Replacing Internal Visual Inspection with Non-Intrusive Techniques in Refineries: Practical Recommendations

, 12/17/2025 Be the first to comment

Tags: API 580 API 581 Damage Mechanisms Inspection Mechanical Integrity Risk Risk Based Inspection


While Risk-Based Inspection (RBI) promised to reduce intrusive vessel entries, corporate risk aversion and rigid API standards have hindered progress. This post examines why internal visual inspection (IVI) remains the standard despite its human-factor limitations. We analyze the Probability of Detection (POD) for advanced NII technologies - including PAUT, PEC, and Corrosion Mapping - to propose a roadmap for achieving technical and regulatory equivalency in refinery asset integrity.

Replacing Internal Visual Inspection with Non-Intrusive Techniques in Refineries: Practical Recommendations

The original promise of Risk-Based Inspection (RBI) was that better risk understanding (probability X consequence) would allow operators to reduce intrusive inspections, especially vessel entries, exchanger pull-and-clean, and widespread stripping, by substituting credible non-intrusive inspections (NII) and smarter targeting. In practice, that promise has largely not been fulfilled. Here are my reasons for this not happening:

  • Despite marketing claims, most field-applied NII methods cannot reliably replace intrusive inspection for many refinery damage mechanisms.
  • Corporate risk tolerance is extremely conservative. This is organizational risk aversion, not technical failure, but it defeats the RBI promise.
  • Despite the RBI language in API 580/581, the standards API 510/570/653 still strongly anchor to direct internal condition assessment. Many inspectors and insurers explicitly distrust purely analytical justifications and unvalidated Probability of Detection (POD) claims.
  • RBI has not solved the "Unknown Damage Mechanism" problem. NII, being specifically targeted, cannot reliably discover unknown mechanisms.

To fulfill the promise, I believe RBI would need to be paired with:

  • Damage-mechanism-specific inspection strategies
  • Validated POD curves for NII methods for each strategy
  • Field verification of each NII's probability of detection
  • Explicit risk acceptance criteria
  • As a minimum industry consensus or at best regulatory alignment on equivalency

In modern refineries, internal visual inspection (IVI) has long been the standard for evaluating the integrity of pressure vessels, piping, heat exchangers, and tanks. While visual inspection is straightforward and well understood, it comes with limitations:

  • Human factors such as fatigue and experience
  • Poor detection of small pits (< 2-5 mm)
  • Inability to detect subsurface defects
  • Safety and access constraints

With advances in Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) technologies, many refineries are now supplementing or even replacing IVI to increase Probability of Detection (POD) while reducing risk and downtime.


Why Move to NII?

Non-Intrusive Inspection methods are capable of detecting:

  • General and localized corrosion
  • Pitting and under-deposit corrosion
  • Cracks, hydrogen-induced cracking (HIC), and sulfide stress cracking (SSC)
  • Wall thinning under insulation

Moreover, these methods often provide quantitative measurements, enabling better trend analysis and risk-based maintenance decisions.


While consensus is still evolving, it isn't only about documents; it's also about shared understanding and competence across practitioners. Roadblocks still exist:

  • Code equivalency language that would allow NII to replace intrusive inspections is still largely absent in major codes like API 510/570.
  • Unified damage-specific POD thresholds for NII techniques are not yet universally agreed upon or codified.
  • Regulatory acceptance frameworks remain "case-by-case" rather than universally accepted.

Therefore, in recognition of the fact that most company MI programs are not maintained by inspection experts, I want to start a conversation on what NII techniques are/could be equivalent to internal visual inspection. Below is a table that I have assembled to serve as a starting point. What are your thougnts? Comment below or contact us directly. I am excited to hear your thoughts.

Inspection MethodRepresentative POD / NotesSourcePractical Application / Equipment Type
Conventional UT (contact UT)50% POD at ~5 mm flaw depth, 90% POD at ~10-12 mm, up to ~99% for larger defectsUSNRC (1)Wall thickness monitoring for vessels, piping, tanks; general corrosion detection
Phased Array UT (PAUT)50% POD at ~5 mm flaw, 90% POD ~10-12 mm, improves detection of complex geometries and weld defectsUSNRC (1)Weld inspection on vessels, piping, heat exchangers, and cracking detection
TOFD (Time-of-Flight Diffraction)Very high POD for planar cracks; 95-98% for cracks > 3 mmEddyfi Technologies(2)Critical welds, nozzle attachments, pressure relief devices; HIC/SOHIC detection
Radiographic Testing (RT/Digital RT)High resolution; detects internal anomalies invisible to visual inspection; POD depends on exposure, film quality, object thicknessAsset Optimization Consults observationShell-side corrosion, tubesheets, localized pitting in exchangers or vessels
Eddy Current / RFT / IRIS (tubes)POD 80-98% depending on flaw type (pitting, cracks)USNRC (1)Tube inspection in shell-and-tube heat exchangers, reboilers, and condensers; pitting and cracking detection
Automated UT / Corrosion MappingHigh-density thickness mapping; POD 90-95% for general wall loss; 80-90% for isolated pittingAsset Optimization Consults observationVessel and piping wall thickness; screening for general corrosion and localized thinning; tanks, columns, drums
Pulsed Eddy Current (PEC)Detects corrosion under insulation; POD 60-90% for wall loss > 15-20%WCNDT(3)Insulated piping, tanks, vessels; CUI screening without insulation removal
Guided Wave UT (GWUT)POD 50-90% for long-range screening; good for inaccessible areasBINDT(4)Long pipelines, buried or hard-to-access piping; screening for general wall loss
Remote Visual Inspection (RVI, borescopes)High-resolution internal imaging; POD 85-95% for general corrosion; 60-80% for small pitsAsset Optimization Consults observationInternal surfaces of vessels, columns, heat exchangers; restricted entry areas; fouling inspection
EMAT (Electromagnetic Acoustic Transducer)90-95% for surface-breaking cracks; 80-90% for wall-loss; good for coated surfacesEddyfi Technologies(2)Surface-breaking crack detection in coated vessels, tanks, and piping; welds and nozzle connections

