Proceedings of the ASME 2016 Pressure Vessels & Piping Conference
July 17-21, 2016, Hyatt Regency Vancouver - Vancouver, BC, Canada
3D MEASUREMENT AND FFS ASSESSMENT FOR LTA IN PRESSURE EQUIPMENT
ACCORDING TO WES2820:2015
Takayasu TAHARA Yoshiharu SHIMURA
Seikowave K.K. IHI Marine Co., Ltd.
Saitama, Japan Tokyo, Japan
ABSTRACT
The corrosion of pressure equipment such as corrosion under
insulation, CUI, is the most common problem in refinery and
petrochemical plants in recent years.
Fitness-For-Service, FFS, assessment technologies for
pressure equipment have been studied in recent 15 years, and
standardization of a FFS assessment procedure for local thin
area, LTA, has been expected by maintenance engineers of
process industries.
Based on the verification using extensive burst tests and FEM
analysis of LTA, the Japan Welding Engineering Society, JWES,
developed new FFS standard WES2820 in June 2015.[1]
This paper presents high lights of WES2820 and a FFS
assessment system consisted with 3D optical measurement
method and FFS software for LTA in pressure equipment as a
new tool for effective inspection and reliable maintenance
activities.
INTRODUCTION
There are many process plants such as refineries,
petrochemical production operating more than 40 years in the
world. Pressure equipment such as pressure vessels, piping,
storage tanks have common problems of corrosion metal loss,
so called LTA and how to assess the integrity of them for
continues safe operation. In order to assess the integrity of
pressure equipment with LTA, it requires to use a proven FFS
assessment procedure and reliable flaw sizing method.
BACKGROUND
From 2000, Petroleum Association of Japan (PAJ) and Japan
Petrochemical Industry Association (,JPCA) jointly established
the PAJ/JPCA FFS Assessment Committee and commenced to
propagate Fitness-For-Service assessment technology into
Japanese industries. Through recent 13 years activities, they
developed FFS Assessment Handbook and FFS assessment
standards for fire damage, LTA and high temperature creep
using Omega method based on API579-1/ASME FFS-1, 2007
PVP2016-63912
Minoru NIIMURA
Seikowave K.K.
Tokyo, Japan
(herein after API/ASME FFS-1) which was published on
participation with the committee members including one from
PAJ/JPCA FFS Assessment Committee [4].
From 2012, activities related to FFS assessment technology in
PAJ/JPCA FFS Committee have been transferred into two
groups;
HPI/Task Group on Metal Loss Assessment based on
Reliability, HPI TG-MLR
JWES Task Group on FFS Assessment Procedure for
Pressure Equipment
HPI: High Pressure Institute of Japan
JWES: Japan Welding Engineering Society
In the past 15 years, series of maintenance standards for
pressure equipment have been developed in Japan as shown in
Fig.1. And above new activities are expected to enhance future
maintenance system of pressure equipment.
HPI/TG-MLR is now developing HPI/HPIS-TR Metal loss
assessment for pressure equipment based on reliability which
was presented in PVP2015-45382, PVP2015-45658 and
PVP2015-45842.[4].[5],[6]
JWES/WES Task Group on FFS Assessment Procedure issued
the FFS assessment procedure for pressure equipment - Metal
loss assessment, WES2820, herein after the Standard, on June,
2015 after two years standardizing activities based on FFS
assessment standards of LTA developed by PAJ/JPCA FFS
Assessment Committee.
1. Concept of WES 2820:2015 [12]
As of today, It is not allowed to continue operation of pressure
equipment with LTA when remaining thickness is less than the
calculated minimum required thickness according to existing
regulation such as the High Pressure Gas Safety Act due to FFS
assessment procedure for LTA have not been authorized in
Japan.
The concept of remaining strength factor, RSF which is adopted
in API/ASME FFS-1 is introduced to the Standard as simple
assessment method for metal loss thinner than minimum
1 Copyright 2016 by ASME
 Chiyoda Advanced Solutions

