API 579 CAPITULO 6

© All Rights Reserved

2 views

API 579 CAPITULO 6

© All Rights Reserved

- Uncofined Test
- Xsteel - Lesson17_AnalysisAndDesign_a4
- Aisc vs Lrfd
- Welding Calculations
- Brencich 2008 Engineering-Structures
- AE Syllabus
- ACI 445r_99
- 802694_ch9
- Ae Apgenco
- Finite Element Modeling of RC Structures Strengthened with FRP Laminates (2001) - Report (113).pdf
- Material)
- 18 Application of GRC Curved Sandwich Panels With EPS Core and Exterior Finish
- RC Slab Design With Shear Reinforcement
- G39-99(2011)
- The Spaghetti Bridge (1)
- Piping Stress Ramaswami.p
- Fatigue
- Load Controlled Cyclic Triaxial Strength of Soil
- Designguide_ankre_0408.pdf
- Chapter 14 Fatigue

You are on page 1of 34

(DRAFT Revision 36 - MS Word 7.0)

6.1 General

6.1.1 The assessment procedures in this section can be utilized to evaluate pitting. In this context pitting is

defined as localized regions of metal loss which can be characterized by a pit diameter on the order of

the plate thickness. A flow chart for the evaluation procedure of equipment with pitting is shown in

Figure 6.1.

6.1.2 The assessment procedures can be used to evaluate both widespread and localized pitting in a

component with or without a region of local metal loss. In addition, the assessment procedures in this

section can be used to assess a damaged array of blisters as described in Section 7.0.

6.2.1 The assessment procedures in this section can be used to evaluate four types of pitting; widely

scattered pitting which occurs over a significant region of the component, a LTA located in a region of

widely scattered pitting, localized regions of pitting, and pitting which is confined to within an LTA. A

flowchart for the overall assessment (applicable to all 3 levels) is provided in Figure 6.1, and a flowchart

for the assessments performed for the various types of pitting previously discussed is provided in

Figure 6.2. Based on the type of pitting damage, a combination of assessment methods in Sections 5.0

and 6.0 are used in the evaluation.

6.2.2 Calculation methods are provided to rerate the component if the acceptance criteria in this section are

not satisfied. For pressurized components (pressure vessels and piping), the calculation methods can

be used to find a reduced maximum allowable working pressure (MAWP) and/or coincident

temperature. For tank components (shell courses), the calculation methods can be used to determine

a reduced maximum fill height (MFH).

6.2.3 Specific details pertaining to the applicability and limitations of each of the assessment procedures are

discussed below.

6.2.3.1 The Level 1 and 2 assessment procedures in this section apply only if all of the following conditions are

satisfied:

a. The original design criteria were in accordance with Paragraph 2.2.2 of Section 2.0.

b. The design temperature is less than 750F (400C) for carbon steel, 850F (455C) for low alloy

materials and 950F (510C) for high alloy materials.

c. A Level 1 Assessment can be used if the material is considered to be ductile and is not subject

to embrittlement during operation due to temperature or the process environment. If

embrittlement can or has occurred, a correction factor to account for the loss of ductility of the

material can be included in a Level 2 Assessment.

d. The component under evaluation does not contain crack-like flaws. If crack-like flaws are

present, the assessment procedures in Section 9.0 shall be utilized.

6-1

DRAFT - Section 6: Assessment Of Pitting Corrosion

3. Spherical, elliptical (within the 0.8D center zone of the head), and the spherical portion of

torispherical heads,

5. Elbows or pipe bends which do not have structural attachments at the intrados or

extrados, and

f. The applied loads are internal pressure; however, supplemental loads may be included in the

analysis using the equations in Appendix A. The applied loads are limited to those loads which

produce a membrane stress field. If the applied loading results in a through-wall bending stress

distribution, a Level 3 Assessment must be performed.

g. The Level 1 Assessment rules are written based on the pitting being on one side of the

component. If pitting damage is on both sides of the component, a Level 2 Assessment should

be performed.

h. The pitting damage is composed of many pits; individual pits or isolated parings of pits should be

evaluated using the assessment procedures in Section 5.0.

6.2.3.2 A Level 3 assessment should be performed where Level 1 and 2 methods do not apply, such as for the

following component geometries and loading conditions:

b. The tangent zone of elliptical heads (outside of the 0.8D region), knuckle regions of torispherical

or toriconical heads, piping elbows, nozzle and piping branch connections with a reinforcing pad,

and geometries associated with gross structural discontinuities not covered in a Level 2

assessment should be analyzed using a Level 3 evaluation.

c. Shell sections, formed heads and piping subject to external pressure and supplemental loads not

covered in a Level 2 assessment should be analyzed using a Level 3 evaluation.

d. If the component is in cyclic service or a fatigue analysis was performed as part of the original

design calculations. This assessment should consider the effects of fatigue on the fitness-for-

service calculations used to qualify the component for continued operation.

An overview of the original equipment data required for an assessment is provided in Paragraph 2.3.1

of Section 2.0.

An overview of the maintenance and operational history required for an assessment is provided in

Paragraph 2.3.2 of Section 2.0.

6-2

DRAFT - Section 6: Assessment Of Pitting Corrosion

6.3.3.1 The depth and diameter of a pit must be carefully measured because of the variety of pit types that can

occur in service (see Figure 6.3). If the pit has an irregular shape, a diameter with encompasses the

entire shape should be used in the assessment. In addition, the deepest part of the pit should also be

used in the assessment.

6.3.3.2 The measure of damage used to evaluate pitting is the pit-couple. A pit-couple is composed of two pits

separated by a solid ligament (see Figure 6.4). To define a pit-couple, the diameter and depth of each

pit, and the length or pitch between the pit centers is required. For a Level 2 Assessment, the

orientation of the pit-couple in the biaxial stress field is also required (see Figure 6.4). To evaluate a

damage area, a representative number of pit-couples in the damaged area should be used. If the

pitting is uniform, a minimum of ten pit-couples is recommended. If the pitting is non-uniform,

additional pit-couple data should be taken.

6.3.3.3 The future Pitting Progression Rate (PPR) should be estimated. This is not a straightforward

procedure because pits can increase in size (depth and diameter), increase in density, and may initiate

at another region of the component. A discussion pertaining to the remaining life estimate for pitting is

included in Paragraph 6.5.

6.3.3.4 The following information is required for a Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment.

a. The specific information required for a Level 1 and Level 2 Assessment is summarized in

paragraphs 6.4.2.2 and 6.4.3.2, respectively. The form shown in Table 6.1 can be used to

record this information.

b. The parameters s and c should be determined if the pitting damage is localized (see Figure 6.5)

or if the pitting damage is confined to a localized region of metal loss (see Figure 6.6). In

addition, the required parameters per Section 5.0 will need to be determined.

6.3.3.5 The information required to perform a Level 3 Assessment is dependent on the analysis method

utilized. In general, a limit load procedure using a numerical techniques can be used to establish safe

operating conditions. For this type of analysis, a description of the pitting, similar to that required for a

Level 2 Assessment, should be obtained along with the material yield stress.

6.3.4.1 Precise measurement of pitting is difficult. Care must be taken to ensure that the correct dimensions

are measured for a Level 2 Assessment because pits often have irregular shapes as shown in Figure

6.3 or are scale filled. Pit gauges are usually used to measure pit depth, rulers or calipers to measure

pit diameter, and ultrasonic methods to measure wall thickness at wide pits and the average plate

thickness in the area of pitting.

