botminds.aiRequest a demo
WorkflowAsset Integrity & Inspection

Damage Mechanism Review

Damage mechanism review software that reads every change since the last review onto the loop it touches, then waits for your materials authority to rule.

See the demoBook a demo
Follow loop 12-06 from the replay to the ruling ↓
The problem

The damage mechanism review was right the day it was signed

Since then the crude got sourer, a catalyst was reloaded and a few hundred repairs went in. Each one can change what attacks the steel on some loop, and nobody re-reads the whole unit each time the blend changes. Corrosion engineers hear about half of these changes by accident.

So old ratings stand on records that no longer back them. A silicon survey that missed three spools on a bypass still reads as proof for the whole line, and the panel finds out only when someone asks the right question in the room.

Built forCorrosion engineersMaterials authoritiesProcess engineersInspection leadsInternal auditors

The Problem Today

Damage reviews are workshops that go stale the day a crude blend, catalyst or repair changes what the steel faces.

16x
faster corrosion possible in carbon steel under 0.10% silicon published
848 hrs
to read 212 loops by hand, at our 4 hours a loop our estimate

Read by hand today

  • Heat data
  • Metal specs
  • Repairs
  • Failures
  • Findings sit in six systemsRepairs, thickness and lab data rarely meet
  • Silicon gaps stay hiddenOld pipe with no silicon record looks like any other

The Solution

  1. Paint each unit by loopAgents draw the process diagram by corrosion loop from your own records
  2. Replay each changeCrude, catalyst, repairs and failures since the last review, loop by loop
  3. Show what records proveEach mechanism marked supported, mixed or missing a record, with sources
  4. The authority rulesRules with a reason; a second person reads it before it counts

Built-in controls

  • The checker opens each required source before ruling
  • A rating moves only after two people read it
  • Agents only read your systems of record

What You Get

The panel spends its days on what changed, and a review that goes stale says so.

468 hrs
less reading on the sample site, at our 4 hours a loop our estimate
  • Stale reviews flaggedA catalyst or process change raises the question
  • A sample two people signUnchanged loops carry forward only on that signature
  • A document with citationsThe corrosion control document, rebuilt from rulings
The day before the panel, and the panel

One damage mechanism review panel, and the loop that changed under it

Unit 12, vacuum distillation, is due for revalidation. Overnight the agents replay what changed. By the next morning one hot carbon steel line has moved from Low to Credible, and two people have read why.

demoUnit 12, its crews and its readings are sample data from a refinery that does not exist.

  1. 01The day before

    Unit 12 drawn as its process, painted by what attacks the steel

    Corrosion engineer

    The unit opens as its own process diagram on a dark canvas: 14 loops, 30 mechanisms, each loop colored by family and labeled with its temperature, sulfur and metal. Dashed lines with amber labels mark the 6 fresh looks still open. She walks the stream loop by loop and lands on 12-06, the heavy vacuum gas oil pump-around at 590 °F in carbon steel.

  2. 0205:40

    The replay climbs through 107 records while the sulfur gauge rises

    Corrosion engineer

    A timeline runs along the bottom of the map, record by record. At 65 of 107 the feed sulfur reads 1.58 wt% and loop 12-09 lights up for an acid number reading. On the right the agents list their plan: read the records, place each one on its loop, test the mechanisms, redraft the ratings, build the agenda. Nothing changes a rating along the way.

  3. 0306:02

    Feed sulfur went from 1.10 to 1.90 wt%, and acid number nearly doubled

    Corrosion engineer

    The sulfur chip opens the crude assay summary from the laboratory system, read only. Year by year the whole-crude sulfur climbs, and the acid number goes from 0.22 to 0.41. The note under the table matters most: the vacuum gas oil cut runs 1.6 to 2.7 wt%, because sulfur concentrates in the heavy cuts. That is the stream inside loop 12-06.

  4. 0406:02

    The survey read all 44 parts on its drawing, and the line has 47

    Records checker and corrosion engineer

    The old silicon survey was taken as proof for the whole loop. Opened beside the map, it lists what it never read: three spools on the pump bypass, left off the isometric, original parts with no silicon record and no thickness location. The pipe grade on file carries no silicon minimum, and the elbow has no grade at all.

