To Rerate or Not to Rerate - That is the Question - Part 1 of 2

By Doug Stelling
Frequently when debottlenecking process plant equipment, the possibility of increasing the
equipment's design temperature, design pressure, or both comes up. This process of re-evaluating
the equipment for more severe design conditions is usually referred to as uprating.
In other cases, after a piece of equipment has been in-service for a number of years and corrosion
has taken its toll, it may be necessary to re-evaluate whether the equipment has sufficient
corrosion allowance until the next inspection or whether the equipment should be retired from
service. Again, rather than assuming that the piece of equipment must be replaced when its
corrosion allowance is used up, it may be worthwhile to investigate downrating the equipment to
allow its continued use although at somewhat less severe design conditions. In some cases the
term rerating of the equipment may also be used to cover changing the throughput or service of
the equipment.
Many different types of equipment can be rerated, such as pressure vessels, piping systems, heat
exchangers, and tanks to name a few. Since the rerating of each equipment type has certain
nuances, this series of articles explores some of the tricks-of-the-trade that relate to rerating
each type of equipment, as well as some of the pitfalls that may be encountered. This article
covers various aspects of rerating pressure vessels.
The idea for uprating a piece of equipment usually comes in the form of a request from either the
process engineers during debottlenecking or the process operators based on improving the
operation of equipment. Most often it is desired to uprate the pressure vessel from its current
design pressure and/or temperature to some new higher pressure and/or temperature. Sometimes
they want to know if the vessel can be filled above a given level or whether the flow rate through
the vessel can be increased. At first glance, it may seem that if the vessel was properly designed
from the start it should not be able to be uprated; however, in many cases there is some fat in
the design due to the manufacturer rounding up from minimum thicknesses to the next available
plate thickness, etc. The problem is to recognize the fat and not get caught in any pitfalls.
The first step is to gather all of the readily available information. This includes the original
manufacturer's calculations, drawings, manufacturer's data reports, the Code papers, and
equipment inspection reports.
The Code used for rerating must also be determined. For some vessels it may be permissible to
rerate in accordance with API-510, the Pressure Vessel Inspection Code, or the NBIC, National
Board Inspection Code. In other cases, local Codes or rules may apply. In most cases, the vessel
can be rerated in accordance with the original Code of construction. This may be a problem if the
vessel was built to a very old edition of the Code, and it may require a trip to the company's
archives or the Engineering Societies library to obtain the relevant Codes and Standards. As an
alternative, the vessel may be rerated to the current revision of the original construction Code if
all essential details of the design are similar to current requirements.

Although it is probably true to say that we know more today about the design of process
equipment just by the sheer weight of the Codes, the question that always comes up is:Why
should the original Code of construction be used? Over the years most material allowable
stresses have gone up, and only in a few cases have they gone down. Some details that were
suggested based on good engineering practice in earlier Codes are now required and visa-versa.
Note that if rerating to the current Code is considered, the allowable stress used in the original
Code of construction may still be required. This is because the material's allowable stress in the
original Code of construction was based on material specifications that were applicable at the
time the Code was written. While the current Code may indicate a higher allowable stress,
justifying the use of the higher allowable stress to the Authorized Inspector may be difficult
unless it can be proved that the material would meet the current material specification with
respect to all essential aspects. Also in some cases, a higher allowable stress can be problematic
due to the way in which some components are designed using the Code formulas.
The next step is to consider basic information such as the design pressure and temperature, the
MAWP, and the vessel's test pressure. In general, if the new design pressure is less than the
MAWP of the vessel and the vessel was tested to a pressure based on the MAWP, then the rerate
is usually not too complicated. In some cases when the equipment is made from carbon steel, and
only the design temperature is being increased to some temperature below 650F, rerating may
appear to be simple. This is because most carbon steel materials built to Section 1 and Section
VIII, Division 1 of the ASME Code have the same allowable stress up to 650F.
From a mechanical standpoint, some of the pitfalls in what may seem to be a simple temperature
uprate may be that the flange pressure-ratings may decrease too much as the temperature
increases. The higher temperature may cause problems with thermal expansion of the vessel or
differential expansion with the platforms and ladders that may be overlooked. Corrosion rates
may also go up as the temperature is increased. In some cases temperature limits on various
types of construction should also be considered, such as temperature limits for slip-on flanges,
gasket type, bolting, painting, and insulation. If the rerate is possible, the pressure relief valve set
pressure and capacity requirements should also be checked.
When rerating a pressure vessel, a review of the original vessel manufacturer's calculations
should always be made. While some manufacturer's are very good, anybody can make a mistake.
Some mistakes that we have found when rerating equipment are as follows:

The original manufacturer designing the vessel for its design pressure and temperature,
but not accounting for the static head of liquid in the design.

Incorrect MAWP's or available corrosion allowances indicated for the vessel due to not
properly considering nozzle reinforcement requirements.

Not considering the affect of overlapping nozzle reinforcing zones, resulting in

inadequate reinforcement.