6.3.4.2 It is difficult to detect small diameter pits or to measure the depth of pits using ultrasonic methods.

Scanning techniques are advisable when measuring the thickness in a pitted or locally thinned region.

Radiography (RT) may also be used to characterize the damage in pitted regions.

6.4.1 Overview

An overview of the assessment levels is provided in Figure 6.1. Level 1 Assessments are limited to

components covered by a recognized code or standard which have a design equation which specifically

relates pressure (or liquid fill height for tanks) to a required wall thickness. The only load considered is

internal pressure, and the average values of three pitting characterization parameters are used to

describe the damage. The Level 1 Assessment procedures can be used to evaluate four categories of

6-3

DRAFT - Section 6: Assessment Of Pitting Corrosion

pitting; general pitting, localized pitting, pitting within a locally thin area, and a locally thin area in a

region of general pitting. The Level 2 Assessment rules can be used to provide a better estimate of the

structural integrity of a component for these pitting categories by using six pitting characterization

parameters to describe the damage. The same four categories of pitting damage described under the

Level 1 Assessment can also be evaluated in a Level 2 Assessment. In addition, this assessment level

can be used when the pitting damage occurs on both sides of the component. The Level 3

Assessment procedures are intended to evaluate more complex regions of pitting, loading conditions,

and/or components with details where only limited design rules are provided in the original construction

code or standard. Detailed stress analysis techniques are normally utilized in a Level 3 Assessment.

6.4.2.1 The Level 1 Assessment technique is simplified in that it does not account for the orientation of the pit-

couple with respect to the maximum stress direction; therefore, the results will be conservative.

Guidance for conducting an assessment for the four categories of pitting described in paragraph 6.1.1

is shown in Figure 6.2.

6.4.2.2 The following calculation procedure can be used to determine the acceptability of pitting in a

pressurized component using a Level 1 Assessment. If the pitting is found to be unacceptable, the

procedure includes a provision to establish a new MAWP.

D = Inside diameter of the cylinder, cone (at the location of the flaw), sphere, or formed

head, inches. For the center section of an elliptical head use an equivalent inside

diameter of KcDc where Dc is the inside diameter of the head straight flange (see

paragraph A.3.6). For the center section of a torispherical head, use the inside

diameter of the spherical section,

FCA = Estimated future corrosion allowance, inches,

RSFa = Allowable remaining strength factor (see Section 2.0), and

t = Current thickness, typically the nominal thickness minus the metal loss, inches.

b. Step 2 - Determine the following parameters for each pit couple, k, being evaluated. It is

recommended that at least ten pit-couples be analyzed to obtain a statistical average of the

Remaining Strength Factor.

di = Diameter of the pit i in the pit-couple, inches,

dj = Diameter of the pit j in the pit-couple, inches, and

Pij = Pit-couple spacing or pitch, inches.

c. Step 3 - Determine the minimum required thickness, tmin, based on the current design pressure

and temperature (see Appendix A). The minimum wall thickness can be taken as the furnished

thickness minus the original specified corrosion allowance. Alternatively, the minimum required

thickness can be computed based on the current design pressure and temperature (see

Appendix A).

d. Step 4 - Determine the actual depth of each pit in all pit-couples, wi and w j , using the following

equation (see Figure 6.4.b). Compute the average pit depth, wavg , considering all readings.

e. Step 5 - Determine the average pit diameter and pit-couple spacing. It is recommended that at

least ten pit-couples be analyzed to obtain a statistical average of the Remaining Strength

Factor.

davg = Average pit diameter for all pits in the region being evaluated, inches, and

6-4

DRAFT - Section 6: Assessment Of Pitting Corrosion

Pavg = Average pit-couple pitch or spacing, inches. The average pit-couple pitch or spacing,

Pavg, is evaluated only for pits immediately adjacent to each other (nearest neighbors,

see Figure 6.4). These numbers are typically determined at the inspection site from

several readings and are observed or estimated values, not necessarily numerically

calculated averages.

f. Step 6 - Calculate the Remaining Strength Factor, RSF. If wavg 0.0, RSF = 10

. , and the pit

damage is acceptable per the Level 1 Assessment criteria; otherwise, compute the RSF using

the following equation and proceed to Step 7.

wavg t t min

RSF = 10

.

t min

t

(

. Eavg

10 ) (6.2)

where,

3

Eavg = avg (6.3)

2

Pavg d avg

avg = (6.4)

Pavg

g. Step 7 - Evaluate results based on the type of pitting damage (see Figure 6.2):

1. Widespread Pitting - For widespread pitting which occurs over a significant region of the

component, if the computed RSF RSFa , the pitting is acceptable per Level 1. If this

criteria is not satisfied, the component can be rerated using the equations in paragraph

2.4.2.2 of Section 2.0.

2. Localized Pitting - If the pitting damage is localized, the damaged area will be evaluated as

an equivalent region of localized metal loss (LTA, see Section 5.0 and Figure 6.5). The

meridional and circumferential dimensions of the equivalent LTA should be based on the

physical bounds of the observed pitting. The equivalent thickness, teq, for the LTA can be

established using the following equation. To complete the analysis, the LTA is then

evaluated using the assessment procedures in Section 5.0.

where,

teq = Equivalent thickness of localized region of pits, inches, and

RSF = Computed remaining strength factor calculated using Equation (6.2)

or (6.15) based on the assessment level.

3. Region Of Local Metal Loss Located In A Area Of Widespread Pitting - If a region of local

metal loss (LTA) is located in an area of widespread pitting, a combined Remaining

Strength Factor can be determined using the following equation. If the RSFcomb RSFa ,

the pitting is acceptable per Level 1. If this criteria is not satisfied, the component can be

rerated using the equations in paragraph 2.4.2.2 of Section 2.0 with the combined

remaining strength factor.

6-5

DRAFT - Section 6: Assessment Of Pitting Corrosion

where,

RSFcomb = Combined Remaining Strength Factor which includes the effects of

pitting damage and a locally thin area

RSFpit = Remaining Strength Factor for pitting damage calculated using

Equation (6.2) or (6.15) based on the assessment level, and

RSFlta = Remaining Strength Factor for a LTA computed using the methods

provided in Section 5.0.

4. Pitting Confined Within A Region Of Localized Metal Loss - If the pitting damage is

confined within a region of localized metal loss (see Figure 6.6), the assessment

procedure in item 3 above can be used.

1. Pit Diameter - For pitting with or without a LTA, if the following equation is not satisfied,

the pit should be evaluated as an LTA using the assessment methods of Section 5.0.

This check is required for larger pits to ensure that a local ligament failure at the base of

the pit does not occur.

d Q Dt min (6.7)

The value of Q can be determined using Table 4.2 of Section 4.0. In this equation, Q with

is a function of the remaining thickness ratio, Rt, given by the following equation where w

is the depth of the pit under evaluation.

t w FCA

Rt = min (6.8)

t min

2. Pit Depth - The following limit is recommended to prevent a local failure characterized by

pin-hole type leakage. The criteria is express in term of the remaining thickness ratio as

follows:

Rt 0.20 (6.9)

6.4.2.3 If a component fails a Level 1 Assessment the following, or combinations thereof, can be considered:

6.4.3.1 The assessment procedure in Level 2 provides a better estimate of the Remaining Strength Factor for

pitting damage in a component subject to pressure loading. This procedure accounts for the orientation

of the pit-couple with respect to the maximum stress direction. Guidance for conducting an assessment

for the four categories of pitting described in paragraph 6.1.1 is shown in Figure 6.2.

