One-size-fits-all integrity software fails because it treats a refinery managing sour service circuits at 400C the same as a pharmaceutical plant maintaining clean utility systems at ambient temperature. These environments share nothing in common — different damage mechanisms, different regulatory frameworks, different consequence models, different inspection philosophies — except the fundamental need for governed, traceable risk management.
A refinery engineer screening for high-temperature hydrogen attack against Nelson curve boundaries needs a different risk model than a pharma validation engineer tracking rouge formation in WFI loops. An offshore structural engineer calculating fatigue life at tubular joints works in a different engineering discipline entirely from a power plant metallurgist estimating creep remaining life in superheater headers. Generic platforms force these engineers to work around the tool instead of with it.
Reliatic is configured for each sector at the data model level — damage mechanism libraries, risk matrices, asset taxonomies, regulatory mappings, and report templates are pre-loaded during onboarding. Your engineers start with a system that speaks their technical language from day one.
Each sector gets a purpose-built configuration — damage mechanisms, regulatory frameworks, risk models, and asset taxonomies specific to your engineering reality.
Downstream refineries and upstream processing facilities operate some of the most aggressive process environments in industry. Sour service circuits, high-temperature reactors, and thousands of pressure-containing assets create an integrity challenge that demands quantitative, risk-ranked inspection planning — not calendar-based intervals. A typical refinery manages 4,000+ pressure vessels, 50,000+ piping circuits, and hundreds of pressure relief devices, each with distinct degradation profiles that evolve with feedstock changes and operational shifts.
Irreversible degradation of carbon and low-alloy steels above the Nelson curve boundary, causing fissuring and decarburization in reactor and hot-wall equipment.
Hydrogen-induced cracking and stress-oriented hydrogen-induced cracking in wet H2S environments, particularly at welds and heat-affected zones.
Hidden external corrosion beneath thermal insulation on carbon steel piping operating between -4C and 175C, often undetected until wall loss is critical.
High-temperature corrosion in crude distillation units processing high-TAN crudes, accelerating above 220C with velocities creating turbulent flow.
Environmentally assisted cracking in austenitic stainless steels exposed to chlorides, polythionic acids, or caustic solutions under tensile stress.
Pre-loaded during onboarding for Energy & Refining deployments:
Reduce unplanned shutdowns by focusing inspection resources on the highest-consequence circuits, with full API 580/581 compliance evidence generated automatically.
Chemical plants operate across a spectrum from continuous petrochemical processes to batch specialty operations, each presenting distinct integrity challenges. The combination of corrosive process fluids, elevated temperatures, and cyclic thermal-mechanical loading creates degradation patterns that vary significantly between production campaigns. Process Safety Management (PSM) requirements add a governance layer that demands rigorous change control — every metallurgy substitution, process condition change, or operating envelope modification must be captured, assessed, and approved before execution.
Transgranular cracking in austenitic stainless steels exposed to chloride-containing environments above 60C, often initiating at crevices and under deposits.
External corrosion of carbon and low-alloy steel beneath insulation, particularly problematic in chemical plants with frequent wash-down and outdoor piping.
Dissolution of the protective oxide layer on carbon steel in single-phase and two-phase flow systems, creating localized wall thinning at elbows and tees.
Combined mechanical and electrochemical material removal in slurry lines, catalyst transfer systems, and high-velocity process streams carrying suspended solids.
Alkaline stress corrosion cracking in carbon steel equipment handling amine solutions for acid gas removal, concentrated at welds not post-weld heat treated.
Pre-loaded during onboarding for Chemical & Specialty deployments:
Maintain PSM compliance with governed MOC workflows while optimizing inspection scope across batch and continuous operations with different degradation profiles.
Thermal power plants — whether coal, gas, combined cycle, or biomass — subject their pressure parts to relentless thermal cycling and high-temperature creep. Boiler tubes, superheater headers, turbine casings, and high-energy piping systems operate at the boundary of material capability, where the difference between scheduled replacement and catastrophic failure is measured in remaining creep life fractions. Outage planning in power generation is a high-stakes exercise: every day of unplanned downtime represents significant lost revenue, and inspection scope must be precisely targeted at the highest-risk components to justify the outage window.
