Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 69

API 579 FFS : SECTION 4

Assessment of General Metal Loss


Issued January, 2000
Prepared by
Dr. Mohammad Megahed
March 2004

Contents of Chapter-4 FFS


4.1.
4.2.
4.3
4.4

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

The procedures are based on a thickness


averaging approach
Provides a suitable result when applied to
uniform metal loss.
May produce conservative results if local
areas of metal loss are present.
FFS - Section 5 is used for cases of local
metal loss
For most evaluations, it is recommended to
first perform an assessment using Section
4

4.2. Applicability and limitations of the Procedure

Section-4 can be used to evaluate all forms of general metal


loss (uniform or local) which exceeds or is predicted to exceed
the corrosion allowance before the next scheduled inspection.

The general metal loss may occur on the inside or outside of


the component.

Assessment procedures based on thickness profiles and point


thickness readings are provided.

The assessment procedure to be used depends on the type of


thickness data available

Figure 4.2 illustrates the methodology used to determine the


assessment procedure

Calculation methods are provided to rerate the component if


the acceptance criteria are not satisfied.

Level 1 or 2 assessment procedures apply only if all of


the following conditions are satisfied:

a. The original design criteria were in accordance with a


recognized code or standard
b. The component is not operating in the creep range
(see Table 4-1)

c. The region of metal loss has relatively smooth contours without


notches
d. The component is not in cyclic service (less than 150 cycles)
e. The component does not contain crack-like flaws (Section -9 is
used instead)
f. The component has a design equation which relates pressure to
thickness
g. If the component does not have a design equation, assessment is
limited to certain specified components
h. Some limitations on applied loads are satisfied
I. A flaw categorized as a groove should satisfy certain geometrical
conditions

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

4.3.1 Original Equipment Design Data


4.3.2 Maintenance and Operational History
4.3.3 Required Data/Measurements For A FFS Assessment

4.3.3.1 Thickness Readings


a. Two options for obtaining thickness data are presented:
(1) Individual point thickness readings
(2) Thickness profiles (thickness readings on a prescribed
grid).

Point thickness readings can be used to characterize the metal loss


as general if there are no significant differences among the values
obtained at inspection monitoring locations.

If there is a significant variation in the thickness readings, the metal


loss may be localized, and thickness profiles should be used to
characterize the remaining thickness and size of the region of metal
loss.

b. The thickness quantities used in this section for


the assessment of general metal loss are the
average measured thickness and the minimum
measured thickness. If the thickness readings
indicate that the metal loss is general, the
procedures in this section will provide an
adequate assessment. However, if the metal
loss is localized and thickness profiles are
obtained, the assessment procedures of this
section may produce conservative results, and
the option for performing the evaluation using
the assessment procedures of Section 5 is
provided.

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).

4.3.3.3 If thickness profiles are used in the assessment, the


following procedure can be used to determine the required
inspection locations and the Critical Thickness Profiles
(CTP s).

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).

b) Cylindrical Shells, Conical Shells and Elbows (see Figure 4.4).

c) Atmospheric Storage Tanks (see Figure 4.5).

d) Low Pressure Storage Tanks


e) If the critical Inspection plane(s) for a component are not known at the
time of the inspection, a minimum of two planes at right angles to each
other should be utilized.

Step 1.2 Mark each Inspection plane on the component

Step 2-

Determine the minimum required thickness, t


(see Appendix A)

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

= min [0.36Dtmin , 2tnom]

(4.1)

ts

= Recommended thickness profile spacing (mm:in),

= Inside diameter of the shell (mm: in),

tnom = Nominal or furnished thickness of the component (mm:in)


tmin = Minimum required thickness (mm:in).

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.

Note that the remaining wall


thickness within the bounds
of the CTP may exceed tmin. If
there are multiple flaws in
close proximity to one
another,
use
the
methodology
shown
in
Figures 4.7, 4.8. For large
regions of metal loss, more
than one CTP may be
utilized in the assessment.

4.3.3.4 If the region of metal loss is


close to or at a major
structural discontinuity, the
remaining thickness can be
established using the above
procedures.
However, additional thickness
readings should be taken to
include sufficient data points in
the region close to the major
structural discontinuity.
This involves taking adequate
thickness readings within the
zones defined as follows for the
components listed below:

Nozzle or branch connection


(see Figure 4.9 for the thickness
zone, Lv, Lno, and Lni).

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).

4.3.4 Recommendations For Inspection


Technique and Sizing Requirements
4.3.4.1 Thickness readings are usually made using
straight beam ultrasonic thickness examination
(UT).
4.3.4.2 Obtaining accurate thickness readings using UT
is highly dependent on the surface condition of
the component.
4.3.4.3 All UT thickness readings should be made after
proper calibration for the wall thickness and
temperature
4.3.4.4 Radiographic examination (RT) may also be
used to determine metal loss

4.4 Assessment Techniques and


Acceptance Criteria
4.4.1

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

4.4.2.1 The following assessment procedure can be used. If the flaw is


found to be unacceptable, the procedure can be used to establish a
new MAWP or MFH.

Step 1. Determine the minimum required thickness, tmin (see


Appendix A, paragraph A.2).

Step 2. Locate regions of metal loss on the component and


determine the type of thickness data that will be recorded; point
thickness readings or thickness profile data. Based on these data,
determine the minimum measured thickness, t If thickness profile
data are used, then proceed to Step 3. If point thickness readings
are used, determine the Coefficient of Variation (COV) based on the
thickness readings and Future Corrosion Allowance. If the COV is
less than or equal to 10%, then proceed to Step 6 to complete the
assessment using the average thickness, tam. If the COV is greater
than 10%, then use of thickness profiles should be considered for
the assessment, or a Level 3 Assessment can be performed.

Step 3. Determine the length for thickness averaging, L.


Step 3.1. Compute the remaining thickness ratio, R t =( tmmFCA) /tmin
tmin

FCA =
=
tmm
=

Future corrosion allowance (mm:in),


Minimum required thickness (mm:in),
Minimum measured thickness (mm:in).

Step 3.2. Compute the length for thickness averaging,


L = QDtmin

(4.3)

D = Inside diameter of the cylinder (or equivalent for


other geometries
Q = Factor from Table 4.4 based on an allowable
Remaining Strength Factor and Rt

Step 4. Establish the Critical Thickness Profiles (CTPs)


from the thickness profile data, and determine s and c
Step 5. Based on the parameters L and s from Steps 3 and 4,
respectively, perform the FFS assessment of the
region of metal loss using one of the following
methods:
For (sL)
The meridional or longitudinal extent of metal loss is
acceptable If the limiting flaw size criteria In Section 5,
paragraph 5.4.2.2.d are satisfied. For spherical shells,
formed heads and atmospheric storage tanks the
assessment is complete. For cylindrical shells, conical shells
and elbows, the circumferential extent of the metal loss
must be checked using Section 5, paragraph 5.4.2.2.g to
complete the assessment

For (s>L)

One of the following assessment methods may be used:


a) Set the average thickness equal to the measured minimum
thickness, or tam=tmm) and proceed to Step 6.
b) Determine the average and minimum measured thickness for
the meridional and circumferential CTP s as described below,
then proceed to Step 6.
1) Determine tmm (minimum measured thickness) considering all
points on longitudinal and circumferential CTP's .
2) Compute the average measured thickness from the CTP in the
meridional and circumferential directions and designate these
values as tams and tamc respectively. The average thickness is
computed by numerically averaging the thickness readings over
length L. The center or midpoint of the length for thickness
averaging, L, should be located at tmm
3) For cylindrical and conical shells and pipe bends, tam = tams in
a Level 1 Assessment. In a Level 2 Assessment, tams and tamc
are used directly in the assessment to account for supplemental
loads.

4) For spheres and formed heads


tam = min [tams, tamc] in a Level 1 or 2 Assessment.
c) The region of metal loss can be evaluated using a Level
3 Assessment.
d) The region of metal loss can be evaluated using the
Section 5 Assessment procedures for local metal loss.
Step 6.
The acceptability for continued operation can be established
using the following criteria.

The average measured wall thickness should satisfy tam


FCA tmin (eq.4.4). Alternatively, MAWP or MFH calculated
based on the thickness (tam FCA) should be equal to or
greater than the current MAWP or maximum design liquid
level, respectively.

The minimum measured wall thickness, tmm should satisfy


the following thickness criterion.