6-6

DRAFT - Section 6: Assessment Of Pitting Corrosion

6.4.3.2 The following calculation procedure can be used to determine the acceptability of pitting in a

pressurized component using a Level 2 Assessment. If the pitting is found to be unacceptable, the

procedure provides a provision to establish a new MAWP.

b. Step 2 - Determine the following parameters in paragraph 6.4.2.2.b and the following variable for

each pit couple, k, being evaluated. It is recommended that at least ten pit-couples be analyzed

to obtain a statistical average of the Remaining Strength Factor.

ij = Orientation of the pit-couple measured from the direction of the 2 stress component

(see Figure 6.4); for a conservative analysis set ij = 0.0, degrees,

c. Step 3 - Calculate the minimum required thickness, tmin, based on the current design pressure

and temperature (see paragraph 6.4.2.2.c).

d. Step 4 - Determine the actual depth of each pit in all pit-couples, wi and w j , using Equation

(6.1) (see Figure 6.4.b).

e. Step 5 - Calculate the components of the membrane stress field, 1 and 2 (see Figure 6.4).

The stress component in the minimum stress direction, 2, can be expressed in terms of a

biaxial stress ratio defined as:

1

R= with 1 2 (6.10)

2

For a cylindrical shell under internal pressure, R=2.0 and 2 = 1 2 . For a spherical shell

under internal pressure, R=1.0 (note, this value can also be used for the center section of an

elliptical or torispherical head). Membrane stress equations for shell components are included in

Appendix A.

1. Single Layer Analysis - This analysis can be used when the pitting occurs on one side of

the component (see Figure 6.4). In this case, the RSF is adjusted for tmin (see Figure

6.4b). Note that if

k

wavg 0.0, RSF = 10

. for this pit-couple.

wavg t t min

( )

k

.

RSF = 10 k

10

. Eavg

k

(6.11)

min

1

t t

where,

k

E k

avg = min .

, 10 (6.12)

k

k = avg

k

[

max 1k , 2k , 1k 2k ] (6.13)

6-7

DRAFT - Section 6: Assessment Of Pitting Corrosion

( )

3 sin 2 2 ij 1k 2k

k

(

= cos ij + sin 2 ij (

4 2

) ) 1

k 2

2

+

(6.14)

(sin 4

ij + cos 2 2 )( )

ij

k 2

2

1

1k = (6.15)

avg

k

2

2k = (6.16)

avg

k

Pijk d avg

k

k

avg = (6.17)

Pijk

k

davg =

(d + d )

i j

(6.18)

2.0

k

wavg =

(w + w )

i j

(6.19)

2.0

2. Multiple Layer Analysis - This analysis is used to account for pitting on both sides of the

component (see Figure 6.7). The selection of the number of layers, N, is based on the

depth of pits on both sides of the component. The component thickness is divided into

layers based on the pitting damage (see Figure 6.7), and the RSF is computed using the

following equation considering all layers containing pits (the solid layer is not included in

the summation, see Figure 6.7.a). This value of the RSF is not adjusted for tmin; therefore,

the MAWP used with this expression should be based on the current component

thickness, t.

t

( )

N

RSF = 1 L 1 Eavg

k k

(6.20)

L =1

t

g. Step 7 - Repeat Step 6 for all pit-couples. Determine the average value of the total number, n, of

k

the Remaining Strength Factors, RSF , found in Step 6 and designate this value as RSF for the

region of pitting.

1 n

RSF = RSF k

n k =1

(6.21)

h. Step 8 - Evaluate results based on the type of pitting damage using the criteria in paragraph

6.4.2.2.g.

j. Step 9 - Check the individual pit dimensions using the criteria in paragraph 6.4.2.2.h.

6.4.3.3 The assessment procedures in this paragraph can be used to determine the acceptability of a

cylindrical shell or pipe with pitting damage subject to pressure and/or supplemental loads based on a

longitudinal stress criterion.

6-8

DRAFT - Section 6: Assessment Of Pitting Corrosion

a. Supplemental loads - These loads may result in an axial force and/or bending moment being

applied to the end of a cylindrical shell or pipe section. This type of loading results in longitudinal

membrane stresses (stresses acting on a circumferential plane) in addition to the longitudinal

and circumferential (hoop) membrane stress caused by pressure loading (see paragraph

A.2.3.5).

b. Widespread Pitting Damage - The following procedure can be used to evaluate the permissible

membrane and bending stresses resulting from pressure and supplemental loads.

1. Step 1 - Determine the pressure, axial force and bending moment acting on the

circumferential plane. The maximum permissible pressure for the LTA can be

established using the procedures in paragraph 6.4.3.2. The effects of weight and thermal

loading should be included in the analysis used to determine the axial force and bending

moment.

2. Step 2 - Determine the RSF for the pitting damage using paragraph 6.4.3.2.

3. Step 3 - Compute the equivalent thickness of the cylinder with pitting damage.

RSF

B = min .

, 10 (6.23)

RSFa

where,

FCA = Future corrosion allowance, inches,

teq = Equivalent thickness, inches,

t = Current thickness, typically the nominal thickness minus the metal

loss, inches, and

RSF = Computed remaining strength factor from Step 2.

4. Step 4 - Compute the maximum longitudinal membrane stress due to the pressure, axial

force and the bending moment determined in Step 1 using the following procedure:

a. Step 4.1 - Compute the section properties of the cylinder with pitting damage,

include the previous uniform metal loss and the future corrosion allowance.

D f = Do 2teq (6.24)

IX =

64

( Do4 D 4f ) (6.25)

2

Am =

4

( Do D 2f ) (6.26)

( )

2

At = D + Df (6.27)

16 o

6-9

DRAFT - Section 6: Assessment Of Pitting Corrosion

Do

a= (6.28)

2

D f = Di + 2teq (6.29)

IX =

64

( D 4f Di4 ) (6.30)

2

Am =

4

( D f Di2 ) (6.31)

( )

2

At = D + Di (6.32)

16 f

Df

a= (6.33)

2

with,

2

Aa = Di (6.34)

4

where,

2

Aa = Cylinder aperture cross-section, in ,

2

Am = Cylinder metal cross-section, in ,

Df = Modified cylinder diameter to account for pitting damage,

inches,

Di = Cylinder inside diameter, inches,

Do = Cylinder outside diameter, inches,

4

IX = Cylinder moment of inertia, in , and

teq = Equivalent thickness, inches.

b. Step 4.2 - Compute the maximum longitudinal membrane stress.

Aa

( MAWPr ) + +

F Ma

lm = (6.35)

Am Am I X

where,

MAWPr = MAWP determined in paragraph 6.4.3.2, psig,

M = Applied net-section bending moment, in-lbsand

F = Applied net-section axial force, lbs.

