Risk-Based Inspection Method for Hazardous Processing Equipment

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Conventional inspection methods for Ex equipment in hazardous environments, such as FPSOs, are inefficient and costly, leading to potential safety risks and inconsistencies in reporting, as they fail to effectively prioritize repairs based on the severity of faults and exposure to hazardous conditions.

Innovation Solution

A computer-implemented method that provides a repair priority parameter for processing devices in a processing plant by using a criticality database to assess inspection results, incorporating ignition risk, hazardous zone, primary location, and secondary location scores to determine the urgency of repairs, thereby optimizing the inspection and repair process.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Productivity

If conventional inspection methods are used for Ex equipment, then inspection coverage is achieved, but inspection efficiency is low and costs are high

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveinspection efficiencyVSAvoidinspection time
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent changes the inspection parameters by introducing a risk-based approach that calculates inspection intervals and priorities based on multiple factors including equipment criticality, consequence of failure, likelihood of failure, and exposure to hazardous areas. This transforms the traditional uniform inspection approach into a differentiated parameter-based system that optimizes inspection resources.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

Solution Approach 2:

The patent segments the inspection process by dividing equipment into different risk categories and inspection priority levels. Equipment is segmented based on criticality scores, consequence ratings, and exposure zones, allowing inspection resources to be allocated differently across various equipment groups rather than applying a blanket inspection schedule to all equipment.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

2Reliability

If conventional inspection methods are used, then all equipment is inspected, but repair prioritization is inconsistent

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesafety assuranceVSAvoidfault severity information
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSLoss of information

Solution Approach 1:

The patent implements feedback mechanisms where inspection results are fed into the risk calculation system, which then updates equipment risk profiles and adjusts future inspection intervals. The system continuously learns from inspection outcomes and failure data, refining its risk assessments and repair prioritization recommendations over time.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

The patent introduces an intermediary risk assessment system that sits between inspection data collection and repair decision-making. This intermediary system processes raw inspection results through standardized consequence and likelihood calculations, transforming unstructured inspection data into structured risk scores that guide consistent repair prioritization across the organization.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

3Reliability

If frequent inspections are performed on all equipment, then safety is maintained, but costs increase significantly

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveequipment safetyVSAvoidinspection resources
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSLoss of energy

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies partial action by performing more frequent inspections only on high-risk equipment that requires it for safety, while performing less frequent inspections on low-risk equipment. This partial approach to intensive inspection optimizes resource allocation by applying excessive inspection frequency only where necessary rather than uniformly across all equipment.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Solution Approach 2:

The patent dynamically changes inspection frequency parameters based on calculated risk levels. Equipment with high consequence of failure and high likelihood of failure receives more frequent inspection intervals, while equipment with low risk parameters receives extended intervals, optimizing the balance between safety assurance and resource consumption.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

4Productivity

If equipment is inspected and repaired promptly, then downtime is reduced, but inspection and repair costs increase

Engineering Contradiction:
ImproveFPSO utilizationVSAvoidmaintenance resources
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSQuantity of substance

Solution Approach 1:

The patent performs preliminary risk assessment and prioritization actions before actual inspection and repair activities. By pre-calculating risk scores, consequence ratings, and likelihood of failure for all equipment, the system prepares a prioritized action plan that guides subsequent inspection and repair resource allocation, ensuring that limited maintenance resources are directed to the most critical equipment first.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Data Source

PatentUS20230196224A1Improved risk based inspection method
Publication Date: 2023.06.22 SINGLE BUOY MOORINGS INC
  • US20230196224A1 patent drawing
  • US20230196224A1 patent drawing
  • US20230196224A1 patent drawing

AI summary

Improved risk based inspection including a method for providing a repair priority parameter for a processing device in a processing plant, wherein the method comprises the steps of:providing, in a server, a criticality database, wherein the criticality database comprises for a plurality of processing devices in said processing plant at least one inspection routine, wherein each of the inspection routines has associated therewith a critically score;receiving in a server, from a user terminal, a result parameter associated with an inspection routine associated with said processing device, wherein the result parameter is indicative for a pass or a fail of said inspection routine;retrieving, if said received result parameter is indicative for a fail, from said criticality database the criticality score associated with said failed routine and said processing device; anddefining said repair priority parameter for said processing device based on the retrieved criticality score.