Information Management
Strategies for
Structural Integrity
A Bentley White Paper
Mark Biagi
Solution Executive,
Bentley Systems, Inc.
Published:
August, 2014
www.bentley.com
Executive Summary
An effective structural integrity management program is the single most important
barrier against catastrophic failure in complex industrial facilities. Sadly, structural
failures are still happening all too often, resulting in unplanned shutdowns, loss of
production, financial impacts, loss of shareholder confidence and, sadly, even more
tragic consequences.
“Structural integrity
management is actually
an information
technology challenge.”
Throughout the energy industries, as inherently dangerous assets get increasingly large
and complex, operating in harsh and ecologically sensitive environments, and aging
assets’ lifespans are stretched and process conditions are being pushed to their limits,
structural integrity envelopes are literally being stretched to their breaking point.
• RusHydro Sayano-Shushenskaya
Extensive fatigue damage due to running a high-vibration process and
missing bolts. Seventy-four were people killed.
• Chevron Richmond Refinery
Integrity process failed to identify wall thinning in insulated pipework.
15,000 people were hospitalized.
• San Bruno Pipeline
Poor installation and testing resulted in pipes that are unable to cope with
operating pressure. Eight were people killed and 38 homes were destroyed.
For leading owner-operators, taking responsibility for their own integrity management
is a top priority. For example, Shell’s simple mission statement is, “Our assets are safe.
We know it, and we can show it.” This drives what is arguably the most sophisticated
process safety and integrity management program of any operator in the world.
However, many other operators take a different approach, preferring to rely on
outsourcing to help keep their assets safe. Certainly, there are many contractors with a
rich knowledge of corrosion mechanisms, inspection methods, and products. It is vitally
important that the industry promotes competition in finding ever more effective and
efficient inspection methods to support integrity management processes.
The flip side, however, is that many specialist vendors that only have part of the
solution, along with their own esoteric homegrown software tools, can often introduce
risks into the integrity management process. This includes software products written
by Ph.D. candidates to perform some specific calculation that only one individual
understands. Products that are not in any way integrated into a wider enterprise
context result in:
•lack of consistency,
•poor information flows,
•lack of interoperability, and
•dead-end data.
Enterprise Information Strategies for Integrity Management
2
Conventional asset integrity management methods often involve multiple
organizations across distributed enterprises (e.g., in-house, contractors, technicians,
specialists) working in disconnected workflows with a wide variety of disparate,
technical, esoteric, and non-graphical data sources in multiple specialist software
systems that are relevant only to specific sub-asset types. This inconsistency and lack
of clarity is a barrier to common understanding, introducing risk and inefficiency.
Bentley’s approach is different. Dedicated to sustaining the world’s infrastructure,
Bentley applies sophisticated engineering information management strategies to
facilitate a consistent and auditable process of integrity management across
distributed enterprises and multiple asset types.
Introduction
Bentley is widely recognized as being the leading vendor of structural
engineering design and analysis software with global brand names such as STAAD,
RAM, SACS, MOSES, AutoPIPE, and many more.
Bentley is also a leader in software for structural integrity management (also
sometimes referred to as mechanical integrity management) with major operators,
including Shell, standardizing on Bentley’s strategies for corrosion inspection
management of their pressurized systems.
While there are countless companies specializing in technical aspects of structural
integrity management (such as non-destructive testing, materials sciences,
risk-based inspections, structural analysis) very few of them have the capabilities
around engineering information and asset performance management to address
the practical challenges of an enterprise-wide approach to structural
integrity management.
Bentley’s approach supports the whole integrity management process and the
stakeholders involved, such as corrosion specialists, inspection contractors,
technicians, installation managers, process engineers and so on. Structural integrity
management is a subset of Bentley’s platform for asset performance management.
The fact that structural integrity management is actually an enterprise information
technology challenge is precisely what Shell realized and why it bought into Bentley’s
approach. That is also the reason why this paper is more information technology (IT)
focused than other papers on integrity management.