5 Step 5 - Evaluate the results as follows:

longitudinal stress:

6-10

DRAFT - Section 6: Assessment Of Pitting Corrosion

cm

2

cm lm + lm

2

+ 3 2 ys (6.36)

with,

MAWPr Di

cm = + 0.6 (6.37)

Ec 2teq

MT

= (5.38)

2 At t eq

Ec = Circumferential weld joint efficiency,

MAWPr = Maximum allowable working pressure computed per paragraph

6.4.3.2,

MT = Applied net-section torsion, in-lbs,

teq = Equivalent thickness from Step 3, inches,

cm = Maximum circumferential stress (i.e. hoop stress), psi,

lm = Maximum longitudinal stress computed in Step 5, psi,

ys = Yield stress (see Appendix F), psi, and

= Maximum torsion stress, psi.

b) If the maximum longitudinal stress computed in Step 4 is compressive, this stress

should be less than or equal to the allowable compressive stress computed using

the methodology in paragraph B.4.4 of Appendix B or the allowable tensile stress,

whichever is smaller. When using the methodology in paragraph B.4.4 of Appendix

B to establish an allowable compressive stress, the equivalent thickness determined

in Step 3 should be used in the calculations.

c. Localized Pitting - if the flaw is categorized as localized pitting, a region of widely scattered pitting

with an LTA, or pitting confined to within the region of an LTA, the assessment procedure in

paragraph 5.4.3.3 of Section 5.0 can be used once an equivalent LTA has been derived using

the procedures in paragraph 6.4.2.2.g.

6.4.3.4 If a component fails a Level 2 Assessment the following, or combinations thereof, can be considered:

6.4.4.1 The stress analysis techniques discussed in Appendix B can be utilized to assess pitting damage in

pressure vessels, piping, and tankage in a Level 3 analysis. In general, the limit load techniques

described in Paragraph B.4 are typically recommended for this evaluation.

6.4.4.2 If a numerical computation (e.g. finite element method) is used to evaluate pitting, two alternatives for

modeling the pits may be considered. In the first method, the pits can be modeled directly using three

6-11

DRAFT - Section 6: Assessment Of Pitting Corrosion

dimensional continuum finite elements. This method may be impractical based upon the pit density. In

the second method, the reduced stiffness of the plate with pits can be approximated by using effective

elastic constants or by developing an equivalent thickness. Either of these methods will facilitate

modeling of pitting damage using either shell or continuum finite elements; however, representative

values of the effective elastic constants or equivalent thickness must be chosen. In addition, if a limit

analysis is being performed, the validity of the effective elastic constants or equivalent thickness in the

plastic regime also would need to be investigated.

6.5.1 The MAWP approach provides a systematic way of determining the remaining life of a pressurized

component with pitting. When estimating the remaining life of pitting damage, the Pit Propagation Rate

must be determined. Pits can grow in 3 different manners and various combinations of these manners:

6.5.1.3 Increase In Pit Size - An estimate as to how the pit size, characteristic diameter and depth, will increase

with time should be made. For a given pit-couple, as the pit diameter and/or depth increases, the RSF

decreases.

6.5.1.4 Increase In Pit Density - In addition to existing pits continuing to grow, new pits can form, which

increases the pit density. This decreases the pit spacing distance and the RSF.

6.5.1.5 Increase In Pit Region Size - If the pitting is localized, future operation may result in an enlargement of

the localized region. The enlargement of a local region with pits is similar to the enlargement of an

LTA.

6.5.2 The following procedure can be used to determine the remaining life of a component with pitting using

the MAWP approach:

a. Step 1- Determine the metal loss in the region with pitting by subtracting the minimum (or

furnished if available) thickness from the nominal thickness determined at the time of the last

inspection.

b. Step 2 - Using the procedures described in Level 1 or Level 2, determine the MAWP for a series

of increasing time increments using a Pit Propagation Rate applied to the pit depth and diameter.

Extreme value statistical analysis should be used to predict the likely depth of the deepest pit

that was not measured, based on those that were measured. The extreme value can then be

used in the formulas for current pit depth. This will ensure that perforation does not occur,

unless leak of the fluid contents is considered acceptable.

c. Step 3 - The effective pit size and rate of change in the characteristic dimensions are determined

as follows:

where,

PPRpit-depth = Estimated rate of change of pit characteristic depth - inches/years,

PPRpit-diameter = Estimated rate of change of the pit characteristic diameter -

inches/years,

wc = Current characteristic pit depth - inches,

dc = Current characteristic pit diameter - inches,

wf = Estimated future characteristic pit depth - inches,

6-12

DRAFT - Section 6: Assessment Of Pitting Corrosion

d. Step 4 - If remediation is not performed, an estimate of the future pit density should be made and

included in the estimation of the MAWP in Step 2.

e. Step 5 - If the pitted region is localized, an estimate of the future enlargement of this region

should be made and included in the estimation of the MAWP in Step 2. If there is an interaction

between pitting and a LTA, then this interaction must also be considered in a MAWP versus time

calculation.

f. Step 6 - Determine the remaining life from a plot of the MAWP versus time. The time at which

the MAWP curve intersects the design MAWP for the component is defined as the remaining

life of the component. The equipment MAWP is taken as the smallest value of the MAWP for

the individual components.

6.5.2.6 This approach may also be applied to tankage; however, in this case, the liquid maximum fill height,

MFH, is evaluated instead of the MAWP.

6.6 Remediation

The remediation methods for general corrosion provided in Section 4.0 are typically applicable to pit

damage. Nonetheless, it is very difficult to properly remediate active pitting because the environment in

a pit can be different from the bulk fluid environment; therefore, chemical treatments may not be

effective. In addition, because coatings depend on proper surface preparation, which is challenging

when removing scale in pits, they may also be ineffective. Therefore, strip linings may be the

remediation method of choice.

The remaining life may be difficult to establish for some services where an estimate of the future metal

loss and enlargement of the pitted region cannot be adequately characterized. In these circumstances,

remediation and/or in-service monitoring may be required to qualify the assumptions made to establish

the remaining life. Nonetheless, it is often difficult to monitor pit advance non-intrusively with ultrasonic

methods. Radiography may be an alternative.

6.8 Documentation

6.8.1 The documentation of the FFS assessment shall include the information cited in Paragraph 2.10.

6.8.2 Inspection data including readings and locations used to determine the pitting damage RSF factor shall

be recorded and included in the documentation. A sample data sheet is provided in Table 6.1 for this

purpose.

6.9.1 ASTM, Standard Guide for Examination and Evaluation of Pitting Corrosion, ASTM G46-94, American

Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pa., 1994

6.9.2 ASM, Metals Handbook, Ninth Edition, Volume 13, Corrosion, ASM International, Metals Park, Ohio,

1987, pp. 231-233.

6.9.3 ASM, Metals Handbook, Ninth Edition, Volume 13, Corrosion, ASM International, Metals Park, Ohio,

1987, pp. 113-122.

6-13

DRAFT - Section 6: Assessment Of Pitting Corrosion

6.9.4 Gumbel, E.J., Statistical Theory of Extreme Values, National Bureau of Standards, AMS 33, 1954.

6.9.5 Kowaka, Masamichi, Introduction to Life Prediction of Industrial Plant Materials - Application of the

Extreme Value Statistical Method for Corrosion Analysis, Allerton Press, Inc., 1994.

6.9.6 Porowski, W.J., Limit Analysis of A Shell with Random Pattern of Pits Subject to In-plane Biaxial

Loading, MPC Report, In Preparation.

6.9.7 Porowski, W.J., ODonnell, W.J., Farr, J.R., Limit design of Perforated Cylindrical Shells per ASME

Code, Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, N.Y., pp.

646-651, 1977.

6.9.8 ODonnell, W.J. and Porowski, W.J., Yield Surfaces for Perforated Materials, Transactions of the

ASME, Journal of Applied Mechanics, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, N.Y., pp. 263-270,

1973.

