Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Fitness For Service Assessment Api 579(Hma)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Fitness For Service Assessment Api 579(Hma)

7,833

Published on

IN HOUSE PRESENTATION AT SGS HEAD OFFICE ON 21ST MAY 2010

IN HOUSE PRESENTATION AT SGS HEAD OFFICE ON 21ST MAY 2010

1 Comment
18 Likes
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total Views
7,833
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
1
Likes
18
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Joint industry program of MPC & API
  • OSHA 1910:applies to PV,Piping,tanks,PRD,fire protection system equipments etc
  • DAMAGE: THE OCCURRENCE OF A CHANGE FOR THE WORSE FLAW: DISCONTINUITY,IRREGULARITY OR DEFECT THAT IS DETECTED BY AN INSPECTION
  • This acceptance criterion is used in design codes. Elastic-Plastic analysis:
  • Based on quality of available information , assessment level and appropriate assumptions to provide an estimate safety factor for op until the next scheduled inspection
  • In service monitoring methods is one of the method whereby future damage or conditions leading to future damage can be assessed.
  • Safd = allowable stress for damaged material Cism = in-service margin SaT = allowable stress from the code at design temperature SaA = allowable stress of the original design code at ambient temperature
  • Transcript

    • 1. HAFIZ MUHAMMAD ATIF BE MECHANICAL
    • 2.
      • In 1990 a joint industry project was organized by materials properties council (MPC) concentrated the program on the development of technology for FFS and the culmination of this program was the development of API RP 579.
      • Sponsor s of the API RP 579 were Exxon, Shell, BP, Mobil, Chevron, Arco & Amoco
      • In 2000 API published API RP 579 for FFS assessment to evaluate flaws or damage in the in-service equipment.
      • Primarily it was intended to refining & petrochemical assets
      • In 2007 API joined forces with the ASME to produce an updated document with the designation API-759-1/ASME FFS-1
    • 3.
      • ASME & API codes & standards for pressurized equipment do not provide rules for the evaluation of deficiencies of in-service equipment.
      • API 510,570 ,653 & NB-23 do address the fact that equipment degrades while in service.
    • 4. FFS ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES INTRODUCTION PITTING CORROSION LOCAL METAL LOSS GENERAL METAL LOSS BRITTLE FRACTURE PART 1 PART 2 PART 3 PART 4 PART 5 PART 6
    • 5. PART 12 PART 11 PART 10 PART 9 PART 8 PART 7 PART 13 WELD MISALLIGNMETN & DISTORTION BLISTER & HIC/SOHIC DAMAGE DENT,GOUGE & DENT GOUGE COMBINATIONS LAMINATIONS FIRE DAMAGE HIGH TEMPERATURE OPRATION & CREEP CRACK LIKE FLAW
    • 6.
      • Annex A : Thickness , MAWP & stress equations for an FFS assessment
      • Annex B : Stress analysis overview for an FFS assessment
      • Annex C : Compendium of stress intensity factor solution
      • Annex D : Compendium of Reference stress solutions for crack like flaw
      • Annex E : Residual stress in FFS evaluation
      • Annex F : Material properties for an FFS assessment
      • Annex G: Damage mechanism
      • Annex H: Technical basis & validation
      • Annex I : Glossary of terms & definitions
      • Annex J : Currently not used
      • Annex K : Crack opening areas
    • 7.
      • Fitness for service(FFS) assessment are quantitative engineering evaluations that are performed to demonstrate the structural integrity of an in-service component that may contain flaw or damage.
      • Run-Repair-replace decision when inspection has revealed degradation or flaw in the equipment.
      • FFS assessments are currently recognized and referenced by the codes such as API 510,570 & 653.
      • Responsibilities & qualifications of owner-user ,engineer & inspector.
    • 8.
      • Some of expertise that
      • is the part of an FFS are:
      • 1) Stress analysis(CAESAR II,PV ELITE,ANSYS,SIF,PRO-E)
      • Accurate estimation of stresses acting on the component
      • 2) Fracture mechanics
      • This discipline is related to the behavior of cracks in the material
    • 9.
      • 3) Metallurgy/Materials Engineering
      • Understanding of the performance of various materials subjected to specific environment , pressure ,temperature and stress levels.
      • 4) NDE
      • Detection and sizing of the flaw
      • 5) Plant Operations
      • Process conditions & startup/shutdown inputs to FFS assessment
      • 6) Corrosion
      • Degradation mechanism input to FFS assessment
    • 10.
      • There are 8 steps in the FFS assessment procedure:
      • Identification of flaw and damage mechanism
      • Applicability and limitations
      • Data requirements
      • Assessments techniques & Acceptance criteria
      • Remaining life evaluation
      • Remediation
      • In-service monitoring
      • Documentation
    • 11.
      • STEP 1: IDENTIFICATION OF DAMAGE MECHANISM & FLAW
      • Damage or flaw during fabrication, material of construction, service and/or environmental conditions.
      • Overview of damage classes in this standard is shown in figure 2.1
      • STEP 2:APPLICABILITY & LIMITATIONS
      • Applicability & limitations for assessment are described for each part and a decision on whether to proceed with the assessment can be made.
      • STEP 3:DATA REQUIREMENTS
      • Equipment design data, maintenance & operational history, location of flaw from the weld seams & material properties.
      • A general data sheet is included in table 2.2
      • For MAWP calculations ,manufacturing drawings of vessel and tanks and piping isometrics with piping flexibility calculations are required.
    • 12. DAMAGE CLASSES BRITTLE FRACTURE CORROSION/ EROSION CRACK LIKE FLAW FIRE DAMAGE CREEP DAMAGE MECHANICAL DAMAGE GENERAL METAL LOSS LOCAL METAL LOSS WELD MISALIGNMENT & SHELL DISTORTION DENT,GOUGE & LAMINATION PITTING
    • 13.
      • STEP 4:ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES & ACCEPTANCE CREITERIA
      • ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES
      • There are three levels for assessment in each part.
      • Level 1
      • Can be performed by plant inspection or engineering personnel. It includes simple calculations.
      • More conservative and easy to use.
      • Level 2
      • More complex than level 1 and can be performed by only engineers with experience in API/ASME FFS.
      • More precise result as compared to level 1
      • Level 3
      • Most advance assessment level and can be Performed by
      • highly expert engineers
      • Include computer simulations like FEA(finite element analysis)
      • & CFD(computational Fluid dynamics)
      • Generally ANSYS Software is used
    • 14.
      • STEP 4:ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES & ACCEPTANCE CREITERIA
      • ACCEPTANCE CRIETERIA
      • ALLOWABLE STRESS:
      • based upon calculation of stresses resulting from different loading conditions , classification or the superposition of stress result.(Annex B1)
      • Limited acceptability due to difficulty in establishing stress classifications
      • Alternative assessment is to consider the elastic-plastic analysis
    • 15.
      • STEP 4:ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES & ACCEPTANCE CREITERIA
      • ACCEPTANCE CRIETERIA
      • REMAINING STRENGTH FACTOR (RSF):
      • Ratio of L dc (limit or plastic collapse load of the damaged equipment) to the L uc (limit or plastic collapse load of the undamaged equipment)
      • Compare the RSF with RSF a (table 2.3) with the calculated RSF
      • If RSF<RSF a then a PV or pipe can be re-rated with the following expression.
      • MAWP r = MAWP(RSF/RSF a )
      • for tanks
      • MFH r = H f + (MFH-H f )(RSF/RSF a )
    • 16.
      • REMAINING LIFE EVALUATION
      • To set future inspection intervals and to budget for capital expenditures when existing equipment is to be retired.
      • The RL is not intended to provide precise estimate of the actual time failure
      • There are three categories for RL estimation:
      • 1)RL can be calculated with reasonable certainty
      • a) uniform corrosion & creep damage
      • 2)RL cannot be estimated with reasonable certainty
      • a) SCC , Hydrogen blistering
      • b) Remediation method should be employed
      • 3)Little or no RL
      • Repair the damaged equipment , application of lining or coating or thorough inspection time to time
    • 17.
      • REMEDIATION
      • Flaw is not acceptable in its current condition or difficult to estimate RL.
      • Appropriate methods for remediation are covered in each part.
      • Refer other standards for detailed remediation procedures like weld repair guidelines are covered in detail in the main codes.
      • INSERVICE MONITORING
      • Use where corrosion rate cannot be estimated or estimation of RL is very difficult or very little.
      • Monitoring methods include: corrosion probes for corrosion rate , hydrogen probes for hydrogen activity , ultrasonic examination methods and acoustic emission for metal loss and cracks.
      • Appropriate in-service monitoring methods are included in each part.
    • 18.
      • DOCUMENTATION