While Bentley wouldn’t classify itself as a corrosion specialist, it has spent the past 30
years developing advanced IT concepts and technologies to address the specific
challenges of designing, building, and maintaining complex infrastructure assets.
This gives Bentley the unique capability of considering reliability and integrity across
the full lifecycle of infrastructure assets, pushing reliability thinking earlier into the
design process, and delivering the information management platforms to support
lifecycle operations (see figure below). Bentley’s approach supports the whole integrity
management process and the disciplines that support it.
Enterprise Information Strategies for Integrity Management
3
Push reliability focus earlier in the lifecycle
Plan
Design
Construct
Commission
Operate
& Maintain
Refine &
Recycle
Manage information to ensure operational readiness and asset performance
Reliability-centered asset lifecycle.
This paper introduces how a number of advanced concepts and proven technologies
are applied to improve many common workflows and challenges of asset performance
management, including:
• information federation
• information mobility
• configuration management
• immersive interfaces
Bentley’s approach reduces the gap between an engineer’s or a manager’s mental
model of a plant, its performance, and its representation in IT systems. This interactive
environment facilitates a common platform for the various stakeholders involved in
asset integrity management (e.g., corrosion engineering, process engineering,
inspection, and RBI analysis) to collaborate effectively in a managed environment,
streamlining processes, better supporting existing enterprise systems, providing
consistency, and ultimately improving performance and reducing risk.
Introduction to Asset Performance Management
The term asset performance management (APM) is now becoming widely accepted
in asset intensive industries. On the one hand, APM describes the subset of an asset
management strategy that relates to risk-based and reliability-centered approaches
to operations, as opposed to conventional reactive or time-based approaches. On the
other hand, APM also defines a category of services and software products that can be
applied tactically to plan and execute a program of improving asset integrity
and reliability.
Enterprise Information Strategies for Integrity Management
4
The principles of APM are also directly aligned with the new ISO 55000 standard,
which sets a new benchmark for asset management best practice. This standard,
released in January 2014, has gained the attention not only of owners and operators
of infrastructure assets, but has also piqued the interest of shareholders, stakeholders,
and the insurance industry, which are equally interested to know just how well their
assets are being managed. Many infrastructure owner-operators are now engaging
consultants to help them understand where on the scale of asset management maturity
they currently reside, and what they need to be doing to get measurably closer to ISO
55000. Often the answer comes down to APM.
By definition then, APM is a complex discipline that unites and adds value to many
existing systems and processes that have become widely accepted across industrial
facilities. All owner-operators understand the need and the value of having such tools
as enterprise resource planning (ERP), enterprise asset management (EAM),
maintenance management system (MMS), condition-based monitoring (CBM),
document management systems (DMS), or some other common combination thereof.
Management
Strategy
Asset Context
Structural
Integrity
Management
Asset
Performance
Risk Mitigation
Risk
Assessment
The five elements of integrity management.
So why does the industry need yet another TLA or “three-letter abbreviation” (not
“acronym” since acronyms are those abbreviations that spell recognizable words)?
The simple answer is that to shift from a reactive or time-based maintenance regime
to a risk-based and reliability-centered approach requires the ability to straddle across
the conventional boundaries of transactional (e.g., ERP) and time-series (e.g., condition
monitoring) systems to drive better decision making.
Enterprise Information Strategies for Integrity Management
5
Asset performance management unites the five fundamental elements of an asset
management strategy shown in the figure above, namely:
•Management Strategy – What are the business and performance requirements for
the asset?
•Asset Context – What and where is the asset?
•Asset Performance – What is the asset’s condition and how is it performing?
•Risk Assessment – How can failure occur? What is the likelihood? What are
the consequences?
•Risk Mitigation – How are scheduled and unscheduled maintenance
(and incidents) managed?
“For an organization to be
effective to the standards of
ISO 55000, all inspection and
maintenance becomes
risk mitigation.”
