APPLICATION OF LASER PROFILOMETRY FOR FITNESS-FOR-SERVICE

ASSESSMENT ON PRESSURE VESSEL EXTERNAL CORROSION

Grant Nelson
Applus RTD
Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
Ian Bradley
BP Exploration
Middlesex, UK

Martin Fingerhut
Applus RTD
Houston, Texas, USA
Deli Yu
Applus RTD
Houston, Texas, USA


ABSTRACT
In order to safely extend the life of damaged in-service
components, Fitness-For-Service (FFS) assessments are used to
evaluate structural integrity. These FFS assessments largely
depend upon the quality of the inspection data. Compared to
traditional inspection methods such as pit gauge or ultrasonic
techniques, laser profilometry provides faster results with
higher resolution and accuracy. Improved inspection data
enables more precise FFS assessments and leads to fewer
unnecessary repairs and non-conservative assessments.
This paper examines how laser profilometry measurements
were taken of several corrosion areas on the exterior shell of a
pressure vessel in order to complete a FFS assessment
equivalent to an API 579 Level 2 assessment. The results of the
FFS assessment show how laser profilometry data may be used
in a detailed structural integrity analysis to consider a vessel
safe for continued use. A discussion of how laser profilometry
data could also be used for an API 579 Level 3 assessment,
using finite element analysis, in areas not acceptable for Level
1, or 2 assessments is included.
LASER PROFILOMETRY

Laser profilometry uses the principle of optical triangulation to
obtain range measurements. The system used for this paper is
the self-positioning laser scanner-HandyScan from Creaform
Inc. This portable laser system relies on positioning targets
placed in a random grid on the surface of the object to be
scanned. From the positioning targets the scanners cameras are
able to determine the scanners location which is used to map
out the surface, constructing a three dimensional object.
[1]


Both conventional NDE tools (pit gauge, UT, etc) and laser
tools have been shown to have similar accuracy under ideal
operating conditions.
[2]
The key differences between these types
of tools are the amount of data collected, the measurement
time, and the error brought in by operations. Laser tools, such
as the HandyScan, obtain measurements at a much higher
resolution (~1mm) in the same time or faster than more
conventional tools. Another benefit of using laser profilometry
is the limited operator error, in one study the differences in
measurement between a specialist and untrained volunteer were
between 0.25 and 1.27 mm.
[3]
Compared to a potential operator
error of 10% wall thickness in a study done comparing multiple
pit gauge operators versus laser measurement.
[4]


CASE STUDY

An integrity assessment was conducted by Applus RTD in
October 2011 of areas of corrosion on a de-ethanizer column.
The purpose of this inspection was to determine the severity
and extent of metal loss using the Applus RTD Handyscan laser
profilometry system, determine fitness for service in
accordance with API 579/ASME FFS-1, Level 1 on site
followed by Level, Level 2 or Level 3 assessments if necessary.

APPROACH

An examination of the vessel exterior was performed using the
HandyScan, on local corrosion areas on its conical section and
on two separate cylindrical sections. The HandyScan uses a
laser-based range sensor, which relies on optical spray and
sensor movement to construct three dimensional surfaces of a
conical connection section and two cylindrical sections

Before measuring the regions of corrosion metal loss.
positioning targets were placed around the corrosion areas in a
random grid approximately 5 cm from each other. The
positioning targets were scanned to provide a series of
reference points on the vessel surface. After the positioning
features are saved to the HandyScan half of the circumferential
surface area of the vessel is first scanned at a low resolution to
later construct an ideal surface without any corrosion defects.
Following the low resolution scan, a more detailed high
1 Copyright 2012 by ASME
Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference
IPC2012
September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
IPC2012-90135

resolution scan (~1mm) was performed on each local corrosion
area.


Figure 1: HandyScan Equipment

Both of these types of scans were completed by holding the
HandyScan approximately 30 cm from the surface of the vessel
and slowly moving it in a raster pattern until the surface was
completely scanned. The following figure shows one discrete
corrosion areas that was scanned at a high resolution.