      • FFS assessment should be documented so that it can be repeated later.
      • Equipment design data , maintenance and past operational history , future operating and design conditions , calculation of the MAWP , RL , next inspection interval and any remediation or mitigation/monitoring for continued service.
    • 19.
      • FIRE DAMAGE
    • 20.
      • FFS assessment procedures for evaluating PV , piping and tanks subjected to flame impingement and radiation heat of a fire.
      • General forms of damage that should be considered include:
      • a) mechanical distortion and structural damage
      • b) degradation of mechanical properties
      • c) residual stress changes
      • d) Presence of crack-like flaw in the pressure boundary
      • This part does not address non-pressure components like structural steel , ladders , platforms instrumentation and wiring.
    • 21.
      • FIRE DAMAGE EVIDENCE :
      • a) Temperature extremes
      • b) Nature of fuel
      • c) Location of ignition source
      • d) Time at temperature
      • e) Cooling rate
      • RECORD OF FIRE INCIDENT:
      • a) Plot plan of the area
      • b) Location of primary & secondary fire sources
      • c) Nature of the reactant producing the flame
      • d) Type of fluid used by fire fighters
      • e) wind directions
    • 22.
      • HEAT EXPOSURE ZONE (HEZ) :
      • a) Selection criteria for the level assessment
      • b) Six levels of HEZ ( from no damage to severe)
      • b) HEZ is based upon maximum exposure temperature and based on field observation and knowledge of the degradation associated with each exposure zone.
      • c) Table 11.1 to 11.7 is used to determine the HEZ level
      • d) If videotape is available , temperature can be estimated based on radiation colors observed on steel during the fire. ( Table 11.8)
      • e) Table 11.12 represent the material of construction which satisfy the level I assessment criteria.
    • 23.
      • DEGRADATION ASSOCIATED WITH HEZ
      • There are 18 degradations associated with heat exposure zone which is discussed in this part
      • MEASUREMENTS
      • Diametrical & circumferential variations , nozzle orientations , plumbness , UT , UFD , MPI , DPT , Replica , scaling (table 11.16) , coating and insulation condition
    • 24. Obtain records of fire incident & equipment information Assign the component to a HEZ Perform level I assessment Equipment is accepted per level I screening criteria YES NO Perform level II assessment NO Equipment acceptable per level II assessment YES Rerate equipment NO Perform rerate as per level II criteria YES NO
    • 25. Equipment Acceptable per Level III assessment? Rerate equipment YES Remaining life acceptable Repair or Replace equipment Return the equipment To service NO Determine the Remaining life Perform level III assessment Perform rerate Per level III Criteria NO YES NO YES NO NO
    • 26.
      • It is a screening criterion where the acceptability for continued service is based on HEZ and the material of construction.
      • Gasket inspection and leak checking of flange joints should be included.
      • If level I assessment does not satisfied then repair or retired the component or go for level II assessment.
    • 27.
      • It includes Level V and VI heat exposure zone (HEZ)
      • STEP I :
      • perform hardness test and convert into an estimated tensile strength using table F.1 of annexure F.
      • STEP II :
      • determine allowable stress for the affected equipment or piping using equation 11.1
      • S afd = min [ {(S uts /C ism ) . (S aT /S aA )} , {S aT }]
      • STEP III :
      • Determine MAWP calculations using above value (Annex A)
      • Repair or retire the component
      • Adjust the FCA (future corrosion allowance) & weld joint efficiency as per part 4
    • 28.
      • Level III assessment of a known fire-damaged component shell be conducted if an increase in original MAWP (or temperature) is required.
      • Stress analysis from annexure B1 is utilized in the assessment.
    • 29.
      • Assessment procedures for bulges
      • Assessment procedures for HTHA
      • Assessment procedures for hot-spot
      • Assessment procedures for fatigue damage
      • Assessment of damage in cast iron components
    • 30.
      • Maintaining the safety of plant equipment & personnel
      • Complying with the OSHA 1910 process safety management (PSM) rules.
      • Protecting the environment from accidental release
      • Maintaining safe and reliable operations with increased run lengths and decreased shutdown periods.
    • 31.  

    ×