There are countless reasons why organizations might not be managing their assets
effectively, especially not to ISO 55000 standards. Business objectives might have
changed over time such that the asset in its present condition is becoming a liability
(for example, new emissions legislation changes business objectives). Likewise, the
asset context might not be well understood, as an organization may have acquired
assets that are poorly documented or that have been modified without updating the
engineering information. The asset performance may not be well understood as
sources of field information such as inspections or condition monitoring might be
ineffective. Risk assessment may not have been adequately carried out to understand
all the ways in which failure can occur, which applies not only to failure of physical
assets but failure to meet the business objectives. Finally, the risk mitigation
methods employed may not adequately address the present condition and potential
failure modes.
Notice carefully the figure on page 5 does not mention the word “maintenance.” For
many organizations, maintenance is just something that has to be done, like
housework. Maintenance tasks are often an aggregation and accumulation of all the
individual tasks that are recommended by all the individual vendors of equipment that
the asset employs. For an organization to be effective to the standards of ISO 55000,
all inspection and maintenance becomes risk mitigation, namely that each
inspection and maintenance activity should be aligned with the indicators of specific
failure modes and driven by the likelihood and the consequence of those failure
modes given the asset’s condition, operating context, and business objectives.
This inter-relationship between conflicting requirements and disparate sources of
information is fundamental to asset performance management.
Structural Integrity Management – a Subset of APM
Many organizations are recognizing the value of having a consistent risk-based and
reliability-centered approach to asset performance management across all their
disciplines and asset types, in order that a common language and culture of reliability
permeates the whole enterprise.
Enterprise Information Strategies for Integrity Management
6
Reliability-centered maintenance (RCM) is the generic strategy that supports asset
performance management. In simple terms, RCM is a structured method for
considering the ways in which assets can fail to meet the functions for which they are
required, and ensuring that maintenance action plans, inspections and other indicators
are directly aligned to monitoring these failure modes.
Assets
Reliability-centered
Maintenance
Functions
Functional Failures
Failure Modes
Structural
Integrity
Management
Maintenance Task Analysis
Risk-based Inspection
Action Plans
Indicators
Inspections
Current
Practice
Review
Risk-based approach to structural integrity management.
When it comes to structures, the functions of the assets are relatively simple: either
support or containment. Asset integrity management, as shown in the figure above,
is therefore the subset of an overall RCM approach, applying the same process and
methodology, but dedicated solely to the functions and functional failures of structures,
which generally include:
• Support structures such as bulk loading structures, topsides, decks, pipe-racks,
bridges, cranes, hoists, civil structures, vessel supports, jetties, exhaust supports,
walkways, jackets, foundations, joints/welds, towers, risers, caissons, subsea
structures, wells, blades, and so on.
• Containment structures such as flowlines, manifolds, pipes, vessels, joints, tanks,
valves, joints/welds, pipelines, drains, vents, heat exchanger tubing, corrosion
loops, and all other components involved in fluid transfer and storage.
While the functions of structures are simple, the failure modes can be complex, including:
• Corrosion – degradation of material properties due to reaction with environment
• Erosion – reduction of material thickness due to wear from sand and gravel
• Overloading – structures subjected to loads that exceed design specification
• Creep/fatigue – degradation of material properties due to loading and vibrations
• Fracture – cracks and other defects causing stress concentration
• Resonance/aeroelastic effects – effects of fluids and wind loading
• Construction quality – including welds and joint integrity
Enterprise Information Strategies for Integrity Management
7
Typical corrosion mechanisms in a pipeline.
While the failure modes may be known, monitoring and detection is another challenge
because often failure modes take place inside the structures (e.g., wall thinning on the
inside of a pipe) or the structures are inaccessible to allow for easy inspection
(e.g., buried, subsea, embedded in concrete, etc.).
Therefore owners need to be able to effectively and consistently prioritize when,
how, and where inspections need to be carried out and take the appropriate
corrective actions.