required thickness. FFS assessment procedures as specified in

Part 4 (general metal loss) and Part 5 (local metal loss) in JPA Maintenance Standards JPI-8R-1117
API/ASME FFS-1 are referred as basic concepts of the HPI Z106,107 Risk Based Maintenance Standards
Standard with several features including improvements or
modifications as summarized below considering the specific Inspection/Testing
requirements in the regulation in Japan and users friendliness.
LTA assessment method using RSF concept verified in
WRC Bulletin 505 [14]and adopted in API/ASME FFS-1
Maintenance/Safe Operation
will be acceptable to use FFS assessment for pressure
equipment according to Japanese construction codes Repair/Replacement FFS Assessment
which were also standardized referring ASME B&PV
Codes 1. KHK/PAJ/JPCA S0851(2009) FFS Assessment Standard
WES7700-1,2,3,4
The standard is consisted with main body with detailed 2. PAJ/JPCA FFS Assessment Standards for Pressure
Repair Welding of
assessment flow charts, equations and figures, appendix Pressure Equipment Equipment
for calculating method of shell section for supplemental 3. HPI Z-101-1,-2 Assessment Procedure for Cracklike
loads, and interpretations which includes validation with Flaws in Pressure Equipment
burst tests and example problem in one document. So it is 4. WES2820 FFS Assessment Procedure for
easy to understand how to assess the LTA and also study Pressure EquipmentMetal Loss Assessment 3

background and/or discussion of each requirement.
The assessment procedures in the Standard is equivalent to
Level 2 methods for general and local metal loss of
API/ASME FFS-1 which is the most convenient and
practical as FFS assessment to use both manual calculation
and computer software from thickness reading using UT
and also 3D measurement methods.
The recommended methods of thickness measurement are
point reading, thickness profile and groove profile. It is
emphasized to include the lowest point of LTA at the first.
Assessment of circumferential direction is based on stress
evaluation at LTA region considering overturning moment
of pressure equipment due to seismic force. In the case
when supplemental load is negligible, the Standard
provides higher accuracy of assessment calculating
circumferential stress for internal pressure than
API/ASME FFS-1 Part5.
Remediation includes not only methods of rerating,
evaluation of FCA, repair, replacement but also detailed
assessment by FEM analysis as Level 3 assessment.
WES7700-1~4 Repair welding of pressure equipment in
2012 developed by the Chemical Plant Welding Research
Committee in JWES requires that feasibility of repair
welding should be studied based on FFS assessment of
flaws in pressure equipment. An improvement of
reliability in repair welding of pressure equipment is
expected when FFS assessment procedure is clearly
specified in the Standard.
Fig.1 Present status of maintenance standards in Japan (as of
January, 2016) [1],[4],[7],[8],]9],[10],[11]
2. Specific Requirements in WES2820
2.1 Contents
The contents of the Standard are as follows.
1. Scope
2. Applicable Codes and Standards
3. Terms and definitions
4. Symbol and meaning
5. Required information and data for LTA assessment
6. Assessment procedure
7. Applicable type of components
8. Thickness reading
9. Characterization of LTA
10. Calculation of maximum allowable pressure and RSF
11. Stress calculation of cylindrical shell with LTA subjected
supplemental loads
12. Acceptance criteria
13. Remediation
Appendix A (Mandatory) Calculation method of cylindrical
section with LTA subjected supplemental loads
Interpretation including validation with burst tests and example
problem
As of today, WES2820 written in Japanese is published.
2.2 Assessment procedure
LTA in pressure equipment is assessed according to flow as
shown in Fig.2.

2 Copyright 2016 by ASME

 as shown in Fig.4.
Classification of component type
Firstly, judgment of longitudinal section is performed to
General Metal determine PMAW from result of RSF. Then circumferential
LTA data Characterization for general metal loss Loss Assessment section is evaluated based on calculated Mesess stress
acceptable
compared with allowable tensile stress a. (Refer to equations in
Judgment 2.6.2 b) .)
c

unacceptable
tmm
Local Metal
LTA data Characterization for local metal loss Loss Assessment
Applicable to
Type A component
acceptable
Judgment s

