Anda di halaman 1dari 65

Welcome to 5 day’s training Program on

API 579-FITNESS FOR SERVICE


and

ASME PCC-2 :Repair of Pressure Equipment & Piping

. By
P. S. JOSHI
TUV AKEDEMIE MIDDLE-EAST, ABUDHABI.
CONDUCTED AT
Doha, Qatar, June 16-20, 2013.
1
API 579 - Fitness for Service

API 579 contains assessment procedures that can


be used to evaluate pressurized components
which are placed in service and contain flaws or
have already developed some damage

2
Introduction to API 579
 First Edition of API 579 was issued by
American Petroleum Institute in year 2000
which was specifically prepared for assessment
of equipments in the Refining and
Petrochemical industry

 The second edition (issued in 2007) was jointly


developed) by ASME and API. It is applicable
to wide range of Process industries ( including
Refining and Petrochemical) as well as the
power generation industries. 3
Introduction to API 579

The guidelines provided can be used to make


Run-Repair-Replace decisions about the
equipment containing flaws that :
 It can still operate safely without carrying out
repairs or
 It needs repair or
 It needs to be replaced.
4
Introduction to API 579
Data Required for this purpose mainly requires:

a) Original Equipment Design data


b) Actual operating conditions (Temperature,
Pressure , Corrosion rate) and
c) Inspection data

5
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES

Three Levels of assessment are provided for each


type of damage.

 The analysis is usually done sequentially from a


Level 1 to a Level 3.

6
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES

 Level 1 is the most conservative, but is easiest to


use. It gives conservative results compared to
Level 2 and 3. It can be utilized with a minimum
amount of inspection data.

Level 1 assessments may be performed by either


plant inspection or engineering personnel.

7
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES
 Level 2 procedures require more detailed
evaluation and accuracy is better than Level 1.
Inspection data required is similar to Level 1 but
more detailed calculations are used.

 Level 2 assessments would typically be


conducted by plant engineers, or engineering
specialists.

8
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES
 Level 3 assessment provides the most detailed
evaluation with results that are more accurate
than Level 2 assessment. Level 3 requires both
more analysis and more inspection data.

 A Level 3 analysis is always performed by done


by the engineering specialists and involves
cumbersome calculations.

9
Allowable Stresses

 Pr. Vessel Code ASME Sec. VIII Div. 1 : TS/3.5 or Y.S/1.5

 Pr. Vessel Code ASME Sec. VIII Div. 2 : TS/3.0 or Y.S/1.5

 Power Piping code ASME B 31.1 : TS/3.5 or Y.S/1.5

 Process Piping code ASME B 31.3 : TS/3.0 or Y.S/1.5

 API 650 Storage Tanks : TS/2.5 or Y.S/1.5

10
Allowable Stresses

11
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES

 In API 579 analysis, the concept of Remaining


strength factor (RSF) is utilized for thinning
mechanisms and Failure Assessment diagrams
(FAD) are used for Cracking.

12
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES
The Remaining Strength Factor ( RSF ) is defined
as :
RSF = LDC
LUC
Where
LDC = Limit of plastic collapse load of the
damaged component ( component with flaws )
LUC = Limit or plastic collapse of the
undamaged component
13
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES

 MAWPr = MAWP( RSF/RSFa). for RSF < RSFa


 MAWPr = MAWP. for RSF > = RSF a

Where
 MAWPr = Reduced permissible MAWP of the damaged
component.
 MAWP = MAWP of the undamaged component
 RSF = Remaining strength factor computed based on the
flaw and damage mechanism in the component.
 RSFa = Allowable remaining strength factor
14
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES
 Acceptance for Tanks can be established using
Maximum fill height .
 MFH r = MFH(RSF/RSFa). For RSF < RSFa

 MFHr = MFH. For RSF > = RSFa


Where
 MFH r = reduced permissible maximum fill height of
the damaged tank course .
 MFH maximum fill height of the undamaged
component.

15
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES
 There are two possibilities:
 The remaining life can be calculated with
reasonable certainty in case of time dependant
damage like General Uniform corrosion.
 In this case Remaining life is given by
Remaining corrosion allowance divided by the
corrosion rate from previous thickness data, or
published data or experience in similar services.

16
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES

Other possibility is:


The remaining life cannot be established with
reasonable certainty – for example in case of
stress corrosion cracking mechanism where
there is no reliable crack growth rate data
available

17
ASSESSMENT OF BRITTLE
FRACTURE

 Carbon and low alloy steels tend to lose ductility


and toughness at low Temperatures.