Low-cycle fatigue in waterwall, superheater, and reheater tubes driven by start-stop cycling, slagging-induced thermal gradients, and soot-blower erosion.
Time-dependent deformation and void formation in headers, steam pipes, and turbine casings operating above the creep regime threshold for extended periods.
Oxide dissolution in single-phase condensate and feedwater systems and two-phase wet steam extraction lines, driven by water chemistry, temperature, and geometry.
Material wastage from combustion products — molten ash deposits in coal-fired units, vanadium attack in oil-fired units, chlorine-induced corrosion in biomass plants.
Under-deposit corrosion generating hydrogen that diffuses into tube steel, causing intergranular micro-fissuring and sudden thick-lip failures with no advance wall-loss indication.
Pre-loaded during onboarding for Power Generation deployments:
Optimize outage inspection scope with risk-ranked component prioritization, extending plant availability while maintaining full compliance with ASME and EPRI life assessment standards.
Pharmaceutical manufacturing operates in a regulatory environment where the integrity of utility systems directly impacts product quality and patient safety. Clean utility systems — Water for Injection (WFI), Purified Water (PW), Clean Steam, and Clean-In-Place (CIP) circuits — must maintain material, surface finish, and weld quality standards that prevent biofilm formation and particulate contamination. Unlike heavy industry where the primary concern is structural failure, pharma integrity management is fundamentally about contamination prevention and audit readiness. Every change, every inspection, every maintenance intervention must produce validation-ready documentation that satisfies FDA, EMA, and MHRA auditors.
Iron oxide contamination on stainless steel surfaces in high-purity water systems — Class I (surface), Class II (systemic), and Class III (high-temperature) rouge degrading water quality.
Biofilm-associated pitting in stainless steel systems with dead legs, low-flow zones, or inadequate sanitization, compromising both material integrity and product sterility.
Weld decay in austenitic stainless steel heat-affected zones where improper welding procedure causes chromium carbide precipitation, creating corrosion-susceptible grain boundaries.
Localized corrosion in oxygen-depleted crevices at flange faces, threaded connections, and under gaskets — particularly critical in chloride-containing CIP solutions.
Progressive deterioration of electropolished surface finish (Ra values) from repeated CIP/SIP cycles, chemical attack, or mechanical damage, increasing biofilm attachment risk.
Pre-loaded during onboarding for Pharmaceutical deployments:
Maintain continuous audit readiness with zero tolerance for undocumented changes, generating validation-ready evidence packages that satisfy FDA, EMA, and MHRA inspectors on demand.
Offshore platforms, FPSOs, and marine vessels operate in the most hostile physical environments in industrial engineering. Saltwater exposure, wave-induced fatigue loading, cathodic protection management, and the logistical complexity of remote inspection create integrity challenges that are fundamentally different from onshore facilities. Classification society requirements from DNV, ABS, Lloyd's, and Bureau Veritas impose structured survey regimes with strict deadlines — missed class surveys can result in insurance withdrawal, flag state detention, or operational shutdown. The combination of structural fatigue monitoring, topsides process equipment integrity, and hull/mooring system management requires a platform that can handle multiple integrity disciplines simultaneously.
Cyclic wave-induced loading at tubular joints, brace connections, and deck structure causing fatigue crack initiation and propagation — managed through S-N curve analysis and stress concentration factors.
Sacrificial anode consumption and impressed current system degradation allowing localized corrosion on submerged steel structures when protection potentials fall outside the -800mV to -1100mV range.
Bio-fouling creating oxygen differential cells on submerged structures, and under-deposit pitting corrosion at marine growth attachment points on risers, caissons, and J-tubes.
Chain wear, rope creep, and connector fatigue in spread mooring and turret systems — where single-line failure can cascade into progressive mooring failure and vessel drift-off.
