INSPECTIONEERING JOURNAL
11 Primary Elements to Ensure Asset
Integrity in the Lifecycle of Oil and Gas
Facilities
By Wenwu Shen, Mechanical Engineer at Saudi Aramco, Rashed Alhajri, Inspection and Corrosion Engineer at
Saudi Aramco, Nasser M. Balhareth, Division Head - Asset Reliability and Integrity Management at Saudi
Aramco, and Dr. Zhenzhu Wan, Geochemist at Saudi Aramco. This article appears in the September/October
2020 issue of Inspectioneering Journal.
Introduction
Understanding asset integrity and its integrated management framework is
important in order to sustain the integrity of assets in the oil and gas industry.
Companies are looking to maximize their return on investment while operating their
physical assets safely and in an environmentally conscious manner. To accomplish
that goal, resources need to be utilized effectively and efficiently, and equipment
failures need to be proactively avoided. This article will discuss eleven primary
elements that make up an asset integrity management program (AIM). These
elements cover all integrity aspects of the industry and the assets themselves. The
elements are as follows:
1. Risk assessment,
2. Engineering,
3. Construction and fabrication quality control and assurance,
4. Integrity operating windows,
5. In-service inspection,
6. Corrosion management,
7. Management of change,
8. Reliability centered maintenance,
9. Failure investigation and lessons learned,
10. Asset data management, and
11. Assessments and audits.
Properly implementing these elements will provide sustainable asset integrity during
oil and gas production and processing.
Asset Integrity Management (AIM) [1][2][3] is a systematic approach that helps plants
operate in a safe, reliable, profitable, and environmentally responsible manner.
AIM’s emergence and widespread application followed some major industrial
accidents, such as the incidents at the Piper Alpha platform and BP Texas City
Refinery. As a common practice in the industry, there are various programs,
including process safety management, in plants to ensure overall asset integrity,
such as Risk-based Inspection (RBI), Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM),
Integrity Operating Windows (IOW), and Management of Change (MOC). Even
though these programs bear different objectives, they all share a common goal of
ensuring safe and reliable operation. Moreover, there should be healthy connections
between them, with some overlap, as they are designed to supplement each other for
maximum benefit. AIM is defined as a management system that is structured to
ensure the ability of an asset to perform its designed function effectively and
efficiently while preventing incidents which can impact safety and health. In the
industry, mechanical equipment failures can cause major incidents, drastically
affecting people both inside and outside the facilities. This can have a severe impact,
not only on a company’s reputation, but on its workers, the environment and the
public.
Understanding the AIM structural framework enables a plant to use their resources
effectively and efficiently to proactively avoid equipment failures. In general, the
AIM framework is dynamic and can be customized to specific equipment and unit
types. The goal is to cover both the integrity and quality of assets during their entire
lifecycle. This article elaborates on eleven elements, shown in Figure 1, which
should be met in order to maintain effective asset integrity. Needless to say, the
competency of the people executing the AIM program is a key factor to its success.
Figure 1. AIM primary elements for mechanical assets in the oil
and gas domain.
Eleven Primary Elements of Asset Integrity
Management
Element #1: Risk Assessment
Risk assessment is a crucial element to effective asset integrity management and
influences AIM programs throughout the life cycle of a facility. Risk assessment has
gained more focus as a result of several major industry incidents attributed to
process safety deficiencies, which are low in frequency but typically have large
consequences. Methods such as HAZID and PHAs are used at the early stage of a
project to identify threats and build safeguards in the hardware, systems and
procedures. Many incidents in the industry are related to improper risk assessment.
Conducting effective risk assessments will help determine and prioritize the
criticality of assets and the adequacy of safeguards, which sets the stage for
establishing a proper program for verifying and assuring integrity.
Element #2: Engineering
Another common cause of incidents in the industry is a flaw in design, such as
improper consideration for potential upset conditions, improper material selection,
or excessive stress levels. For example, the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard
Investigation Board (CSB) published an investigation report [4] on the 2012 pipe
rupture and fire at the Chevron Richmond Refinery revealing that the rupture
resulted from extreme thinning due to sulfidation corrosion. The piping was
constructed of carbon steel, which corrodes at a much faster rate from sulfidation
than other typical alternative materials of construction, such as higher chromiumcontaining steels. In addition to its inherently faster rate of sulfidation corrosion
when compared with higher chromium steels, carbon steel also experiences
significant variation in corrosion rates due to possible variances in silicon content, a
component used in the steel manufacturing process. In the report, the CSB
concluded that using inherently safer design concepts to eliminate the hazard of
variation in corrosion rate in carbon steel piping due to hard-to-determine silicon
content will help prevent similar failures in refineries in the future.[4]
Proper material selection and other corrosion control measures are critical for asset
integrity after commissioning. Engineering standards should be established to
specify guidelines, based on intended service, especially at the project design stage.
