FFS, 579 - Seminar Ata, 1389

In the name of God
DEVELOPING A FITNESS-FOR-SERVICE (FFS)

SOFTWARE PACKAGE ACCORDING TO API 579
Prepared by:
Ata Amiri Yekta

Supervisors:
Dr. S. Javadpour, Mr. M.H. Maddahi
Technical Inspection Engineering

Department
Presentation Overview
Introduction
Study Goals
FFS Software Algorithm
FFS Software Interfaces
FFS Case Studies
Conclusions and Recommendations
Petroleum University of Technology
Introduction to FFS
3
No rules provided by API and ASME to evaluate

in-service damages before January 2000
A joint committee was established by API and

ASME to overcome this shortcoming and API
579-1/ASME FFS-1 were developed
Definition of FFS
4
Fitness-For-Service (FFS) assessments;

Flaw
Quantitative engineering
evaluations
Information
Performed to demonstrate the structural
integrity of an in-service component
containing a flawFFS
or damage
Assessm
Multi-Disciplinary
Approach
ent
Material
Stress
Inspection
or
NDE
Engineers
Run,
repair or replace decisions
Information
Information
Metallurgists or Corrosion Engineers

Mechanical Engineers
Structural
Process Engineers
Integrity
Triangle
Introduction
Study Goals
FFS Software interface
FFS Pilot Studies
Study goals
6
Developing a Fitness-For-Service
software package
First FFS software in Iran

Lack of access to international FFS software
due to sanction against Iran
Industry need
Implementation of FFS
Recommendations for improving upon
existing methodologies
Introduction
Study Goals
FFS Pilot Studies
Structure of API 579

8
Part 1,2:
Introduction
Part 3: Brittle
Fracture
Part 4: General Metal
Loss
Part 5: Local Metal Loss
Part 6: Pitting Corrosion
Part 7: Hydrogen Blisters and Hydrogen
Damage
Part 8: Misalignment and Shell
Distortions
Part 9: Crack-Like
Flaws
Part 10:
Creep
Part 11: Fire
Damage
Part 12: Dents, Gouges,
and
Dent-Gouge
Combinations
Part 13: Lamination
Which component can be assessed

with API 579?
9
Pressure vessels, piping and storage

tank 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 1
ASME B31.3 Piping Code
ASME B31.1 Piping Code
API 650
API 620
Assessment Levels
10
Level 1
Assess
ment
Levels
Level 2
Level 3
Screening
Low complexity
High
conservatism
Medium detail
Medium
complexity
Medium
conservatism
Detailed
Most complex
Least
conservative
11
Remaining Strength Factor

(RSF)
Used in several types of assessments in

API 579
RSF
=
plastic collapse load of damaged

component
Whenload
RSFof<undamaged
plastic collapse
component
RSFa
Rerating is recommended
MAWP
MAWP
(RSF/RSF
r =as
a)
Not the
same
Factor
of Safety
Allowable RSF (RSFa) is 0.9
MAWP: Maximum Allowable Working Pressure

MAWPr: Reduced Maximum Allowable Working
12
General Metal Loss

Assessment
Generally two different thickness

measurement results:
Point Thickness Readings (PTRs)

Critical Thickness Profiles (CTPs)
13
General Metal Loss

Assessment
Limitations:
No creep, cyclic service (fatigue) or cracklike flaws

Metal
Pi loss has smooth contours
Crac
Equipment
designed and constructed
to a
t
k
recognized standard
Design equation which relates pressure to
thickness
14
General Metal Loss

Assessment
Coefficient of Variation (COV)
COV PTRs
= tSD
COV10%,
is /t
sufficient
avg
tSD=(S/N-1)0.5
S=(trd,i-tavg)2
N
i=1
OV>10%, Thickness
Profile is require
tSD: Thicknesses Standard Deviation

tavg: Thicknesses Average
N: Number of Point Thickness Readings
trd: Point Thickness Readings
15
General Metal Loss

Assessment
Level
PTR
Level 12
1& 2
s,
tam - FCA
RSF
t(tmin
a
0.
FCA)
max
0.6
mm
5
[
tmin ,tlim]
(tlim = max [0.2tnom ,2.5mm
(0.10 in)]
FCA: Future Corrosion

