Innovative approach of damage mechanism identification for energy equipment – A case study of oil refinery

References

• Alvarado, G. 2018. RBI lessons learned - Common and not so common pitfalls and how to avoid them. Inspectioneering Journal November/December.
   Google Scholar
• API 579-1/ASME FFS-1. 2016. Fitness-For-Service. American Petroleum Institute and The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. June.
   Google Scholar
• API Recommended Practice 510. 2014. Pressure vessel inspection code: In-service inspection, rating, repair, and alteration. 10th ed. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. May.
   Google Scholar
• API Recommended Practice 570. 2016. Piping inspection code: In-service inspection, rating, repair, and alteration of piping systems. 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. February.
   Google Scholar
• API Recommended Practice 571. 2011. Damage mechanisms affecting fixed equipment in the refining industry. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. April.
   Google Scholar
• API Recommended Practice 578. 2018. Guidelines for a Material Verification Program (MVP) for new and existing assets. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. February.
   Google Scholar
• API Recommended Practice 580. 2016. Risk-based inspection. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. February.
   Google Scholar
• API Recommended Practice 581. 2016. Risk-based inspection methodology. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. April. Addendum1, April 2019.
   Google Scholar
• API Recommended Practice 584. 2014. Integrity operating windows. 1st ed. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. May.
   Google Scholar
• API Recommended Practice 934-A. 2008. Materials and fabrication requirements for 2-1/4Cr-1Mo,2-1/4Cr-1Mo-1/4V, 3Cr 1Mo and 3Cr-1Mo-1/4V steel heavy wall pressure vessels for high temperature, high pressure service. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. May.
   Google Scholar
• API Recommended Practice 934-C. 2008. Materials and fabrication requirements for 1 1/4Cr-1/2Mo steel heavy wall pressure vessels for high temperature, high pressure hydrogen service. 1st ed. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. May.
   Google Scholar
• API Recommended Practice 939-C. 2008. Guidelines for avoiding sulfidation (Sulfidic) corrosion failures in oil refineries. American Petroleum Institute. May.
   Google Scholar
• API Recommended Practice 941. 2016. Steels for hydrogen service at elevated temperatures and pressures in petroleum refineries and petrochemical plants. 8th ed. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. February.
   Google Scholar
• API Recommended Practice 945. 2003. Avoiding environmental cracking in amine units. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. June.
   Google Scholar
• API Recommended Practice 970. 2017. Corrosion control documents. 1st ed. Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. December.
   Google Scholar
• API Standard 653. 2014. Tank inspection, repair, alteration, and reconstruction. 5th ed. American Petroleum Institute. November.
   Google Scholar
• ASME B31.3-2016. 2017. Process piping, ASME code for pressure piping, B31. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
   Google Scholar
• ASME PCC-3-2017. 2017. Inspection planning using risk-based methods. New York, NY: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. December.
   Google Scholar
• Bhatia, K., F. Khan, H. Patel, and R. Abbassi. 2019. Dynamic risk-based inspection methodology. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 62:103974. doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2019.103974.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delvosalle, C., C. Fievez, A. Pipart, and B. Debray. 2006. ARAMIS project: A comprehensive methodology for the identification of reference accident scenarios in process industries. Journal of Hazardous Materials 130 (3):200–19. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2005.07.005.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halloul, Y., S. Chiban, and A. Awad. 2019. Adapted fuzzy fault tree analysis for oil storage tank fire. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects 41 (8):948–58. doi:10.1080/15567036.2018.1522393.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hourtolou, D., and O. Salvi. 2003. ARAMIS PROJECT accidental risk assessment methodology for industries in the framework of SEVESO II directive. 1st World Congress on Risk, Bruxelles, Belgium. June.
   Google Scholar
• Kahforoushan, D., and E. Fatehifar. 2010. The development and evaluation of emission factors for gas turbines (Multi-pollutant) in oil and gas processing plants. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects 33 (3):275–82. doi:10.1080/15567031003773296.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumasaki, M., and Y. Oka. 2016. Risk assessment of potential gas odorants for the storage process. Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry 126 (3):1757–62. doi:10.1007/s10973-016-5742-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lagad, V., and V. Zaman. 2015. Utilizing Integrity Operating Windows (IOWs) for enhanced plant reliability & safety. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 35:352–56. doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2014.10.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pilić, V., D. Baloš, V. Mihajlović, A. Anđelković, and D. Đaković. 2019. An innovative approach to the damage mechanisms identification methodology for pressure equipment. 4th International Conference on Smart and Sustainable Technologies (SpliTech), Bol and Split, Croatia. doi:10.23919/SpliTech.2019.8782923.
   Google Scholar
• Roy, A., P. Srivastava, and S. Sinha. 2015. Dynamic failure assessment of an ammonia storage unit: A case study. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 94:385–401. doi:10.1016/j.psep.2014.09.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh Bhangu, N., G. L. Pahuja, and R. Singh. 2015. Application of fault tree analysis for evaluating reliability and risk assessment of a thermal power plant. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects 37 (18):2004–12. doi:10.1080/15567036.2012.664608.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Villa, V., N. Paltrinieri, F. Khan, and V. Cozzani. 2016. Towards dynamic risk analysis: A review of the risk assessment approach and its limitations in the chemical process industry. Safety Science 89:77–93. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2016.06.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, Q., W. J. Rogers, and M. S. Mannan. 2009. Thermal risk assessment and rankings for reaction hazards in process safety. Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry 98 (1):225–33. doi:10.1007/s10973-009-0135-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson, R. 2015. Capital improvement project evaluation: A hydroelectric generation economic perspective. International Journal of Energy Research 39 (10):1402–19. doi:10.1002/er.3343.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zio, E. 2018. The future of risk assessment. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 177:176–90. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2018.04.020.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar