Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 60

FITNESS FOR SERVICE ASSESSMENT BASED ON API 579-1/ ASME FFS-1

BY: M. ANEES AKHTAR

History and Background


API RP 571 Fitness-For-Service (January 2000)
reliable assessment of the structural integrity of equipment for the refining and petrochemical industry to be used in conjunction with the API existing codes for pressure vessels, piping and aboveground storage tanks (API 510, API 570, API 653) joint committee was formed in 2001 enhance the range to process, manufacturing and power generation industries

API & ASME

11/21/2012

Introduction
API/ASME Construction Codes
The construction codes & standards do not provide rules to evaluate equipment that degrades while in-service and deficiencies due to degradation that may be found during the service
Quantitative engineering evaluations that are performed to demonstrate the structural integrity of an in-service component that may contain a flaw or damage

Fitness-For-Service (FFS)

API 579-1/ASME FFS-1

This standard provides guidance for conducting FFS assessments using methodologies specially prepared for pressurized equipment

11/21/2012

Scope
The methods and procedures in this standard are intended to supplement and augment the requirements in API 510, API 570, API 653 and other post construction codes that reference FFS

The reference procedure in this standard can be used for FFS assessments and/or re-rating of equipment designed and constructed to the following codes;
ASME B&PV Code, Section VIII, Division 1 ASME B&PV Code, Section VIII, Division 2 ASME B&PV Code, Section I ASME B31.1 Piping Code ASME B31.3 Piping Code API 650 API 620

11/21/2012

Scope
The assessment procedures in this standard may also be applied to pressure containing equipment constructed to other recognized codes & standards, including international and internal corporate standards The FFS assessment procedures in this standard cover both the present integrity of the component given a current state of damage and the projected remaining life Analytical procedures, material properties including environmental effects, NDE guidelines and documentation requirements are included in this standard
11/21/2012 5

Scope
The FFS assessment procedures in this standard can be used to evaluate flaws commonly encountered in pressure vessel, piping and storage tanks The procedures are not intended to provide a definitive guideline for every possible situation. However, flexibility is provided to form an advanced assessment level to handle uncommon situations

11/21/2012

Outcome
If the results of FFS assessment indicate that the equipment is suitable for the current operating conditions, then the equipment can continue to be operated at these conditions provided monitoring/inspection programmes are established, otherwise the equipment is re-rated. The re-rating of equipment is done by finding a reduced Maximum Allowable Working Pressure (MWAP) and/or coincident temperature for pressurized components and reduced Maximum Fill Height (MFH) for tank components

11/21/2012

Organization
The FFS assessment procedures in this standard are organized by the aw type and/or damage mechanism

11/21/2012

Organization

11/21/2012

Organization

11/21/2012

10

11/21/2012

11

General FFS Assessment Procedure


If the damage mechanism cannot be identified, then a FFS assessment should not be performed per API 579
Identification of damage mechanism is the key component in the FFS assessment Firm understanding of the damage mechanism is required to evaluate the time-dependence of the damage Time-dependence of damage is required to develop a remaining life and inspection plan

API 579 provides guidance for conducting FFS assessments using methods specifically prepared for equipment in the refining and petrochemical industry; however, this document is currently being used in other industries such as the fossil utility, pulp & paper, food processing, and noncommercial nuclear

11/21/2012

12

General FFS Assessment Procedure


General FFS assessment procedure used in API 579 for all flaw types is provided in Section 2 that includes the following steps: Step 1 - Flaw & damage mechanism identification Step 2 - Applicability & limitations of FFS procedures Step 3 - Data requirements Step 4 - Assessment techniques & acceptance criteria Step 5 - Remaining life evaluation Step 6 - Remediation Step 7 - In-service monitoring Step 8 - Documentation Some of the steps shown above may not be necessary depending on the application and damage mechanism

11/21/2012

13

Assessment Levels
Level 1
The assessment procedures included in this level are intended to provide conservative screening criteria that can be utilized with a minimum amount of inspection or component information. A Level 1 assessment may be performed either by plant inspection or engineering personnel.
11/21/2012 14

Assessment Levels
Level 2
The assessment procedures included in this level are intended to provide a more detailed evaluation that produces results that are more precise than those from a Level 1 assessment. In a Level 2 Assessment, inspection information similar to that required for a Level 1 assessment are needed; however, more detailed calculations are used in the evaluation. Level 2 assessments would typically be conducted by plant engineers, or engineering specialists experienced and knowledgeable in performing FFS assessments.
11/21/2012 15

Assessment Levels
Level 3
The assessment procedures included in this level are intended to provide the most detailed evaluation which produces results that are more precise than those from a Level 2 assessment. In a Level 3 Assessment the most detailed inspection and component information is typically required, and the recommended analysis is based on numerical techniques such as the finite element method or experimental techniques when appropriate. A Level 3 assessment is primarily intended for use by engineering specialists experienced and knowledgeable in performing FFS assessments.
16

11/21/2012

Acceptance Criteria
Allowable Stress This acceptance criterion is based upon calculation of stresses resulting from different loading conditions, classification and superposition of stress results, and comparison of the calculated stresses in an assigned category or class to an allowable stress value. The allowable stress value is typically established as a fraction of yield, tensile or rupture stress at room and the service temperature, and this fraction can be associated with a design margin. This acceptance criteria method is currently utilized in most new construction design codes. In FFS applications, this method has limited applicability because of the difficulty in establishing suitable stress classifications for components containing flaws.

11/21/2012

17

Acceptance Criteria
Remaining Strength Factor (RSF) Based on the concepts of elastic plastic fracture mechanics.

11/21/2012

18

Failure Assessment Diagram (FAD)


The FAD is used for the evaluation of crack like flaws in components. In a FFS analysis of crack-like flaws, the results from a stress analysis, stress intensity factor and limit load solutions, the material strength, and fracture toughness are combined to calculate a toughness ratio, Kr , and load ratio, Lr . These two quantities represent the coordinates of a point that is plotted on a two dimensional FAD to determine acceptability. If the assessment point is on or below the FAD curve, the component is suitable for continued operation.

11/21/2012

19

11/21/2012

20

Remaining Life Assessment


Once it has been established that the component containing the flaw is acceptable at the current time, the user should determine a remaining life for the component. The remaining life in this Standard is used to establish an appropriate inspection interval, an in-service monitoring plan, or the need for remediation. The remaining life is not intended to provide a precise estimate of the actual time to failure. Therefore, the remaining life can be estimated based on the quality of available information, assessment level, and appropriate assumptions to provide an adequate safety factor for operation until the next scheduled inspection.

11/21/2012

21

Part 10: Assessment of Components Operating in the Creep Range


Provides assessment procedures for pressurized components operating in the creep range Assessment procedures for determining a remaining life are provided for components with and without a crack-like flaw subject to steady state and/or cyclic operating conditions The procedures in this Part can be used to qualify a component for continued operation or for re-rating
11/21/2012 22

PART 10: Level 1 Assessment Applicability and Limitations


Level 1 Assessment procedures apply only if the following conditions are satisfied
Component has been constructed to a recognized code or standard Component has not been subject to fire damage or another overheating event that has resulted in a significant change in shape such as sagging or bulging, or excessive metal loss from scaling The material meets or exceeds the respective minimum hardness and carbon content limitations.

11/21/2012

23

11/21/2012

24

PART 10: Level 1 Assessment Applicability and Limitations


The component does not contain:
An LTA or groove like flaw Pitting Damage Blister, HIC or SOHIC damage

Weld misalignment, out of roundness, or bulge that exceed the original design code tolerances, A dent or dent-gouge combination, A crack-like flaw, or Microstructural abnormality such as graphitization or hydrogen attack.
11/21/2012 25

PART 10: Level 2 Assessment Applicability and Limitations


The Level 2 assessment procedures in this Part apply only if all of the following conditions are satisfied:
Component has been constructed to a recognized code or standard

A history of the operating conditions and documentation of future operating conditions for the component are available. The component has been subject to less than or equal to 50 cycles of operation including startup and shutdown conditions, or less than that specified in the original design. The component does not contain any of the flaws listed as in level 1 assessment requirements.

11/21/2012

26

PART 10: Level 3 Assessment Applicability and Limitations


A Level 3 Assessment should be performed when the Level 1 and 2 methods cannot be applied due to applicability and limitations of the procedure or when the results obtained indicate that the component is not suitable for continued service. Conditions that typically require a Level 3 Assessment include the following. Advanced stress analysis techniques are required to define the state of stress because of complicated geometry and/or loading conditions. The component is subject to cyclic operation. The component contains a flaw listed as in level 1 assessment requirements. A detailed assessment procedure is provided for a crack-like flaw; however, this procedure cannot be used to evaluate crack-like flaws that are caused by stress corrosion, oxide wedging, or similar environmental phenomena.
11/21/2012 27

PART 10: Level 3 Assessment Applicability and Limitations


The Level 3 Assessment procedures, with the exception of the procedure for the evaluation of dissimilar metal welds, can be used to evaluate components that contain the flaw types listed as in level 1 assessment requirements. A separate procedure is provided to evaluate components with crack-like flaws.
The assessment procedure provided for dissimilar metal welds is only applicable to 2.25Cr 1Mo to austenitic stainless steel welds made with stainless steel or nickelbased filler metals. An alternative assessment procedure for this material and other materials that are not currently covered may be used.

11/21/2012

28

Assessment Techniques and Acceptance criteria


Level 1 Assessments are based on a comparison with specified time-temperature-stress limits and a simplified creep damage calculation for components subject to multiple operating conditions (i.e. temperature and applied stress combinations). In addition, a check on material properties in terms of hardness or carbon content and a visual examination of the component is made in order to evaluate the potential for creep damage based on component distortion and material characteristics such as discoloration or scaling. Level 2 Assessments can be used for components operating in the creep regime that satisfy the requirements for applicability. The stress analysis for the assessment may be based on closed form stress solutions, reference stress solutions, or solutions obtained from finite element analysis.

11/21/2012

29

11/21/2012

30

Assessment Techniques and Acceptance criteria

Level 3 Assessments can be used to evaluate those cases that do not meet the requirements of Level 1 or Level 2 assessments. A detailed stress analysis is required to evaluate creep damage, creepfatigue damage, creep crack growth, and creep buckling. In addition, a separate procedure is provided to perform a creep-fatigue assessment of a dissimilar-weld joint.

11/21/2012

31

Level -1 Assessment Procedure


The Level 1 assessment for a component subject to a single design or operating condition in the creep range is provided below.
STEP 1 Determine the maximum operating temperature, pressure, and service time the component is exposed to. If the component contains a weld joint that is loaded in the stress direction that governs the minimum required wall thickness calculation, then 14C (25F) shall be added to the maximum operating temperature to determine the assessment temperature. Otherwise, the assessment temperature is the maximum operating temperature. The service time shall include past and future planned operation. STEP 2 Determine the nominal stress of the component for the operating condition defined in STEP 1. The computed nominal stress shall include the effects of service-induced wall thinning. STEP 3 Determine the material of construction for the component and find the figure with the screening and damage curves to be used for the Level 1 assessment.
32

11/21/2012

Level -1 Assessment
STEP 4 Determine the maximum permissible time for operation based on the screening curve obtained from STEP 3, the nominal stress from STEP 2, and the assessment temperature from STEP 1. If the time determined from the screening curve exceeds the service time for the component from STEP 1, then the component is acceptable per the Level 1 Assessment procedure. Otherwise, go to STEP 5. STEP 5 Determine the creep damage rate, Rc and associated creep damage Dc for the operating condition defined in STEP 1 using the damage curve obtained from STEP 3, the nominal stress from STEP 2, and the assessment temperature from STEP 1. The creep damage for this operating condition shall be computed using Equation given below where the service exposure time is determined from STEP 1.

11/21/2012

33

Level -1 Assessment
STEP 6 If the total creep damage determined from STEP 5 satisfies Equation given below then the component is acceptable per the Level 1 Assessment procedure. Otherwise, the component is not acceptable and following requirements shall be followed. Rerate, repair, replace, or retire the component. Adjust the future operating conditions, the corrosion allowance, or both; note that this does not apply if

based on the current operating time. Conduct a Level 2 or a Level 3 Assessment.

11/21/2012

34

Level 2 Assessment
The creep damage based upon the results of a stress analysis is computed as follows: STEP 1 Determine a load history based on past operation and future planned operation. The load histogram should include all significant operating loads and events that are applied to the component. If there is cyclic operation, the load histogram should be divided into operating cycles as shown in Figure 1. Define K as the total number of operating cycles.
11/21/2012 35

Level 2 Assessment

11/21/2012

36

Level 2 Assessment

11/21/2012

37

Level 2 Assessment

11/21/2012

38

Level 2 Assessment

11/21/2012

39

Level 2 Assessment

11/21/2012

40

Level 2 Assessment

11/21/2012

41

Level 2 Assessment

11/21/2012

42

Level 3 Assessment
The Level 3 assessment procedures provide a means to evaluate the remaining life of a component using advanced stress analysis techniques. If the flaw is volumetric (i.e. LTA, pitting damage, weld misalignment, out-of-roundness, bugle, dent, or dent-gouge combination), then the stress analysis model used to evaluate the remaining life must include the flaw so that that localized stresses and strains are accounted for. These stress results are then directly used in the assessment. If the component contains a crack-like flaw, then the stress analysis used for remaining life can be based on an un-cracked body analysis. The effects of the crack are accounted for in the assessment procedure. As in the case for the Level 2 assessment, the predominant failure mode for components operating in the creep regime is creep rupture. If the component is subject to cyclic operation, then the effect of creep-fatigue interaction needs to be evaluated. Both of these damage mechanisms involve a time-based failure mode; therefore, a remaining life needs to be evaluated as part of the assessment.