 If change in process changes lower temperature,


Assessment for brittle fracture is required.

18
ASSESSMENT OF BRITTLE
FRACTURE
 For this analysis, two temperatures, CET ( Critical
Exposure Temperature) and MAT (Minimum
Allowable Temperature) are required.
 CET is defined as Lowest temperature derived from
either the operating or the atmospheric conditions.
 MAT is the temperature on the MAT v/s Thickness
curve for a given thickness, or the temperature at which
Impact test was performed and results were acceptable.

19
ASSESSMENT OF BRITTLE
FRACTURE

 Highest value of MAT for different parts (shell,


heads etc) is taken as the Vessel MAT.

 If CET is greater than or equal to MAT, the


equipment is safe. No further analysis is
required.

20
ASSESSMENT OF BRITTLE
FRACTURE

 For P.No. 1, Group 1 & 2 materials ( Carbon


Steels), for thickness less than or equal to 1.5”
(38mm), If vessel was given PWHT, then a
reduction of 17 deg.C ( 30 Deg.F) can be given
to MAT.
 If Vessel was safe for Brittle fracture then,
Remaining life is not an issue as long as
operating conditions do not change.

21
ASSESSMENT OF GENERAL
METAL LOSS

 General Metal Loss may be due to Corrosion or


Erosion of vessels/piping/tanks due to process
fluids.

22
GENERAL METAL LOSS

 For this analysis, mainly we need the following.


 From code formula, find Minimum required
thickness, tmin
 Find the average measured wall thickness (from
inspection), tam
 Find (from inspection) the minimum measured
wall thickness, tmm,

23
GENERAL METAL LOSS

 The tam is taken as average of thickness


readings (15 minimum), if Coefficient of
Variation COV is < 10%
 If COV is > 10%, use of CTP is made to find
tam. It is found by averaging thickness readings
over length L
 Length L depends on factor Q which is found
from table 4.5 using Rt and RSFa

24
GENERAL METAL LOSS

If COV > 10 % , Determine the Critical


Thickness Profile (CTP)

The CTP in each is determined by projecting


the minimum remaining thickness for each
position along all parallel inspection planes
onto a common plane

25
GENERAL METAL LOSS

The acceptability for continued operation is


established if both conditions are satisfied,

tam – FCA > tmin and,

tmm – FCA > max [0.5 tmin , 2.5 mm( 0.10”) ,


0.2 tnominal]

26
GENERAL METAL LOSS

 If he component does not meet the Level 1


Assessment, then the following remedies, or
combinations thereof, can be considered :

 Rerate, repair, replace, or retire the component.


 Adjust the FCA by applying remediation
techniques
 Adjust the weld joint efficiency or E, by
conducting additional Radiography.
 Conduct a Level 2 or Level 3 Assessment.
27
ASSESSMENT OF LOCAL METAL
LOSS

1. For any corroded area, normal practice is to apply


Chap.4 first,(General metal loss).

2. For more precise assessment Chap.5 can be adopted.


The assessment procedures for local metal loss can
only be established using Critical thickness profiles.

28
ASSESSMENT OF LOCAL METAL
LOSS

1.From code formula, find Min. required thickness,

2. Determine the Critical Thickness Profile (CTP)

3. Calculate shell parameter, λ ,using Rt

4. Calculate RSF and MAWP

29
ASSESSMENT OF LOCAL METAL
LOSS

If RSF > RSFa , The vessel can be used at


present MAWP. If RSF < RSF , then the local
metal loss is acceptable for operation at
MAWPr

30
ASSESSMENT OF PITTING
CORROSION
 1. The Level 1 Assessment technique utilizes
standard pit charts and the maximum pit depth
in the area being evaluated to estimate a
Remaining Strength Factor, RSF .
 2. Determine the wall thickness to be used in
the assessment tc.
 tc = tnom − LOSS − FCA or
tc = t rd − FCA

31
ASSESSMENT OF PITTING
CORROSION

3. Locate the area on the component that has the


highest density of pitting damage.

4. Determine the maximum pit depth, Wmax in


the region of pitting damage.

32
ASSESSMENT OF PITTING
CORROSION
5.Determine the ratio of the remaining wall
thickness at the bottom of the pit to assessment
thickness

6. Determine the MAWP for the component

33
ASSESSMENT OF PITTING
CORROSION
7. Compare the surface damage to the standard
pit charts. Select a pit chart that has a surface
damage similar to the actual damage.
If the pitting damage is more extensive than in
Figure 6.10, then compute the RSF using the
following equation and proceed to STEP 9.

