Your Industry.
Your integrity framework.
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.
Deep industry expertise
Each sector gets a purpose-built configuration — damage mechanisms, regulatory frameworks, risk models, and asset taxonomies specific to your engineering reality.
Energy & Refining
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.
Regulatory Framework
- API 510 (Pressure Vessel Inspection)
- API 570 (Piping Inspection)
- API 653 (Tank Inspection)
- API 580/581 (Risk-Based Inspection)
- OSHA PSM 29 CFR 1910.119
- ASME PCC-3 (Inspection Planning)
Common damage mechanisms
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.
Reliatic Configuration
Pre-loaded during onboarding for Energy & Refining deployments:
- API 581 quantitative RBI methodology with consequence-of-failure modeling
- Nelson curve library for HTHA screening across all reactor circuits
- Corrosion loop mapping with linked CML (condition monitoring location) tracking
- Sour service circuit registry with material verification workflows
- Turnaround inspection scope optimization based on risk ranking
Key Outcome
Reduce unplanned shutdowns by focusing inspection resources on the highest-consequence circuits, with API 580/581 evidence records generated as your team works.
Chemical & Specialty
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.
Regulatory Framework
- OSHA PSM 29 CFR 1910.119
- EPA RMP (Risk Management Program)
- RAGAGEP (Recognized and Generally Accepted Good Engineering Practices)
- ASME B31.3 (Process Piping)
- NACE MR0175/ISO 15156 (Materials for H2S Service)
- IEC 61511 (Safety Instrumented Systems)
Common damage mechanisms
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.
Reliatic Configuration
Pre-loaded during onboarding for Chemical & Specialty deployments:
- Batch vs. continuous operation profiles with campaign-linked inspection scheduling
- Management of Change (MOC) governance with approval workflows that support PSM programmes
- Corrosive service material compatibility matrices
- Process safety information (PSI) linkage to asset integrity data
- Campaign-based degradation tracking for batch reactors and intermittent-use equipment
Key Outcome
Support PSM mechanical-integrity programmes with governed MOC workflows while optimizing inspection scope across batch and continuous operations with different degradation profiles.
Power Generation
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.
Regulatory Framework
- ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code (BPVC)
- ASME B31.1 (Power Piping)
- NERC Reliability Standards
- EPRI Guidelines for Life Assessment
- EN 12952 (Water-Tube Boilers)
- VGB Standards (European Power Engineering)
Common damage mechanisms
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.
Reliatic Configuration
Pre-loaded during onboarding for Power Generation deployments:
- Remaining life estimation models for creep-regime components (Larson-Miller, Omega)
- FAC susceptibility screening with Keller-Kastner or CHECWORKS-aligned algorithms
- Outage planning module with risk-prioritized inspection scope generation
- Boiler tube failure tracking linked to root cause taxonomy (EPRI classification)
- Steam cycle water chemistry correlation with material degradation trends
Key Outcome
Optimize outage inspection scope with risk-ranked component prioritization, extending plant availability with ASME and EPRI life assessment standards as the reference.
Pharmaceutical
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.
Regulatory Framework
- FDA 21 CFR Part 11 (Electronic Records)
- EU GMP Annex 15 (Qualification and Validation)
- EU GMP Annex 1 (Sterile Medicinal Products)
- ISPE Baseline Guide Vol. 4 (Water and Steam)
- ASME BPE (Bioprocessing Equipment)
- USP <1231> (Water for Pharmaceutical Purposes)
Common damage mechanisms
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.
Reliatic Configuration
Pre-loaded during onboarding for Pharmaceutical deployments:
- Designed to support 21 CFR Part 11 workflows (audit trail, e-signatures); no third-party certification
- Clean utility system asset register with surface finish (Ra) tracking
- Change control workflows with validation impact assessment
- Weld log documentation with NDE (non-destructive examination) record linkage
- Deviation management integration for out-of-spec inspection findings
Key Outcome
Maintain continuous audit readiness with zero tolerance for undocumented changes, generating validation-ready evidence packages that satisfy FDA, EMA, and MHRA inspectors on demand.
Marine & Offshore
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.
Regulatory Framework
- DNV GL Rules for Classification
- ABS Rules for Building and Classing
- Lloyd's Register Rules and Regulations
- NORSOK Z-008 (Risk-Based Maintenance)
- NORSOK M-501 (Surface Preparation and Coating)
- IMO SOLAS (Safety of Life at Sea)
Common damage mechanisms
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.
