1 / 26

Inspection, Repair, Alteration, Re-rating.

abrienda
Download Presentation

Inspection, Repair, Alteration, Re-rating.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. Inspection, Repair, Alteration, Re-rating. What Should We Be Doing? There don't need to Reinvent the European Wheel. Presented by Mered Klycmuradov Yuri Morozov

    2. Post-construction Codes already exist and develop European approach

    4. Technical Aspects of Responsibility: In the context of this requirement, the term Responsibility applies to the combination of the following disciplines unless a specific discipline is cited directly. A Fitness-For-Service assessment during service life may require input from multiple engineering disciplines as described below. a) Materials or Metallurgical Engineering. b) Mechanical or Structural Engineering. c) Inspection Engineering. d) Fracture Mechanics Engineering. f) Process Engineering.

    5. API Recommended Practice 571: “Damage Mechanism Affecting Fixed Equipment in the Refining Industry”, Recommended Practice 571, first edition, December 2003 (previously published as WRC Bulletin): “The ASME and API design codes and standards for pressurized equipment [just as EN Standards] provide rules for the design, fabrication, inspection, and testing of new pressure vessels, piping systems, and storage tanks.” 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. The first step in a fitness-for-service assessment performed in accordance with API RP 579 is to identify the flaw type and the cause of damage. API RP 571 -> API 579 -> API RP 580. It is noted that at a September 30, 2004 European Pressure Equipment session in Paris, proposals were presented for the development of a PED type document covering in-service inspection in the EU member states.

    6. American practice

    7. API 510 “Pressure Vessel Inspection Code: Maintenance Inspection, Rating, Repair, and Alteration” API 570 “Piping Inspection Code: “In-service, Repair, Alteration, and Re-rating of In-Service Piping Systems” API RP 510 (1931) -> ANSI/API 510 (1980) Both API 510 and API 570 have been recognized by many regulatory bodies and are widely used by the Petrochemical and Chemical Process Industries for in-service inspection activities related to pressure vessels and piping.

    8. Draft NBIC 2006 Addendum NB05-0119 AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE Existing text: The American Petroleum Institute promulgates codes and standards for the inspection, repair, alteration, re-rating, and fitness for service assessment of pressure vessels and piping used by the petroleum and chemical process industries Proposed change: API Owner / User Inspection and Repair Organization functioning within recognized API standards, as adopted by each jurisdiction, shall be accepted and monitored by the jurisdiction where the Owner / User is located. Frequency for accepting and monitoring API Owner / User Inspection and Repair Organizations quality assurance program shall be at least once every three years. Inspection personnel shall meet the requirements of the applicable API Standard or as required by the jurisdiction.

    9. Recently, industry identified a need to enhance international recognition of these Codes New in-service inspection (ISI) Code API 510 + API 570 ? Project for an In-service Inspection Pressure Vessel and Piping Code for the Petroleum Refining and Chemical process Industries A Project Team was formed by the API Committee on Refinery Equipment (CRE) and the ASME Board on Pressure Technology Codes and Standards (BPTCS) Result as we know : “In-service Inspection Pressure Vessel and Piping Code for the Petroleum Refining and Chemical Process Industries”.

    10.

    11. The following are exempted from the specific requirements of this Code: a. Pressure vessels on movable structures b. All classes of containers listed for exemption from construction in the scope of the applicable code/standard of construction, including: 1. Fired process tubular heaters. 2. Pressure containers that are integral parts or components of rotating or reciprocating mechanical devices.