For pressure vessels and piping systems,


tmm - FCA max [0.5tmin, 2.5 mm (0.10 inches)]

(4.5)

For atmospheric storage tanks,


tmm - FCA max [0.6tmin, 2.5 mm (0.10 inches)]

(4.6)

4.4.2.2 If the component does not meet Level I Assessment


requirements, then the following, or combinations thereof,
can be considered:
a. Rerate, repair, replace, or retire the component.
b. Adjust the FCA by applying remediation techniques
(see paragraph 4.6).
c. Adjust the weld joint efficiency or quality factor, E, by
conducting additional examination and repeat the
assessment (Note: To raise the value of E from 0.7 to .85, or
from .85 to 1.0, would require that the weld seams be spot or
100% radiographed, respectively, and the examinations may
reveal additional flaws that will have to be evaluated).
d. Conduct a Level 2 or Level 3 Assessment.

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.

Step 3. Determine the length for thickness averaging, L (see paragraph


4.4.2.1.c).
Step 4. Establish the Critical Thickness Profiles (CTPs) and determine
s and c (see paragraph 4.4.2.1 .d).
Step 5. Perform the FFS assessment using one of the methods in
paragraph 4.4.2.1.e.
Step 6. The acceptability for continued operation can be established
using the following criteria.
1. Pressure Vessels and Piping Systems
a) The average measured wall thickness for the CTP(s) should satisfy
the following thickness criteria. Alternatively, the M WI calculated
based on the thicknesses (tam-FCA)/RSFa and (tam - FCA - tsl)/RSFa
(see Appendix A) should be equal to or exceed the design MAWP.
The allowable remaining strength factor, RSFa, can be determined
from Section 2.

1) Cylindrical and Conical Shells:


tams-FCA RSFa * tcmin

(4.7)

tamc-FCA RSFa * tLmin

(4.8)

2) Spherical Shells and Formed Heads:


tam-FCA RSFa * tmin

(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.

c. The average thickness of the region, tam can be obtained as follows


:for components with a thickness interdependency
Nozzles and branch connections Determine the average . 1
thickness within the nozzle reinforcement zone shown in Figure 4.9
(see paragraph 4.3.3.4). The assessment procedures In Appendix A,
paragraphs A.3.1 I and A.5.7 can be utilized to evaluate metal loss
at a nozzle or piping branch connection, respectively. The weld load
path analysis in this paragraph should also be checked, particularly
.if the metal loss has occurred in the weldments of the connection
Axisymmetric Structural Discontinuities Determine L using the . 2
procedure in paragraph 4.4.2.1.c and Lv based on the type of
structural discontinuity listed below. The average thickness is
computed based on the smaller of these two distances. If L < Lv the
midpoint of L should be located at tmm to establish a length for
thickness averaging unless the location of tmm, is within L/2 of the
zone for thickness averaging. In this case, L should be positioned so
.that it is entirely within Lv before the average thickness is computed

Conical shell transition (see Figure 4.10


for the zone for thickness averaging and
Lv).
Axisymmetric discontinuities (see Figure
4.11 for the zone for thickness averaging
and Lv).
Flange connections (see Figure 4.12 for
the zone for thickness averaging and Lv).

3. Piping Systems Piping systems have a thickness


interdependency because of the relationship between the component
thickness, piping flexibility, and the resulting stress.

For straight sections of piping, determine L using the procedure in


paragraph 4.4.2.1 .c and compute the average thickness to represent
the section of pipe with metal loss in the piping analysis. For elbows
or bends, the thickness readings should be averaged within the bend
and a single thickness used in the piping analysis (i.e. to compute the
flexibility factor, system stiffness and stress intensification factor). For
branch connections, the thickness should be averaged within the
reinforcement zones for the branch and header, and these
thicknesses should be used in the piping model (to compute the
stress intensification factor). An alternative assumption is to use the
minimum measured thickness to represent the component thickness
in the piping model. This approach may be warranted if the metal loss
is localized; however, this may result in an overly conservative
evaluation. In these cases, a Level 3 assessment may be required to
reduce the conservatism in the assessment (see paragraph 4.4.4.4).

d. The minimum measured wall thickness, t, should satisfy the


criterion in paragraph 4.4.2.1 .f.2.

4.4.3.4 If the component does not meet the Level 2 Assessment


requirements, then the following, or combinations thereof, can be
considered:
a. Rerate, repair, replace, or retire the component.
b. Adjust the FCA by applying remediation techniques (see paragraph
4.6).
c. Adjust the weld joint efficiency factor, E, by conducting additional
examination and repeat the assessment (see paragraph 4.4.2.2.c).
d. Conduct a Level 3 Assessment.