The real challenge for owner-operators is that, by necessity, they need to outsource
much of the activity relating to asset integrity management (specialist inspection
methods and specialist analysis techniques). And yet it is the owner-operator that
retains ultimate responsibility should disaster strike. The details of impending disaster
can be hidden deep within some specialist application or esoteric report. Had it been
presented in the right format capable of being understood by management, then that
risk could have been mitigated. In the next section we explore these management
challenges in more detail.
Structural Integrity Management Processes
Let’s explore the common business processes and information flows that exist around
asset integrity management. Whether through formalized and integrated systems,
procedures, or informal processes, any company that is serious about managing asset
integrity should be able to identify with some of these processes. By considering the
common processes and information flows we can begin to understand some of the
challenges and where opportunities exist for improvement.
Enterprise Information Strategies for Integrity Management
8
Management Systems
Operational Conditions
Maintenance Strategies
Inspection Guidelines
Corrosion Control
Procedures
Engineering
Engineering
Guidelines
Standards &
Specifications
Design
Construction
Commissioning
Operational
Operations
Maintenance
Physician
Modifications
Proposed Engineering
Revisions
Inspections
Inspection Methods
Inspection Analyses
Feedback Reports
Non-physical Modifications
Operating Practices
Maintenance Plans
Inspection Schedules
Information flows for integrity management.
This figure illustrates the basic information flow in an asset integrity management
process – namely, how feedback from inspections and condition monitoring drives
both physical modifications such as engineering changes as well as non-physical
modifications such as changes to operating practices and inspection intervals.
A more detailed explanation of the processes can be seen in the figure above,
which can be explained as follows:
• In the center is the fundamental plan, do, check, act cycle of continuous
improvement, illustrating the ongoing process of feedback and modification.
• The inner green circle represents the internally managed processes and software
systems typically applied to asset integrity management, such as:
» Engineering information management (EIM) for drawings, models, and
plant documentation
» Maintenance management system (MMS) for managing work orders
» Data Historian for managing the large volumes of time series data from
inspections and condition monitoring
» Enterprise resource planning (ERP) for linking into purchasing, inventory,
and spare parts
» Asset performance management (APM) for managing the continuous improvement
process and linking the transactional and time-series software systems
• The outer ring represents the externally managed processes and software systems
that exist outside of the core asset integrity management system and which are
Enterprise Information Strategies for Integrity Management
9
commonly required to support each of the plan, do, check, and act cycles, such as:
» Specialist analytical tools such as quantitative risk-based inspection
» Tools to support specialist inspection methods
» Analytical tools for taking bulk inspection results and crunching the numbers
» Engineering design software for modifications and redesign
The four cycles, one in each quadrant, represent the following activities:
• Inspection planning – These are the office-based activities relating to work
planning and detailed inspection planning, including things such as gathering
specifications, corrosion loop definition, corrosion measurement location definition,
inspection templates, procedures, regulatory obligations, lock-out/tag-out, spares
optimization, work scheduling, inspection contracting, and generation of inspection
work packages.
Quantitative RBI,
Inspection
Templates,
Procedures, etc.
NDT, Ultrasonic,
Pigging, ROV,
Vibrations, Tank
UT Scans, NII, etc.
External
Systems
Inspection
Planning
Modification /
Redesign
Internal
Systems
Plan
Do
Act
Check
Inspection
Methods
Inspection
Analyses
Maintenance
Strategy,
Engineering
Systems, etc.
Defect Tracking,
Statistical
Analysis, Fitness
for Service, etc.
Detailed information flow in an asset integrity management process.
• Inspection methods – This refers to the typically field-based inspection activities,
often carried out by specialist contractors using a wide variety of inspection
methods that generate large quantities of data (e.g., non-destructive testing, pigging,
remotely operated vehicles, tank UT scans, non-intrusive inspections, etc.) and often
carried out in remote locations disconnected from the management systems.