34
ASSESSMENT OF PITTING
CORROSION
8. Determine the RSF from the table shown at
the bottom of the pit chart using the value of
Rwt calculated. Interpolation of the RSF is
acceptable for intermediate values.

9. If RSF ≥ RSF , then the pitting damage is


acceptable for operation at the MAWP
determined . If a RSF < RSF , then the region
of pitting damage is acceptable for operation at
MAWPr,
35
ASSESSMENT OF HYDROGEN BLISTERS
AND HYDROGEN DAMAGE
HIC Assessment Procedure

a) STEP 1 – Determine the information required for


assessment.

b) STEP 2 – Determine the wall thickness to be used in


the assessment tc.
tc = tnom − LOSS − FCA or
tc = trd − FCA

36
HIC Assessment Procedure
c) STEP 3 – If all of the following requirements
are satisfied, then proceed to step 4. Otherwise,
the Level 1 Assessment is not satisfied.
1)The dimensions of the HIC damage satisfy
following Equations.

37
HIC Assessment Procedure
 2) The through-thickness extent of the damage
satisfies Equation

3) The HIC damage is not surface breaking as


decided by

38
HIC Assessment Procedure
4) The distance between the edge of the HIC
damage and the nearest weld seam satisfies
Equation

5) The distance from the edge of the HIC damage


to the nearest major structural discontinuity
satisfies Equation

39
HIC Assessment Procedure
6) Further HIC damage has been prevented by one of the
following means:
i) Barrier coating or overlay) has been applied to prevent
contact between the process fluid and the metal.
ii) The process environment altered such that no further
Hydrogen charging of the metal will occur.

d) STEP 4 – The Level 1 Assessment is complete, the


component may be returned to service.

40
Blister Assessment Procedure

a) STEP 1 – Determine the information required


for assessment.

b) STEP 2 – Determine the wall thickness to be


used in the assessment tc.
tc = tnom − LOSS − FCA or
tc = t rd − FCA

41
Blister Assessment Procedure

c) STEP 3 – If all of the following requirements


are satisfied, then proceed to step 4. Otherwise,
the Level 1 Assessment is not satisfied.
i) The blister diameter and venting
requirements meet one of the criteria below.
ii) The blister diameter is less than or equal
to 50 mm (2 inches), or

42
Blister Assessment Procedure

iii) The blister is vented and the dimensions satisfy


Equations

2) The min.measured undamaged thickness measured


from the side that is not bulged satisfies Equation

43
Blister Assessment Procedure

3) The blister projection satisfies Equation

4) There are no periphery cracks directed towards the


inside or outside surface of the component

44
Blister Assessment Procedure

5) The distance between the edge of the blister


and the nearest weld seam satisfies Equation

6) The distance from the blister edge to the nearest


major structural discontinuity satisfies Equation.

45
Blister Assessment Procedure

d) STEP 4 – The Level 1 Assessment is complete, the


component may be returned to service.

46
WELD MISALIGNMENT AND
SHELL DISTORTIONS
 The Level 1 assessment is based on the fabrication
tolerances as per the original construction code.:

 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII,


Division 1 and Division 2 – Table 8.3
 ASME B31.3 Piping Code – Table 8.4
 API 620 Standard – Table 8.5
 API 650 Standard – Table 8.6
 API 653 Standard (reconstructed tanks) – Table 8.7

47
ASSESSMENT OF CRACK - LIKE FLAWS

 Assessment is based on the Failure Assessment


Diagram (FAD) method.
 Determine the assessment temperature (T) .
 Determine the length and depth of the crack-
like flaw from inspection data.
 The flaw should be characterized using the given
procedures.
 Decide the FAD to be used based on crack is
parallel or perpendicular to weld.
48
ASSESSMENT OF CRACK - LIKE FLAWS

Two sets of screening curves, 1/4- / t and 1-t


crack depths are provided for three conditions
covering
1. Base metal,
2. Weld with PWHT, and
3. Weld without PWHT.

 Find the reference temperature. (Tref ) using


table 9.2.
49
ASSESSMENT OF CRACK - LIKE FLAWS

Refer the relevant FAD and the curve


From the FAD,determine the maximum
permissible crack length.