Due to the complexity of these issues, company representatives knowledgeable in
mechanical design, process design, materials, corrosion, and damage mechanisms
should be fully involved at various stages in the equipment life-cycle process. It is
important to note that, in some cases, corrosion problems can be mitigated by
upgrading carbon steel materials to more corrosion resistant alloys, but not always.
Higher alloy materials have their own shortcomings, while other corrosion control
measures can be more effective and economical, such as internal coatings, cladding,
and inhibitors. Typically, high strength, low alloy steel is more prone to stress
corrosion cracking. For example, austenitic stainless steels can be more susceptible
to chloride stress corrosion cracking. Also, alloy materials are sometimes more
challenging or problematic during construction due to weldability and the potential
for material mix up. Generally, a good design should be an optimized solution that
takes into account properties, performance, integrity, sustainability, reliability, and
cost. All design documents should confirm that plant process, materials, and
construction are suitable for intended functions and operational integrity.
Element #3: Construction & Fabrication QA/QC
Once the design stage is completed, construction of the new plant starts, which can
take years depending on the plant size. Non-compliance to design standards and
specifications can be a source of equipment issues. While in construction, many
factors can jeopardize the future functionality of an asset, such as incorrect
materials, poor practices, and workmanship issues with fabrication and heat
treatment.
Using the wrong welding materials, (e.g., welding electrodes), can lead to an
impaired weld or inadequate mechanical properties. Poor equipment preservation
may cause premature equipment deterioration and failures even before
commissioning. Poorly preserved equipment may be exposed to unforeseen damage
mechanisms such as microbiologically induced internal corrosion or soil corrosion
for tanks and buried piping. Additionally, inaccurate installation and alignment can
introduce localized, excessive stress and can cause premature failures, even while
operating below designated pressure loads. Debris and leftover materials can cause
erosion and may damage rotating equipment and trays in process towers, affecting
integrity and performance. Corporate standards for quality control and assurance
should be established and followed closely during project construction. Traceability
and PMI tests need to be conducted on site to ensure the correctness of alloy
materials, and welding procedures should be followed. Qualified welders should be
used, and welding materials should be properly handled and stored. Preheating and
Post Weld Heat Treatment (PWHT) should be closely monitored on site during
construction. Any defects disclosed during construction should be documented and
tracked for evaluation and correction. The quality of the final product depends on
the quality of work at every stage of construction.
Element #4: Integrity Operating Windows (IOWs)
Once the construction of a plant is completed, the plant is handed over to operations
personnel. Operating equipment beyond designed operational limits can cause
irreversible damage to equipment’s mechanical integrity, even after returning to
normal operating conditions. Therefore, IOWs (i.e., pre-defined ranges of acceptable
operating parameters for sustainable mechanical integrity) need to be established.
Key process parameters should be maintained within acceptable ranges, or else
accelerated corrosion and/or new and unforeseen damage will develop. In some
cases, even small operating condition changes can have a drastic impact (e.g., amine
corrosion accelerates when temperature is above 190F).[6] A proper IOW
management program should clarify the roles and responsibilities of various
concerned parties, including operators and corrosion engineers, to identify IOW
parameters and the appropriate actions to take when a limit is violated. As part of
the program, roles and responsibilities should be put in place to respond to
deviations based on their consequences (e.g., close monitoring, inspection, and other
corrective actions) to prevent failures. Details for the IOW establishment process
and guidelines can be found in API RP 584.[7]
Figure 2. Typical IOW limits and its consequence
Element #5: In-service Inspection
After project completion and the handoff to operations, in-service inspection
commences and is a primary element for sustaining the asset integrity established in
the design and construction phases. In-service inspection aims to monitor
equipment conditions, fine-tune the remaining useful life prediction, detect defects,
and proactively prevent failures. For fixed equipment, in-service inspection is made
up of three main categories of inspection: external, internal, and on-stream, which
are typically mandated by international inspection codes and local regulations. To
maintain integrity, in-service inspection should be established, tracked, and
conducted periodically by qualified inspectors.