Allowance
tmin: Minimum Required
Thickness
tmm
: Minimum Measured
16
General Metal Loss

Assessment
s
CTP L = min [0.36(Dt ), 2t ]

s
c
rd
Thickness
averaging length
s,
t
L = Q(Dtc)
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
C1
C2
C3
mm
C4
C6
C5
L ta
tm s
C7
ta
m
tmm
L
tL
a
m
ta
m
R
Remaining
Thickness
D:t: Inside
Diameter
tRatio
c: tnom-LOSS-FCA
17
General Metal Loss

Assessment
1& 2
Level 12
CTPLevel
s,
s
c
s
tmin
FCA
[t
,
t
am
am
am ] - FCA
RSF
RSF
cC
tmin
t
a
a
FCA
am min
RSFa
tminL
18
Local Metal Loss

Assessment
Types of local metal loss:

Local Thin Area (LTA);
Groove-Like Flaw;
Groove:
Caused by directional erosion or

corrosion
Gouge: Caused by mechanical removal of
material
19
Local Metal Loss

Assessment
The same Applicability & Limitations as

general metal loss
LT
Groove-like
Data required:
Thickness profile
Component specifications
MRT
Flaw
Dimensions
MAWP to the nearest
Distance
Weld Joint Efficiency,
structural discontinuity (Lmsd)
A
flaw
Inspection recommendation
Lmsd = min [L1msd, L2msd,
L3msd, ]
20
Local Metal Loss

Assessment
ACCEPTABLE
Level
Circumferential
stress direction
1,
Check the limiting flaw size
criteria
Longitudinal flaw length parameter
Tru
RSF should beeTrucalculated
Remaining thickness ratio
e
Tru
e
Thickness to
be used
the assessment
Additional
criterion
forinGroovelike flaws:
Tru
e
21
Local Metal Loss

Assessment
Level
Circumferential stress direction
1,
RSF
Folias Factor,
RSFa
YES
ACCEPTABLE
Mt :
NO
MAWPr = MAWP (RSF/RSFa)

22
Local Metal Loss

Assessment
Level
Longitudinal
stress direction
ACCEPTABLE
For all component except spherical shells
1,
Circumferential
Tru flaw length parameter
e
Tensile
Stress
Tru
level(TSF)
of
Factor
should
e Higher
Truassessment is
be calculated
e
Tru required
e
Tru
e
EL: Longitudinal weld joint

efficiency
E : Circumferential weld joint
C
23
Local Metal Loss

Assessment
s Longitudi
RSF
Level
1
Different procedure for calculatingnal
RSF
2
t
CTP
m
tc
1
A
tm
Increasing
thickness
t2
Increment
t3
24
Local Metal Loss

Assessment
Level
2
RSF
s
1
s
2
Increment
tc
21
A
A
Local Metal Loss Assessment

25
Level
2
RSF
s
1
s
2
s
3
Increment
tc
31
A
A
26
Local Metal Loss

Assessment
Level
2
RSF
s
1
s
2
s s
3
4
Increment
tc
41
A
A
27
Local Metal Loss

Assessment
Level
2
RSF
s
1
s
2
s s
3
s
5
Increment
tc
51
A
A
28
Local Metal Loss

Assessment
Level
2
RSF
s
1
s
s
2
s s
3
min
1
RSF
Increment
tc
61
A
A
29
Local Metal Loss

Assessment
Level
2 LTA = min [min RSF1, min RSF2, min
RSF
RSF3, , min RSFn]
RSFLTA
RSFa
YES
ACCEPTABLE
NO

30
Local Metal Loss

Assessment
Level 2, Supplemental
Supplemental loads may result in a net
loads
exist
section axial force, bending moment,

torsion,
and
shear
Von Mises
equivalent
stress criteria is
Two load cases:
used
Weight
Weight of the component

Occasional loads from wind or earthquake
Wight
+ Thermal
Effects of temperature
Support displacements
31
Local Metal Loss

Assessment
Section properties
loads
exist
y,y
tmm
Metal Loss
B
yLX
Df/2
x
D/2
Flaw
inside:
Flaw
Do/2
outside:
tc
32
Local Metal Loss

Assessment
Maximum
longitudinal membrane stresses at
loads
exist
point A & B
Longitudinal
membrane stree
Hoop stress
33
Local Metal Loss