Accelerated material wastage in the tidal and splash zone where alternating wet-dry cycles, high oxygen availability, and wave impact create corrosion rates 5-10x higher than submerged or atmospheric zones.
Pre-loaded during onboarding for Marine & Offshore deployments:
Maintain class compliance across all survey regimes while optimizing inspection campaigns for remote offshore assets, reducing vessel mobilization costs through risk-prioritized scope planning.
Transmission and distribution pipelines — gas, liquid, and multiphase — present an integrity management challenge unlike any fixed-equipment facility. Assets stretch hundreds or thousands of kilometres through varied terrain, operating environments, and regulatory jurisdictions. Threats evolve over time as soil chemistry changes, operating pressure cycles, and original construction variability creates latent anomalies that In-Line Inspection (ILI) only partially captures. An Integrity Management Plan that satisfies ASME B31.8S or API 1160 requires systematic threat identification, consequence analysis, data integration from multiple ILI vendors, and a governed dig program that closes anomalies before they reach a critical condition.
Wall loss in wet gas and liquid lines driven by CO₂ and H₂S partial pressure, water dropout at low-flow points, and microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC) from sulphate-reducing bacteria — often undetected between ILI runs.
Disbonded coating concentrating corrosion at defect holidays where cathodic protection current is shielded — highest risk at tape-coat disbondments and polyethylene shrink sleeve edges, especially in wet clay soils.
Environmentally assisted cracking initiating at the coating-steel interface in CO₂-saturated near-neutral pH groundwater (transgranular) or carbonate/bicarbonate high-pH environments (intergranular) — typically at 6 and 8 o'clock positions on liquid-filled pipelines.
Third-party excavation damage creating plain dents, dent-with-gouge combinations, and arc burns that reduce fatigue life and create stress concentrations — particularly hazardous when dent depth exceeds 6% of pipe diameter or interacts with a weld seam.
Cyclic pressure loading in gathering lines, compressor discharge headers, and liquid pipelines with frequent pump start-stop cycles initiating fatigue cracks at corrosion pits, existing dents, and manufacturing imperfections.
Pre-loaded during onboarding for Pipeline & Midstream deployments:
Demonstrate a defensible, data-driven Integrity Management Plan that satisfies PHMSA and international pipeline regulators — with every anomaly disposition, dig record, and threat assessment permanently linked to the evidence that supports it.
Quantified outcomes from organizations that transitioned from spreadsheet-based integrity programs to governed, risk-driven operations.
inspection prioritization — quantitative PoF × CoF scoring replaces calendar-based schedules
API audit evidence packages generated directly from live inspection and risk records
MOC audit trail from initial request through implementation to closeout
every process safety change requires documented approval before implementation
remaining life estimates on every high-energy component from actual operating data
outage inspection scope prioritized by quantitative risk analysis, not precedent
Part 11 compliant audit trail — no manual documentation required
validation-ready evidence packages generated as your team works
class survey preparation with pre-organized inspection records and compliance evidence
structural health monitoring and CP tracking for remote platform integrity
From initial assessment to live governance events in 2-4 weeks. No generic setup wizards — engineering-led configuration by people who understand your industry.
We start by understanding your regulatory framework, operational profile, and the specific damage mechanisms relevant to your asset base. This is not a generic questionnaire — our engineers review your equipment types, process conditions, and compliance obligations to define the configuration scope.
Your tenant is configured with the correct asset taxonomy, damage mechanism library, risk matrices, and inspection code references for your sector. A refinery gets API 581 RBI methodology with Nelson curve screening. A pharma facility gets 21 CFR Part 11 audit trails with clean utility system tracking. The data model matches your engineering reality.
Inspection requirements are linked to the applicable standards and codes for your jurisdiction and sector. Inspection intervals, examination techniques, and acceptance criteria are encoded as governance rules — not left as tribal knowledge in an engineer's notebook.