If the permissible length is greater than or equal


to the length of the crack-like flaw, then the
component is acceptable for further operation

50
ASSESSMENT FOR CREEP DAMAGE

1. Creep depends on time, temperature and the


actual stress in the equipment.
2. Select correct screening curve for given
material (fig. 10.3 to fig. 10.25)
3. Determine permissible time for operation for
the temperature and the actual stress
4. If longitudinal weld joints are present, increase
temperature by 25o F

51
ASSESSMENT FOR CREEP DAMAGE

5. If exposed time is less than permissible time,


the equipment is safe.
6. If exposed time is greater, calculate total creep
damage from damage curve.
7. If total creep damage (creep rate per hour x
exposure time in hours) is less than or equal to
0.25, the component is still acceptable as per
Level 1

52
ASSESSMENT OF FIRE DAMAGE

 There are 6 Heat Exposure Zones ( Zone I, II, III,


IV, V, VI), in order of the increasing temperatures.

 Heat Exposure Zones will need to be defined subject to


fire damage, inorder to determine the components that
will require an assessment.

 A description of the Heat Exposure Zones is provided


in Table.11.6

53
ASSESSMENT OF FIRE DAMAGE

 Level 1 assessment is typically identifying the


Heat zones for construction materials ( for
pressure vessel, tanks , piping etc,) so that they
can be returned back to service without further
detailed assessment. Table.11.12)

54
ASSESSMENT OF DENTS

Level 1 Assessment procedure for Dent damage:

a) STEP 1 – Determine the information required for


assessment.

b) STEP 2 – Determine the wall thickness to be used in


the assessment tc.
tc = tnom − LOSS − FCA or

tc = trd − FCA
55
ASSESSMENT OF DENTS

c) STEP 3 – If all following conditions are


satisfied, proceed further Otherwise, the Level 1
Assessment is not satisfied.

i) The distance between the edge of the blister and


the nearest weld seam satisfies Equation .

56
ASSESSMENT OF DENTS

ii) The distance from the blister edge to the


nearest major structural discontinuity satisfies
Equation.

iii) Dent depth in pressurized condition does not


exceed 0.07D.

57
ASSESSMENT OF DENTS

STEP 4 - Determine the MAWP for the


component using the assessment thickness. If
the MAWP is greater than or equal to the
current design condition, then the component is
acceptable for continued operation. Otherwise,
the Level 1 Assessment is not satisfied.

58
ASSESSMENT OF GOUGES

a) STEP 1 – Determine the minimum operating


temperature and the data required for assessment.
b) STEP 2 – Determine the toughness (CVN ) for the
material at the minimum operating temperature. If the
toughness is greater than 40 Joules (30ft-lbs) or if the
surface of the gouge is dressed to remove the work
hardened layer then proceed to Step 3. Otherwise, the
Level 1 Assessment is not satisfied.
c) STEP 3 – The gouge shall be evaluated using the Level
1 Assessment procedures for local metal loss.
59
ASSESSMENT OF LAMINATIONS

a) STEP 1 - If there is any surface bulging on either


the inside or the outside surface of the component at
the location of the lamination. then evaluate the
lamination as a blister using the Level 1 Assessment
method in Part 7
b) STEP 2 – Determine the information required for
assessment.
c) STEP 3 - If there are multiple laminations they can be
evaluated as single lamination under some conditions.

60
ASSESSMENT OF LAMINATIONS

d) STEP 4 – If Equation below is satisfied,


proceed to step 5;

e) STEP 5 – Determine the wall thickness to be


used in the assessment tc.
tc = tnom − LOSS − FCA or
tc = trd − FCA
61
ASSESSMENT OF LAMINATIONS

f) STEP 6 – If all of the following conditions are


satisfied, proceed to step 7; otherwise, the
lamination is not acceptable per the Level 1.
1) There is no indication of through-thickness
cracking.
2) The lamination is not surface breaking i.e. it
satisfies the equation

62
ASSESSMENT OF LAMINATIONS

3) The distance between the edge of the blister


and the nearest weld seam satisfies Equation

4) The distance from the blister edge to the


nearest major structural discontinuity satisfies
Equation.

63
ASSESSMENT OF LAMINATIONS

5) If the lamination is in hydrogen charging service, then


the dimensions of the lamination satisfy Equations

g) STEP 7 – Determine the MAWP for the component


using assessment thickness. The component with the
lamination is acceptable for operation at this calculated
MAWP.

64
ASSESSMENT OF LAMINATIONS

If the component does not meet the Level 1


Assessment requirements, then the following, or
combinations thereof, can be considered:

a) Repair, replace, or retire the component.


b) Conduct a Level 2 or Level 3 Assessments.

65