6.9.9 Porowski, W.J. and ODonnell, Effective Elastic Constants for Perforated Materials, Transactions of

the ASME, Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, N.Y.,

pp. 234-241, 1974.

6.9.10 Daidola, J.C., Parente, J., Orisamolu, I.R., Strength Assessment Of Pitted Panels, SSC-394, Ship

Structures Committee, D.C., 1997.

6-14

DRAFT - Section 6: Assessment Of Pitting Corrosion

Table 6.1

Required Data for Assessment of Pitting

A summary of the data that should be obtained from a field inspection is provided on this form.

Equipment Identification:

Equipment Type: _____ Pressure Vessel _____ Storage Tank _____ Piping Component

Component Type & Location:

Average Pit Diameter, (davg):

Average Pit Spacing, (Pavg):

Average Pit Depth, (wavg):

Pit-Couple Pij ij di wi dj wj

6-15

DRAFT - Section 6: Assessment Of Pitting Corrosion

Figure 6.1

Overview Of The Assessment Procedures To Evaluate A Component With Pitting

2EWDLQ(TXLSPHQW

'DWDDQG3HUIRUPD

/HYHO$VVHVVPHQW

3HUIRUP/HYHO

$VVHVVPHQW

(TXLSPHQWLV

<HV

$FFHSWDEOHSHU/HYHO

&ULWHULD"

1R

5HUDWH 5HPDLQLQJ/LIH

1R 1R

(TXLSPHQW" $FFHSDWDEOHSHU/HYHO

&ULWHULD"

<HV

<HV

3HUIRUP5HUDWHSHU

$VVHVVPHQW" 5HGXFH3UHVVXUHDQGRU

7HPSHUDWXUH

<HV

(TXLSPHQWLV

1R

$FFHSWDEOHSHU/HYHO

&ULWHULD"

<HV

5HPDLQLQJ/LIH 5HUDWH

<HV 1R

$FFHSWDEOH3HU/HYHO (TXLSPHQW"

&ULWHULD"

<HV

1R

3HUIRUP5HUDWHSHU

$VVHVVPHQW" 5HGXFH3UHVVXUHDQGRU

7HPSHUDWXUH

<HV

(TXLSPHQW

1R

$FFHSWDEOHSHU/HYHO

$VVHVVPHQW"

<HV

5HPDLQLQJ/LIH 5HUDWH

<HV 1R

$FFHSDWEOHSHU/HYHO (TXLSPHQW"

&ULWLHUD"

<HV

1R

3HUIRUP5HUDWHSHU

5HSDLURU

/HYHO&ULWHULDWR

5HSODFH

5HGXFH3UHVVXUHDQGRU

(TXLSPHQW

7HPSHUDWXUH

5HWXUQWKH

(TXLSPHQWWR

6HUYLFH

6-16

DRAFT - Section 6: Assessment Of Pitting Corrosion

Figure 6.2

Categories and Analysis Methodology of Pitting Analysis Types

2EWDLQ3LWWLQJ

'DPDJH

,QIRUPDWLRQIURP

,QVSHFWLRQ

7\SHRI3LWWLQJ

'DPDJH

5HJLRQRI/RFDO0HWDO 3LWWLQJ'DPDJH&RQILQHG

:LGHVSUHDG /RFDOL]HG

/RVV/RFDWHGLQDQ ZLWKLQD5HJLRQRI/RFDO

3LWWLQJ 3LWWLQJ

$UHDRI:LGHVSUHDG 0HWDO/RVV

VHH)LJXUH VHH)LJXUH

3LWWLQJ VHH)LJXUH

'HWHUPLQHWKH56)5HVXOWLQJIURP

'HWHUPLQHWKH56)

5HVXOWLQJIURP3LWWLQJ IURP3LWWLQJ'DPDJH 3DUDJUDSKRU

8VLQJ3DUDJUDSK

'DPDJH8VLQJ3DUDJUDSK 56)B3,78VLQJ3DUDJUDSK WKHFDOFXODWLRQVIRU56)B3,7DUH

RU

RU RU %DVHGRQWKH/7$$YHUDJH

7KLFNQHVV

'HWHUPLQHDQ(TXLYDOHQW

1R

:LGHVSUHDG3LWWLQJ 3HUIRUP/7$$VVHVVPHQW8VLQJ IRUWKH/7$56)B/7$

&KDUDFWHUL]HGE\VFDQGWHT

<HV

<HV

&ULWHULD8VLQJ $FFHSWDEOH" 56)

1R

3LWWLQJ

&ULWHULD

<HV 'DPDJHZLWK/7$ <HV

6DWLVILHGIRU$OO

$FFHSWDEOH"

3LWV"

1R

1R

5HSDLU,QGLYLGXDO 5HUDWH5HSDLU

3LWV)DLOLQJ RU5HSODFH

&ULWHULD (TXLSPHQW

'HWHUPLQHWKH

5HPDLQLQJ/LIH

6-17

DRAFT - Section 6: Assessment Of Pitting Corrosion

Figure 6.3

Variation in the Cross Sectional Shapes of Pits

UVARIATION IN THE CROSS SECTIONAL SHAPE OF PITSU

d d

w w

tnom tnom

d

d

w

w

tnom tnom

d

w

tnom

(e) Undercutting

d

d

w w

tnom tnom

(Horizontal) (Vertical)

6-18

DRAFT - Section 6: Assessment Of Pitting Corrosion

Figure 6.4

Parameters for the Analysis of Pits

Pit j

A

ij 2

Pit i

Pij

di dj

wi wj

tnom

tmin

Pij

6-19

DRAFT - Section 6: Assessment Of Pitting Corrosion

Figure 6.5

Additional Parameters for the Analysis of a Localized Region of Pits

CL CL

c

A A

s

Cylindrical Shell

tnom

tmin

tnom

tmin teq = RSF*tmin

6-20

DRAFT - Section 6: Assessment Of Pitting Corrosion

Figure 6.6

Pitting Damage Confined to an LTA

CL

c

A A

Cylindrical Shell

s

tmin tnom

Notes:

1. The dimensions s and c define the region of localized pitting damage.

2. A combined RSF is used in the assessment (see paragraph 6.4.2.2).

6-21

DRAFT - Section 6: Assessment Of Pitting Corrosion

Figure 6.7

Layered Shell Model To Evaluate Pitting Damage On Both Surfaces

t1

t2

t3 t

t4

(a) Pit Damage From Both Surfaces Does Not Overlap

t1

t2 t

t3

Notes:

1. In Figure 6.7(a) five layers are used to model the pit damage, layer four designated by t4 is not included in

the calculation of the RSF because there is not pitting damage in this layer.

2. The layers are established based on the deepest penetration of all pits included in the assessment.

3. Overlapping pit damage from both surfaces is not acceptable in a Level 1 or Level 2 Assessment.

6-22

DRAFT - Section 6: Assessment Of Pitting Corrosion

6.10.1 Widely scattered pitting has been discovered on a pressure vessel during an inspection. The vessel

and inspection data are shown below. Determine if the vessel is acceptable for continued operation at

the current MAWP and temperature.