For in-service inspection, three different types of inspection intervals can be
established. These include fixed/time-based, condition-based, and risk-based
frequencies. The fixed/time-based inspection interval is the simplest methodology
and involves scheduling inspections on a predefined period of time, which may vary
across different classes of equipment. Condition-based inspection allows for
intervals to increase when the equipment is in good condition, and interval reduction
when the equipment is more likely to fail. However, condition-based inspection does
not consider potential consequences of failure. Risk-based inspection [6][8]
frequencies represent a modern approach to inspection management and have been
adopted for equipment inspection planning and risk management in inspection
codes and practices, especially for on-plot piping and fixed equipment. Equipment
risk considers the combination of probability and consequence of failure, which can
be determined qualitatively or quantitatively.
Element #6: Corrosion Management
Corrosion management consists of corrosion damage mechanism identification,
monitoring and control. This is important in managing the integrity of mechanical
assets. In corrosion management, damage mechanism identification (DMI) is an
essential first step. Identifying predicted damage mechanisms and their rates of
deterioration allows for selection of the proper materials in order to minimize asset
damage [9] and optimize equipment integrity, reliability and availability. While
corrosion monitoring does not reduce the severity of material deterioration, it does
collect and track data on the current equipment condition and its degradation rate.
Generally, by utilizing intrusive and non-intrusive techniques, corrosion monitoring
focuses on detecting thinning, cracking, metallurgical, mechanical and other types of
degradation. These monitoring techniques include Nondestructive Testing (NDT),
corrosion probes, corrosion coupons, and monitoring process parameters utilizing
IOWs, as discussed previously.
Read Related Articles
How to Develop a Proactive Risk-Based Integrity Management Framework for Plant
Assets
Asset Integrity Management Enablers
Proven Strategies for Developing Successful Corrosion Management Systems
The Piping Integrity Management Challenge
A Lifetime of Integrity - Overcoming the Challenges in Managing the Life-Cycle of
Aging Assets
On the other hand, corrosion control aims at mitigating or controlling the corrosion
or deterioration rates and keeping them within acceptable limits. Corrosion control
comes in many forms, including material and coating selection, setting operating
parameter limits, inhibitor selection and dosage, and rehabilitation or changes in
equipment design. Corrosion control aims to avoid severe and premature loss of
containment for pressure equipment, which jeopardizes equipment function and can
cause major equipment failure.
Plant corrosion engineers should develop corrosion loops for each processing unit,
specify the damage mechanisms [9] for each piece of process equipment, assign
Condition Monitoring Locations (CMLs) to perform inspections, monitor for
corrosion, and share the information to help determine mitigation actions for
effective corrosion control. There are industry recommended practices, such as
NACE standard practices 0106 [10] and 0169 [11] and various API RPs, which provide
corrosion control and inspection guidelines to manage internal and external
corrosion, respectively. Other international publications are also available.
Element #7: Management of Change (MOC)
Management of Change (MOC) is crucial to asset integrity management, as its
absence can render the management system ineffective and subject the facility to
major integrity and reliability issues. MOC is defined as the process to
comprehensively detect, review and manage changes other than replacement-inkind.[12] This is performed before changes occur to avoid any potential impact to the
integrity management system. If changes can impact integrity, they are reviewed by
competent subject matter experts and either not accepted or accepted with short- or
long-term mitigation or remedial actions recommended and implemented, as
appropriate. MOC is inevitable in the industry since process changes and plant
modifications and repairs occur frequently. If such changes are uncontrolled, they
may impair asset integrity management and result in major failures. MOC
committees should consist of subject matter experts from appropriate disciplines,
allowing for multiple diverse considerations. Potential impacts of a proposed change
on plant safety should be thoroughly analyzed by the MOC committee. Generally,
MOC generates a document detailing the review outcomes and recommendations to
sustain the integrity of mechanical assets. The completed MOC should be
communicated to all relevant engineers and inspectors, enabling them to take the
appropriate actions relevant to the situation.
Element #8: Reliability-Centered Maintenance
The integrity management system should include a reliability-centered maintenance
(RCM) program in order to manage mechanical assets properly. The RCM program
is more commonly applied to rotating assets, but is analogous to maintenance
strategies to safeguard and optimize fixed assets. In the oil and gas industry, rotating
equipment is managed differently due to its nature, which calls for periodic
replacement of consumables and alternative monitoring strategies. After continuous
service of an operation cycle, rotating assets, mostly pumps and compressors, need
to be shut down for equipment cleaning, inspection, periodic part replacement,
repairs, and modifications. For both fixed and rotating equipment, it is essential to
follow maintenance procedures during these activities or equipment integrity may be
compromised. Common errors include improper bolt tightening during assembly
and improper care and attention to equipment handling details during turnarounds.