  5. 0515:05

    A clean part beside an unread one proves nothing about the other

    Corrosion engineer

    The loop file puts each fact behind the rating next to its source: 590 °F from the heat balance, 41 thickness locations, 7 mils a year since the last review against 3 long-term. The main-line location reads 0.19 wt% silicon, so its rate says nothing about the three spools. Eight change records sit underneath. She proposes Low to Credible and sends it for a process check.

  6. 0609:45, panel day

    The rule button stays off until four required sources are open

    Materials technical authority

    The panel item asks one question: should sulfidation on 12-06 move from Low to Credible? He has opened the assay, the heat balance, the survey and the thickness history, and the line reads 4 of 4. He picks Credible with the records gap code, types his reason, and keeps the three ordered checks ticked: a hot-line thickness check, a silicon reading on each spool and a turnaround scope request.

  7. 0709:51

    His typed reason arrives marked not compared, waiting for a second reader

    Inspection lead

    The rating stays Low on the map and in the document until it is countersigned. On his own view the inspection lead sees the ruling with its typed reason flagged as not compared, because the system cannot judge a sentence. He opens the same four sources himself, the line reads 4 of 4 opened by you, and only then can he countersign or refuse with a reason.

  8. 08After the countersign

    Three checks on 12-06 wait for a method he chooses

    Inspection lead

    The ruling lands in the inspection plan, which now holds 24 actions from rulings. At the top, three wait for him: the thickness check on all three spools under the site hot-line procedure, a silicon reading on each, and the scope request. How and when to reach a hot line is his call. A method that misses its due date goes back to the authority.

  9. 09End of the panel

    The corrosion control document is written from rulings and stays blocked

    Corrosion engineer

    Section two lists what changed since the last review, loop by loop, and 12-06 now reads Credible with the authority's reason beside it. The header still says draft, not issued, with 5 fresh looks open and repairs that sit on no loop yet. She can send it for signature only once each item is ruled and no disagreement is open.

Loop 12-06 then and now: sulfur up, a rate that doubled, three parts unread

The last review rated sulfidation Low on two grounds: low feed sulfur and a silicon survey taken as covering every part. Neither still holds.

What the record showsAt the last reviewNow
Whole-crude sulfur1.1 wt%1.9 wt%
Sulfur in the vacuum gas oil cut1.6 wt%2.7 wt%
Acid number0.220.41
Wall at the main-line location0.256 in0.221 in
Corrosion rateUnder 5 mils a year7 mils a year short-term, 3 long-term
Parts with a silicon recordTaken as all44 of 47
Sulfidation ratingLowCredible, ruled and countersigned

demoSample data, from the working solution.

Reading 212 loops by hand against reading only what changed

Our own estimate of the reading load on the sample site, at an assumed 4 hours a loop to pull process data, metal records and history.

All 212 loops, read by hand848 hours
Loops with a fresh look58 loops
Loops sampled from the 154 carried forwardOne in five, at least two a unit37 loops
Loops a person reads, at 4 hours each95 loops380 hours
Hours the panel gets back468 hours

estimatedOur estimate.

Around the site

Carry-forward, stale reviews and the change ledger across 14 units

The rest of the revalidation, on the same record, unit by unit.

Carry forwardThe largest decision here: 85 of 154 unchanged loops signed. Each unit shows its sample, its sulfur sweep and the repairs that still block signing.
What changed since the last review1,204 records by type, unit and loop, searchable by work order or tag. A separate tab holds the 17 the agents would not place.
Stale watchAfter issue, each new record is compared with the signed thresholds. Five reviews have gone stale; a reactor inlet up 17 °F stays under the 20 °F trigger.
Revalidation across the siteFourteen units with loops, mechanisms, fresh looks ruled, due date, days left and stage. Eight are issued, five of those stale or challenged.
Audit trailProposals, process checks, agent runs, rulings and issued documents, with who did each and when. The evidence export downloads as a CSV file.
Thresholds that need a signatureTemperature trigger, carry-forward sample and revalidation cycle, each inside allowed limits. The corrosion engineer proposes; only the authority signs.

demoSample data, from the working solution.

What the replay turned up that a workshop would likely have missed

Findings on the sample site that came from reading the records together.

Three spools nobody read

Left off the isometric, so the survey that cleared the line never touched them.

