Api 579
Api 579
10th Annual IPEIA (formerly NPEC) Conference Banff Centre in Banff Alberta, Canada February 1 3, 2006
Presentation Outline
Introduction API 579 Development Background Overview of API 579 New Joint API and ASME FFS Standard Planned Developments for API/ASME 579 Overview of API/ASME 579-2006 Future Enhancements Following the 2006 Publication of API/ASME 579 Technical Basis and Validation of API/ASME 579 FFS Assessment Methods Understanding of Damage Mechanisms In-Service Inspection Codes and Fitness-For-Service Fitness-For-Service and RBI - Complementary Technologies Harmonizing Pressure Vessel Design and Fitness-For-Service Summary
2
Introduction
The ASME and API construction codes do not provide rules to evaluate a component containing a flaw or damage that results from operation after initial commissioning Fitness-For-Service (FFS) assessments are quantitative engineering evaluations that are performed to demonstrate the structural integrity of an in-service component containing a flaw or damage API 579 was developed to evaluate flaws and damage associated with in-service operation API 579 assessment procedures were not originally intended to evaluate fabrication flaws; however, these procedures have been used for this purpose by many Owner-Users
3
Introduction
If the damage mechanism cannot be identified, then a FFS assessment should not be performed per API 579
Identification of damage mechanism is the key component in the FFS assessment
Firm understanding of the damage mechanism is required to evaluate the time-dependence of the damage
Time-dependence of damage is required to develop a remaining life and inspection plan
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 non-commercial nuclear
4
Some of the steps shown above may not be necessary depending on the application and damage mechanism
10
Self-contained document - do not need to purchase other API standards to perform an assessment
11
Section 4 - Assessment of General Metal Loss (tm < tmin - large area)
Section 5 - Assessment of Localized Metal Loss (tm < tmin - small area) Section 6 - Assessment of Pitting Corrosion Section 7 - Assessment of Blisters and Laminations Section 8 - Assessment of Weld Misalignment and Shell Distortions Section 9 - Assessment of Crack-Like Flaws Section 10 - Assessment of Equipment Operating in the Creep Regime (Draft version) Section 11 - Assessment of Fire Damage
12
13
In most cases, modifications to existing or development of new FFS methods were required
API Level 3 Assessments permit use of alternative FFS procedures. For example, Section 9 covering crack-like flaws provides reference to British Energy R-6, BS-7910, EPRI Jintegral, and other published methods The API Task Group is working to set up technical liaisons with other international FFS standard writing bodies (e.g. FITNET)
14
The initial release of the new co-branded standard designated as API/ASME 579 will occur in June, 2006
15
16
17
19
The purpose of this assessment is to avoid a catastrophic brittle fracture failure consistent with ASME Code, Section VIII design philosophy; however, it does not ensure against service-induced cracks resulting in leakage or arrest of a running brittle fracture
20
21
22
Existing
tmin
tmm
New
trd
tmm
23
24
Level 2 Assessment
+ Longitudinal plane - New Folias factor; no limitation on length of LTA (was lambda<5) + Circumferential plane - Added circumferential Folias factor to analysis; changed acceptability criteria from yield basis to allowable stress basis
25
LT
MAWPr
L
i 1 n
Li Pe i 1 i
L1
L2
L3
L4
26
27
28
29
Rwt
trd wmax tc thickness away from pitted region max pit depth future corroded thickness
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
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
37
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
38
Appendix E New Residual Stress Solutions based on PVRC Residual Stress JIP research Appendix F - Material Properties, new methods to estimate fracture toughness based on MPC FFS JIP research co-funded by API
39
40
41
100
10
STRESS, KSI
1 600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
TEMPERATURE, F
42
DAMAGE ISOTHERMS
10.00
1.00 1E-08
1E-07
1E-06
1E-05
1E-04
1E-03
750,F 775,F 800,F 825,F 850,F 875,F 900,F 925,F 950,F 975,F 1000,F 1025,F 1050,F 1075,F
j Dcj Rcj t se
STRESS, KSI
43
45
47
48
50
Assessment procedures for HTHA (2007) Assessment procedures for hot-spots (2008) Assessment of damage in cast iron components (paper mill dryers) (2008)
51
Evaluation of material toughness effects on the burst pressure of components with non-crack-like flaws (i.e. LTAs, pitting)
52
Introduction of partial safety factors for other types of damage (i.e. LTA, pitting) Additional stress intensity factor solutions for common pressurized component geometries (e.g. cracks at nozzles)
54
55
57
58
59
60
61
62
Documented and validated FFS methods for flaw and damage assessment may be used to establish a probability of failure as a function of time by considering uncertainties in the damage model and independent variables
The resulting probably of failure can be combined with a consequence model to produce an estimate of risk as a function of time Time dependency of risk permits development of an inspection plan Work is underway to integrate API 579 with API 581
63
Draft version of new Code is complete; work is underway to ballot the Div 2 Rewrite in 2006
64
Summary
Fitness-For-Service (FFS) assessments are quantitative engineering evaluations that are performed to demonstrate the structural integrity of an in-service component containing a flaw or damage API and ASME have agreed to form a joint committee to produce a single FFS Standard, API/ASME 579, that can be used for pressure-containing equipment
Permits focusing of resources in the US to develop a single document that can be used by all industries Helps avoid jurisdictional conflicts and promotes uniform acceptance of FFS technology
The 2006 edition of API/ASME 579 represents a significant update in assessment procedures The technical basis and validation of the API/ASME 579 FFS assessment procedures will be published in the public domain API/ASME 579 FFS assessment methods have been integrated with API & NBIC inspection codes and will be integrated into API RBI technologies Significant technical development work remains and a work plan is being formulated
65
20600 Chagrin Blvd. Suite 1200 Shaker Heights, OH 44122 USA Phone: 216-283-9519 Fax: 216-283-6022 www.equityeng.com
66