First governance events fire on live data within 2-4 weeks of engagement start. Your team begins with a system that already speaks their technical language, with pre-loaded damage mechanism descriptions, risk matrices calibrated to your sector, and report templates that match your regulatory submission requirements.
Regardless of sector, every Reliatic deployment includes these core platform capabilities — the engineering foundation that makes industry-specific configuration possible.
Cryptographic hash chain ensures every record is tamper-evident. No record can be modified or deleted after creation — the complete decision history is permanently preserved.
Tenant-isolated RBAC with granular permissions. Engineers, inspectors, managers, and auditors each see exactly what their role requires — nothing more, nothing less.
API 580/581 aligned risk-based inspection engine with configurable probability and consequence models. Risk scores drive inspection priorities, not calendar intervals.
Statistical reliability modeling with Weibull distribution fitting, Monte Carlo simulation for remaining life estimation, and MTTF/MTBF calculation across asset populations.
Governance events fire automatically when risk thresholds are breached, inspection windows are missed, or time-bound waivers expire. Tiered escalation until resolution exists.
Exportable evidence bundles containing inspection histories, risk assessments, action resolutions, and audit trails — formatted for regulatory submission and third-party audit.
Reliatic does not just store your data — it reasons about it. The reliability engine runs Weibull analysis on your failure history to classify failure modes as infant mortality, random, or wear-out. Monte Carlo simulation models the financial impact of different maintenance strategies over 5, 10, or 20-year horizons. Remaining life calculations use your actual thickness readings and corrosion rates, not generic lookup tables.
When you import a new set of UT readings, the system automatically recalculates corrosion rates, updates remaining life estimates, adjusts risk scores, and — if any asset crosses a configured threshold — fires a governance event that puts the right engineer in front of the right decision with the right data. That is not a dashboard. That is active governance.
The five sectors above represent our deepest pre-configured deployments, but Reliatic's architecture is designed for configurability at every level. The risk engine supports custom damage mechanism libraries with arbitrary attributes, configurable risk matrices with any number of probability and consequence categories, and sector-specific asset taxonomies that match your engineering naming conventions.
If your industry manages physical assets under regulatory scrutiny — mining, water treatment, pulp and paper, aerospace MRO, nuclear, LNG, renewables — we can configure the platform to match your operational reality. The data model is flexible. The governance engine is universal.
Discuss Your RequirementsCommon questions about industry-specific configuration and deployment.
Very specific. This is not a matter of switching a theme or relabeling fields. Each industry configuration includes a curated damage mechanism library with mechanism descriptions, susceptibility screening criteria, and recommended examination techniques. Risk matrices are calibrated with sector-appropriate probability and consequence scales. Asset taxonomies follow the naming conventions and hierarchy structures used in your sector (e.g., API equipment categories for refineries, ISPE system classifications for pharma). Report templates match your regulatory submission formats.
Yes. Each tenant in Reliatic operates with full data isolation through row-level security. A holding company operating both a refinery and a pharmaceutical plant can run both on the same platform — each facility gets its own damage mechanism library, risk matrices, asset taxonomy, and regulatory configuration. Users with access to multiple tenants see a unified interface with sector-specific context loaded per facility.
At minimum: an asset register (equipment list with basic attributes like equipment type, material of construction, design conditions, and service description), and your current inspection records if available. We can ingest data from spreadsheets, SAP PM exports, Maximo exports, or other CMMS systems. The more operational history you provide, the more accurate the initial risk ranking — but the platform is designed to improve its risk model continuously as inspection data accumulates.
Damage mechanism libraries and regulatory reference data are maintained centrally and updated when industry standards are revised (e.g., API 581 4th edition updates, new ASME code cases, DNV rule changes). Updates are deployed to all tenants in the affected sector with change notifications. Your existing risk assessments and inspection records are never modified — new assessments performed after the update use the revised methodology, maintaining a clear audit trail of which standard version was applied to each assessment.
We configure the demo with your equipment types, damage mechanisms, and risk thresholds — so you see exactly how governance events fire in your operational context.