    12. Piping Systems Included Fluid Services This Code applies to piping systems for process fluids, hydrocarbons, and flammable or toxic fluid services, such as the following: a. Raw, intermediate, and finished petroleum products. b. Raw, intermediate, and finished chemical products. c. Catalyst lines. d. Hydrogen, natural gas, fuel gas, and flare systems. e. Sour water and hazardous waste streams above threshold limits, as defined by applicable regulations. f. Hazardous chemicals above threshold limits, as defined by applicable regulations

    13. Fitness-for-Service and Risk-based Inspection This inspection Code recognizes fitness-for-service concepts for evaluating in-service degradation of pressure-containing components. PV and ISI Code -> blend to the API 510 and API 570

    14. New Version of API 579 to Be Released API RP 579 ? API/ASME STD 579

    18. General approach RSF = LDC/LUC (base) (vessel and piping) MAWPr = MAWP (RSF/RSFa) for RSF < RSFa (vessel and piping) MAWPr = MAWP for RSF =?RSFa (storage tank) MFHr = MFH (RSF/RSFa) for RSF < RSFa (storage tank) MFHr = MFH for RSF =?RSFa

    19. API RP 579 Uses a local stress approach to assess wall loss and corrosion flaws. Results of extensive FEA and numerous full-scale burst tests Uses engineering failure assessment diagram (FAD) for crack-like flaws.

    22. General metal loss: CAe = tloss + CR x time Alternatively, RL is computed as follows: RL = (tam - K tmin)/CR

    24. Documentation of the results is an important part of fitness for service assessment. Recommendations for content. 1. Next assessment date. 2. Original design data, the maintenance and operating history 3. Inspection data 4. Assumptions and analytical results 4.1 Version, section, and level of API RP 579 4.2 Future design and operating conditions 4.3 Calculations of minimum required thickness or MAWP 4.4 Calculations of remaining life and inspection interval 4.5 Mitigation and monitoring recommendations 5. All documents should be stored with inspection records.

    25. The general assessment procedure recommended by API RP 579 has the following eight steps: Step 1 Identify the type of flaw and the material damage mechanism. Step 2 Determine the applicability and limitations of the assessment procedures. Step 3 Define the data requirements. Step 4 Apply the assessment techniques and acceptance criteria. Step 5 Evaluate the remaining life or the limiting flaw size and establish an inspection interval. Step 6 Apply the required remediation methods. Step 7 Employ in-service monitoring procedures when remaining life and inspection interval cannot be adequately established. Step 8 Document all information used and decisions made in Steps 1 through 7, and store the documentation with inspection records. These eight steps should be included in each fitness for service assessment of a specific flaw and component combination.

    26. References: 1. Service Experience and Reliability Improvement: Nuclear, Fossil, and Petrochemical Plants, PVP-Vol. 288, Edited by W. H. Bamford, ASME International, New York, 1994. 2. Fitness-for-Service and Decisions for Petroleum and Chemical Equipment, PVP-Vol. 315, Edited by M. Prager, ASME International, New York, 1995. 3. Fitness for Adverse Environments in Petroleum and Power Equipment, PVP-Vol. 359, Edited by M. Prager, ASME International, New York, 1997. 4. Fitness-for-Service Evaluations in Petroleum and Fossil Power Plants, PVP-Vol. 380, Edited by M. Zako and M. Prager, ASME International, New York, 1998. 5. Fitness for Service, Stress Classification and Expansion Joint Design - 2000, PVP-Vol. 401, Edited by W. J. Koves, ASME International, New York, 2000. 6. Service Experience and Fitness-for-Service in Power and Petroleum Processing, PVP-Vol. 411, Edited by M. Cohn and M. Prager, ASME International, New York, 2000. 7. Fitness-For-Service, API Recommended Practice 579, First Edition, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C., January 2000. 8. H. Tada, P. Paris, and G. Irwin, The Stress Analysis of Cracks Handbook, Paris Productions Incorporated, St. Louis, 1985. 9. Carl E. Jaske, Process Equipment Fitness-for-Service Assessments Using API RP 579, CC Technologies, Dublin, OH, Process & Power Plant Reliability Conference, November 7-8, 2001 10. Joint API / ASME Post-Construction Code Committee, “White Paper on Project for an In-service Inspection Pressure Vessel and Piping Code for the Petroleum Refining and Chemical process Industries” 11. Carl E. Jaske, Inspection and Remaining Life Evaluation of Process Plant Equipment, Process & Power Plant Reliability Conference, November 13-14, 2002

More Related