Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
General
Applicability and limitations of the Procedure
Data Requirements
Assessment Techniques and Acceptance Criteria
4.4.1 Overview
4.4.2 Level I Assessment
4.4.3 Level 2 Assessment
4.4.4 Level 3 Assessment
Remaining Life Assessment
4.5.1 Thickness Approach
4.5.2 MAWP Approach
Remediation
In-Service Monitoring
Documentation
References
Tables and Figures
Examples
General. 4.1
Fitness-For-Service
(FFS) assessment
procedures for
pressurized
components subject
to general metal loss
resulting from
corrosion and/or
erosion are provided
in this section.
The procedures can
be used to qualify a
component for
continued operation
or for re-rating as
shown in the flow
chart of Fig. 4.1
4.2.3.2.
Level 3 Assessment can be performed when the Levels 1
and 2 Assessment procedures do not apply. Examples
include, but are not limited to the following
a. Geometries associated with major structural
discontinuities not covered In a Level 1 or Level 2
Assessment
b. Components subject to supplemental loads not covered
in the Level I or Level 2 assessment procedures.
c. Components with a design based on proof testing
d. Components operating in the creep range
e. Components in cyclic service or when fatigue analysis
was performed in the original design calculations.
4.3
Data Requirements
4.3.3.2
If point thickness readings are used in the assessment, the
assumption of general metal loss should be confirmed.
a. Additional inspection may be required such as visual
examination, radiography or other NDE methods.
b. A minimum of 15 thickness readings is recommended unless
the level of NDE utilized can be used to confirm that the metal
loss is general. In some cases, additional readings may be
required based on the size of the component, the construction
details utilized, and the nature of the environment resulting in
the metal loss (Table 4.2).
c. If the Coefficient Of Variation (COV) of the thickness readings
minus the Future Corrosion Allowance (FCA) is greater than
10%, then the use of thickness profiles should be considered
for use in the assessment. The COV is defined as the standard
deviation divided by the average (Table 4.3).
Step 1:
Locate the region of metal loss
on the component and
determine the location,
orientation, and length of the
inspection plane(s)
Step 1.1:
To determine the inspection
plane(s) for thickness readings
the following should be
considered:
a) Pressure Vessel Heads and
Spheres (see Figure 4.3).
Step 2-
Step 3.
Measure and record the wall thickness readings at Intervals along
each inspection plane and determine the minimum measured wall
thickness, tmin. If the corroded surface is not accessible for
visual inspection, then the recommended spacing distance for
thickness readings along each inspection plane Is given by the
following equation; however, a minimum of five thickness
readings is recommended for each inspection plane(s).
Ls
(4.1)
ts
Step 4.
Determine the Critical
Thickness Profile (CTP) in the
meridional and circumferential
directions, as shown in Figure
4.6. The length of the profile is
established by determining the
end point locations where the
remaining wall thickness is
greater than in the meridional
and circumferential directions.
Conical shell transition (see Figure 4.10 for the thickness zone, L v).
Axisymmetric discontinuities (see Figure 4.11 for the thickness zone, Lv).
Flange connections (see Figure 4.12 for the thickness zone, Lvh and Lvt).
Overview
4.4.1.1
If the metal loss is less than the
specified corrosion/erosion
allowance and adequate
thickness is available for the
future corrosion allowance, no
further action is required other
than to record the data;
otherwise, an assessment is
required.
4.4.1.2
An overview of the assessment
levels is provided in Figure 4.1.
Level 1 Assessments
are limited to components which have a design equation which
specifically relates pressure (or liquid fill height for tanks) and/or
other loadings, as applicable, to a required wall thickness.
Level 2 Assessments
can be used to evaluate components which do not satisfy Level 1
criteria, and can also be used to evaluate components which do not
have a design equation which specifically relates pressure to a
required wall thickness. For example, the design rules for nozzle
reinforcement in the ASME Code, Section VIII, Division I are
provided in terms of reinforcement areas which result in a thickness
Interdependency between the required thickness of the shell and
nozzle.
Level 3 assessments
can be used to evaluate components which are not covered or do
not pass a Level I or Level 2 assessment.
4.4.1.3
If the thickness readings indicate that the metal loss is
localized and thickness profiles are obtained, the
assessment procedures of this section can still be used
for the assessment However, the results may be
conservative, and the option for performing the analysis
using the assessment procedures of Section 5 is
provided.
4.4.1.4
FFS assessments for the components listed below
require special consideration because of the complexities
associated
with the design requirements of the
original construction code.
a. Pressure Vessels Designed To The ASME Code, Section VIII,
Division 2
b. Low Pressure Storage Tanks Designed To API 620
c. Piping Designed To ASME B31.3
4.4.2
Level I Assessment
FCA =
=
tmm
=
(4.3)
For (s>L)
(4.5)
(4.6)
4.4.3
Level 2 Assessment
4.4.3.1
The Level 2 assessment procedure can be used to evaluate
components described in paragraphs 4.2.3.1 .f and 4.2.3.1 .g
subject to the loads defined in paragraph 4.2.3.1 .h. If the flaw is
found to be unacceptable, the procedure can be used to establish a
new MAWP or MFH.
