Risk Based Inspection Engineering

Prevention is always better

CANEIL houses a strong team of multidisciplinary Integrity Professionals with backgrounds in Mechanical, Structural, Chemical, and Materials Engineering who are also knowledgeable in Non-Destructive Examination techniques, RBI methodology and asset management tools such as GE APM Meridium. This knowledge has been key for our clients, as our team has been able to identify and propose more efficient mitigation strategies by optimizing the methods of inspection, resulting in a more cost-efficient program while maintaining the reliability and integrity of the equipment.

Benefits of RBI

The Risk Based Inspection (RBI) program characterizes risk and uses this information to determine an optimal inspection strategy that improves the allocation of inspection resources and guarantees a safe and reliable operation.  Owner-users with a recognized Risk-Based Inspection Program (RBIP) are also often offered extended maximum inspection and servicing intervals by their jurisdictional authority.

Properly implemented, RBI can reduce the incidence of equipment failures while lowering inspection costs.  Such outcomes require assessments to be based on sound engineering principles and be in compliance with relevant codes, jurisdictional requirements, and industry practices.

Our goal at CANEIL is to help develop RBI programs that eliminate unnecessary inspections while ensuring we meet our commitment to health and safety.

Key Elements

The cornerstone of any RBI program is risk analysis: the combination of the probability of loss of containment and the consequence of that failure.

Probability is assessed by modelling the accumulated vessel damage based on identified, credible damage mechanisms, and deterioration rates determined from inspection findings. Consequences are modelled based on terms of how people, property, and the surrounding environment are likely to be impacted as a result of a loss of containment. The POF (Probability of Failure) and COF (Consequence of Failure) are combined in a risk matrix to help to compare and prioritize inspection planning and risk mitigation.

Methodologies for these assessments are typically described as being qualitative (based on judgement), quantitative (based on calculations using measurements and data), or semi-quantitative (some mixture of qualitative and quantitative). CANEIL can offer support for execution of these assessments using established RBI methodologies, such as those laid out in API 581, using either the quantitative, semi-quantitative, or qualitative approach.

To demonstrate how CANEIL uses RBI Engineering in it’s projects, below is a chart with brief descriptions of what can be a characteristic component for each risk level:


Any equipment exposed to a large amount of external factors such as harmful chemicals, extreme weather conditions or corrosion can be considered at a high risk. Ideally these kinds of equipment have their inspection intervals greatly increased and there are many precautions put in place to reduce the risk as much as possible.

Source: ehssafetynewsamerica.com


A pressure equipment will be considered at a medium-high risk when generally the combination of CoF and PoF results in a non-extreme outcome. For example, the probability of a failure happening is high but its consequence is very minimal or the Consequence is extreme but it is very unlikely that the event might take place.

Source: csb.gov


A pressure equipment will be considered at a medium risk when it is exposed to hazardous conditions but not to the extent of requiring very high inspection intervals, and the consequences of failure would not be as catastrophic, but caution is still required.


Ideally all pressure equipment risk level should be in the low region. This ensures that the vessel can continue to function under the normal conditions as designed, and if needed, the inspection interval can even be increased to save downtime and in turn, reduce costs.

Source: cnasia.com

The CANEIL Difference

CANEIL relies on the experience of its inspectors and engineers to support our clients in transitioning to or operating with their RBI programs. Contact us to find out how we can help you in any of these areas:

CANEIL can help owner-users to establish Risk-Based Inspection Programs as part of their Integrity Management Systems, in accordance with industry practices and jurisdictional requirements.

CANEIL can support your move to an RBIP, providing engineers to review equipment design, operating data, inspection and repair histories. We can also provide personnel for planning and executing the pre-commissioning inspection.

A functional RBI team requires diverse talent on an ongoing basis. CANEIL can augment clients’ in-house personnel with additional team members to provide the required range of knowledge needed for effective RBI.

Following every major inspection effort, significant amounts of data become available, and with it the need to update risk assessments for each piece of equipment. CANEIL has a pool of experienced analysts that can take on this task, leaving your internal asset reliability staff free to focus on operations.

With deep insight into the impact that inspection can have on identifying deterioration mechanisms and reducing risk associated with uncertainty, CANEIL’s experts are well positioned to recommend inspection interval and scope changes to help you optimize your inspection program and maximize operating intervals.