Figure 2: External corrosion on conical section

After the scanning of corrosion areas the data was analyzed
using PolyWorks software. A curve best-fit method was used to
approximate the ideal surface profile above the corroded area.
Next one ideal conical connection surface and three ideal
cylindrical surfaces were built. The four scanned corrosion
areas are compared to ideal cylindrical or conical reference
surfaces in Figures 3-6. Here we should note that for
Corrosion Area 4, manually measuring the corrosion depth by
Pit gauge or remaining wall thickness by UT is limited by
where to put the pit gauge bar and detect the reflected UT
signal as corrosion area close to the bottom welding line.
Digitalizing the conical surface and rebuilding a virtual
reference ideal surface is the only method to do Fitness-for-
Service assessment for this kind of vessel geometry.

Figure 3: Corrosion Area 1 compared to cylindrical reference
surface




Figure 4: Corrosion Area 2
2 Copyright 2012 by ASME



Figure 5: Corrosion Area 3 compared to cylindral reference
surface



Figure 6: Corrosion Area on the conical connection

RESULTS

The laser data was processed after scanning to determine
relevant metal loss dimensions for use in API 579 Section 5
assessment for each of the local areas of corrosion. While on
site, the first five steps of API 579 Section 5.4.2 were
performed for each corrosion area to see if they were
acceptable for a Level 1 or Level 2 assessment. One of the
corrosion areas failed the limiting flaw size criteria outlined in
step 5 as shown below:

Step 5- Check the limiting flaw size criteria; if the following
requirements are satisfied, proceed to Step 6; otherwise, the
flaw is not acceptable per the Level 1 Assessment procedure.
[5]


R
t
u.2u

t
mm
-FCA 2.S mm (u.1u incbcs)

I
msd
1.8t
c


Where L
msd
is the distance to a major structural discontinuity, D
is the diameter, FCA is Future Corrosion Allowance, t
mm
is the
minimum measured wall thickness, R
t
is the remaining
thickness ratio, and t
c
is the un-corroded wall thickness. The
values for the corrosion area on the conical section are shown
below.

= 2Suu mm, t
c
= 2S mm
I
msd
1.82Suu - 2S - I
msd
4S2 mm

The distance to the nearest major structural discontinuity
(conical transition) was less than 432 mm and therefore that
corrosion area is unacceptable for Level 1 or 2 assessments and
a Level 3 assessment is required. Corrosion Area 1 also failed
the distance to a major structural discontinuity, however the
distance was close to the limit and due to the conservative
nature of these limits a burst pressure was calculated to
determine whether to consider this region for a Level 1
assessment. The calculated burst pressure (Table 1) shows that
Corrosion Area 3 has a very large MAWP and may be safely
considered using a Level 1 assessment.

For the corrosion areas that met the limiting flaw size criteria
(cylindrical shell corrosion), an assessment was performed that
is equivalent to API 579 Level 2 requirements. Using the
RSTRENG (effective area) method burst pressures were
calculated for that portion of the column. A few assumptions
were made in order to apply this type of assessment:

1. The amount of stress due to weight loading and
other external factors (e.g. wind force) is
negligible when compared to the shell stress due
to internal pressure.
3 Copyright 2012 by ASME

2. RSTRENG failure pressure divided by safety
factor values are equivalent to maximum
allowable working pressure (MAWP) values
obtained using API 579 level 2
3. No other type of threats, such as cracks, have been
detected in the corroded area

In order to validate the first assumption, design details found in
manufacturing documentation sheets were used. The material
used in the construction of the vessel in this corrosion area is
BS 1501-224-460B-LT50Z, which has specified minimum
yield strength (SMYS) of 315 N/mm
2
. According to the design
data, the maximum total stress due to these forces is 3.28
N/mm
2
. The amount of stress due to these other forces is 1.04%
of the total SMYS and therefore ignored when calculating burst
pressure values.

