A more economical, scientific, and rational testing method—RBI

Could the original poster and you give us an overview of RBI? Maybe I should write a sharing post... so everyone can learn something new... This is the first time I’ve heard of RBI

What is the relationship between Jiangsu Special Inspection and Nanjing Chemical Inspection, moderator?

The last edit to this post was made by bluefriday on 2009-12-12 at 10:42. The difficulty seems to lie in management rather than technology; it involves the entities that use the containers, the inspection agencies, and the **General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine. It’s uncertain whether the implementation process will go smoothly, and it can be expected that the timeline will be relatively long. For entities that are eligible to apply for RBI, the management of pressure vessels is relatively good and the risk is low; whereas the vessels of small enterprises that may not be able to obtain RBI are more dangerous. Inspection agencies have a heavy workload and significant responsibilities. It is the users of the pressure vessels who know best about their condition, failure modes, consequences of failures, and management practices. Before conducting a risk assessment, inspection agencies must carry out a lot of work in order to develop an appropriate inspection plan. Are the RBI inspection contents and methods the same as those of traditional inspections? Should we still refer to the \"Regulations on Periodic Inspection of Pressure Vessels\"? The provisions of the tolerance standards are principle-based and difficult to implement and operate; it would be best to have a technical standard that details the inspection requirements and management procedures. I believe that to make the RBI more economical, scientific, and rational, it is necessary to improve the overall standards of the entire industry, from design and materials to manufacturing, as well as usage management and regular inspections. If, as required by the new regulations on container management, enterprises and departments at various stages input the information data of containers into the special equipment information management system in a timely manner, it will greatly facilitate RBI work.

I agree with the views of the user above; RBI does indeed have its very obvious advantages. But to some extent, its disadvantages are also very obvious: it is time-consuming and costly. At present in our country, only large enterprises like Maoming Petrochemical have sufficient funds to carry out RBI projects. Furthermore, RBI, or API 581 itself, also has its shortcomings; the software developed based on it has limitations as well. When RBI technology is used for software-based risk assessment, the results are primarily aimed at the equipment and can be useful for future management of the plant, but they cannot effectively assess factors such as the remaining lifespan of the equipment or its strength. Many issues cannot be detailed. Furthermore, API 581 is primarily aimed at foreign petrochemical companies; the universal failure probability it uses is derived from historical failure statistics of equipment and systems from 26 highly renowned foreign petrochemical companies. The production standards, manufacturing processes, and corporate management levels abroad are all higher than those in our country; it can be described as \"selective breeding for excellence\". As fellow sailors, you are all quite aware of the situation in our country... I think the RBI technology is very scientific and effective. But there may still be a long way to go before it can be put to use by “me”. It is highly desirable that all petrochemical companies keep records of equipment failures that have occurred over the years, and then **allocate resources to compile and analyze this data. Then, a set of RBI standards suitable for China’s national conditions should be developed, so as to ensure the safer and more stable operation of China’s petrochemical facilities, as well as to achieve scientific and efficient management~~~~~ I’m just an inexperienced person

As far as I know, research and application of RBI in China started around 2003 (by organizations such as DNV, East China University of Science and Technology, Tianjin Petrochemical, as well as General Research Institute, BV, and Maoming Ethylene), which is about 5 years later than internationally (although the API standard was issued in 2000, DNV had already developed RBI technology and software earlier, and it has been widely used since 1998). To date, RBI has also been in use in China for six or seven years; some of the earlier projects should theoretically be undergoing reevaluation by now, but hardly any companies have done so. In fact, the more advanced or popular technologies and management methods today are all based on the PDCA model, and continuous application is required to achieve the best results. What’s lacking in domestic efforts is precisely persistence; once enough attention has been drawn, people stop caring. Of course, the bigger reason is the lack of relevant regulatory provisions.

Personally, I think RBI is suitable for equipment that cannot be parked, and to date only the China Special Equipment Inspection and Research Institute is qualified to carry it out. The safety risks after RBI testing are certainly relatively high; regular individual testing cannot guarantee safety 100%, let alone RBI testing RBI is only suitable for large enterprises and situations with a large amount of equipment.

Let me try to answer the questions from the people above: Floor 5: Said that the RBI process is time-consuming and costly. I disagree; the RBI’s approach is based on risk-based, rational assessments, and cost-effectiveness is an important factor. Perhaps the cost of the RBI test itself is higher, but it eliminates unnecessary downtime and simplifies the testing process; it’s quite normal for a plant to lose millions in revenue per day due to shutdowns. Regarding the issue of integrating RBI technology with national conditions that you mentioned, several major domestic organizations engaged in risk assessment research have already begun to develop our own RBI regulations in line with API 581: the \"Guidelines for Implementing Risk-Based Inspections of Pressure Equipment Systems\". At present, domestic inspection agencies tend to identify the main mechanisms of damage and recommend inspection strategies after conducting a risk assessment. However, it is unknown whether the subsequent tests were carried out according to the recommended testing strategy, as the evaluation does not have the authority to force users to adopt any specific testing strategy – it only provides recommendations. It’s very likely that subsequent tests will be carried out by another laboratory, with no regard given to the recommendations from the previous assessment; in such a case, risk assessment serves merely as a means to prolong the testing period, which is quite dangerous. We need to use confirmatory tests to provide a factual basis for our evaluation results; therefore, it is best for the evaluation and testing to be carried out systematically by a single entity. 7th floor: “Only the China National Institute of Special Equipment Inspection is qualified to conduct RBI tests.” You’re wrong; it was the China National Institute of Special Equipment Inspection and Hefei General Research Institute that first obtained the approval to carry out RBI tests, and now Jiangsu Special Equipment Inspection is the third institution in the country to have this capability. The RBI stipulates in the regulatory guidelines that such inspections can only be carried out on large-scale complete systems, but many organizations deal with individual equipment; if a few of their devices cannot stop operating for inspection and they wish to postpone the inspection, it’s not possible to conduct inspections on the entire system anyway

I hope I can pay for some materials so that I can learn it*

There is API581 in the forum; please download it: 9# fengyihan13

The original poster put it very well! ! ! Our company is preparing to do this. I hope there will be a chance to exchange ideas.