• Inspection analyses – This refers to the office-based analysis of results from
field inspections, to correlate the field inspection results against expected values,
categorizing likelihood and consequence of failure, to track degradation over time,
to monitor defects and third-party damage and to support decision making regarding
fitness for service, corrosion allowances, and remaining life.
Enterprise Information Strategies for Integrity Management
10
• Modification/redesign – This refers to the decision process around
modification and redesign of both the physical asset (with everything ranging from
design changes, replacements, repairs, insulation, coatings, barriers, inhibitors
to complete redesign), taking account of and possible modification to processing
conditions (e.g., reducing operating pressure), modifications to the inspection regime
(e.g., changing inspection intervals, inspection methods) as well as modifications to
the overall integrity management strategy.
Having looked at the common processes and information flows, the next section
considers some of the common challenges with integrity management.
Common Asset Integrity Management Challenges
While most owners are undoubtedly taking their asset integrity seriously, few have
the kind of management systems to really support their aspirations, or that can provide
them with a holistic view of their asset integrity. Many companies are highly reliant
on outsourced expertise, on transferring their risks and responsibilities to suppliers, on
trusting Ph.D.-written software, and on the tacit knowledge of a few key people that
understand their systems. The common risks and inefficiencies in typical asset integrity
management processes include:
“While most owners are
undoubtedly taking their
asset integrity seriously,
few have the kind of
management systems
to really support their
aspirations.”
• Inconsistency across disciplines, assets, and sites – Particularly for larger
global operators, due to the often outsourced nature of many of the workflows,
the wide range of asset types in multiple locations, specialist departments, and
software platforms, very few companies have what could be termed a globally
consistent integrity management approach across all their asset types.
While individual disciplines or sites might not be particularly concerned how other
departments manage their integrity, from an overall management perspective having
a consistent and auditable overall indication of asset health is highly desirable
(and consistent with ISO 55000).
• Outsourcing risk – Many owners seek to outsource integrity management
functions, with a lot of risk being transferred to specialist contractors using esoteric
applications and a multitude of inspection methods, and yet it is the owner that
must ultimately bear responsibility for any asset failure.
• Interdependence with lack of interconnectedness
»» This paper has brought attention to the fact that asset integrity management is a
complex process that needs to interpolate between multiple systems, including:
–– transactional systems (e.g., ERP, MMS, EIM, etc.)
–– time-series data from the field (e.g., operations data, inspections, condition
monitoring, etc.)
–– disconnected sources of analysis data and results (e.g., RBI analysis, defect
tracking software, analytics, etc.), and
–– engineering systems (e.g. drawings, models, specs, etc.).
Enterprise Information Strategies for Integrity Management
11
»» While the individual elements might be fine, it is clear that there is a complex
level of coordination required to make this all work efficiently and effectively
together, to coordinate suppliers and specialist analysis, to turn bulk inspection
data into actionable knowledge, to enable decisions, and to manage change in
a controlled and auditable way.
»» A quick example would be to think about what happens if operations detects
a feedstock with higher than expected hydrogen sulphide content. What is the
impact on the quantitative RBI, what additional inspections or methods might
be required to identify sulphide stress cracking, and what decisions might be
required for processing conditions or physical modifications based on present
condition? Or, what happens if a regulation changes? How can that be
efficiently trickled through into operations such that they remain compliant?
• Risk identification – Much of common asset integrity management comes down
to dealing with lagging indicators, i.e., inspection results that show where the
problems are. An effective integrity management program requires leading indicators
as well. Also, understanding design limits and complex interactions (for example, wall
thinning resulting in increased flexibility and therefore joint stress), and having an
engineering resource space for design/field performance reconciliation.
“Asset integrity management
is a complex process that
needs to interpolate between
multiple systems.”