unacceptable tl

Continous operation a)longitudinal section b)circumferential section

up to next inspection Remediation
Fig. 4 Characterization of local metal loss
Fig.2 Assessment flow of LTA 2.3 Thickness reading
Three methods of thickness reading may be used upon features
The component in which flaws is found is classified in Type A of flaws and damages, type of components and assessment
or B (refer to Table 1) and then LTA assessment according to procedure as shown in Table 2.
the flow which shows that local metal loss assessment is
performed after general metal loss assessment. However, it is Table 2 Methods of thickness reading
applicable to perform local metal loss assessment only. Type of Applicable assessment procedure Thickness reading
flaw
Table1 Classification of pressure component type
Pressure Component Type Uniform Assessment for general metal loss
A metal loss of Type A component
Point thickness
a) Pressure vessel cylindrical and conical shell sections
A
b) Spherical pressure vessels and spherical tanks -Assessment for general metal loss
Locally
A of Type A component
c) Hemispherical, ellipsoidal and dished heads corroded
-Assessment for local metal loss
A
damages
of Type A component
Thickness profile
d) Straight section of piping system or metal
-Assessment for local metal loss
A loss
e) Pipe bends and elbow do not have structural attachments of Type B component
A
f) Cylindrical shell for atmospheric tank Groove Assessment for general metal loss
like flaw of Type A component
Groove profile
B
g) Nozzle connections
B
h) Transition between conical shell and cylindrical shell
B
2.3.1 Point thickness reading
i) Flange joint Point thickness reading is used for metal loss widely extended
(Type A and B are defined as same as API579-1/ASME FFS-1) in the surface. Proper numbers of point are selected to cover
a) Assessment of general metal loss extent and degree of flaw or damages.
The LTA is characterized as uniform general metal loss and a) In the case when COV of measured data is greater than
calculated minimum required thickness tmin or maximum 10%, it is judged that point reading method is not suitable
allowable pressure PMAW for judgment of continuous operation for assessment of general metal loss due to large surface
up to next inspection as shown in Fig.3.. irregularity, and then thickness profile method should be
selected.
b) The distance from gross structural discontinuity to the flaw

flaw Characterization
shall be measured, and if it is less than 1.8 Dt c ,assessment
for local metal is not applicable.
t t c) Assessment for local metal loss is not applicable when the
tam results of thickness profile and groove profile fall into
Fig.3 Characterization of general metal loss following cases
b) Assessment of local metal loss 1) Shell parameter c of circumferential direction is larger
The LTA is characterized as local rectangular LTA and then than 9
judged capability of continuous operation up to next inspection 2) Bottom radius of groove like flaws is less than groove

3 Copyright 2016 by ASME

 depth Longitudinal length of flaw s
s
2.3.2 Thickness profile Length of thickness averaging, L
L
The thickness profile method is used for locally corroded flaws
or damages as shown in Fig.5. The measurement grid may be

set with space ( ls min 0.36 Dt min , 2t ) t
t m1
s
t m2
s

t mm

t m1
s
t m2
s
t mm
measured thickness t am
s
flaw

flaw
Longitudinal average
flaw

3
Fig.7 Characterization of general metal loss by thickness
C1 M1
C1
C2 C2 M2 profiling
C3 C3 M3 2.4.1 Characterization of local metal loss
C1
C2
The longitudinal thickness and length of local metal loss are
C3
M1 M2 M3 M1 M2 M3 determined in all subsections as shown in Fig.8

Optional
22 points si si+1 Optional 2 points
2
i) shell
1)Cylindrical ii)
2)Conical shell iii)
3)Spherical shell
Fig. 5 Thickness profile reading
tc
2.3.3 Critical thickness profile, CTP Ai Ai+1
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7
C1 M1
C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 si
M1
M2
M2 M3 Circum. CTP
CTP
M3
M4
M4 tc
M5 tli
M5
sitli=Aitli

Pass of max. metal loss
si + 1

tc tli + 1
CTP
Longi. CTP si+1tli+1=Ai+1tli+1
Fig. 6 Critical thickness profile
Fig.8 Subdivision process for determining the RSF
The CTP of longitudinal direction is developed from the profile
(Effective area method)
connected lowest points of each circumferential section of grid
as shown in Fig.6. The CTP of circumferential direction also
2.5 Calculation of RSF
developed as same method as above.
RSF is defined as follows
RSF= LDC/LUC
2.4Characterization for general metal loss
LDC : limit or plastic collapse load of the damaged
a) Characterization of general metal loss from point reading
component with flaws
Mean measured thickness is calculated from thickness reading
LUC : limit or collapse load of the undamaged component
of each point and then characterized as uniform metal loss.
RSF is utilized to define the acceptability of a component for
continued service and means the degree of remaining strength
b) Characterization of general metal loss from thickness
of the component due to flaws in case of judgment for
profile
assessment of local metal loss.
Compute the length of thickness averaging, L from
Allowable remaining strength factor, RSFa = 0.9, is provided as
longitudinal CTP and determine the average measured
same as Table 2.3 of API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 Part 4
thickness tam as shown in Fig.7.
considering basis of Japanese pressure vessel code equivalent to
L Q Dt c which is same as defined in API 579-1/ASME ASME BPV Codes.
FFS-1 Part 4 RSF is determined from profile of metal loss with following
It is possible to apply simple and conservative assessment of the formula
flaw characterized as uniform metal loss.
Rt
RSF
1
1
Mt