Assessment
Von Mises stress criteria:
loads
exist
YES
ACCEPTABLE
NO
Circumferential extent of
the flaw is not acceptable
For the weight case, Hf = 1.0
For the weight plus thermal case, Hf =
3.0
S : Allowable stress
34
Pitting Corrosion
Assessment
Almost the same Applicability &

Limitations as general metal loss
4 types of pitting is considered:
Widely scattered pitting

LTA in widely scattered pitting
Widely
scattered
Localized
Pitting
confined
region
in
of LTA
pitting
LTA confined
in widely
pitting
scattered
pitting
Localized pitting
Pitting confined in LTA
c
A
s
Cylindrical
Shell
35
Pitting Corrosion
Assessment
Level
Utilizes Standard Pit Charts
1
A photograph or a record of surface

Grade
damage is required
6
1
2
3
8
7
Level 1 RSF
4
5
R
wt
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Cylinder
Sphere
0.88
0.77
0.65
0.53
0.87
0.74
0.60
0.47
If Rwt < 0.2, the pitting damage is

6in
6in
6in
Rwt: Remaining
wall thickness
UNACCEPTABLE
ratio
6in
6in
6in
36
Pitting Corrosion
Assessment
Level
1
RSF
RSFa
YES
ACCEPTABLE
NO
Higher level of
assessment is required
37
Pitting Corrosion
Assessment
Level
Utilizes Pit-Couples (10 Pit-Couples is
2
required)1
Pit 1
3
Pit 2
Pk
A
2
38
Pitting Corrosion
Assessment
Level
Utilizes Pit-Couples (10 Pit-Couples is
2
required)
d
d
RSF is calculated for each of 10 PitCouples
w
w
i,k
j,k
j,k
i,k
tc
Pk
wavg,k =0.5(wi,k+ wj,k)
davg,k =0.5(di,k+
dj,k)
39
Pitting Corrosion
Assessment
LTA
in widelyscattered
scattered
pitting &
Level Widely
Localized
pitting
Pitting confined in LTA
Damage is evaluated as an equivalent
2,
pitting
LTA
tRSF
RSF
pit
= pit
RSF
mm =
comb
tc RSFlta
RSFcomb
RSF
pit
RSFaa
RSF
YES
Localized region of pitting
ACCEPTABLE
s
c
A
RSFpit . tc
NO
Cylindrical
Shell
ttcc
40
Introduction
Study Goals
FFS Case Studies
FFS MASTER Overview

41
Visual C# (2005) programming language was

used
Developed to conduct Level 1 & Level 2 FFS
assessment
Based on latest edition of API 579 (API 5791/ASME FFS-1: 2007)
Allows analysis of different kinds of component
Modules for:
General metal loss

Local metal loss
Pitting corrosion
42
FFS MASTER Software

Forms
Basic form layout
43
FFS MASTER Software

Forms
Basic form layout
FFS MASTER Forms

44
Project Editor Form,

New Assessment
Form
45
FFS MASTER Software

Forms
General Metal Loss Assessment Form
COV
10%
COV >
10%
Ls
tams
Calculates
Checks
all text
COV
Checks
table
Calculates
boxes
tam L thelength
acceptance
forc thickness
criteria,
creates
averaging,
L
the
report
Petroleum
University of Technology
46
FFS MASTER Software

Forms
General Metal Loss Assessment Form
47
FFS MASTER Software

Forms
Local Metal Loss Assessment Form
48
FFS MASTER Software

Forms
For non-spherical
sections
CTPcir
Limiting
flaw
Checks
Calculates
Level
all text
Lssiz
criteria
are
boxes
1
2
checked
CTPlong
49
FFS MASTER Software

Forms
If
Evaluate the
supplementa
results and
lprepare
loads are
the
present
report
50
FFS MASTER Software

Forms
Pitting Corrosion Assessment Form
51
FFS MASTER Software

Forms
Level
1
Checks
Calculates
all text
boxes
acceptance
Rwt
criteria, creates
the report
52
FFS MASTER Software

Forms
Level
2
Checks
Calculates
all
text
RSF
Evaluates
the
boxes
for damaged
10and
Pitresults
area
Couples
creates
the
report
53
Introduction
Study Goals
FFS Case Studies
FFS Case Studies

