The Fixed Equipment Reliability Journey – Are We on Track? – Part 2

As we transition from the early days of fixed equipment reliability, it's clear that the industry has made significant strides. But how did this journey shape the evolution of on-stream inspections? The previous article discussed the developments that set the stage for equipment reliability programs. In this second part, we explore how these advancements laid the groundwork for on-stream inspection practices and the benefits they bring.

The Road to On-Stream Inspections

You might imagine how the events listed in part 1 of this editorial enabled the evolution toward on-stream inspection initiatives—performing an effective damage mechanisms review to include the best locations to find each kind of mechanism (localized corrosion is often the most challenging), what that damage would look like, the acceptance criteria, etc. With the corrosion specialist and inspection specialist developing highly effective inspection strategies in collaboration, we began to imagine how to use effective and proven technologies and practices (such as credible, effective damage mechanisms reviews) and then use this information to create an effective inspection strategy to perform on-stream inspections in lieu of internal inspection. With this information, acquired effectively as part of a holistic process, one could better predict, detect, characterize, and size damage and damage progress and address equipment integrity and reliability adequately without the risks and costs associated with entering the equipment.

A complementary practice to keep the MI and reliability predictions and strategies up to date is using on-stream monitoring of parameters and practices that can affect the damage rates and states, e.g., integrity operating windows. This could be considered another type of on-stream monitoring. We must have systems in place to detect and understand changes in process conditions, changes in feedstocks and other chemicals present in the equipment, and operating practices. Changes in any of these can invalidate the prediction. With effective systems in place, adjustments can often be made to mitigate damage, alert the owner/operator when action needs to be taken in case the change in damage rates and states will necessitate action before an upcoming turnaround or cause modifications to the turnaround plan for equipment.

Some of the benefits many received from this, which is the focus of this editorial, are better scoping, preparation, and planning for turnarounds, less unnecessary and/or discovery work during turnarounds, i.e., fewer surprises. This should lead to doing a better job of having on-schedule and on-budget, cost-optimized turnarounds. For example, knowing that specific components and equipment items will need replacement or repair months in advance would provide enough time to plan the repairs and replacements and special activities like heat treatment, outgassing equipment, and ordering replacement parts from fabricators, repair, and maintenance contractors. In addition, this holistic approach leads to fewer unplanned shutdowns, directly impacting safety, reliability, and availability—another benefit of an effective, holistic program.

So, we leave readers pondering, how are you doing on this journey?  Is your turnaround performance improving? Is your reliability program performance improving? Do you feel costs are optimized to achieve the level of reliability you seek? The Inspectioneering community would like to hear from you. Share your story on how your reliability journey is tracking. Hopefully, you are progressing in the right direction.

Safety and reliability complement each other. Never forget to Guard the Gate! Keeping our people safe is our most significant commission!