1 Rt

4 Copyright 2016 by ASME

 RSF: remaining strength factor,RSF, of the component Fs My
Rt: remaining thickness ratio p
F MT MT F
Mt: Folias factor based on the longitudinal extent of LTA Mx
Mx
2.6 Acceptance criteria
The acceptance criteria of component with flows for My Fs

continuous operation to next inspection are defined as follows
My
2.6.1 General metal loss tmm-tFCA
A
Characterized LTA


a) For Type A component tc
B c
(B)

The smaller of Equations below

tam tFCA 0.9tmin

Df
F Mx
D
MT
Do

tmm tFCA 0.5tmin

Fig.9 Circumferential section subjected
t F C A : future corrosion allowance supplemental load

t min : minimum required thickness 2.7 Remediation

tam : average measured thickness of LTA When result of LTA assessment is not acceptable, continuous
use of the pressure equipment is not feasible, suitable
b)For Type B component remediation methods must be considered as listed below.
p pMAW a) Evaluation of future corrosion allowance, FCA determined
from future operation plan, timing of next inspection or
p : pressure for evaluation applicable corrosion protection system
pM A W:maximum allowable working pressure calculated b) Weld repair of LTA such as weld overlay refer to
WES7700-1~4
from tam - t FCA c) Renewal or replacement of the component
2.6.2 Local metal loss d) Rerating of operating pressure and/or temperature
a) Maximum allowable working pressure e) Evaluation of structural integrity of the component by
(for longitudinal section) detailed mechanical assessment such as FEM
R
p min SF pMAW , pMAW 3 3D Optical Measurement and FFS Assessment of
0.9 LTA
b)Allowable stress (for circumferential section) As reported in PVP2015-45658 for round robin test of


max eA , eB H f a
thickness reading of LTA in the pipe by ultrasonic testing,
contact points of UT transducer may be varied and make large
0.9 scattering of measured values, especially in case of corrosion at
pMAW : maximum allowable working pressure calculated from outer surface of pipe, variation of thickness reading may occur
t - tFCA due to surface irregularity in LTA/CUI (corrosion under
insulation) as shown in Fig.10.
a :allowable tensile stress of the material
H f =1.0 for stress raised by supplemental load is negligible
=3.0for stress raised by supplemental load is the sum of
primary and secondary stress
e eB : Mises stress subjected supplemental loads at Pint A
A

and B (refer to Fig.9.)

t measured thickness of uncorroded portion

Fig. 10 example of mean values vs. standard deviation of

thickness reading of the pipe with CUI by UT [5]
The various tools measuring corrosion have been studied and
developed longtime in US pipeline industries.
In recent years, 3D optical measurement system such as laser
light-section method, photogrammetry method and 3D

5 Copyright 2016 by ASME

 structured light method have been utilized considering
effective measurement and quick decision making based on
FFS assessment.

3D structured light method using LED is recommendable with Table 4 Specification of pipe with LTA
advantages as listed Table 3. O.D. Thk Service
Design Design Allowable
Pipe Temp. Pressure stress
(mm) (mm) (Year) 2
with (Deg-C) (MPa) (N/mm )
LTA
Table 3 Advantages of 3D structured light method 165 7.2 37 85 4.2 92
Item Advantages of 3D structured light method

Setting Very easy to set. Objects just need to be in

the range of the specified working distance.

Time to capture 0.3 sec *

Time to point cloud 3 seconds *

Resolution XY resolution with 300K

camera : 0.2mm~0.4mm.

Unable object to Objects with no specula reflection.

scan

Errors Multiple of resolution.

Best fitting objects Objects in short range.