4.4.3.2
Step 1. Calculate the thickness required for supplemental loads, tsl
and the minimum required thickness tmin
Step 2. Locate regions of metal loss and determine the type of
thickness data that will be recorded. Determine the minimum
measured thickness, tmm. If thickness profile data are used, then
proceed to Step 3.
If point thickness readings are used, then complete the assessment
following the methodology in paragraph 4.4.2.1 .b.
(4.7)
(4.8)
(4.9)
b) The minimum measured wall thickness, tmm for the CTP(s) should
satisfy the criterion in paragraph 4.4.2.1f.2.
2. Shell Courses of API 650 Storage Tanks The requirements are the
same as for Level 1 (see paragraph 4.4.2.1.f) because of the higher
allowable stress permitted for in- service tankage as stipulated in
API 653.
4.4.3.3
The following assessment procedure can be used to evaluate components
described in paragraph 4.2.3.1 .g subject to the loads defined in paragraph
4.2.3.1 .h.
a. Design rules for components at a major structural discontinuity typically
involve the satisfaction of a local reinforcement requirement (e.g. nozzle
reinforcement area), or necessitates the computation of a stress level based
upon a given load condition and geometry and thickness configuration (e.g.
flange design). These rules typically result in one component with a
thickness which is dependent upon that of another component (for
examples, see paragraph 4.2.3.1 .g). Design rules of this type have
thickness interdependency, and the definition of a minimum thickness for a
component is ambiguous.
b. To evaluate components with a thickness interdependency, the MAWP
should be computed based upon the average measured thickness minus
the future corrosion allowance (tam- FCA) and the thickness required for
supplemental loads (see Appendix A, paragraph A.2.6) for each component
using the equations in the original construction. The calculated MAWP
should be equal to or exceed the design MAWP.
4.5.2.2 The following procedure can be used to determine the remaining life of a
component using the MA WP approach:
Step 1 Determine the metal loss of the component, tloss, by subtracting the
average measured thickness from the time of the last inspection, tam, from
the nominal thickness, tnom
Step 2 Determine the MAWP for a series of increasing time increments using
an effective corrosion allowance and the nominal thickness in the
computation.
The effective corrosion allowance is determined as follows:
CAe =tloss + Crate * time
(4.11)
where,
Crate = Anticipated future corrosion rate (mm/year:in/year),
CAe = Effective corrosion allowance (mm:in),
tloss = Metal loss, defined as (tnom tam) (mm:in),
tnom = Nominal or furnished wall thickness of the component (mm:in),
tam = Average wall thickness of the component determined at the time of the
inspection (mm:in), and
time = Time in the future (years).
Step 3 Determine the remaining life from a plot of the MAWP versus
time. The time at which the MA WP curve intersects the design
MAWP for the component is the remaining life of the component.
Step 4 Repeat the Steps 1, 2 and 3 for each component. The
equipment remaining life is taken as the smallest value of the
remaining lives computed for each of the individual components.
4.5.2.3 This approach may also be applied to tanks using the maximum
fill height, MFH, instead of the MAWP.
4.6 Remediation
4.6.3 Remediation Method 1:
Performing Physical Changes to the Process Stream:
a. Increasing or decreasing the process temperature and/or pressure
b. Increasing or decreasing the velocity of the stream
c. Installing scrubbers, treaters, coalescers and filters to remove certain
fractions
4.6.4 Remediation Method 2 Application of solid barrier linings
or coatings to keep the environment isolated from the base
metal, which has suffered previous damage.
4.6.4.1 Organic coatings
a. Thin film coatings
b. Thick film coatings
b.
c.
4.7.2
not feasible
Typical monitoring methods include the use of the following
tools or procedures:
Corrosion probes
Hydrogen probes
Retractable corrosion coupons and physical probes
UT measurements and scanning
Radiographic examination
Stream samples for H2S, Cl, NH3, Co2 , Fe, Ni, pH, water content,
Hg, etc.
Infrared thermography
Thermocouples
4.8 Documentation
4.8.1 The documentation of the FFS Assessment should include the information cited in
Section 2, paragraph 2.8.
4.8.2 Inspection data including all thickness readings and corresponding locations used
to determine the average measured thickness, t and the minimum measured thickness,
t should be recorded and included in the documentation. A sample data sheet Is
provided in Table 4.1 for this purpose. A sketch showing the location and orientation of
the inspection planes on the component is also recommended.
4.9 References
Osage, D.A., Buchheim, G.M., Brown, R.G., Poremba, J., An Alternate Approach for
Inspection
Scheduling Using the Maximum Allowable Working Pressure for Pressurized
Equipment, ASME
PVP-VoI. 288, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1994, pp. 261273.
Tables and Figures
Solved Examples