Vessel Data

Inside Diameter = 60 inches

Wall Thickness = 1 - 1/8 inches

Uniform Metal Loss = 0.06 inches

Future Corrosion Allow. = 0.125 inches

Material = ASTM A516 Grade 60

Weld Joint Efficiency = 85%

Inspection Data

Inspection Data

Pit-Couple Pij ij di wi dj wj

1 3.5 10 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.4

2 4.2 15 1.6 0.6 1.8 0.65

3 2.7 22 0.9 0.5 0.9 0.75

4 2.1 30 1.0 0.7 1.2 0.6

5 4.6 5 0.7 0.6 1.2 0.5

6 3.1 15 1.1 0.5 2.2 0.45

7 2.9 20 0.8 0.65 0.5 0.6

8 3.1 45 0.5 0.4 1.0 0.75

9 2.6 60 1.3 0.5 0.8 0.2

10 2.2 0 0.4 0.55 0.3 0.75

11 1.8 10 1.5 0.4 0.8 0.5

12 2.5 20 0.6 0.75 0.5 0.7

13 3.8 35 2.4 0.5 1.6 0.75

14 1.9 90 0.4 0.25 0.8 0.5

15 1.8 0 1.0 0.7 0.8 0.5

16 1.0 22 0.6 0.75 0.2 0.7

17 2.5 45 0.9 0.3 1.2 0.4

18 1.5 67 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.7

19 1.3 90 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.7

6-23

DRAFT - Section 6: Assessment Of Pitting Corrosion

D = 60"

FCA = 0125

. "

RSFa = 0.9

t = t nom LOSS = 1125

. "0.06" = 1065

. "

Step 2 - Determine the parameters for each pit couple being evaluated. The pit diameters, pit-couple

spacing and orientation are shown in the table of inspection data.

Step 3 - Calculate the minimum required thickness, tmin, based on the current design pressure and

temperature (see Appendix A) .

60"

Rc = + 0125

. "+0.06" = 30185

. "

2

C

t min =

(500 psig)(30185

. ")

= 1035

. "

(17500 psi)(0.85) 0.6(500 psig)

L

t min =

(500 psig)(30185

. ")

+ 0.0" = 0.503"

2(17500 psi)(0.85) + 0.4(500 psig)

t min = max[1035

. ", 0.503"] = 1035

. "

Step 4 - Determine the actual depth of each pit in all pit-couples. For examples, the actual pit depth for

the first pit in the first pit-couple is:

. "1035

wavg = 0.5271"

d avg = 0.9237"

Pavg = 2.5842"

2.584 0.9237

avg = = 0.6426

2.584

3

Eavg = (0.6426) = 0.5565

2

. "1035

0.5271 1065 . "

RSF = 10

. (1 0.5565) = 0.7865

1035

. . "

1065

6-24

DRAFT - Section 6: Assessment Of Pitting Corrosion

Widespread pitting with ( RSF = 0.7865) < ( RSFa = 0.9) ; therefore a rerate is required. The reduced

operating pressure for continued operation is:

RSF 0.7865

MAWPr = MAWP = (500 psig ) = 437 psig

RSFa 0.90

Step 8 - Check the recommended limitations on the pit dimensions. All pit depths should be checked,

in this example problem, only the first pit of pit-couple number one is examined in this example.

. "0.47"0125

1035 . "

Rt = = 0.425

1035

. "

Rt = 0.425

from Table 4.2; Q = 0.483

RSFa = 0.9

(d = 0.5") (Q Dt min = 0.483 (2 30185

. ")(1035 . ")

. ") = 38 True

Pit Depth:

Step 1 - Determine the following parameters (see Step 1 of the Level 1 Assessment).

D = 60"

FCA = 0125

. "

LOSS = 0.06"

RSFa = 0.9

t = 1065

. "

Step 2 - Determine the parameters for each pit couple being evaluated. The pit diameters, pit-couple

spacing and orientation are shown in the table of inspection data.

Step 3 - Calculate the minimum required thickness, tmin, based on the current design pressure and

temperature (see Step 3 of the Level 1 Assessment).

t min = 1035

. "

Step 4 - Determine the actual depth of each pit in all pit-couples. For examples, the actual pit depth for

the first pit in the first pit-couple is (see Step 3 of the Level 1 Assessment):

. "1035

Step 5 - Calculate the components of the membrane stress field, 1 and 2 (see Figure 6.4).

6-25

DRAFT - Section 6: Assessment Of Pitting Corrosion

. "

mC = 1= + 0.6 = + 0.6 = 17500 psi

E tc 0.85 1035

. "

P Rc 500 psig 30185

. "

mL = 2 = 0.4 = 0.4 = 8460 psi

2 E tc 2(0.85) 1035

. "

Step 6 - Compute the remaining strength factor for each pit couple - an example calculation for the first

pit couple is shown below:

0.4705"+0.3705"

1

wavg = = 0.4205"

2

0.5"+0.6"

1

d avg = = 0.55"

2

. "0.55"

35

avg

1

= = 0.8429"

."

35

17500 psi

11= = 20762 psi

0.8429

8460 psi

12 = = 10032 psi

0.8429

3[sin 2 (2 10)]

= [cos 10+ sin (2 10)](20762) (20762)(10032) +

1 4 2 2

2

[sin 4 10+ cos 2 (2 10)](10032)2

1 = 5.083(108 ) psi 2

17500 psi

1

Eavb = min . = 0.776

, 10

5.083(108 ) psi 2

. "1035

0.4205" 1065 . "

RSF11 = 10

. (10

. 0.776) = 0.9153

1035

. " . "

1065

Step 7 - Repeat Step 6 for all pit-couples. Determine the average value of the total number, n, of the

k

Remaining Strength Factors, RSF , found in Step 6 and designate this value as RSF for the region of

pitting.

6-26

DRAFT - Section 6: Assessment Of Pitting Corrosion

The calculation results for all pit-couples is shown in the following table.

Pit-couple E pk RSF1k

1 0.7762 0.9153

2 0.5653 0.7611

3 0.6676 0.8180

4 0.5190 0.7251

5 0.7185 0.8663

6 0.4429 0.7757

7 0.7631 0.8703

8 0.9923 0.9962

9 0.8803 0.7663

10 0.7572 0.8612

11 0.3325 0.7474

12 0.7672 0.8501

13 0.5485 0.7528

14 1.0 1.0

15 0.4502 0.7123

16 0.6008 0.7429

17 0.7592 0.9321

18 0.8984 0.9468

19 0.7317 0.8726

The RSF for the assessment is taken as the average value for all pit-couples:

19

RSF k

RSF = = 0.8480

k =1 19

Widespread pitting with ( RSF = 0.8480) < ( RSFa = 0.9) ; therefore a rerate is required. The reduced

operating pressure for continued operation is:

RSF 0.8480

MAWPr = MAWP = (500 psig ) = 471 psig

RSFa 0.90

Step 9 - Check the recommended limitations on the dimensions, see Step 8 of the Level 1 Assessment.

6.10.2 A region of localized pitting has been found in a pressure vessel during an inspection The vessel data

is shown below. The inspection data for the localized pitting is provided in Example 1. The region of

localized pitting is located 60 inches away from the nearest structural discontinuity. Determine if the

vessel is acceptable for continued operation at the current MAWP and temperature.

Vessel Data

Inside Diameter = 120 inches

Wall Thickness = 1.375 inches

Uniform Metal Loss = 0.09 inches

6-27

DRAFT - Section 6: Assessment Of Pitting Corrosion

Material = ASTM A285 Grade C

Weld Joint Efficiency = 100%

Inspection Data

Characteristic dimensions of localized pitting (see Figure 6.5):

s = 40"

c = 20"

Region with localized pitting is away from all weld seams.

