RBI models are only as credible as the damage mechanisms they are built on. If the degradation mode is defined too broadly, PoF calculations may appear precise but be based on weak engineering assumptions. A circuit labelled simply as "corrosion" may contain multiple mechanisms with different locations, rates, inspection requirements, and risk significance.
When mechanisms are grouped too broadly, the RBI may average out real risk, producing false confidence, incorrect intervals, poor CML placement, or ineffective inspection scopes โ with real integrity consequences.
What Is Degradation Mode Granularity?
Degradation mode granularity is the level of technical detail used to distinguish one damage mechanism from another within an RBI program. The difference between broad categories such as corrosion, cracking, or thinning, and more specific mechanisms such as general corrosion, localized pitting, under-deposit corrosion, erosion-corrosion, CUI, chloride SCC, wet H2S cracking, fatigue, or HTHA is not merely semantic โ it directly affects inspection planning, CML placement, method selection, and PoF assessment.
Why Broad Damage Categories Distort PoF
PoF depends on mechanism-specific assumptions: damage rate, initiation likelihood, growth behaviour, inspection detectability, location of likely damage, confidence in inspection data, susceptibility to process excursions, and likelihood of interaction with other damage. If mechanisms are grouped too broadly, the RBI may average out the real risk.
Examples of Mechanisms That Should Not Be Averaged Together
General Corrosion vs Localized Pitting
General corrosion may be monitored with representative thickness readings if truly uniform. Localized pitting requires closer location targeting, more sensitive inspection methods, and different remaining life assumptions.
CUI vs Internal Corrosion
CUI and internal corrosion may both produce wall loss, but they occur at different locations, progress differently, and require completely different inspection methods. Treating them as a single "corrosion" mechanism produces an inspection strategy that may address neither effectively.
Injection-Point Corrosion vs Mid-Span Corrosion
Injection-point corrosion is driven by flow turbulence, water dropping out, and chemistry mixing. It typically occurs at the injection nozzle and a short distance downstream. A CML placed mid-span will not capture this damage even if it is performed frequently.
SCC vs General Corrosion
Stress corrosion cracking may occur at nominally low corrosion rates and without significant wall loss, yet lead to sudden brittle failure. Treating SCC with the same PoF model as general thinning can dramatically underestimate risk.
Practical Approach to Defining Degradation Modes
For each circuit, the engineering team should ask: what mechanisms are credible based on material, process, temperature, and operating history? Where are those mechanisms likely to initiate and progress? What inspection method is appropriate for each? Should this circuit be segmented into sub-circuits or separate damage mechanism assessments?
When Granularity Is Too Much
Over-granularity creates administrative burden without engineering benefit. When data quality is poor or damage is genuinely uniform, excessive segmentation may introduce false precision. The objective is fit-for-purpose granularity โ enough detail to support defensible inspection planning, not maximum complexity.
TES Canada performs damage mechanism reviews as the foundation of RBI work. We help clients define degradation modes with sufficient granularity to support credible PoF assessment, correct CML placement, and inspection method selection.
Standards & References
- API RP 580 โ Risk-Based Inspection
- API RP 581 โ Risk-Based Inspection Methodology
- API 571 โ Damage Mechanisms Affecting Fixed Equipment in the Refining Industry
- API 570 โ Piping Inspection Code โ Corrosion circuits and CML planning
Need support with this type of technical challenge?
TES Canada can help you assess the issue, select the right inspection or engineering approach, and develop a practical integrity management solution.
Contact TES Canada โ