Mechanical Integrity (MI)

Last update: Jan 13, 2017

Mechanical Integrity (MI) can be defined as the management of critical process equipment to ensure it is designed and installed correctly, and that it operates and is maintained properly (i.e. no leaks and all elements are fit for service). A mechanical integrity program should take into account the inspection and testing of the equipment using procedures that are recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (RAGAGEP), and should also consider the suitability of newly-fabricated equipment for usage. Written procedures should be established and implemented, and employees tasked with maintaining the ongoing integrity of process equipment should be adequately trained.

The term mechanical integrity is often used in reference to preventing loss of containment. In the United States, OSHA Regulation 1910.119 requires that the mechanical integrity of equipment is properly managed in order to prevent or minimize the consequences of catastrophic releases of toxic, reactive, flammable, or explosive chemicals.

 

Special thanks to the following contributors to this Integripedia topic:

  1. Pat Williams, KBC Advanced Technologies, Inc.

 

Recommend changes or revisions to this definition.


November/December 2016 Inspectioneering Journal
By Blake Stermer at Sentinel Integrity Solutions

As the industry strives to maintain PSM/OSHA compliance through owner/user mechanical integrity programs, inspection professionals should fully understand technical standards to generate an adequate repair recommendation or request further inspection and testing

7 Questions You Need to Answer when Establishing an Integrity Management Program
November/December 2016 Inspectioneering Journal
By Loganatha Pandian at Meridium, Inc.

This article summarizes seven key questions that an organization needs to answer to create a robust mechanical integrity program that is properly designed to monitor corrosion and indicate when issues increase to a level requiring review or maintenance.

Dead Leg Integrity Management System
November/December 2016 Inspectioneering Journal
By Mohamed Amer at TUV Rheinland

This article describes a high-level dead leg integrity management program overview and is based on experience, knowledge, and adaptation of inspection management philosophies currently being implemented within the Oil & Gas and the petrochemical industry.

Examining the Latest Changes to API RP 581 Risk-Based Inspection Methodology Thinning and the Probability of Failure Calculations
November/December 2016 Inspectioneering Journal
By Lynne Kaley at Trinity Bridge LLC / Trinity Bridge Digital

This paper provides the background for the technology behind the Third Edition thinning model as well as step-by-step worked examples demonstrating the methodology for thinning in this new edition of API RP 581.

November/December 2016 Inspectioneering Journal
By Grady Hatton at Versa Integrity Group, and Marc McConnell, P.E. at Versa Integrity Group

The concept of reducing Condition Monitoring Locations (CMLs) is misguided, and the number and location of CMLs should be OPTIMIZED, not systematically reduced. CML allocation in piping requires a good process, otherwise, you can run into a lot of dead ends before arriving at your intended destination.

The Hierarchy of a Fixed Equipment Asset Integrity Management Program
September/October 2016 Inspectioneering Journal
By John Reynolds at Intertek

Did you ever wonder where you fit into the entire hierarchy of a fixed equipment asset integrity management (FE-AIM) program? Or who is responsible and accountable for what aspects of FE-AIM at your site? All the way from top management down to those doing the work at the field level? That’s what I will try to address in this article.

Program Evergreening and Sustainability Assistance is Key to Establishing Successful Integrity and Reliability Programs
September/October 2016 Inspectioneering Journal
By Kevin Birkby at PinnacleART

Integrity and reliability personnel at processing facilities are no strangers to initiatives to improve processes in the pursuit of establishing best-in-class reliability programs. It is common practice for operators to enlist help from third parties that specialize in implementation of programs like Risk-Based Inspection (RBI) and Asset Management.

July/August 2016 Inspectioneering Journal
By Grady Hatton at Versa Integrity Group, and Melissa Guerra at Chevron Products Company

Many plants inspect PRDs on preset intervals as recommended by inspection code API 510, and implement inspection practices such as API RP 576. Just seeking PRD compliance with codes and standards usually results in mediocre mechanical integrity and process safety. Companies must go further to climb the ladder to “excellence.”

5 Common Misconceptions of Risk-Based Inspection
Online Article
July 8, 2016

Here are five common misconceptions about RBI that should not prevent you from gaining a more advanced understanding of the true state of your site's equipment. After all, the more we know, the better we can manage equipment integrity and make run/inspect/modify/repair/replace decisions.

May/June 2016 Inspectioneering Journal

This paper identifies the attributes and benefits of a data and metrics-driven management system focused on process safety design integrity and reliability relative to loss of primary containment (LOC). This management system process focuses on the four key business drivers of risk (i.e. regulatory compliance, operations, and profits), and involves several distinct business methods involving people, processes, and tools/technology.

Improving Confidence in On-Stream Inspections of Pressure Equipment
May/June 2016 Inspectioneering Journal
By Dr. Yury Sokolov at SVT Engineering Consultants

RBI and NII are designed to achieve significant cost savings and risk mitigation benefits over a piece of equipment’s lifetime in the long term (e.g. through greater reliability and inspection optimization). It is important to strategically consider new NDE technologies to obtain data of sufficient confidence to satisfy the requirements of the risk model.

Does your AIM system optimize the consistency, accuracy and manageability of your facility’s Mechanical Integrity program?
Partner Content

AIM systems should ensure that the your facility’s MI software is accurately performing the calculations needed to calculate minimum thickness, long/short term corrosion rates and remaining life used to predict future inspection intervals. They should evaluate your MI software’s basic design and corrosion monitoring variables.

Keys to Success: How to Design and Use Effective Reliability and Integrity Program Assessments to Drive Sustainable Improvements
January/February 2016 Inspectioneering Journal
By Walt Sanford at PinnacleART, and Mauricio Olivares at Pinnacle ART

Equipment integrity and reliability programs are essential for refinery and chemical facility operators. The processes of the programs are developed to ensure safety, optimize component life cycles, and promote smooth and economical operations.

High Temperature Hydrogen Attack (HTHA): Life Assessment Methods for Carbon Steel and Carbon 0.50% Mo Materials
November/December 2015 Inspectioneering Journal
By Ralph E. King P.E. at Stress Engineering Services, Inc., and Brian Olson at Stress Engineering Services Inc.

To ensure the mechanical integrity and fitness-for-service (FFS) of equipment, facility managers, reliability engineers, and inspection technicians must understand the HTHA damage mechanism.

Reliability and Integrity – Keys to Survival
November/December 2015 Inspectioneering Journal
By Khulani Ndimande at ABB Consulting, and Fernando Vicente at ABB

This article highlights several benefits of sound reliability and mechanical integrity practices and how they serve as the cornerstone of effective asset management. Moreover, we believe effective asset integrity management is not only important, but essential, to overcoming the challenges presented by operating in the current oil and gas market.

Does your AIM system optimize the consistency, accuracy and manageability of your facility’s Mechanical Integrity program?
Partner Content

AIM systems should ensure that the your facility’s MI software is accurately performing the calculations needed to calculate minimum thickness, long/short term corrosion rates and remaining life used to predict future inspection intervals. They should evaluate your MI software’s basic design and corrosion monitoring variables.

A Tale of Two Operating Sites – The Difference in Quality of Two FEMI Programs
November/December 2015 Inspectioneering Journal
By John Reynolds at Intertek

Once upon a time in the land of Ooze, there were two processing plants that boiled oil to make fuels and various other valuable petrochemical products. On one side of the river, rests a site called Perfecto Process Plant, while just across the river lies another plant called InZayna Zylum.