54
Implemented in Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit

(FCCU) in Abadan Refinery (AORC)
Scope of the FFS study
Introduction of FFS Technology

Software Development
FFS Implementation
Level 2 LTA assessment procedures are used

in both cases
Software output and hand-calculated values
are compared
Case study 1 Localized corrosion in

FCCU piping
55
A LTA was detected in a section of piping

system during FCC unit turnaround
Located in the overhead vapor line from
the fractionation tower
Piping system
information
Corresponding
values
Design code
Uniform
metal loss (LOSS)
ASMEinB31.3
0.08
Future Corrosion
Material
specification
Allowance
(FCA)
Design condition
API 5L
0.06
inGrade B
Longitudinal extents of the

Nominal Pipe Size (NPS)
flaw
Wall thickness
Circumferential extents of
Minimum
the flaw measured
thickness (tmm)
Spacing to the nearest
400 psig @ 220F

16 in
24
schedule STD
10 in
0.16 in
30 in

FCCU piping
56
FFS assessment for the pipe
Using straight beam ultrasonic thickness

examination (UT), thickness profile of the
LTA was obtained
CTP
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10 C11 C12
M1
0.23
0.23
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.21
0.22
0.23
0.22
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.21
M2
0.23
0.22
0.21
0.20
0.21
0.20
0.21
0.21
0.22
0.22
0.23
0.23
0.21
M3
0.23
0.21
0.19
0.18
0.20
0.17
0.17
0.20
0.20
0.22
0.22
0.23
0.17
M4
0.21
0.20
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.16
0.17
0.19
0.20
0.21
0.21
0.22
0.16
M5
0.21
0.20
0.19
0.17
0.18
0.16
0.16
0.17
0.19
0.19
0.20
0.23
0.16
M6
0.21
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.19
0.17
0.18
0.18
0.21
0.19
0.20
0.23
0.17
M7
0.22
0.21
0.21
0.20
0.21
0.19
0.20
0.21
0.22
0.22
0.21
0.22
0.19
M8
CTP
0.23
0.23
0.22
0.21
0.22
0.21
0.23
0.22
0.23
0.23
0.22
0.23
0.21
0.21
0.20
0.18
0.17
0.18
0.16
0.16
0.17
0.19
0.19
0.20
0.22

FCCU piping
57
RSF was calculated for 11 evaluation

points on CTPL
The corroded region was subdivided into 6

subsections for each evaluation point
RSF for LTA was 0.804 (i.e. longitudinal

extent of the flaw is unacceptable)
Requirement for circumferential extent
of the flaw were not satisfied (i.e.
unacceptable)

FCCU piping
58
FFS MASTER output vs. hand-calculated

data used in the assessment
Hand-calculated
values FFS MASTER results
Parameters
Hand-calculated
values
Thickness
min RSF8 to be used in the assessment (tc)
0.235
0.836 inches
0.235
inches
0.838
Remaining
min RSF9 thickness ratio (Rt)
0.426
0.805
0.426
0.805
Longitudinal
flaw length parameter ()
min RSF10
8.8
0.823
8.8
0.825
min
RSF111
min RSF
0.806
0.812
0.808
0.814
2
min
RSF RSF
0.804
0.804
0.805
0.805
min
min
RSF3 extent of the flaw status
Longitudinal
0.814
Unacceptable
min
RSF4
Circumferential extent of the flaw status
Unacceptable
0.816
Unacceptable
0.828
0.830
Unacceptable
min RSF5
The piping section0.806

is not
0.805is not fit

The component
min RSF6
acceptable for continued

0.811 operation
for continued
operation
0.815
Final result
min RSF7
0.840
0.843
Case study 2 Localized corrosion in FCCU

pressure vessel
59
A LTA was detected inside a pressure

vessel during FCC unit turnaround
Located in M1 pressure vessel in GRP
unit
Pressure vessel information
Corresponding
Corresponding
values
values
information
Longitudinal
406 Section
mm
Design code extents of the flaw
ASME B&PV Code,
VIII,
Division
Circumferential extents of the
flaw 1
254 mm
Material
specification
SA 516 Grade 70
Spacing to
the nearest structural
711 mm
discontinuity
(Lmsd)
Design
condition
1723.7 kPa @ 177C
Load
F (N)
My (N.m) YesV (N)
Supplemental
loads Mx (N.m)12 mm
Nominal wall
thicknesses
cases
(tnom)
Weight
2224
20.224104
0.00
609406
18.417103
Thermal
29.263103
Inside diameter (D)

