You are on page 1of 34

DRAFT - Section 6: Assessment Of Pitting Corrosion

DRAFT - API Recommended Practice For Fitness-For-Service

SECTION 6 - Assessment Of Pitting Corrosion


(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 Applicability and Limitations of the Procedure

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.

e. The component geometry is one of the following:

1. Cylindrical and conical shell sections and tank shell courses,

6-1
DRAFT - Section 6: Assessment Of Pitting Corrosion

2. Spherical pressure vessels and storage tanks,

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

4. Straight sections of piping systems,

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

6. Shell courses of atmospheric storage tanks.

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:

a. Pressure vessel nozzles and piping branch connections.

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.

6.3 Data Requirements

6.3.1 Original Equipment Design Data

An overview of the original equipment data required for an assessment is provided in Paragraph 2.3.1
of Section 2.0.

6.3.2 Maintenance and Operational History

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 Required Data/Measurements for FFS Engineering Evaluation

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 Recommendation for Inspection Technique and Sizing Requirements

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 Assessment Techniques and Acceptance Criteria

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 Level 1 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.

a. Step 1 - Determine the following parameters:


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.

wi, j = wi , j (t t min ) (6.1)

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.

teq = RSF tmin (6.5)

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.

RSFcomb = RSFpit RSFlta (6.6)

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.

h. Step 8 - Check the recommended limitations on the pit dimensions:

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:

a. Rerate or repair the component,

b. Adjust the FCA by applying remediation techniques,

c. Adjust the weld joint efficiency factor, E, by conducting additional inspection, or

d. Conduct a Level 2 Assessment.

6.4.3 Level 2 Assessment

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.

a. Step 1 - Determine the parameters in paragraph 6.4.2.2.a.

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.

f. Step 6 - For the pit-couple k, calculate the Remaining Strength Factor:

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.

t eq = B(t FCA) (6.22)

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.

Pitting Damage on the inside surface:

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

Pitting Damage on the outside surface:

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,

lm = Maximum longitudinal membrane stress, psi,


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:

a) The following relationship should be satisfied for either a tensile or a compressive


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

where, variables have been previously defined, and


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:

a. Rerate or repair the component,

b. Adjust the FCA by applying remediation techniques,

c. Adjust the weld joint efficiency factor, E, by conducting additional inspection, or

d. Conduct a Level 3 Assessment.

6.4.4 Level 3 Assessment

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 Remaining Life Assessment

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:

w f = wc + PPRpit depth time (6.39)

d f = dc + PPRpit diameter time (6.40)

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

df = Estimated future characteristic pit diameter - inches,


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.

6.7 In-Service Monitoring

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 Referenced Publications, Tables and Figures

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:

Data Required for Level 1:


Average Pit Diameter, (davg):
Average Pit Spacing, (Pavg):
Average Pit Depth, (wavg):

Data Required for Level 2:


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

3HUIRUPD/HYHO 1R /HYHO&ULWHULDWR

$VVHVVPHQW" 5HGXFH3UHVVXUHDQGRU

7HPSHUDWXUH

<HV

(TXLSPHQWLV
1R
$FFHSWDEOHSHU/HYHO

&ULWHULD"

<HV

5HPDLQLQJ/LIH 5HUDWH
<HV 1R
$FFHSWDEOH3HU/HYHO (TXLSPHQW"

&ULWHULD"

<HV
1R

3HUIRUP5HUDWHSHU

1R 3HUIRUPD/HYHO /HYHO&ULWHULDWR

$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) 'HWHUPLQHWKH56)5HVXOWLQJ 3LWWLQJ'DPDJH 56)B3,7 8VLQJ


'HWHUPLQHWKH56)
5HVXOWLQJIURP3LWWLQJ IURP3LWWLQJ'DPDJH 3DUDJUDSKRU
8VLQJ3DUDJUDSK
'DPDJH8VLQJ3DUDJUDSK 56)B3,7 8VLQJ3DUDJUDSK WKHFDOFXODWLRQVIRU56)B3,7DUH
RU
RU RU %DVHGRQWKH/7$$YHUDJH

7KLFNQHVV

'HWHUPLQHDQ(TXLYDOHQW

'DPDJHIURP 7KLFNQHVVWHT 56) WPLQ 'HWHUPLQHWKH56)


