API RP 581 - 3rd Ed.2016 - Add.2-2020 - Risk-Based Inspection Methodology
5-42 API RECOMMENDED PRACTICE 581Table 5.3—Bundle Material Cost FactorsBundle Generic MaterialTube Material Cost Factor,MfAL6XN/254 SMO 7.0Seacure/E-Brite 6.0Admiralty Brass/Aluminum Brass/Red Brass/Muntz 2.5Aluminum Alloy 3.0Alloy 20 Cb3 6.5Alloy 600 9.5Alloy 625 11.0Alloy 800 7.0Alloy 825 8.0Alloy C276 11.0Ferralium 255 7.0Bimetallic 4.5Ceramic 1.0Plastic 1.0Titanium Gr. 2 6.0Titanium Gr. 12 10.0Titanium Gr. 16 14.0Zeron 100 4.0Zirconium Alloy 15.0NOTE The tube material cost factors are generic data and the user is encouraged to set values based on currentmaterial cost factors.Table 5.4—Numerical Values Associated with POF and Financial-Based COF Categories for ExchangerBundlesProbability Category (1) Consequence Category (2)Category Range Category Range ($)1 POF ≤ 0.1A COF ≤ $10,0002 0.1 < POF ≤ 0.2B $10,000 < COF ≤ $50,0003 0.2 < POF ≤ 0.3C $50,000 < COF ≤ $150,0004 0.3 < POF ≤ 0.5D $150,000 < COF ≤ $1,000,0005 0.5 < POF ≤ 1.0E COF > $1,000,000NOTE 1 In terms of the total DF, see Part 2, Section 2.3.NOTE 2 In terms of consequence area, see Part 3, Section 4.11.4.
RISK-BASED INSPECTION METHODOLOGY, PART 5—SPECIAL EQUIPMENT 5-43InspectionCategoryTable 5.5—Inspection Effectiveness and UncertaintyInspectionEffectivenessCategoryInspectionConfidenceInspectionUncertaintyA Highly Effective > 90 % < 10 %B Usually Effective > 70 to 90 % < 30 % to 10 %C Fairly Effective > 50 % to 70 % < 50% to 30%D Poorly Effective > 40 % to 50 % < 60 % to 50 %E Ineffective < 40 % > 60 %NOTE 1 Inspection cost numbers are not provided in this table but may be used in themethodology regarding a ‘repair or replace’ strategy. It is the responsibility of the operator-user todetermine the cost numbers unique to their particular operation and strategy.NOTE 2 Refer to Part 2, Annex C, Section 2.C.4 for more information.NOTE 3 The operator-user should consider applying confidence/uncertainty based upon therelationship between the following variables:a) Amount of the bundle inspected (percentage whole or percentage per pass)b) Examination method(s) used and degree of cleanlinessc) Metallurgy of the bundled) Damage mechanism(s) expected/found
- Page 541 and 542: CONTENTS1 GENERAL………………
- Page 543 and 544: 3.B-2 API RECOMMENDED PRACTICE 5813
- Page 545 and 546: 3.B-4 API RECOMMENDED PRACTICE 581T
- Page 547 and 548: PART 5SPECIAL EQUIPMENT5-1
- Page 549 and 550: Consequence of Failure Methodology
- Page 551 and 552: Risk-Based Inspection MethodologyPa
- Page 553 and 554: RISK-BASED INSPECTION METHODOLOGY,
- Page 555 and 556: RISK-BASED INSPECTION METHODOLOGY,
- Page 557 and 558: RISK-BASED INSPECTION METHODOLOGY,
- Page 559 and 560: RISK-BASED INSPECTION METHODOLOGY,
- Page 561 and 562: RISK-BASED INSPECTION METHODOLOGY,
- Page 563 and 564: RISK-BASED INSPECTION METHODOLOGY,
- Page 565 and 566: RISK-BASED INSPECTION METHODOLOGY,
- Page 567 and 568: RISK-BASED INSPECTION METHODOLOGY,
- Page 569 and 570: RISK-BASED INSPECTION METHODOLOGY,
