Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
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)
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
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
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
11/21/2012
19
11/21/2012
20
11/21/2012
21
11/21/2012
23
11/21/2012
24
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
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
11/21/2012
28
11/21/2012
29
11/21/2012
30
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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)
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
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