Reliatic Configuration
Pre-loaded during onboarding for Marine & Offshore deployments:
- Classification society survey tracking with deadline management and class condition registers
- Structural fatigue life tracking with S-N curve libraries and joint categorization
- Cathodic protection monitoring with anode consumption and potential mapping
- Underwater inspection campaign planning with ROV survey scope generation
- Topsides process equipment integrity integrated with structural and marine systems
Key Outcome
Maintain class compliance across all survey regimes while optimizing inspection campaigns for remote offshore assets, reducing vessel mobilization costs through risk-prioritized scope planning.
Pipeline & Midstream
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.
Regulatory Framework
- ASME B31.8S (Managing System Integrity of Gas Pipelines)
- API 1160 (Managing System Integrity of Hazardous Liquid Pipelines)
- 49 CFR Part 192 (Transportation of Natural Gas — PHMSA)
- 49 CFR Part 195 (Transportation of Hazardous Liquids — PHMSA)
- API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (Fitness for Service — Corrosion Assessment)
- NACE SP0169 (Cathodic Protection of Buried Pipelines)
Common damage mechanisms
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.
Reliatic Configuration
Pre-loaded during onboarding for Pipeline & Midstream deployments:
- ILI data integration with anomaly import, vendor normalisation, and depth sizing tolerance management
- ASME B31.8S threat matrix — systematic identification and ranking of all applicable threats per segment
- Dig program management: from anomaly selection through excavation, field assessment, and close-out record
- Cathodic protection survey tracking (CIPS, DCVG, ACVG) with pipe-to-soil potential trending
- MAOP reconfirmation documentation with pressure test history, spike test records, and material traceability
Key Outcome
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.
Real-world impact by sector
Quantified outcomes from organizations that transitioned from spreadsheet-based integrity programs to governed, risk-driven operations.
Energy & Refining
inspection prioritization — quantitative PoF × CoF scoring replaces calendar-based schedules
API audit evidence packages generated directly from live inspection and risk records
Chemical & Specialty
MOC audit trail from initial request through implementation to closeout
every process safety change requires documented approval before implementation
Power Generation
remaining life estimates on every high-energy component from actual operating data
outage inspection scope prioritized by quantitative risk analysis, not precedent
Pharmaceutical
Part 11 workflows supported (audit trail, e-signatures); no third-party certification
validation-ready evidence packages generated as your team works
Marine & Offshore
class survey preparation with pre-organized inspection records and compliance evidence
structural health monitoring and CP tracking for remote platform integrity
How we configure for your sector
From initial assessment to live governance events. No generic setup wizards — engineering-led configuration by people who understand your industry.
Industry Assessment
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.
Data Model Configuration
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 an audit trail and e-signatures designed to support 21 CFR Part 11 workflows, with clean utility system tracking. The data model matches your engineering reality.
Regulatory Mapping
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.
Go-Live
First governance events fire on live data once configuration is complete. 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.
Cross-Industry Capabilities
Regardless of sector, every Reliatic deployment includes these core platform capabilities — the engineering foundation that makes industry-specific configuration possible.
Immutable Audit Trail
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.
Role-Based Access Control
Tenant-isolated RBAC with granular permissions. Engineers, inspectors, managers, and auditors each see exactly what their role requires — nothing more, nothing less.
Quantitative Risk Assessment
API 580/581 aligned risk-based inspection engine with configurable probability and consequence models. Risk scores drive inspection priorities, not calendar intervals.
Weibull Analysis & Monte Carlo
Statistical reliability modeling with Weibull distribution fitting, Monte Carlo simulation for remaining life estimation, and MTTF/MTBF calculation across asset populations.
Real-Time Governance Enforcement
Governance events fire automatically when risk thresholds are breached, inspection windows are missed, or time-bound waivers expire. Tiered escalation until resolution exists.
Compliance Evidence Packages
Exportable evidence bundles containing inspection histories, risk assessments, action resolutions, and audit trails — formatted for regulatory submission and third-party audit.
Technical Depth
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.
Don't See Your Industry?
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 requirementsWhat gets configured
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about industry-specific configuration and deployment.
How specific is the industry configuration?
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.
Can the platform support multiple facilities in different sectors?
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.
What data do we need to provide during onboarding?
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.
How does Reliatic stay current with regulatory changes?
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.
See Reliatic configured for your sector
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.