Level 3 Assessment 4.4.4


The stress analysis techniques discussed in Appendix B can be 4.4.4.1
utilized to evaluate regions of general or local metal loss in pressure
vessels, piping, and tanks. The finite element method is typically
used to compute the stresses in a component however, other
numerical methods such as the boundaty element or finite difference
method may also be used. Handbook solutions may also be used if
the solution matches the component geometry and loading
condition. The evaluation may be based on a linear stress analysis
with acceptability determined using stress categorization, or a
nonlinear stress analysis with acceptability determined using a
plastic collapse load. Nonlinear stress analysis techniques are
recommended to provide the best estimate of the acceptable load
carrying capacity of the component. Guidelines for performing and
processing results from a finite element analysis for a fitness-for.service analysis are provided In Appendix B

4.4.4.2 If a component Is subject to external pressure andlor other loads which


result In compressive stresses, a structural stability analysis should be
performed using the methods in Appendix B to determine suitability for
continued service. In addition, methods to evaluate fatigue are also induded
in Appendix B If a component is subject to cyclic loading.
4.4.4.3 Thickness data per paragraphs 4.3.3 as well as the component geometry,
matenal properties and loading conditions are required for a Level 3
Assessment. The thickness data can be used directly in finite element model
of the component. If thickness profile data are available, the thickness grid
can be directly mapped Into a three dimensional finite element model using
two or three dimensional continuum elements, as applicable. This information
can also be used If the component is modeled using shell elements.
4.4.4.4 If the region of local metal loss is close to or at a major structural
discontinuity, details of the component geometry, material properties, and
imposed supplemental loads (see Appendix A, paragraph A.2.6) at this
location are required for the assessment. Special consideration is required if
there are significant supplemental loads at a nozzle, piping branch
connection, or pipe bend. The location and distribution of the metal loss in
these components may significantly effect both the flexibility and stress
distribution in a manner that cannot be evaluated using the approaches
employed in the design. In addition, the localized metal loss may significantly
reduce the plastic collapse load capability depending on the nozzle geometry,
piping system configuration, and/or applied supplemental loads.

4.5 Remaining Life Assessment


4.5.1 Thickness Approach
4.5.1.1 The remaining life of a component may be determined based upon
computation of a minimum required thickness for the intended service
conditions, thickness measurements from an inspection, and an estimate of
the anticipated corrosion rate. This method is suitable for determination of the
remaining life if the component does not have a thickness interdependency
(see paragraph 4.4.3.3.a).
Rlife = (tam Ktmin)/Crate (4.10)
where,
C =
Anticipated future corrosion rate (mm/year:inlyear),
K =
Factor depending on the assessment level; for a Level 1
assessment K = 1.0, for a Level 2 Assessment; K = RSFa for
pressure vessels and piping components and K = 1.0 for shell
courses of tanks,
Rlife = Remaining life (years),
RSFa = Allowable remaining strength factor (see Section 2),
tam
= Average wall thickness of the component determined at the time
of the inspection (mm:in), and
tmin =
Minimum required wall thickness, t , of the component (see
Appendix A, paragraph A.2).

4.5.1.2 The remaining life determined using the thickness based


approach may produce non-conservative results when applied to
components which have a thickness dependency (see paragraph
4.4.3.3.a). For these cases, the remaining life should be established
using the MAWP Approach.
MAWP Approach 4.5.2
The MA WP approach provides a systematic way of determining 4.5.2.1
the remaining life of any pressurized component. This method is
also the only method suitable for determining the remaining life of
components with a thickness dependency. In addition, the MAWP
approach ensures that the design pressure is not exceeded during
normal operation if the future corrosion rate is appropriately
.established

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

4.6.4.2 Metallic linings These fall into three general classes:


a.
b.
c.

Metal spray linings


Strip linings
Weld overlay

4.6.4.3 Refractory linings


4.6.5 Remediation Method 3
Injection of water and/or chemicals on a continuous basis to modify the
environment or the surface of the metal.
a.

Water washing to dilute contaminants

b.

Injection of chemicals to change the aggressiveness of the solution

c.

Injection of filming type chemicals to coat the metal surface

4.6.6 Remediation Method 4.- Application of weld overlay

4.7 In-Service Monitoring


4.7.1

Mitigation methods can be applied, but in some cases these are

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