11343
Minimum measured
thickness (t )
1066 mm
43.047104
5 mm
0.00
170812
MT (N.m)

pressure vessel
60
CTPs were determined

RSF was calculated using the same
incremental procedures and was equal
CTP
to 0.590
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12
C
M1
9.65
9.65
9.40
9.40
9.65
9.40
9.40
8.65
8.90
9.14
9.40
9.65
8.65
M2
9.65
9.65
9.65
8.90
8.40
8.40
8.90
8.14
8.90
9.14
9.40
9.65
8.14
M3
9.65
9.40
9.65
7.60
7.90
6.90
6.35
7.90
6.90
7.10
8.14
9.14
6.35
M4
9.65
9.65
9.65
6.60
6.35
5.10
6.35
6.10
6.60
6.35
7.60
9.14
5.10
M5
9.65
9.40
8.14
7.10
6.90
5.60
5.10
5.60
6.60
6.35
7.10
9.40
5.10
M6
9.65
9.65
8.14
6.10
6.35
6.60
5.10
6.35
6.60
6.60
6.35
9.14
5.10
M7
9.65
9.65
7.90
6.10
7.40
7.10
5.85
6.35
7.10
6.60
6.10
9.14
5.85
M8
CTP
9.65
9.65
8.90
8.90
8.65
8.40
7.40
7.10
7.90
7.90
8.40
9.14
7.10
9.65
9.40
7.90
6.10
6.35
5.10
5.10
5.60
6.60
6.35
6.10
9.14
Case study 2 localized corrosion in FCCU

pressure vessel
61
Due to presence of supplemental load

circumferential extent of the flaw beam
bending formulation were used
lmA (MPa)
lmB (MPa)
(MPa)
eA (MPa)
eB (MPa)
Weight
409.17
404.62
17.85
376.37
371.91
Weight plus thermal
719.62
707.14
27.84
684.20
671.81
Load cases
The acceptance criteria were not met

neither for longitudinal nor
circumferential extent of the flaw

pressure vessel
62
FFS MASTER output vs. hand-calculated

Parameters
in the assessment
Hand-calculated
dataused
Parameters
used
Hand-calculatedvalues
values FFS
FFSMASTER
MASTERresults
results
Parameters
usedininthe
theassessment
assessment
Hand-calculated
values
FFS
MASTER
results
min
RSF10 membrane
Longitudinal
flaw length
parameter
Longitudinal
stress
at point()
A (lmA)
Load cases
0.769
0.807
10
mm
10
mm
Weight +
Weight +
0.807
0.804
Weight 0.370
Weight 0.370
Thermal
Thermal
0.770
0.760
409.17 MPa 5.15
719.62 MPa 421.33 MPa5.15
724.50 MPa
11 1
min
minRSF
RSF
Longitudinal
membrane stress at point B (lmB)
404.62 MPa
min
RSF8 to be used in the assessment (tc)
Thickness
min
RSF9 thickness ratio (Rt)
Remaining
0.780
0.590
707.14 MPa
0.773
0.588
410.71 MPa 711.14 MPa
RSF
minminRSF2
0.751
0.590
Shear stress ()
17.85 MPa
27.84 MPa
3
min RSFat
0.729
Diameter
the base of the region of metal loss (Df)
1085
mm
Longitudinal extent of the flaw status
Unacceptable
Circumferential
angular extent of the region of
min RSF4
0.780
0.234 radians
Circumferential
extent
of
the
flaw
status
Unacceptable
metal loss 5()
min RSF
0.811
Final
The vessel is not
acceptable
RSF result
0.774
0.748
0.588
17.92 MPa
27.91 MPa
0.728
1085
mm
Unacceptable
0.781
0.234 radians
Unacceptable
0.809
The component
0.770is not fit
0.805
for continued
operation
1474.7 kPa
0.781
81.7 MPa
circumferential
6
min RSF
for continued 0.805
operation.
MAWPr
1482.4 kPa
min RSF7
0.783
Circumferential stress resulting from pressure (cm)
81.6 MPa
63
Introduction
Study Goals
FFS Pilot Studies
Conclusions
64
The developed software and the methodology