• Engineering information – Effective asset integrity management is dependent on
accurate as-built/as-maintained engineering records, fabrication records, modifications, and an understanding of how they relate to the original design basis and current
regulatory obligations. Yet many assets (even new assets) have insufficient
engineering information management processes. In particular, brownfield assets
often have very limited records and engineering information to support an integrity
management program.
• Communication to generalists – Most of the components of asset integrity
management systems are highly specialized, and very few are able to contextualize
their information in the form of representations that generalists and managers can
understand for clear communication.
Information Strategies for Universal Asset Integrity
As a commercial software company, which for the past 30 years has been dedicated to
providing comprehensive solutions for the design, construction, and operations of the
world’s building, plant, civil, and geospatial infrastructure, Bentley has developed many
capabilities that can be applied to asset integrity management.
In general terms, Bentley Systems applies information mobility to improve asset
performance by leveraging information modeling through integrated projects for
intelligent infrastructure. Many of these capabilities have not been discussed in the
context of asset integrity management until now, so many professionals involved in
asset integrity are unlikely to be aware of how these capabilities can and should be
applied to their asset integrity management systems.
Enterprise Information Strategies for Integrity Management
12
One reason for this is that some of these capabilities have emerged from other
infrastructure industries. These technologies were developed to address the challenges
of one industry and are now being applied to another. While these technologies and
capabilities are proven, they are new to asset integrity management. Another reason is
that most asset integrity professionals and software vendors are focused on detailed
inspections or analysis techniques and do not have the knowledge or interest to handle
more fundamental IT concepts.
This section explores these concepts, and explains how they are being applied to what
could be termed “universal asset integrity management,” facilitating a consistent and
auditable process of integrity management across distributed enterprises and multiple
asset types.
Documents
People
Organizations
WBS
Equipment
Location
Projects
Requirements
Integrity management requires an auditable process across distributed enterprises and multiple asset types.
• Information federation1
» If a common challenge for asset integrity management is that essential
information is distributed all over the place in diverse data sources and formats,
then a method is required for effective, efficient, and controlled sharing and
distribution of critical information regardless of the source and format. The
conventional solution is to attempt to define everything and create the “mother
of all databases” with hard-wired connectivity, but sooner or later this becomes
unsustainable (especially for an industry where, as stated earlier, it is essential
that vendors innovate new techniques and technologies).
1 Information federation and configuration management are covered in much more detail in separate white papers. Please see the “References” section at the
end of this paper.
Enterprise Information Strategies for Integrity Management
13
» Bentley offers a federated approach. Instead of creating a monolithic system,
Bentley proposes an asset integrity management system that references and
maintains the relationships between relevant data objects residing in
distributed operational systems. Think of this as the Internet of things applied
to this specific integrity management problem.
Design Basis / Requirements / Regulations /
Contracts / Permits / Licenses
“What is allowed to be there”
Change Management
Information
Management
“What we say is there”
Physical
Configuration
“What is there”
A federated approach maintains the relationships between relevant data objects residing in distributed
operational systems.
• Configuration management
» If a common challenge for asset integrity is managing the interdependency of
all these disparate information sources, then a method is required for
highlighting and managing change. This is exactly the same problem many
other industries face where change management is essential, particularly the
nuclear power industry.
» Configuration management is a discipline that emerged from the nuclear power
industry to manage the whole change process, ensuring that at all times the
physical plant was aligned with the information asset, and these were
both aligned with the design basis and regulations governing the asset. Once
information is federated and configuration managed there are a host of
additional services that are driven by the configuration management
process including:
– Transmittals, correspondence, reporting, and dashboards
– Contracts administration
Enterprise Information Strategies for Integrity Management
14
–– Asset information management
»» Bentley provides these capabilities on some of the world’s largest infrastructure
programs through a managed services environment.
•Information mobility
»» i-models 2 are Bentley’s currency for information exchange to enable
information mobility within the federated workflows of asset integrity
management. i-models are enablers of information mobility, ensuring the right
information in the appropriate format and level of precision can be accessed by
the right people at the right time.
i-models enable information mobility.
