TECHNICAL BULLETIN.

LTARP; Basics guide.

The issue
A query that is commonly
encountered in LTARP projects is:
To what extent do the principles of the
methodology fit in with other
replacement guides?
The query refers to the next issues:
There is an abundance of lifetime
references; to what extent does
this differ with what is already
available.
There are various approaches like
Risk Based Inspections available.
To what extent does this approach
fit in to what is already
implemented.

The LTARP approach

In order to understand the basics with
respect to lifetime assessment, its
helpful to review how lifetime is
incorporated during the design phase.
A well-known phrase that points out
how maintenance and replacement as
well are guided, is: the needs for
maintenance are decided on the
drawing table.
Some examples that illustrate this
sentence are:
> If corrosion is likely to take place,
the effects of that can be accounted
for by incorporating corrosion
allowance. When adequately applied,
this does not only apply to the larger
equipments; also fittings and tubing
should be included in this approach.
An integrated approach in which
besides the larger equipment also all
connected tubing is designed for a
specific lifetime, is rare.
> If an equipment should last for a
specific period, this can be
incorporated in a transparent way in
the design specifications by reference
to predicted deterioration rate and the
way that has been accounted for. In
general only the plant design lifetime
is specified. The lifetime as applicable
to plant components is not traceable.
The LTARP End Of Life (EOL)
approach is in its core an act of
reverse engineering of the original
design assumptions, incorporating the
experience obtained in practice. It can
be characterized as feedback on the

original design calculations on which

the lifetime specification is based.
What does this imply?
Retrofitting the original allowances
and condition acceptance criteria with
the actual End Of Life deterioration
rate to a lifetime that will actually be
attained.
Predicting the asset performance
over time, in accordance with the
reliability requirements as per original
design, taking the actual reliability
characteristics into account.
It differs from generic replacement
guides, since it takes the actual plant
design with its specific built-in
characteristics as a reference.

Modular framework
A query that is commonly
encountered in LTARP project is:
What requirements do apply in order
to implement LTARP effectively?
The main characteristic of an LTARP
project is:
Trending, trending, trending.
In all cases, trends are assessed in
order to determine the specific
changes over time that are decisive
for an exchange or major repair of
equipment.
Commonly, equipment condition is
assessed by:
condition checks, resulting in still
good or need for repair. This
approach is commonly known as
the stoplight approach.
condition assessments. Actual
condition is determined by
reference to quality specifications
that apply for the supply phase.
In service acceptance criteria are
only seldom supplied as an
integrated part of the design.
generic equipment functional
requirements as per supplier.
Plant specific acceptance criteria
based on actual required
performance, are even more rare.
Commonly the performance
requirement refers to the design
specs which usually contains
overcapacity. Minimum
performance requirements are
rare.

LTARP Long Term Asset Replacement Planning

Application note LTARP Basics guide Q1 2015
Knowledge owner: geerthenk.wijnants@stork.com

The LTARP approach in general

results in the definition of default,
plant specific acceptance criteria with
guidelines by which the actual plant &
equipment specific EOL condition
assessment criteria can be
determined.
If trends are commonly assessed by
means of for instance an RBI
approach, the LTARP approach is
merely a plug-in, by which the already
available data are reviewed in order to
select the specific data that pertain to
the actual End Of Life scenario.
In other cases, particularly in the
StopLight LTARP will reveal that due
End Of Life situations are invisible,
since OK will result as long as no
repairs are required.
So here also, criteria for more specific
characterization of the actual
conditions, will be sought for.

Conclusions
As discussed, the core of the LTARP
approach is as follows:
It acts as a plugs-in onto already
available approaches by which
conditional changes are
monitored.
If reveals the Stoplight situations
and will opt for predictive capacity,
since stoplight assessments
commonly lack in predictive
capacity.
It retro-engineers the original
designed lifetime calculation by
incorporating the actual observed
conditional behavior over time.
It reveals the decisive End Of Life
scenarios, which can validate the
original reference as per design or
may reveal as yet hidden
characteristics as per specification
of the decisive scenario.

For transparency and traceability

purposes, LTARP uses the ISO 15686
and the NEN 2767 as a common
framework for End Of Life condition
assessment and documented,
traceable End Of Life calculations.
LTARP acts as a plug-in on already
operational trend-based condition
monitoring programs.