Element #9: Failure Investigation and Lessons Learned
It is inevitable that equipment failures and reliability events will take place despite
effective implementation of an AIM system. To learn from past failures and prevent
their reoccurrence, thorough investigations should be conducted to learn the root
causes of the failures. Simple repairs alone will not prevent failures from
reoccurring. Due to integrity and safety alerts and investigation recommendations, a
failure in one operating facility may trigger a survey for similar failures in other
applicable facilities. Investigations should be conducted in a systematic way and all
potential root causes should be checked (e.g., operation upsets, incorrect design,
improper material, human error, etc.). Conclusions and recommendations from
failure investigations should be communicated to all relevant parties and
implemented to avoid failures from repeating themselves. API RP 585 provides the
essential guidelines to establish, maintain, and implement a failure investigation
program. [13] [14] [15]
Failures that occur in the industry are an important source of learning that should
not be underestimated. Learning from past mistakes helps us to be smarter and to
alert our organizations of potential flaws, ensuring that they set safeguards and alter
behaviors to prevent similar failures and incidents in our facilities. CSB
investigations can be an excellent source of such information, amongst other
sources. We must learn from previous failures in order to avoid future events. This is
an on-going challenge for industry.
Element #10: Asset Data Management
The importance of asset recordkeeping and data management cannot be overstated.
It plays an important role in lifecycle integrity management and ensures that actions
related to equipment integrity are addressed timely and adequately to avoid
unexpected failures. In drawings, databases, and reports, data can be found in raw
form, but it needs to be properly organized to help users analyze integrity and
reliability issues more effectively.
Despite this fact, it is sometimes a challenge to effectively maintain an adequate level
of quality pertaining to equipment data. Asset data can be divided into two main
types: baseline records and historical records. Baseline records may include
manufacturer datasheets, design records, and baseline thickness measurement
records. Historical records (e.g., in-service inspections, MOCs, etc.) should be kept
up-to-date throughout the lifecycle of an asset to sustain integrity. A good data
management system provides easy access and efficient retrieval of equipment
information. Over the years, data management systems have evolved from hard copy
folders to customized software. Some advanced data management systems are
capable of monitoring equipment, analyzing data, and sending out alerts to the
responsible parties when maintenance is required. In order to have an outstanding
data management system supporting AIM, a plant or company must consider things
like data accessibility, approval authority, process workflows, information security,
connectivity of data between different organizations, and data analytics. Effective
analysis of quality data is the key to discovering potential problems before they lead
to a failure.
Element #11: Assessments and Audits
Assessing and auditing, although different in protocol and objectives, are crucial to
sustaining successful performance and continual improvement. Assessments are an
integral component to any management system. They work to sustain improvement,
taking input as fact and ensuring that findings lead to solutions. Overall, the purpose
of an assessment is to evaluate how all relevant parties effectively manage the
integrity and maintenance at a facility. Assessments drive compliance to standards
and facilitate continual improvement.
Auditing is a systematic and independent review process to verify the conformance
and effectiveness of the work and to enforce compliance.[17] There are two types of
audits: internal and external. Internal audits are performed by personnel within the
organization, while external audits are run by outside personnel. Audits help plant
management identify areas for improvement in the overall AIM framework and
scope, reviewing personnel competency and performance measures using all other
elements of AIM. There should be clear auditing standards and procedures
developed by every company. Audit observations should be followed by corrections
and corrective actions. The former are rectifications of current deficient conditions,
while the latter are preventive mechanisms to eliminate root causes and avoid
recurrences.[18] Auditing can highlight a plant’s strengths and achievements,
benchmarking results with peers in the industry.
Conclusion
Plant assets must be carefully managed to ensure reliable, efficient, and profitable
performance. These eleven AIM elements provide insights to achieve overall asset
integrity through a systematic and structured approach, which is applicable to
various O&G operating facilities. This approach ensures organized integration and
collaboration among the different organizations. Implementing the eleven AIM
elements discussed above will significantly improve management of equipment
integrity and increase safety and asset uptime, thereby maximizing the performance
of an operating facility.
References
1. ISO 55000 (2014) “Asset Management, Overview, Principles and Terminology”,
International Organizations for Standardization, Geneva.