D = 120"

FCA = 010

. "

LOSS = 0.09"

RSFa = 0.9

t = t nom LOSS = 1375

. "0.09" = 1285

. "

Step 2 - Determine the parameters for each pit couple being evaluated. The pit diameters, pit-couple

spacing and orientation are shown in the table of inspection data in Example Problem 1.

Step 3 - Calculate the minimum required thickness, tmin, based on the current design pressure and

temperature (see Appendix A).

120"

Rc = + 0.09"+010. " = 6019

. "

2

C

t min =

(280 psig )(6019

. ")

= 1283

. "

(13,300 psi)(10. ) 0.6(280 psig )

L

t min =

(280 psig )(6019. ")

+ 0.0" = 0.631"

2(13,300 psi)(10

. ) + 0.4(280 psig )

t min = max[1283

. ", 0.631"] = 1283

. "

Step 4 - Determine the actual depth of each pit in all pit-couples. For examples, the actual pit depth for

the first pit in the first pit-couple is:

. "1283

wavg = 0.4465"

6-28

DRAFT - Section 6: Assessment Of Pitting Corrosion

d avg = 0.9237"

Pavg = 2.5842"

2.584"0.9237"

avg = = 0.6425

2.584"

3

Eavg = (0.6425) = 0.5565

2

. "1283

0.4465 1285 . "

RSF = 10

. (10

. 0.5564) = 0.846

1283

. . "

1285

Step 7 - Evaluate results based on the type of pitting damage. The pitting is localized; therefore,

determine an equivalent remaining thickness for use in an LTA assessment and perform a Section 5.0,

Level 1 Assessment.

. ") = 1085

. "

Determine the acceptability for continued operation - Perform a Section 5,.0, Level 1 Assessment of the

equivalent LTA.

Step 7.1 - Determine the Critical Thickness Profiles(s) and the following parameters

D = 120"

FCA = 010

. "

gr is not specified , assume LTA

Lmsd = 60"

MAWP = 280 psig

RSFa = 0.90

Step 7.2 - Calculate the minimum required thickness, tmin, based on the current design pressure and

temperature.

t min = 1283

. "

Step 7.3 - Determine the minimum measured thickness, tmm, the flaw dimensions (see paragraph

5.3.3.2), and the shell parameter, .

6-29

DRAFT - Section 6: Assessment Of Pitting Corrosion

There is only one LTA in the vessel; therefore, the flaw-to-flaw spacing criteria does not need to be

checked.

t mm = t eq = 1085

. "

. "010

1085 . "

Rt = = 0.768

1283

. "

s = 40"

c = 20"

. (40")

1285

= = 4142

.

120" (1283

. ")

Step 7.4 - Check the limiting flaw size criteria for a Section 5.0, Level 1 Assessment.

(tmm FCA = 1085 . " = 0.985") 0.08"

. "010 True

(Lmsd (

= 60") 18

. 120" (1283

. ") = 22" ) True

Step 7.5 - Check the criteria for a groove-like flaw. This step is not applicable because the region of

localized metal loss is categorized as an LTA.

= 4142

.

From Figure 5.8 with , the longitudinal extent of the flaw is unacceptable. The rerate

Rt = 0.768

pressure is:

(

M t = 1 + 0.48(4142

. ) )

2 0.5

= 3.216

0.768

RSF = = 0.828

1

1 (1 0.768)

3.216

0.828

MAWPr = (280 psig ) = 257 psig

0.90

Step 7.8 - Evaluate circumferential extent of the flaw, assume significant supplemental loads which

result in longitudinal stresses.

c 20"

= = 0167

.

From Figure 5.9 with D 120" , the circumferential extent of the flaw is acceptable when

Rt = 0.768

evaluated using Curve B.

Step 8 - Check the recommended limitations on the dimensions (all pits should be checked, only the ith

pit in first pit-couple).

6-30

DRAFT - Section 6: Assessment Of Pitting Corrosion

. "0.498"010

1283 . "

Rt = = 0.534

1283

. "

Rt = 0.534

from Table 4.2; Q 0.63

RSFa = 0.9

(d = 0.5") (Q Dt min = 0.63 (2 6019 . ") = 7.8")

. ")(1283 True

Pit Depth:

Step 1 - Determine the following parameters (the pit diameters, pit-couple spacing and orientation are

shown in the table of inspection data, see Example Problem Number 1)

D = 120"

FCA = 010

. "

LOSS = 0.09

RSFa = 0.9

t = 1285

. "

Step 2 - Determine the parameters for each pit couple being evaluated. The pit diameters, pit-couple

spacing and orientation are shown in the table of inspection data in Example Problem 1.

Step 3 - Calculate the minimum required thickness, tmin, based on the current design pressure and

temperature (see Step 3 of the Level 1 Assessment).

t min = 1283

. "

Step 4 - Determine the actual depth of each pit in all pit-couples. For example, the actual pit depth for

the first pit in the first pit-couple is (see Step 4 of the Level 1 Assessment):

. "1283

Step 5 - Calculate the components of the membrane stress field, 1 and 2 (see Figure 6.4).

. "

mC = 1= + 0.6 = + 0.6 = 13300 psi

E tc 10

. 1283

. "

P Rc 280 psig 6019

. "

mL = 2 = 0.4 = 0.4 = 6510 psi

2 E tc 2(10

. ) 1283

. "

Step 6 - Compute the remaining strength factor for each pit couple - an example on how to compute the

remaining strength factor for a pit-couple is shown in Step 6 of the Level 2 Assessment in Example

Problem Number 1.

6-31

DRAFT - Section 6: Assessment Of Pitting Corrosion

Step 7 - Repeat Step 6 for all pit-couples. Determine the average value of the total number, n, of the

k

Remaining Strength Factors, RSF , found in Step 6 and designate this value as RSF for the region of

pitting.

The calculation results for all pit-couples is shown in the following table.

Pit-couple Ep RSF1

1 0.7748 0.9216

2 0.5630 0.9160

3 0.6680 0.8392

4 0.5206 0.8518

5 0.7168 0.8794

6 0.4424 0.8537

7 0.7632 0.9499

8 0.9910 0.9996

9 0.8823 0.9682

10 0.7553 0.9054

11 0.3319 0.7674

12 0.7673 0.9598

13 0.5511 0.7825

14 0.9884 0.9966

15 0.4491 0.8726

16 0.6012 0.7757

17 0.7644 0.9364

18 0.8950 0.9516

19 0.7223 0.8817

The RSF for the assessment is taken as the average value for all pit-couples:

19

RSF k

RSF = = 0.8952

k =1 19

Step 8 - Evaluate results based on the type of pitting damage. The pitting is localized; therefore,

determine an equivalent remaining thickness for use in an LTA assessment and perform a Section 5.0,

Level 1 Assessment.

. ") = 1148

. "

Determine the acceptability for continued operation - Perform a Section 5.0, Level 1 Assessment of the

equivalent LTA.

Step 8.1 - Determine the Critical Thickness Profiles(s) and the following parameters

D = 120"

FCA = 0125

. "

gr is not specified , assume LTA

Lmsd = 60"

MAWP = 280 psig

RSFa = 0.90

6-32

DRAFT - Section 6: Assessment Of Pitting Corrosion

Step 8.2 - Calculate the minimum required thickness, tmin, based on the current design pressure and

temperature.

t min = 1283

. "

Step 7.8 - Determine the minimum measured thickness, tmm, the flaw dimensions (see paragraph

5.3.3.2), and the shell parameter, .