1R
:LGHVSUHDG3LWWLQJ 3HUIRUP/7$$VVHVVPHQW8VLQJ IRUWKH/7$ 56)B/7$

$FFHSWDEOH" 6HFWLRQZLWKDQ/7$ 8VLQJ6HFWLRQ

&KDUDFWHUL]HGE\VFDQGWHT

<HV

&KHFN,QGLYLGXDO3LW /7$ 'HWHUPLQHD&RPELQHG


<HV
&ULWHULD8VLQJ $FFHSWDEOH" 56)

3DUDJUDSKK 56)B&20% 56)B3,7 56)B/7$

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

(a) Narrow, Deep (b) Elliptical

d
d

w
w
tnom tnom

(c) Wide, Shallow (d) Subsurface


d

w
tnom

(e) Undercutting
d
d

w w
tnom tnom

(Horizontal) (Vertical)

(f) Microstructural Orientation

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

(a) Plate With Pitting

di dj

wi wj
tnom
tmin
Pij

wavg= 0.5(wi + wj) davg= 0.5(di + dj)

(b) Section A-A

6-19
DRAFT - Section 6: Assessment Of Pitting Corrosion

Figure 6.5
Additional Parameters for the Analysis of a Localized Region of Pits

Localized Region With Pitting

CL CL

c
A A

s
Cylindrical Shell

(a) Cylinder With Localized Pitting

tnom
tmin

(b) Section A-A

tnom
tmin teq = RSF*tmin

(c) Equivalent Plate Section For LTA Analysis

6-20
DRAFT - Section 6: Assessment Of Pitting Corrosion

Figure 6.6
Pitting Damage Confined to an LTA

LTA with Pitting Damage


CL

c
A A

Cylindrical Shell
s

(a) Cylinder With Pitting Damage Confined to an LTA

tmin tnom

(b) Section A-A

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

(b) Overlapping Pit Damage From Both Surfaces

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 Example Problems

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

Vessel Stamp = 500 psi @ 450F


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

Perform a Level 1 Assessment

Step 1 - Determine the following parameters:

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:

w = 0.50"(1065 . ") = 0.47"


. "1035

The average pit depth for all pits is:

wavg = 0.5271"

Step 5 - Determine the average pit diameter and pit-couple spacing.

d avg = 0.9237"
Pavg = 2.5842"

Step 6 - Calculate the Remaining Strength Factor, RSF:

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

Step 7 - Evaluate results based on the type of pitting damage:

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.

Pit Dimensions and Remaining Thickness Ratio:

. "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:

(R t = 0.425) 0.20 True

Perform a Level 2 Assessment

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):

w = 0.50"(1065 . ") = 0.47"


. "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

P Rc 500 psig 30185


. "
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

1 = (0.8429) max[ 20762 , 10032 , 20762 10032 ] = 17500 psi


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

Step 8 - Evaluate results based on the type of pitting damage:

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

Vessel Stamp = 280 psi @ 700F


Inside Diameter = 120 inches
Wall Thickness = 1.375 inches
Uniform Metal Loss = 0.09 inches

6-27
DRAFT - Section 6: Assessment Of Pitting Corrosion

Future Corrosion Allowance = 0.10 inches


Material = ASTM A285 Grade C
Weld Joint Efficiency = 100%

Inspection Data

Pit-couple data - see Example 1.


Characteristic dimensions of localized pitting (see Figure 6.5):
s = 40"
c = 20"
Region with localized pitting is away from all weld seams.

Perform a Level 1 Assessment.

Perform a Level 1 Assessment

Step 1 - Determine the following parameters:

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:

w = 0.50"(1285 . ") = 0.498"


. "1283

The average pit depth for all pits is:

wavg = 0.4465"

6-28
DRAFT - Section 6: Assessment Of Pitting Corrosion

Step 5 - Determine the average pit diameter and pit-couple spacing.

d avg = 0.9237"
Pavg = 2.5842"

Step 6 - Calculate the Remaining Strength Factor, RSF:

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.

t eq = RSF t min = (0.846)(1283


. ") = 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.

(Rt = 0.768) 0.20 True


(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.

Step 7.6 - Evaluate the longitudinal extent of the flaw.

= 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).

Pit Dimensions and Remaining Thickness Ratio:

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:

(R t = 0.534) 0.20 True

Perform a Level 2 Assessment

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):

w = 0.50"(1285 . ") = 0.498"


. "1283

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

P Rc 280 psig 6019


. "
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.

t eq = RSF t min = (0.8952)(1283


. ") = 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.

(Rt = 0.817) 0.20 True


(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.

Step 8.7 - Evaluate the longitudinal extent of the flaw.

= 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