Consequence of Failure (COF)

Last update: Jan 13, 2017

Consequence of Failure (COF) is one part of the equation to determine risk as part of Risk Based Inspection (RBI) methodology. The COF, calculated together with the Probability of Failure (POF), helps establish the risk level for particular piece of equipment and set inspection intervals based on the calculated risk.

COF is calculated by reviewing and ranking the potential consequences for the equipment, personnel, environment, etc. in the event of equipment failure. More details on COF are given in API RP 580 - Risk Based Inspection (RBI), which contains directions on developing, implementing and maintaining an effective RBI program.

 

Recommend changes or revisions to this definition.

REGISTER FOR INSPECTIONEERING'S WEEKLY NEWSLETTER

Join 8,000+ fellow asset integrity professionals! Get Inspectioneering's latest information straight to your inbox. Enter your information below:


Criticality Assessment of Piping Systems for  Oil & Gas Facilities
May/June 2014 Inspectioneering Journal

Ensuring the integrity of process piping systems in the Oil & Gas industry (specifically those related to the ASME Code B31.3) is a key issue with respect to the process, business, safety, and the environment. However, in the current cost reduction environment, some companies are adopting a very risky strategy for piping systems where maintenance and inspection tasks are reduced and eliminated indiscriminately, without considering the relative importance of piping for the process.

Blog
June 3, 2013 By Greg Alvarado at Inspectioneering Journal

This is the third of four blogs in a series about Risk Based Inspection (RBI). You can read the previous blogs on a history and reasons for RBI and on starting to define risk. This post deals with the second half of the equation used to define risk...

Blog
May 28, 2013 By Greg Alvarado at Inspectioneering Journal

This is the second of four blog posts on Risk Based Inspection, or RBI. The first post covered a brief history and started the discussion on why you would want to use RBI. The next step is defining risk. 

Understanding Key Performance Indicators (Lest We Forget...) Part 2
Blog
April 29, 2013 By Greg Alvarado at Inspectioneering Journal

This is my second of three posts on Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) based on requests and discussions on the issue.  In part 1 of this series I provided a brief overview of KPIs and their ability to predict good, poor, and sometimes dangerous performance in our quests to achieve certain objectives and goals.

Fitness for service: a powerful tool to keep your plant running safely
Partner Content

FFS assessment techniques are applicable to a wide range of damage types: LTA's, cracks, creep damage, dents, and more. These are very powerful analytical tools that often allow operators to not only keep the plant running, but to keep it running safely.

Where Do I Set My Risk Threshold?
September/October 2007 Inspectioneering Journal
By Greg Alvarado at Inspectioneering Journal

In my travels around the world as one of the primary API RBI 580/581 training course instructors the question always comes up, “What risk threshold or tolerable risk should I be using?” and “If I do not have one, how can I implement RBI?”

March/April 1995 Inspectioneering Journal
By John Reynolds at Intertek

Many promising advances are being made in inspection technologies, today. Some are going to provide opportunities for companies to maintain and increase equipment mechanical integrity, quite possibly at lower costs.