»» i-models are not only 3D, but also 2D, and 1D (i.e., data). They can have many
properties including:
–– provenance (i.e., audit trail of what and who has used them)
–– portability (i.e., very lightweight, supporting mobile and
off-network workflows)
–– self-describing (i.e., don’t need the applications that created
them to review)
–– time-sensitive (i.e., can be imparted with self-destruct rules)
»» Free iWare and mobile apps – are how Bentley makes freely available the
techniques to generate i-models from non-Bentley software. These include
i-model ODBC driver for Windows, i-model driver for Excel, publishing tools for
iPad apps on the App Store, Navigator Mobile, and more.
»» i-models, supported by managed services configuration control, facilitate the
emerging subscription models for information technology as described in
industry changing books such as Consumption Economics and B4B (Wood,
Hewlin, and Lah, 2011, 2013).
2 i-models are the subject of detailed papers and presentations.
Enterprise Information Strategies for Integrity Management
15
Information Strategies Applied to Integrity
Management Workflows
The following section provides a high-level description of how these enterprise
information management strategies from Bentley (namely information federation,
configuration management, and information mobility) can be applied to common
integrity management workflows, and considers the implications and benefits
of this approach.
2D/3D
Visual Planning
Mobile
Inspections
External
Systems
i-model
Planning
Packages
Internal
Systems
i-model
Overlay
i-model
Inspection
Packages
Inspection Data
i-model
Modification
Packages
Managed
Service
Design
Management
i-model
Analysis
Packages
Fitness
for Service
i-models applied to the integrity management process.
Consider the example in this figure that references the common asset integrity
management workflows described earlier in this paper and that has now been
overlaid with simple enhancements using the information management strategies
and i-model capabilities, e.g.
Enterprise Information Strategies for Integrity Management
16
Before Using i-models
•
Hand-drawn mark-ups on
scanned paper isometrics
After Using i-models
•
•
•
•
Packaged drawings, models, point clouds
Graphical corrosion loops and CMLs
Links to inspection and calibration specs
Links to CIMS and other
operational systems
i-model packages help to define a better program.
Inspection planning – Using neutral, self-describing i-model packages to combine
quantitative risk-based inspection results with plant schematics and models to define
corrosion measurement locations and inspection techniques.
For example: Where previously detailed inspection planning might involve marking up
printed schematics by hand and circulating photocopied drawings to team members,
Bentley now has the ability to support process engineers, corrosion engineers, and
inspection technicians to produce and review packaged i-models containing
schematics, models, and point clouds with intelligent graphical corrosion loops and
corrosion measurement locations, each graphical element linking to data from relevant
operational systems, enabling embedded links to engineering specifications,
purchasing, and logistics, as well as the ability to visualize status based on important
attributes such as corrosion rates, alarm states, and so on.
i-models enable immersive asset performance management.
Enterprise Information Strategies for Integrity Management
17
Inspection methods – Moving beyond inspection to “interactive inspection” by using
i-models to support the transmittal of inspection packages to contractors with
instructions, models, previous results, machine calibration data, and so on, and then
supporting the returning field inspection data for detailed analysis.
For example: Previously an inspection technician might receive an isometric marked up
by hand showing what is to be inspected, which gives no context about the
location, the complexities of the task, and might need to wait until they get into the
field to understand the task complexity. Now the inspection technician receives an
intelligent i-model that can be viewed on free apps installed on mobile devices,
enabling the inspection technician to review the task in detail, get the physical context
of the site as well as the historical context of previous inspection results and
calibration settings. Furthermore, an i-model overlay file can be used to reference
actual field inspection results and facilitate getting them back into the integrity
management system for analysis and decision making.
Analytical
i-model
Scenario Services
Structural (STAAD)
Offshore (SACS, MOSES)
Fitness for Service (FFS)
3rd Party / Home Grown
Pipeline Defect
Other
i-models take advantage of Bentley CONNECT for optimal data management.
