APPENDIX FCOMPARISON OF API AND ASME RISK-BASED INSPECTION

F.1 Summary

while identifying opportunities for increased levels of sophistication where appropriate.

This appendix summarizes the differences and similarities

between the API Risk-Based Inspection Base Resource Document (BRD) and the ASME documents. The ASME documents reviewed were:

F.2.2

ASME RBI

The ASME projects were research efforts to determine risk

based methods for developing guidelines for inspection. They
did not necessarily develop those guidelines. The ASME
approach considers and includes all levels of complexity:

Volume 1: General Document.

Volume 2: Part 1. Light Water Reactor (LWR) Nuclear
Power Plant Components.
Volume 3: Fossil Fuel Fired Electric Power Generating
Station Applications.

a.
b.
c.
d.

There are no philosophical differences between the API

and the ASME approaches to Risk-Based Inspection; however, the final documents from the projects are notably different. The differences arise from the different scopes and goals
of the two projects. The ASME projects were research efforts
to determine risk-based methods for developing guidelines
for inspection. The API project was intended to develop
usable tools and methodologies that are understandable at a
plant inspection level. The API project built upon the methods
outlined in the ASME documents, but with considerable simplification where appropriate.

Technical.
Component level.
Fault/Event Tree analysis.
Decision tree analysis.

F.3 Qualitative Risk-Based Inspection

Both the API and ASME documents use qualitative and
quantitative approaches to Risk-Based Inspection, although
not necessarily in the same fashion. The ASME matrix is
shown in Figure F-1.
F.3.1 API RBI
In the BRD, the qualitative approach is intended for use as
a screening tool at the operating unit level. This will allow the
user to quickly focus on those areas of the plant that have the
highest contribution to risk. The approach is intended to be
easy to use:

F.1.1 API RBI

The API BRD aims to be understandable and usable at the
plant staff level. Application tools are needed (and are under
development) to fully gain the benefit of risk based inspection, since even with the use of simplified models, there is a
large database to be manipulated in a typical refinery or
chemical plant. The BRD provides a good start to demonstrate the feasibility and value of the technology.

a. Adds factors contributing to high risk.

b. Subtracts factors contributing to risk management.
The results are presented in a 5 x 5 matrix of likelihood and
consequence. This approach can be extended to the equipment item level, and a current project is underway for this
development (Phase 2).

F.1.2 ASME RBI

The ASME effort aims to the highest levels of technical
development, since it is intended to be a research project.
This approach provides much value to others who wish to
develop applications using these methods, however, the technology as presented in the ASME documents is understandable and usable only by integrated team of high level
specialists. The ASME documents set high standards for
future RBI development.

F.3.2 ASME RBI

The ASME approach to qualitative risk assessment can be
extended to the component level if desired. In the ASME
approach, qualitative means judgmental, i.e. based on the
opinions of experts. Several methods for gleaning these opinions are presented:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

F.2 Scope
F.2.1 API RBI
The API BRD was intended to develop usable tools and
methodologies that are understandable at a plant inspection
level. The project attempted to identify the limitations of the
techniques used due to simplification of complex models,

FMEA (Failure Modes & Effects Analysis).

HAZOP (Hazard & Operability Study).
FTA (Fault Tree Analysis).
MLD (Master Logic Diagram).
What-if (Question sets).

Similar to the API approach, qualitative analysis results are

presented in a 5 x 5 matrix.
F-1

F-2

API 581

High Risk

Medium - High
Risk

LIKELIHOOD CATEGORY

Medium
Risk

Low Risk

CONSEQUENCE CATEGORY

Figure F-1ASME Qualitative Risk Matrix

The API matrix is shown in Figure F-2. Note that the

shaded risk categories are skewed to account for the effects of
risk aversion in the face of high consequences.

bility of failure due to inspection based on the effectiveness of

the inspection technique at finding the damage before failure.
F.4.1.2 ASME RBI

F.4 Quantitative Risk-Based Inspection

F.4.1 LIKELIHOOD OF FAILURE
F.4.1.1 API RBI
The API BRD uses a database of generic failure frequencies to establish base failure rates (events/yr) of different
types of equipment common to the process industries. This
approach has the advantage of providing a starting point for
the application of RBI, but has the disadvantage that the database is not specific to any one type of industry. These
generic frequencies are modified to account for various
damage mechanisms using Probabilistic Structural Mechanics to evaluate the effect of varying degrees of damage on the
probability of failure. Simplified mechanistic models are used
to match the available data. The API approach uses a Bayesian updating technique to account for the reduction in proba-

The ASME approach is illustrated in the referenced documents by the use of historical databases that are available for
the Power industries. This greatly simplifies the approach if
such data is available. The ASME documents also illustrate
the use of Probabilistic Structural Mechanics (referred to as
Structural Reliability and Risk Assessment, SRRA in the
ASME documents). The illustrations of these techniques in
the ASME documents in each case use the same demonstration: fatigue crack growth evaluated via rigorous elastic plastic fracture mechanics. This illustration is used because there
are available models for crack growth, probability of detection, and probabilistic evaluation of the impact of the damage
on structural reliability (probability of failure). However, the
ASME approach does not address how to proceed in the
absence of such models and data, except to rely on expert
judgment of the POF in determined in a formal method.

RISK-BASED INSPECTION BASE RESOURCE DOCUMENT

Medium - High
Risk

LIKELIHOOD CATEGORY

F-3

High Risk

Low Risk

Medium Risk

CONSEQUENCE CATEGORY

Figure F-2API Qualitative Risk Matrix

F.4.2 CONSEQUENCES
F.4.2.1 API RBI
The API BRD provides methods to quantify any of the following types of consequences:
a.
b.
c.
d.

Flammable/Explosive.
Toxicity.
Environmental.
Business Interruption.

The calculations are based on technical models of release

scenarios.
F.4.2.2 ASME RBI
The ASME approach uses various techniques for determination of consequences. For LWR nuclear power plants, the
consequences are expressed as likelihood of core damage per
event. The actual modeling of release scenarios is not
attempted in this case. For fossil-fuel-fired power plants
(FFFPP), the consequences are taken directly from an industry database giving the cost of purchased replacement power
for given failure events. The use of Fault Trees/Event Trees

for determination of consequences in the fossil fuel fired

plant case is provided as a demonstration of the techniques,
but is extremely complex.
F.4.3 QUANTITATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT
F.4.3.1 API RBI
The final results from the API BRD present the risk as one
or more of the following measures:
a.
b.
c.
d.

Business Interruption ($/yr).

Equipment Damage (square feet/yr).
Health Effects (square feet/yr).
Environmental impact ($/yr).

F.4.3.2 ASME RBI

The final results from the ASME documents present the
risk as one or more of the following measures:
a. Likelihood of Core Damage per year.
b. Economic Loss (FFFPP) ($/yr).
c. CasualtiesFFFPP (Smallresult of boiler rupture).

F-4

API 581

F.5 Conclusions
The ASME research studies present the groundwork necessary to develop Risk-Based Inspection Guidelines, but do not
actually provide such guidelines. The API BRD project builds

upon the earlier ASME efforts to develop usable tools that

can provide the benefits of Risk-Based Inspection with a reasonable expenditure of effort.