Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Graduation Project: Fitness For Service Assessment
Graduation Project: Fitness For Service Assessment
GRADUATION PROJECT
1. Introduction:
Fitness for Service (FFS) is a best practice and standard used by the oil & gas and
chemical process industries for in-service equipment to determine its fitness for
continued service. FFS serves as a rational basis for defining flaw acceptance limits and
allows engineers to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable flaws and
damage.
Most equipment can continue in service despite small flaws, and to repair or replace
equipment that can still be used would be an unnecessary and costly expense. In
addition, unnecessary weld repairs can do more harm than good and create unnecessary
risks to personnel in many cases
Dissecting this definition reveals the key features of FFS evaluations. They are:
Quantitative
Applicable to in-service components
Applied to a defect or degradation or some condition that may cause failure.
- Mechanical Engineering
- Material Engineering
- Inspection
Technologies required for FFS are represented by the triad shown in the figure below:
Before 1990: There were neither standards nor recommended practices for FFS
In 1990: A joint-industry project was organized by the Materials Properties Council (MPC) to develop
fitness-for- service guidelines for the refining industry.
Early 2000: The MPC ‘s first published report known as API 579 which had a widespread acceptance
both within and outside of the refining industry.
Meanwhile in 2000: The Post-Construction Committee of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code
Main Committee formed the Task Group on Flaw Evaluation, which was charged with developing an
FFS standard for pressure equipment in non-refinery applications.
In 2007: API and ASME joined forces to revise API 579 and make it applicable to broader range of
industries.
From 2007 till present: The API /ASME joint works on updating the FFS standards in the years to
come.
FITNESS FOR SERVICE ASSESSMENT
1.3.3. Inspection :
1.3.3.1. Definition :
Inspection is the practice of examining the physical condition of materials, components, or
entire pieces of equipment in order to determine if and for how long it will operate as
intended. Inspection plays a vital role in any asset integrity management program. Inspection
provides information about the current condition of the equipment in question and may
provide information to validate the reliability prediction for the equipment (i.e. validate the
accuracy of the equipment remaining life estimation)
testing, and many more. When selecting an NDT method to use for a piece of equipment, the
following four considerations should be accounted for:
Fitness-For-Service
2. Aims of project :
During this project i have to fulfill the following tasks:
3. Challenges :
Is to conduct an FFS assessment which apply to pressure vessels, piping and tanks that are in service
that may contain flaws or have sustained damage.
The assessment must provide information on the current state of damage along with providing an
estimate for the remaining life of the equipment.
STEP 1: Flaw and Damage Mechanism Identification: The first step in a FFS assessment is to identify
the flaw type and cause of damage. The original design and fabrication practices, the material of
construction, and the service history and environmental conditions can be used to ascertain the likely
cause of the damage.
STEP 2: Applicability and Limitations of the FFS Assessment Procedures: The applicability and
limitations of the assessment procedure are described in each Part, and a decision on whether to
proceed with an assessment can be made.
STEP 3: Data Requirements: The data required for a FFS assessment depend on the flaw type or
damage mechanism being evaluated. Data requirements may include: original equipment design
data, information pertaining to maintenance and operational history, expected future service, and
data specific to the FFS assessment such as flaw size, state of stress in the component at the location
of the flaw, and material properties. Data requirements common to all FFS assessment procedures
are covered in this Part. Data requirements specific to a damage mechanism or flaw type are covered
in the Part containing the corresponding assessment procedures.
STEP 4: Assessment Techniques and Acceptance Criteria: Assessment techniques and acceptance
criteria are provided in each Part. If multiple damage mechanisms are present, more than one Part
may have to be used for the evaluation.
STEP 5: Remaining Life Evaluation: An estimate of the remaining life or limiting flaw size should be
made for establishing an inspection interval. The remaining life is established using the FFS
assessment procedures with an estimate of future damage. The remaining life can be used in
conjunction with an inspection code to establish an inspection interval.
STEP 6: Remediation: Remediation methods are provided in each Part based on the damage
mechanism or flaw type. In some cases, remediation techniques may be used to control future
damage associated with flaw growth and/or material deterioration.