Training Half day training required for better scanning

*: in the case of Seikowave method,3D TOOLBOXTM [12]

3D optical measurement system can measure surface exposed

profile of LTA but cannot directly measure remaining
thicknesses. In order to determine remaining thickness at LTA,
it is necessary to measure thickness at the portion other than
Fig.11 Measurement of LTA in pipe using 3D structured light
LTA by other method such as UT and deduct depth of LTA
method
measured by 3D structured light method. In case of
measurement of internal corrosion, inside diameter of the pipe
needs to be large enough to enter the system
(approx.300mm),otherwise the pipe cut in half to expose the
corroded surface if it is allowed.
Using same pipe with LTA for round robin test as shown in
Fig.10 with specification listed in Table 4, LTA in the pipe
was measured by 3D structured light method
Fig.11 shows measurement of LTA in pipe using
3D structured light method. Phase-shifted pattern is projected to
the target surface.
Fig.12 shows 3D data with no texture of outer surface of pipe.
It is easy to develop colored map of LTA depth in short time as
shown in Fig.13. Fig.12 3D data (no texture)

6 Copyright 2016 by ASME

 CSV data is directly transferred to FFS assessment software.
Fig.16 shows data of grid points transferred from CSV data.
Based on input data as shown in Fig.17 and measured
remaining thickness data from CSV , the judgment of FFS
assessment of the pipe based on WES2820-2015 is easily
obtained using the computer software, uni-FitnessTMTM as
shown in Fig.18. .
In this case, general metal loss assessment shows acceptable.
Fig.19 shows FFS assessment after future 3 years operation.
When FCA for future 3 years operation is set 0.30 mm, general
metal loss assessment shows not acceptable, but local metal loss
assessment shows acceptable in both MAWP and allowable
stress.

CONCLUDING REMARKS
1) WES2820-2015 was developed for FFS assessment method
Fig.13 Colored map of LTA depth of pressure equipment with metal loss in Japan.
2) In order to perform FFS assessment of LTA in pressure
Fig. 14 shows critical thickness profile, CTP, of the LTA in equipment in short time with the highest reliability, the
pipe for FFS assessment of LTA. assessment system combined with LTA measurement using
Fig.15 shows LTA map by CSV (Excel) 3D structured light method and FFS assessment software
(CSV: Comma Separated Value) according to WES2820 was also developed.
3) LTA measurement using 3D LED system is very effective
in case of detailed measurement and continuous FFS
assessment in short time.
Top views
References
[1] WES2820-2015, Fitness-For-Service assessment procedure
for pressure equipment Metal loss assessment
[2] API579-1/ASME FFS-1, Fitness-For-Service, 2007
[3] FFS Assessment Standards for Pressure Equipment,
PAJ/JPCA FFS-S, 2011
[4] T.Kaida et al., Development of Fitness-For-Service standard
Longitudinal CTP for pressure equipment with metal loss based on reliability,
PVP2015-45832
Fig. 14 CTP of LTA in Pipe. [5] T.Tahara et al., Study on LTA measurement for FFS
assessment, PVP2015-45658
[6] M.Ozaki et al., Buckling strength of towers having partial
metal loss on shell under overturning moment, PVP2015-
45842
[7] JPI Standards JPI-8R-11~17, Japan Petroleum Institute
[8] Risk Based Maintenance, HPIS Z106, Z107, High Pressure
Institute of Japan
[9] Repair welding of pressure equipment, Part 1~4, WES7700
-1~-4, The Japan Welding Engineering Society
[10] Standards to determine next inspection interval based on
Fitness-For-Service assessment for high pressure gas
equipment, KHK/PAJ/JPCA S 0851(2009)
[11] Assessment Procedure for Crack-Like Flaws in Pressure
Equipment-Level1 and Level2, HPIS Z 101-1 and -2, 2011
[12] US Patent, US8, 976, 362B2, Seikowave Inc., USA
Fig.15 LTA map by CSV (Excel) [13] IHI Marine Co., Ltd., Japan
It takes almost 0.3 second for point captured and 30 second [14] J.L.Janelle et al., An overview and validation of the
for point cloud. Fitness-For-Service assessment procedures for local thin
areas, WRC Bulletin 505

7 Copyright 2016 by ASME

 Fig. 16 Input data of the pipe Fig. 18 Judgment of FFS assessment of the pipe

Fig.17 Data of grid points transferred from CSV data Fig.19 Assessment after future 3 years operation

8 Copyright 2016 by ASME