REFERENCES
  1. "Results of the Program for the Inspection of Nickel Alloy Components", August, 2010, S.E. Cumblidge, et al, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-Y3_N88-PURL-gpo5392/pdf/GOVPUB-Y3_N88-PURL-gpo5392.pdf
  2. "Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) - Holistic inspection approach using advanced ultrasonic systems", 2024, Eddyfi Technologies, https://content.eddyfi.com/m/2ce94fe1b3d8da86/original/Non-Intrusive-Inspection-NII-Applications-Brochure.pdf
  3. "Focused Computed Tomography", 15th World Conference on Non-Destructive Testing, October, 2000, Gede B. Suparta, https://www.ndt.net/article/wcndt00/papers/idn143/idn143.htm
  4. "Publication of HOIS REcommended Practice for Non-Intrusive Inspection and Guidance Notes", 11/3/2020, British Institute of Non-Destructive Testing, https://www.bindt.org/News/March-2020/publication-of-hois-recommended-practice-for-non-intrusive-inspection-and-guidance-notes/

Be the first to comment

Comments

There are no comments for this article.

Add your comment

Related Services

End-of-Life, Remaining-Life, and Fitness-for-Service Assessments

When evaluation of inspection results suggest that an asset is near its end of useful life, Fitness for Service evaluations can determine if the asset us suitable for continued operation.

Risk Based Inspection (RBI) Implementation and Planning

AOC has delivered thousands of sustainable Risk Based Inspection (RBI) programs earning the trust of owner operators.

Damage Mechanism Review / Corrosion Study

One of the most important steps in an RBI project is the corrosion study or damage mechanism review.

Related Tools

RBI Potential Savings Calculator

Create mechanical integrity (MI) program value rather than it being seen as a necessary cost to minimize.

API 580 Work Process Quiz

How well do you know RBI? Take this short quiz to test your knowledge of the API 580 risk-based inspection (RBI) work process.

Mechanical Integrity (MI) Compliance Checklist

Is your plant's MI program compliant? Use our checklist to assess your current program against industry standards and receive expert recommendations for improvement.

Related Training

RBI/MI Overview

A high level overview introducing Mechanical Integrity and Risk Based Inspection

API 580 RBI Overview

What impact does Risk Based Inspection (RBI) have on my organization?

API 580 Training

Is your Risk Based Inspection (RBI) program aligned with the API 580 Recommended Practice? Are you ready for certification?

API 581 Overview

What's actually going on inside all of that fancy software? An introduction to the API 581 methodology.

API 581 Training

A deep dive into quantitative Risk Based Inspection (RBI) as outlined in API 581.

Related Knowledge

Risk Strategies for Pressure Retaining Equipment

What are equipment/inspection strategies in relation to mechanical integrity (MI) and risk based inspection (RBI)?

How to Incorporate the New PHMSA Underground Gas Storage Requirements

This is a practical approach to incorporating the new PHMSA gas well rules into your integrity program with the rest of your surface and subsurface assets.

Why is Mechanical Integrity So Important to Process Safety Management?

Discover why equipment failure is the root cause of most catastrophic incidents. Mechanical Integrity (MI) is the non-negotiable foundation that prevents loss of containment and protects your entire PSM system. Learn the 8 reasons MI is essential.

Proposal for Individual Damage Mechanism Risk Calculation in API 581

An update to our original proposal for an API 581 Inspection Plan optimization.

API 580 vs API 581: Which RBI Approach Is Right For You?

Risk Based inspection is not always cut and dry when it comes to choosing a methodology. Knowing which one to choose is an important step in the overall process.

The Top Three RBI Risks That Cannot Wait for a Budget Rebound

Budget tight? Some Risk-Based Inspection (RBI) risks are too critical to delay. Learn the top 3 RBI risks that can't wait for a budget rebound.

Proposed API 581 Inspection Plan Optimization Example

An example to compliment our earlier proposal for a risk analysis option that allows for individual damage mechanism risk calculation in API 581

Proposed API 581 Inspection Plan Optimization

A proposal for a risk analysis option that allows for individual damage mechanism risk calculation in API 581

Leveraging AI to Accelerate Data Collection in Risk-Based Inspection Projects

How AOC's new AI solution cuts data collection time for Risk-Based Inspection (RBI) projects by automatically extracting and normalizing data from historical engineering documents, achieving very high accuracy and reducing costs.

API 580 (4th edition) Required Elements

What are the requirements of API 580, 4th edition?