As determined by API 579, a Level 1 assessment is applicable
to this type of corrosion and location. However since Applus
RTD has software used in the pipeline industry to calculate
burst pressure values from depth profiles, a more advanced
assessment was done using RSTRENG. RSTRENG is an
iterative method of calculating remaining strength factor (RSF)
for sections of a depth profile and then calculating a MAWP
based on the minimum RSF value found. The API 579 Level 2
assessment follows the same general procedure of dividing the
depth profile and calculating RSF for individual sections. It has
also been shown that values obtained by these two methods
correlate best to actual test data compared to other methods
(API 579 level 1, ASME B31.G, etc).
[6]
In addition RSTRENG
has been extensively tested on corrosion near welds (Corrosion
Areas 1, 2& 3) as commonly found in the pipeline industry.

Burst pressure values were calculated for all of the corrosion
areas including those not suitable for a Level 1 or 2
assessments. These values (Table 1) are all above the design
pressure with safety factors in excess of 2.3. These values show
that these three corrosion areas satisfy API 579 Section 5 Level
1 fitness for service criteria.

Corrosion
Area
Design
Pressure
(KPa)
RSTRENG
Pburst
(KPa)
MAWP
Safety
Factor
1 3070 7536 781 2.45
2 3070 7143 740 2.33
3 3070 7205 747 2.35
Table 1: Results of RSTRENG assessments for the corrosions
on the spherical surfaces

Corrosion Area 4 on the conical section, fitness for service
assessments has been evaluated by a predicted safe working
pressure of 35.2 barg (3.52N/mm) which is in excess of the
design pressure condition of 30.7 bar (3.07N/mm) and is
acceptable to the API 579/ASME FFS Level 3 assessment
criterion. A sensitivity analysis to include for an additional
3mm corrosion allowance at the corrosion metal loss location
has also been conducted. The non-linear limit load analysis also
indicates that this area of corrosion metal loss is acceptable to
the procedures with a predicted safe working pressure of 33.9
bar (33.9N/mm), which is again greater than the design
pressure requirements for the vessel.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results of this inspection, and FFS assessments,
the four corrosion areas on the cylindrical and conical portion
of the vessel are fit for service at the current operating level. It
should be noted that this assessment for the corrosion area 4
assumes that the corroded areas includes for an additional 3mm
corrosion allowance. Any intended changes in service
conditions may justify an evaluation to determine if the current
vessel condition would meet the intended use.

The true value of using laser profilometry lies not only in speed
and high resolution, but the versatility of the data collected,
especially for a unique structure profile with corroded areas
which are difficult for traditional measurement. As shown in
this paper the data collected using a laser can be easily used for
a Level 1 or 2 API 579 FFS assessment. What hasnt been
addressed is the potential use in a finite element analysis.

According to API 579 paragraph 4.4.4.1 the finite element
method is typically used to compute the stresses in a
component. The data obtained from laser profilometry can
quickly be imported in to most FEA programs due to the
standard file format (e.g. STL). Discrete profiles taken over
time can also be used to monitor corrosion growth and calculate
a quantitative rate for predicting future inspection requirements.
REFERENCES

1. Pierre-Hugues Allard, Pipeline External
Corrosion Analysis Using a 3D Laser Scanner,
5th Pan American Conference for NDT, 2-6
October 2011, Cancun, Mexico

2. Rick McNealy, Grant Nelson, Deli Yu and Martin
Fingerhut "ILI Tool Error Calibration Based on In-
the-Ditch Measurements with Related
Uncertainty", PRCI, EC-4-2. Document #12524
(2011)

3. Arumugam et al, Portable Laser scan for In-Ditch
Dent Profiling and Strain Analysis: Methodology
and Application Development, IPC 2010, Paper
No. 31336, Sept 27 to Oct 1, 2010, Calgary,
Canada

4. Haines, H., McNealy, R., and Rosenfeld, M., Is
the 80% Leak Criterion Always Appropriate?,
4 Copyright 2012 by ASME

IPC 2010, Paper No. 31483, Sept 27 to Oct 1,
2010, Calgary, Canada

5. American Petroleum Institute and the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, Fitness-for-
Service API 579/ASME FFS-1 (API 579 Second
Edition), API Publishing Services, 2007

6. Janelle, J.A. and Osage, D.A., An Overview and
Validation of the Fitness-For-Service Assessment
Procedures for Local Thin Areas in API 579,
WRC Bulletin 505, Welding Research Council,
New York, N.Y., 2005.
5 Copyright 2012 by ASME