FITNESS FOR SERVICE ASSESSMENT
STEP 7: In-Service Monitoring: Methods for in-service monitoring are provided in each Part based on
the damage mechanism or flaw type. In-service monitoring may be used for those cases where a
remaining life and inspection interval cannot adequately be established because of the complexities
associated with the service environment.
STEP 8: Documentation: Documentation should include a record of all information and decisions
made in each of the previous steps to qualify the component for continued operation.
Documentation requirements common to all FFS assessment procedures are covered in this Part.
Each part is presented in a highly structured format including sections on “Applicability and
Limitations”, “Data Requirements”, “Assessment Techniques”, “Remaining Life Assessment,
FITNESS FOR SERVICE ASSESSMENT
‘Acceptance criteria’’ and others. Although all of the sections are important, the “Applicability and
Limitations” section deserves special attention. There are many limits on the applicability of
individual techniques and levels of assessment.
8. Assessment techniques:
The three levels of analysis in API 579 are as follow:
Level 1
Simplest, quickest, and cheapest assessment level
Highly prescriptive
Typically requires use of charts or graphs, or simple calculations
Intended to be performed by inspection or plant engineering
Level 2
More complicated, time consuming, and expensive than Level 1
Highly prescriptive
Typically requires solving algebraic equations; sometime a significant number of equations
Intended to be performed by plant engineering personnel or engineering specialists
Level 3
Most complex assessment
Requires significant judgement and technical knowledge on the part of the engineer
performing the assessment
May involve advanced numerical methods, such as finite element analysis (FEA)
Intended to be performed by engineering specialists with in-depth knowledge of the subject.
In principle, a FFS assessment would begin with a Level 1 assessment. If the Level 1 assessment
failed, the Level 2 assessment would be undertaken. Then, if Level 2 failed, a Level 3 assessment
would be undertaken. But in actual practice, assessments often do not proceed in that orderly
sequence.
There are several reasons why an assessment might begin with a Level 2 or Level 3, such as:
FITNESS FOR SERVICE ASSESSMENT
• Concern over wasted time & money – In the engineer’s judgement, a fairly severe defect may have
a minimal chance of passing a simple assessment and the engineer chooses to begin at a higher
Level.
• Lower levels not applicable – Level 1 and 2 assessments are not available for all types of defects.
For example, there is no Level 1 or Level 2 approach for general shell distortions.
• Geometric complexity – The geometry in the region of the defect is more complicated than can be
handled by simple methods and a higher level of assessment is required.
9. Acceptance criteria:
9.1. Introduction:
When an engineer performs an analysis, there comes a point when the calculations are done and you
have the answer. At that point, you have to decide if the answer is acceptable or unacceptable.
That’s where the “acceptance criteria” comes to center stage. In the FFS assessments of API 579,
there are basically 3 different types of assessment criteria:
For example, if an undamaged pressurized cylinder would burst at 1000 psi, and the same cylinder
with a corroded area would burst at 800 psi, then the RSF = 0.8.
API 579 recommends using an allowable remaining strength factor of RSFa = 0.9, but other values
can be used, if justified.
RSF is compared with an allowable value, RSFa If RSF < RSFa an allowable value, then the
component can be re-rated.
1. The vertical axis is the fracture axis, where Kr is the ratio of the calculated to allowable
fracture toughness. Kr is referred to as the “toughness ratio” and is dependent on both
primary and secondary stresses.
2. The horizontal axis is the stress axis, where LPr is the ratio of the reference stress due to
primary load to the yield stress.
3. The curved line is the “failure locus”
4. The vertical lines below the curve are the cutoffs for different materials.
5. To use the FAD, calculate the LPr and Kr values for your operating case and plot the point on
the graph (as shown with the red dot in Figure 4. If the dot is below the curve (and le# of the
cut-off) you pass; if it’s above the curve (or right of the cut-off), you fail.
Only Part 9, Crack-Like Flaws, uses the FAD approach as the acceptance criteria.
FITNESS FOR SERVICE ASSESSMENT
Each FFS assessment Part in the API code provides guidance on calculating a remaining life. In
general, the remaining life can be calculated using the assessment procedures in each Part with the
introduction of a parameter that represents a measure of the time dependency of the damage taking
place.
FITNESS FOR SERVICE ASSESSMENT
1
FITNESS FOR SERVICE ASSESSMENT