proposed in this study is useful for inspection
engineers, designers and plant engineers:
In timely detection of metal loss and leaks in the

pressure vessels and piping
May initiate suitable corrective action based on the
flaws criticality
To ensure safety of plant personnel and the public
To help optimize maintenance and operation of existing
facilities to maintain availability of older plants and
enhance long-term economic viability
To avoid high repair costs and minimize shutdowns
Conclusions
65
In both case studies results reveal that neither

the piping section nor the vessel is suitable for
continued operation. Repair, replace or rerate
was recommended.
Depending on whether supplemental loads are
present or not, assessment procedure for
circumferential extent of the flaw may vary.
Tensile Stress Factor or Von Mises equivalent
stress criteria may be used.
The software results were in good agreement
with the hand-calculated values.
66
Recommendations for
future study
Developing other modules of FFS

software
Material toughness
effects
RSF
MAWPr
f K mat MAWP
RSFa
Investigating the technical basis and

validation of methods proposed in API
579
List of publications
67
A. Amiri Yekta, S. Javadpour, M.H. Maddahi, S.J. Hashemi, A. Mojaradian,

Introduction to fitness-for-service (FFS) procedures and their application
in achieving integrated inspection planning, 2nd International
Conference on Technical Inspection and NDT, October 21-22, 2008,
Tehran, Iran.
A. Amiri Yekta, S. Javadpour, M.H. Maddahi, S. Hashempour, A study on

Fitness-For-Service for localized corrosion in Abadan refinery FCCU
piping, International Chemical and Petroleum Industry Inspection
Technology (ICPIIT) XI Conference, June 3-6, 2009 ,Texas, USA.
:
-4 :
978964880685
A. Amiri Yekta, S. Javadpour, M.H. Maddahi, A detailed study on FitnessFor-Service assessment for localized corrosion in fluid catalytic cracking
unit pressure vessel, submitted to International Journal of Pressure
Vessel and Piping.
Thanks for your attention

To look is one thing,
To see what you are looking at is something else,
To understand what you see is another,
To learn from what you understand is another,
But,
To act on what you learn is all that really matter!
Winston Churchill

FFS, 579 - Seminar Ata, 1389

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

FFS, 579 - Seminar Ata, 1389

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

In the name of God

DEVELOPING A FITNESS-FOR-SERVICE (FFS)

Ata Amiri Yekta

Dr. S. Javadpour, Mr. M.H. Maddahi

Technical Inspection Engineering

Petroleum University of Technology

No rules provided by API and ASME to evaluate

A joint committee was established by API and

Fitness-For-Service (FFS) assessments;

Metallurgists or Corrosion Engineers

Petroleum University of Technology

Petroleum University of Technology

First FFS software in Iran

Petroleum University of Technology

Structure of API 579

Petroleum University of Technology

Which component can be assessed

Pressure vessels, piping and storage

ASME B&PV Code, Section VIII, Division 1

Remaining Strength Factor

Used in several types of assessments in

plastic collapse load of damaged

MAWP: Maximum Allowable Working Pressure

Petroleum University of Technology

General Metal Loss

Generally two different thickness

Point Thickness Readings (PTRs)

Petroleum University of Technology

General Metal Loss

No creep, cyclic service (fatigue) or cracklike flaws

Petroleum University of Technology

General Metal Loss

Coefficient of Variation (COV)

tSD: Thicknesses Standard Deviation

Petroleum University of Technology

General Metal Loss

FCA: Future Corrosion

General Metal Loss

CTP L = min [0.36(Dt ), 2t ]

General Metal Loss

Petroleum University of Technology

Local Metal Loss

Types of local metal loss:

Caused by directional erosion or

Petroleum University of Technology

Local Metal Loss

The same Applicability & Limitations as

Local Metal Loss

Remaining thickness ratio

Local Metal Loss

MAWPr = MAWP (RSF/RSFa)

Local Metal Loss

EL: Longitudinal weld joint

Petroleum University of Technology

Local Metal Loss

Petroleum University of Technology

Local Metal Loss

Petroleum University of Technology

Local Metal Loss Assessment

Petroleum University of Technology

Local Metal Loss

Petroleum University of Technology

Local Metal Loss