In some cases, the original calculations may not be available or thorough enough for the rerate
and new calculations must be made. In this case, the use of a good pressure vessel design
program like COADE Inc.'s CodeCalc or proVESSEL can come in handy.
An important piece of information that is sometimes overlooked is the equipment's inspection
history and recent UT thickness data. From reviewing this history, the pressure vessel engineer
can usually tell if the equipment has enough remaining corrosion allowance for its intended
service life (or at least enough to get to its next inspection). In most cases, spot UT thickness data
is available from the last internal inspection and the rerate can be based on the minimum
thickness found. If the indicated shell or head thickness are above the required thickness, less the
nominal corrosion allowance, then a remaining life can be determined. If the remaining life is
less than the time required until the next internal inspection, then the vessel may be downrated;
however, it is sometimes possible to conduct a more extensive UT survey and base the rerate on
this data.
Another consideration in rerating is whether a pressure test is required to accomplish the uprate.
If the uprate is only on paper (i.e., no physical modification of the vessel), and the new minimum
test pressure calculated for the uprated conditions is no more than the original or last pressure
test, it may be permissible to uprate the vessel without a new pressure test. However, this should
be checked with the Authorized Inspector and local authorities prior to the rerate.
If a pressure test is required, a hydrostatic test is preferred; however, hydrostatic testing can also
be problematic. The vessel or its foundation may not have been designed for hydrotest in its
erected condition with all of its internals installed or piping attached. For older vessels, the
possibility that past repairs may have introduced critical flaws in the vessel or that corrosion or
embrittlement of the materials has occurred may make brittle fracture a consideration.
Finally, it is important that the rerate be properly documented. This usually requires updating the
drawings and calculations, preparing revised Code papers and other documents, contacting the
Authorized Inspector, and preparing new name tags.
The next installment in this series will discuss rerating of heat exchangers.
Read To Rerate or Not to Rerate - That is the Question - Part 2 of 2

To Rerate or Not to Rerate - That is the Question - Part 2 of 2

Read To Rerate or Not to Rerate - That is the Question - Part 1 of 2
By Ray Chao and Doug Stelling
This is the second in our series of articles covering rerating of refinery and chemical plant
processing equipment. Heat exchangers sometimes must be uprated due to an increase in design
pressure or temperature when a plant is debottlenecked. At other times, corrosion in excess of the
original corrosion allowance may have occurred and a decision may have to be made whether to
repair, replace, or downrate the exchanger. In either case, a mechanical design engineer is usually
responsible for making what is sometimes referred to as rerating calculations.
From a mechanical design standpoint, heat exchangers are really special purpose pressure
vessels, and thus have similar considerations with respect to rerating. Formally, rerating of an
exchanger is considered by the National Board Inspection Code (NBIC) or API Standard 510 as
an Alteration. Therefore, new calculations must be made to verify that the exchanger is
suitable for the new design conditions. The available corrosion allowance should also be
sufficient to account for the amount of corrosion that may take place until the next inspection. In
addition, a determination must be made as to whether the rerate would require a new pressure
test.
In order to satisfy the NBIC or API 510 requirements, new rerating calculations must be made in
accordance with the original Code of construction, typically the ASME Code Section VIII,
Division 1. In addition, the exchanger will typically be designed in accordance with an industry
standard such as the Tubular Exchanger Manufacturer's Association (TEMA) Standard and API
660, if it is a shell and tube heat exchanger, or API 661 if it is an air cooled heat exchanger.
While many of the equations in the Codes have remained the same over the years, allowable
stresses and joint efficiencies may have changed. Therefore, it may be necessary to check the
allowable stresses and joint efficiency in the edition of the original Code of construction under
which the exchanger was built.
In addition to calculating the thicknesses of simple pressure vessel type components like
cylindrical shells and heads, heat exchanger rerating may involve complicated calculations for
other components such as girth flanges, tubesheets, and floating heads. In many cases, the
required calculations can be readily made using a computer program like Coade's CodeCalc.
However, this assumes that the original fabrication drawings, Code papers, and inspection data
are available. Unfortunately, in some cases, the exchangers to be rerated are old and the original
calculations and/or a complete set of drawings and Code papers may not be available. Therefore,
it would be necessary in these cases to obtain the component dimensions by taking field
measurements.

In the case of shell and tube heat exchangers, the rerating may involve a change in the design
conditions on the shellside, tubeside, or both. Although not obvious, some components on the
tube side may be affected if the shell side design conditions are changed and visa versa. For
instance, if the design pressure or temperature on the shell side of the exchanger is raised, it is
obvious that the various components that make up the shell should be checked for the new
conditions. In addition, all other components that are in contact with the shellside fluid (e.g.,
tubesheet, tubes and floating head) should also be checked although they are normally thought of
as being tubeside components. Finally, some components, such as the channel flange at a fixed
tubesheet, should also be checked if the shellside design pressure is increased. This is because
the channel flange will also be subjected to the higher pressure loads on the shell side since these
loads are transmitted by the common bolting across the tubesheet.
In some cases, the rerate may show that a component, such as the floating head, is not thick
enough for the new design pressure or temperature on the shell side. In this case, it may be
possible to use a more exact analysis, such as the Soehren's Method, to show that the floating
head is sufficiently thick. The use of such a method is permitted by the ASME Code in Par 16(h). The Soehren's Method is more complicated than the ASME Code procedure since it
accounts for interaction between the floating head and the flange ring; however, in many cases
this analysis can be used to show that the head and flange are satisfactory for the new design
conditions.
After the minimum required thicknesses are determined, these thicknesses should be compared
to the actual thicknesses obtained from recent inspection data. The remaining corrosion
allowance and corrosion rate for each component in the exchanger should then be determined. At
this point, decisions can be made regarding whether each exchanger component is suitable for
the rerate, if any modifications must be made, and when the exchanger should be next inspected.
A physical modification or replacement of an exchanger component may be required, or the
inspection timetable may require revision. This is especially true if the exchanger is nearing the
end of its life. Note that some exchanger components are easily replaced, which can
economically prolong the exchanger's useful design life.
Finally, as with pressure vessels, the rerate should be properly documented. This documentation
should include:

The old and new design conditions

The Code used for the rerate

The allowable stresses and joint efficiencies

The minimum required thicknesses vs. the existing thicknesses for each component
affected by the rerate

The remaining life of each component

The required inspection interval determined

Any physical modifications required

Any requirements for pressure testing, such as test pressure and temperature

Revised drawings and new drawings for the rerate nameplate should also be prepared.