Acid on the same loop

Naphthenic acid on 12-06 gets its own agenda item, since no coupon sits on the loop and the rise cannot yet be split between acid and sulfur.

Repairs with no loop

Seventeen repairs could not be placed. They stay held, and carry-forward and the document cannot be signed over them.

A catalyst reload after issue

It changed the start-of-run reactor temperature on an issued unit, and the review now reads stale.

demoSample data, from the working solution.

Who does the reading

Seven agents prepare the panel, and the materials authority rules

They draw, draft, place, check, prepare, write and watch.

Loop drafter

Proposes loop boundaries from balances and line lists.

  • Never moves an approved boundary alone
Mechanism drafter

Drafts mechanisms per loop from your own loaded copy of the standard.

  • Never rules
  • Never marks a mechanism not credible on its own
Change replayer

Places each record on its loop and marks fresh looks.

  • Never guesses a placement
  • Never changes a rating
Records checker

Says what the records support and where they fail to.

  • Never treats a missing record as proof
  • Never estimates remaining life
Panel clerk

Builds the agenda in process order and records rulings.

  • Never rules
Document writer

Writes the corrosion control document from rulings, with citations.

  • Never issues a document
Stale watch

Compares new records with signed thresholds after issue.

  • Never reopens a review
  • Never sets a threshold

Ratings, carry-forward and fitness for service are decided on the panel

The agents prepare the panel. These calls belong to the people on it.

A rating moves only by a rulingA dispute or a reopened item leaves the last ruled rating standing, shown as under review, until a new ruling replaces it.
One person's words do not move a ratingThe system cannot judge a typed reason, so a second person opens the same sources and reads it before the rating counts.
Carrying unchanged loops forward has an ownerThe authority reads the sulfur sweep and opens each sampled loop, then the inspection lead countersigns.
How to reach a hot line is the inspection lead's callThe method and timing follow the site procedure. A date that slips goes back to the authority.
Whether to keep a line running is left to peopleThe product does not answer it. Fitness for service is the authority's call, and reaching the line is the inspection lead's.

What corrosion engineers ask before a damage mechanism review panel

What is a damage mechanism review?

A damage mechanism review sets out, loop by loop, how each process stream can damage its own steel and how the site will look for it. Here agents draw each unit by corrosion loop, draft the mechanisms from your records, and replay every change since the last review. Each rating waits for the materials authority to rule, and a second person reads it before it counts.

How does a damage mechanism revalidation decide which loops need a fresh look?

The change replayer reads crude and feed changes, catalyst changes, repairs, failures and process changes, places each one on the loop it touches, and marks a fresh look where a change reaches the conditions behind a rating. Records it cannot place go to a person instead of a guess.

What happens to the loops that did not change?

They carry forward on a sample. The authority reads the sulfur sweep for hot loops on crude-fed units, opens each sampled loop, and agrees. The inspection lead countersigns. Repairs not yet placed on a loop block that signature.

Does it write the corrosion control document?

Yes, from rulings only, with a citation on each line. A ruling changed after the document was read sends it back for a fresh signature. The layout shown is a sample template, and your own replaces it.

Why does low silicon in old carbon steel matter so much?

Carbon steel with little silicon can thin far faster in hot sulfur service than the part next to it. A thickness reading on one part says little about an unread part beside it, which is why the records checker asks where the silicon record stops.

Do you supply the damage mechanism standards?

No. Standards text is licensed, so your site loads its own copies, and the mechanism drafter works from them. The plain wording on the screens is ours.

Who can change the thresholds?

The corrosion engineer or inspection lead proposes a change with a reason, inside set limits. The authority opens what it changes and signs. A smaller sample starts at the next review, so no check under way shrinks.

Asset Integrity & Inspection

More for corrosion and inspection teams

All 8 solutions →
Safety-Critical Element Management

Each performance standard written so it can fail, and each test result read against it.

1-min demoAsset Life Extension

One earliest limit with its evidence, not six separate reports.

1-min demoMechanical Integrity Audit

Every inspection record tested, and the ones that could not be, counted.

1-min demo

Bring one unit
and its last signed review.

We’ll replay your own change records onto your loops and show which ones earn a fresh look.

Book a demoBrowse solutions