11/21/2012

43

Corrosion Assessment
Following three parts of API/ASME 579-1 address corrosion
Part 4 Assessment of General Metal Loss.

Part 5 Assessment of Local Metal Loss.


Part 6 Assessment of Pitting Corrosion.

11/21/2012

44

Corrosion Assessment
Part 5 is usually less conservative than Part 4 because the former accounts for the finite extent of the metal loss The assessment in Part 4 assumes that the metal loss is over the entire component. The two assessments give similar answers when the metal loss extends over long distances. Both the Part 4 and Part 5 assessments use the RSF concept to evaluate wall thinning. Inspection data for local and general metal loss assessments typically consists of wall thickness readings in a grid pattern.
11/21/2012 45

Corrosion Assessment
The pitting corrosion assessment entails computing an RSF that depends on the diameter, depth, and spacing of pits. In the Level 1 assessment, the RSF is estimated by visually comparing pitting charts with the observed pitting. The Level 2 assessment requires measurement of pit dimensions and spacing and includes a series of calculations to estimate the RSF.
11/21/2012 46

Part 4: General Metal Loss


Required Data/Measurements for a FFS Assessment.
Thickness readings are required on the component where the metal loss has occurred to evaluate the general metal loss.

Two options for obtaining thickness data: Point Thickness Readings: point thickness readings can be used to characterize a metal loss in a component if there are no significant differences in the thickness reading values obtained at thickness monitoring locations. Thickness Profiles: thickness profiles should be used to characterize metal loss in a component if there is a significant variation in the thickness readings.
11/21/2012 47

11/21/2012

48

11/21/2012

49

Part 5: Local Metal Loss


The type of flaws that are characterized as local metal loss are defined as follows Local Thin Area (LTA) local metal loss on the surface of the component; the length of a region of metal loss is the same order of magnitude as the width.
11/21/2012 50

Part 5: Local Metal Loss


Groove-Like Flaw the following flaws are included in this category; a sharp radius may be present at the base of a groove-like flaw.
Groove local elongated thin spot caused by directional erosion or corrosion; the length of the metal loss is significantly greater than the width. Gouge elongated local mechanical removal and/or relocation of material from the surface of a component, causing a reduction in wall thickness at the defect; the length of a gouge is much greater than the width and the material may have been cold worked in the formation of the flaw. Gouges are typically caused by mechanical damage, for example, denting and gouging of a section of pipe by mechanical equipment during the excavation of a pipeline. Gouges are frequently associated with dents due to the nature of mechanical damage. If a gouge is present, the assessment procedures of Part 12 shall be used.

11/21/2012

51

11/21/2012

52

11/21/2012

53

Part 6: Pitting
The assessment procedures is used to evaluate metal loss from pitting corrosion Pitting is defined as localized regions of metal loss which can be characterized by a pit diameter on the order of the plate thickness or less, and a pit depth that is less than the plate thickness Assessment procedures can be used to evaluate four types of pitting


11/21/2012

widely scattered pitting that occurs over a significant region of the component A local thin area (LTA) located in a region of widely scattered pitting localized regions of pitting, and
Localized Pitting confined within a region of a LTA.
54

Part 6: Pitting
Pitting Charts
FFS by visually comparing pit chart to actual damage plus estimate of maximum pit depth

Pitting Chart API 579 Grade 4 Pitting


11/21/2012 55

Part 6: Pitting
Pitting Charts
Pit charts provided for a different pitting damages measured as a percentage of the affected area in a 6 inch by 6 inch RSF provided for each pit density and four w/t ratios (0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8)

Pitting Chart API 579 Grade 4 Pitting


11/21/2012 56

Part 9: Crack-Like Flaws


Crack-like flaws are planar flaws which are predominantly characterized by a length and depth, with a sharp root radius, the types of crack-like flaws are
Surface breaking Embedded Through-wall

In some cases, it is conservative and advisable to treat volumetric flaws such as aligned porosity or inclusions, deep undercuts, root undercuts, and overlaps as planar flaws, particularly when such volumetric flaws may contain microcracks at the root Grooves and gouges with a sharp root radius are evaluated using Section 9, criteria for the root radius is in Section 5

11/21/2012

57

Part 9: Crack-Like Flaws


The assessment procedures in Part 9 are based on a fracture mechanics approach considering the entire range of material behavior
Brittle fracture Elastic/plastic fracture Plastic collapse

Information required to perform an assessment is provided in Part 9 and the following Appendices
Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix C - Stress Intensity Factor Solutions D - Reference Stress Solutions E - Residual Stress Solutions F - Material Properties

11/21/2012

58

QUESTIONS

11/21/2012

59

THNAK YOU

11/21/2012

60