Inspection analyses – Using i-models to support the process of analyzing field
inspection results. This might include transmitting analysis packages to specialist
contractors, containing field inspection results, referencing calibration data,
inspection techniques, measurement locations, and facilitating the process of
crunching the numbers to make recommendations. This may also include using
i-models to take advantage of Bentley CONNECT structural analysis services.
For example: Bentley’s family of analysis products for structural analysis and pipe
stress analysis can be used to provide decision support based on the recorded
inspection data and modified analytical models. For example, a record of wall
thinning on a jacket leg can feed back into a revised structural analysis model that can
provide an accurate prediction of reduction in safety factor relative to allowable levels.
i-models created from the analytical model can be archived alongside as-built models
and compared throughout the lifecycle as revised models are created following each
inspection. This provides a visual audit trail of how the structure evolves as corrosion
degradation occurs.
Enterprise Information Strategies for Integrity Management
18
Modification/redesign – As decisions are made about modifications required,
i-models support the physical redesign and modification process, packaging details of
existing as-built condition to support the full design process.
For example: Even for a simple repair, an i-model package can be sent to the
contractor to help them visualize exactly what needs to be done and where. For more
complex redesign, i-models help support a wide variety of engineering and plant
design systems including Bentley OpenPlant, doing things like performing clash
detection on point clouds and other design workflows that are made more complex by
the existing plant.
Conclusion
This paper began with the assertion that an effective structural integrity management
program is the single most important barrier against catastrophic failure in complex
industrial facilities.
For owner-operators to be able to demonstrate exceptional standards of governance
and stewardship of their assets across their lifespan, they need a mechanism to
coordinate all the disparate sources and systems of asset information, performance
data, and risk management to support more informed, consistent, and auditable
decision making. This is an information management challenge.
This paper described three enterprise information management strategies (information
federation, configuration management, and information mobility) that have been
developed to address precisely these complex, distributed, and multi-discipline
engineering challenges. Lastly, the paper presented how these techniques can be
applied to support common risk-based integrity management workflows.
References
Cleveland, A.B., Jr. “Interoperability Platform: i-models to Unlock the Value of
Information Mobility.” March 2013.
Wood, J.B., Hewlin, Todd, and Lah, Thomas. 2011. Consumption Economics: The New
Rules of Tech. United States: Point B, Inc.
Wood, J.B., Hewlin, Todd, and Lah, Thomas. 2013. B4B: How Technology and Big Data
Are Reinventing the Customer-Supplier Relationship. United States: Point B, Inc.
Enterprise Information Strategies for Integrity Management
19
About Bentley Systems
Bentley Systems is the global leader dedicated to providing architects, engineers,
geospatial professionals, constructors, and owner-operators with comprehensive
software solutions for advancing the design, construction, and operations of
infrastructure. Bentley users leverage information mobility across disciplines and
throughout the infrastructure lifecycle to deliver better-performing projects and assets.
Bentley solutions encompass MicroStation applications for information modeling,
ProjectWise collaboration services to deliver integrated projects, and AssetWise
operations services to achieve intelligent infrastructure – complemented by worldwide
professional services and comprehensive managed services. Founded in 1984, Bentley
has more than 3,000 colleagues in over 50 countries, more than $600 million in annual
revenues, and since 2006 has invested more than $1 billion in research, development,
and acquisitions.
© 2014 Bentley Systems Incorporated. Bentley, the ‘B’ logo, STAAD, RAM, SACS, MOSES, AutoPIPE, Navigator Mobile, Bentley CONNECT, MicroStation,
and ProjectWise are either registered or unregistered trademarks or service marks of Bentley Systems, Incorporated, or one of its direct or indirect
wholly-owned subsidiaries. Other brands and product names are trademarks of their respective owners. CS9859 01/15
Enterprise Information Strategies for Integrity Management
20