There is only one LTA in the vessel; therefore, the flaw-to-flaw spacing criteria does not need to be

checked.

t mm = t eq = 1148

. "

. "010

1148 . "

Rt = = 0.817

1283

. "

s = 40"

c = 20"

. (40")

1285

= = 4142

.

120" (1283

. ")

Step 8.4 - Check the limiting flaw size criteria for a Level 1 Assessment.

(tmm FCA = 1148

. "0125 . ") 0.08"

. " = 1138 True

(Lmsd (

= 60") 18

. 120" (1283

. ") = 22" ) True

Step 8.6 - Check the criteria for a groove-like flaw. This step is not applicable because the region of

localized metal loss is categorized as an LTA.

= 4142

.

From Figure 5.8 with , the longitudinal extent of the flaw is unacceptable. The rerate

Rt = 0.817

pressure is:

(

M t = 1 + 0.48(4142

. ) )

2 0.5

= 3.216

0.817

RSF = = 0.866

1

1 (1 0.817)

3.216

0.866

MAWPr = (280 psig ) = 269 psig

0.90

Step 8.8 - Evaluate circumferential extent of the flaw using the Level 1 Assessment criterion, assume

significant supplemental loads which result in longitudinal stresses.

6-33

DRAFT - Section 6: Assessment Of Pitting Corrosion

c 20"

= = 0167

.

From Figure 5.9 with D 120" , the circumferential extent of the flaw is acceptable when

Rt = 0.817

evaluated with Curve B.

Step 9 - Check the recommendation for limitations on the pit dimensions, see Step 8 of the Level 1

Assessment.

6-34

- Uncofined TestUploaded bywanfaiz123
- Xsteel - Lesson17_AnalysisAndDesign_a4Uploaded bysaisssms9116
- Aisc vs LrfdUploaded byAcoto Dy Icao
- Welding CalculationsUploaded byffontana
- Brencich 2008 Engineering-StructuresUploaded byAndreea Nan
- AE SyllabusUploaded bySanjay Rao
- ACI 445r_99Uploaded byMinh Tien
- 802694_ch9Uploaded bymvjayaram007
- Ae ApgencoUploaded bysimalaravi
- Finite Element Modeling of RC Structures Strengthened with FRP Laminates (2001) - Report (113).pdfUploaded byJulio Humberto Díaz Rondán
- Material)Uploaded byrahulh23
- 18 Application of GRC Curved Sandwich Panels With EPS Core and Exterior FinishUploaded byYusuf Prasetyo
- RC Slab Design With Shear ReinforcementUploaded byParthi Ban
- G39-99(2011)Uploaded bydiego rodriguez
- The Spaghetti Bridge (1)Uploaded byfarisdanialfadli
- Piping Stress Ramaswami.pUploaded bychandra shekhar mishra
- FatigueUploaded byManoj Kulkarni
- Load Controlled Cyclic Triaxial Strength of SoilUploaded byJiji Krishnan
- Designguide_ankre_0408.pdfUploaded byFederico.Iori
- Chapter 14 FatigueUploaded byAngelo Betache
- brdtUploaded byephrem
- Simplified Flexural Design of Bolted Side-Plated Beams with Partial.pdfUploaded byLau Kim Hwa
- A Condition Beyond Which a Structural System or a Structural Component Ceases to FulfillUploaded bynhoniepogi
- 1_introduction_MKM.pdfUploaded byAndrean Saputra
- Yeksan RaporUploaded byakın ersöz
- ForceUploaded byCarl Ambrosio
- CW 2 problem.pdfUploaded byPonsamuel
- solid mechUploaded byritwik
- WBUT B. Tech Mechanical Engineering Fifth Semester Design of Machine Elements (ME-503) Exam - PaUploaded bySaYani SamaDdar
- pset04_10_solnUploaded byGerson

- Cfd simulation in a bubbleUploaded byKaleeswaran Einstein
- Drawing1-Layout1.pdfUploaded byRoberto Caceres
- Drawing1-Layout1.pdfUploaded byRoberto Caceres
- Drawing1-Layout1.pdfUploaded byRoberto Caceres
- AspenTech Announces Availability of AspenONE V8 FINAL - For at.com 12-10-2012Uploaded byimoomex
- Plant Layout2Uploaded byRoberto Caceres
- Drawing1-Layout1Uploaded byRoberto Caceres
- Convocatoria-20160001-becasUploaded byRoberto Caceres
- OOhrman_etalDMEUploaded byRoberto Caceres
- Hazen Williams EquationUploaded byMathew Yoyakky
- Must PrintUploaded bydanielicatoiu
- 11-4080 HYSYS Relief Valve Sizing Demo Guide FinalUploaded byNoman Abu-Farha
- OLGA Sample CasesUploaded byRoberto Caceres
- Olga Gui ManualUploaded byRoberto Caceres
- Fotos de Autos Dme VolvoUploaded byRoberto Caceres
- D. Reactions in HYSYS - NewUploaded byRoberto Caceres
- 15Per Salomonsson DMEUploaded byRoberto Caceres
- Estudio de FlujoUploaded byRoberto Caceres

- RATES OF REACTION- Anson G..pptxUploaded byAnson G.
- Dyeing of textile with natural dyesUploaded byNur Aini Airlangga
- Gravimetric Method 3042015 StudentversionUploaded byNurhazimah Ismail
- haloalkane worksheetUploaded byPathan Mohsin
- Hoja de seguridad del Ftalato acido de PotasioUploaded byDaniel Concha
- Introduction to ChromatographyUploaded byAnonymous dY7XNz
- PLA BiomedicalUploaded byWawan Hermawan
- PhD. Thesis Linda N Rskov 31072012.Uploaded byNino Perdana
- A Clay-Carbon Adsorbet Derived From SBC Surface CharacterizationUploaded byMark Le Petit
- 4.IsomerismUploaded byapi-19968742
- GEI 41040j Gas Fuel Specification_April 2007Uploaded byHernan Giraut
- Chloride-induced corrosion of steel.pdfUploaded byeid elsayed
- TEXT.pdfUploaded byDurga Babu
- Steel Numbering.pdfUploaded byAKSHAY BHATKAR
- E1335-08Uploaded byLuis Angel Paitan De la Cruz
- 201709121409362. Chemical EquilibriumUploaded byAbdulRahim059
- Fundamentals of PetrophysicsUploaded byPepiño
- Appel et al.Uploaded bykhaledmosharrafmukut
- 06 Lubricating OilsUploaded byfarhan2ansari
- Hyspin AWH-M 32Uploaded bybboy640
- BIO 351 Practical ReviewUploaded bygabbbbby
- TDSUploaded byMohammad Moosa
- IJERTV1IS6085Uploaded byNagarjuna Konduru
- fjrkiUploaded bycloud_fantasy
- Contact Process 1Uploaded byNiaz Ali Khan
- Tmp 5700Uploaded byFrontiers
- SKOOG - SOLUCIONÁRIO CAPÍTULO 14.pdfUploaded byThais Dos Santos
- 1228.5.pdfUploaded bydeepanmb007
- Qualitative AnalysisUploaded byafaflotfi_155696459
- Carbon Black and PlasticsUploaded byAnkur Saxena