involved in the development of technology for the API Risk-Based Inspection (RBI) methodology, is co-author of the re-write of API 581, Risked-Based Inspection Base Resource Document. He has been responsible for the development and implementation of RBI programs for pressure relief valves and heat exchanger bundles at many refining and petrochemical plants.

Mr. Henry is also an expert in the area of mechanical and thermal design of unfired heat exchangers, including troubleshooting of performance problems, fouling evaluation, network optimization and pinch analysis, mechanical vibration and field performance testing. He performs steady state and transient hydraulic evaluation of piping systems, including multi-phase flow systems, and develops bolting procedures for flanged joints including use of hydraulic torquing, tensioning, and ultrasonic elongation equipment. Mr. Henry has significant experience with the design and analysis of in-service fixed equipment. He has been responsible for rerating vessels to the ASME Code and NBIC and has applied FFS assessments in accordance with API 579. He has provided problem-solving support during numerous refinery shutdowns.

Contact Us

VCEDamage

Your guide through the maze of refinery damage mechanisms

With a technical basis in API RP 571 and WRC 489, VCEDamage software is a quick reference guide for identifying and understanding the potential...

The Benchmark Tool for FFS Assessments

Used by oil refining and petrochemical plants worldwide, VCESage™ is a collection of program modules in which a group of mechanical engineering assessment capabilities...