The situation we are usually called into
An operator inspects its static equipment — vessels, piping circuits, heat exchangers, tanks — on fixed intervals inherited from code minimums and historical practice. Shutdown resource is consumed opening vessels with negligible damage rates, while a small number of circuits with active damage mechanisms receive the same routine attention as everything else.
The deeper problem is that damage mechanisms have not been identified per circuit. Without knowing whether a circuit is subject to CO₂ corrosion, microbiologically influenced corrosion, erosion, chloride stress corrosion cracking or high-temperature sulphidation, an inspection is a look — not a measurement of a known degradation path. Technique, location and interval cannot be chosen rationally.
- Inspection and shutdown scope are among the largest controllable cost lines in an operating asset, and among the least differentiated by risk.
- Digital work-order and shutdown optimisation is associated with planned-downtime cost reductions of 15–30%.
- Risk-based approaches align inspection effort with probability × consequence — the same logic the enterprise already applies elsewhere under ISO 31000.
The real problem: conservatism you cannot price
When the damage mechanism is unknown, every interval is set conservatively — because conservatism is the rational response to uncertainty. RBI does not reduce risk appetite. It reduces uncertainty, and lets you stop paying for the conservatism uncertainty demanded.
How we run the programme
Establish corrosion circuits
Group equipment by shared process conditions and materials, so that damage mechanisms can be assigned meaningfully rather than item by item.
Identify credible damage mechanisms per circuit
Named, not assumed. This is the step that makes every subsequent decision defensible.
Assess probability of failure
From damage rate, remaining thickness, inspection history and inspection effectiveness — with explicit acknowledgement that a poor inspection reduces uncertainty far less than a good one.
Assess consequence of failure
On the operator’s own risk framework — safety, environmental, business interruption — in the same terms used elsewhere in the enterprise, so results are comparable.
Derive inspection plans from risk
Technique, coverage, location and interval chosen to detect the specific mechanism credible for that circuit. The basis is documented, therefore defensible to the regulator.
Evergreen the assessment
RBI is not a study. Assessments update as inspection findings, process changes and damage-rate evidence arrive — otherwise the model decays into the fixed intervals it replaced.
What makes it survive the next budget cycle
What the client is left with
An inspection programme based on what can actually damage each circuit — with shutdown scope reduced, integrity margins maintained, and an explanation, item by item, of why.