- Page 571 and 572: RISK-BASED INSPECTION METHODOLOGY,
- Page 573 and 574: RISK-BASED INSPECTION METHODOLOGY,
- Page 575 and 576: RISK-BASED INSPECTION METHODOLOGY,
- Page 577 and 578: RISK-BASED INSPECTION METHODOLOGY,
- Page 579 and 580: RISK-BASED INSPECTION METHODOLOGY,
- Page 581 and 582: RISK-BASED INSPECTION METHODOLOGY,
- Page 583 and 584: RISK-BASED INSPECTION METHODOLOGY,
- Page 585 and 586: RISK-BASED INSPECTION METHODOLOGY,
- Page 587 and 588: RISK-BASED INSPECTION METHODOLOGY,
- Page 589 and 590: RISK-BASED INSPECTION METHODOLOGY,
- Page 591: RISK-BASED INSPECTION METHODOLOGY,
- Page 595 and 596: RISK-BASED INSPECTION METHODOLOGY,
- Page 597 and 598: RISK-BASED INSPECTION METHODOLOGY,
- Page 599 and 600: RISK-BASED INSPECTION METHODOLOGY,
- Page 601 and 602: RISK-BASED INSPECTION METHODOLOGY,
- Page 603 and 604: RISK-BASED INSPECTION METHODOLOGY,
- Page 605 and 606: RISK-BASED INSPECTION METHODOLOGY,
- Page 607 and 608: RISK-BASED INSPECTION METHODOLOGY,
- Page 609 and 610: RISK-BASED INSPECTION METHODOLOGY,
- Page 611 and 612: RISK-BASED INSPECTION METHODOLOGY,
- Page 613 and 614: RISK-BASED INSPECTION METHODOLOGY,
- Page 615 and 616: RISK-BASED INSPECTION METHODOLOGY,
- Page 617 and 618: RISK-BASED INSPECTION METHODOLOGY,
- Page 619 and 620: RISK-BASED INSPECTION METHODOLOGY,
- Page 621 and 622: RISK-BASED INSPECTION METHODOLOGY,
- Page 623 and 624: RISK-BASED INSPECTION METHODOLOGY,
- Page 625 and 626: RISK-BASED INSPECTION METHODOLOGY,
- Page 627 and 628: RISK-BASED INSPECTION METHODOLOGY,
- Page 629 and 630: RISK-BASED INSPECTION METHODOLOGY,
- Page 631 and 632: RISK-BASED INSPECTION METHODOLOGY,
- Page 633 and 634: RISK-BASED INSPECTION METHODOLOGY,
- Page 635 and 636: RISK-BASED INSPECTION METHODOLOGY,
- Page 637 and 638: RISK-BASED INSPECTION METHODOLOGY,
- Page 639 and 640: RISK-BASED INSPECTION METHODOLOGY,
- Page 641 and 642: RISK-BASED INSPECTION METHODOLOGY,
RISK-BASED INSPECTION METHODOLOGY, PART 5—SPECIAL EQUIPMENT 5-43
Inspection
Category
Table 5.5—Inspection Effectiveness and Uncertainty
Inspection
Effectiveness
Category
Inspection
Confidence
Inspection
Uncertainty
A Highly Effective > 90 % < 10 %
B Usually Effective > 70 to 90 % < 30 % to 10 %
C Fairly Effective > 50 % to 70 % < 50% to 30%
D Poorly Effective > 40 % to 50 % < 60 % to 50 %
E Ineffective < 40 % > 60 %
NOTE 1 Inspection cost numbers are not provided in this table but may be used in the
methodology regarding a ‘repair or replace’ strategy. It is the responsibility of the operator-user to
determine the cost numbers unique to their particular operation and strategy.
NOTE 2 Refer to Part 2, Annex C, Section 2.C.4 for more information.
NOTE 3 The operator-user should consider applying confidence/uncertainty based upon the
relationship between the following variables:
a) Amount of the bundle inspected (percentage whole or percentage per pass)
b) Examination method(s) used and degree of cleanliness
c) Metallurgy of the bundle
d) Damage mechanism(s) expected/found
Change language