2. ISO 55001 (2014) “Asset management - Management systems Requirements”,
International Organizations for Standardization, Geneva.
3. ISO 55002 (2018) “Asset management - Management systems - Guidelines for
the application of ISO 55001”, International Organizations for Standardization,
Geneva.
4. Report NO. 2012-03-I-CA, “Chevron Richmond Refinery Pipe Rupture and
Fire”, Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, Washington DC.
5. Report NO. 2010-08-I-WA, “Catastrophic Rupture of Heat Exchanger”,
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, Washington DC.
6. API 581 (2016) “Risk-based Inspection Methodology”, American Petroleum
Institute, Washington DC.
7. API 584 (2014) “Integrity Operating Windows”, American Petroleum Institute,
Washington DC.
8. API 580 (2016) “Risk-based Inspection”, American Petroleum Institute,
Washington DC.
9. API 571 (2011) “Damage Mechanisms Affecting Fixed Equipment in the
Refining Industry”, American Petroleum Institute, Washington DC.
10. NACE SP0106 (2018) “Control of Internal Corrosion in Steel Pipelines and
Piping Systems”, National Association of Corrosion Engineers, Houston.
11. NACE SP0169 (2013) “Control of External Corrosion on Underground or
Submerged Metallic Piping Systems”, National Association of Corrosion
Engineers, Houston.
12. 29 CFR 1910.119 “Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals”,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Washington DC.
13. API 585 (2014) “Pressure Equipment Integrity Incident Investigation”,
American Petroleum Institute, Washington DC.
14. ASTM E2733-10 (2015) “Standard Guide for Investigation of Equipment
Problems and Releases for Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Systems”,
American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken.
15. ASTM G161-00 (2018) “Standard Guide for Corrosion-Related Failure
Analysis”, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken.
16. Report NO. 2015-04-I-TX, “Refinery Explosion and Fire”, Chemical Safety and
Hazard Investigation Board, Washington DC.
17. ISO 19011 (2018). “Guidelines for auditing management system”, International
Organizations for Standardization, Geneva.
18. ISO 9000:2015 “Quality Management System – Fundamentals and vocabulary”,
International Organizations for Standardization, Geneva.
You said this article was helpful. Click here to change your response.
About the Authors
Wenwu Shen, Mechanical Engineer at Saudi Aramco
Wenwu Shen (P.E.) is a mechanical engineer of Saudi Aramco Inspection Department. He is a registered
professional engineer of Saudi Council of Engineers (SCE). He holds a Master degree in Materials
Science and Engineering from King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST). He joined
Aramco in January 2012. His expertise is asset integrity assurance through Risk-Based Inspection... Read
more »
Rashed Alhajri, Inspection and Corrosion Engineer at Saudi Aramco
Rashed Alhajri is an inspection and corrosion engineer with 11 years of experience at the Saudi Arabian oil
company. Rashed holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering from King Fahad
University of Petroleum and Minerals and a Master of Science degree in Metallurgical and Materials
Engineering from Colorado School of Mines. He holds ten professional certifications that include... Read
more »
Nasser M. Balhareth, Division Head - Asset Reliability and Integrity Management
at Saudi Aramco
Nasser Balhareth is a senior consultant with Consulating Service Department (CSD) and Chairman of the
Asset Management Standards Committee of Saudi Aramco. Nasser has over 30 years of total industry
experience 25 of which has been with Saudi Aramco. Nasser graduated in Mechanical Engineering in
1987 from King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals and started his career in SASREF before...
Read more »
Dr. Zhenzhu Wan, Geochemist at Saudi Aramco
Dr. Zhenzhu Wan is a geochemist. She got her Bachelor and Master's degrees from Peking University,
PhD from University of Cincinnati. She has been working as a geologist at EXPEC Advanced Research
Center of Saudi Aramco since 2014. Dr. Wan's expertise is stable isotopic studies of natural gases, and
her research projects focus on upstream hydrocarbon migration. Read more »
Comments and Discussion
Posted by Ashiq Hussain on December 21, 2020
An excellent summary for those who are interested to build a new AIM program for a facility. Although
Training and Competency has been mentioned as an important component of the AIM program, but in
my opinion it should be a part of the frame work. I was not able to follow the structure of the figure
depicting the AIM why risk assessment has been placed at the root of the program, does it mean risk
assessment should start before the engineering part, needs more elaboration. Ashiq Hussain