FITNESS FOR SERVICE ASSESSMENT

GRADUATION PROJECT

Fitness-for service assessment methods application on oil and gas

pressurized in-service equipments
 FITNESS FOR SERVICE ASSESSMENT

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.

The FFS of any particular material is determined by performing a fitness-for-service

assessment per standardized methods and criteria. Performing accurate FFS evaluations
is an integral aspect of fixed equipment asset integrity management as an alternative to
using the original construction design code. The FFS of a piece of equipment may be
viewed both in terms of current and future FFS or remaining life.

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

API RP 579-1/ASME FFS-1, Fitness-For-Service is one example of a FFS methodology

currently used by industry professionals. In general, most FFS assessment standards are
broken into multiple levels. Each successive level (Levels 1, 2 and 3 of the referenced
API 579-1/ASSME FFS-1 standard) requires increasing amounts of data, calculations,
effort, and cost to arrive at the most accurate outcomes and possible longer equipment
remnant life. In addition to calculations, FFS involves the consideration of additional data
(e.g. pitting patterns and depths, corrosion morphology or shape and depth, crack depths
and lengths, operating conditions, materials properties, etc.). Inspection information is
often critical input to a FFS assessment.

1.1. Fitness For Service Assessment Definition:

According to the 2016 edition of API 579-1/ ASME FFS-1 (API 579), Fitness-For-Service assessments
are defined as ‘’ quantitative engineering evaluations that are performed to demonstrate the
structural integrity of an in-service component that may contain a flaw or damage, or that may be
operating under a specific condition that might cause a failure.”

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.

The field of fitness-for-service is a multidiscipline task composed of three technology areas:

 FITNESS FOR SERVICE ASSESSMENT

- Mechanical Engineering

- Material Engineering

- Inspection

Technologies required for FFS are represented by the triad shown in the figure below:

1.2. Historical background :

The History of the FFS is as listed 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. Fitness for Service Elements :

1.3.1. Material Engineering :
Thanks to material engineering, specialists are able to identify the materials applied to the
component, their properties, their limitations and the mechanisms that attack the studied
component.

Several functions may be performed in this area such as:

- Materials properties tests such as (Charpy, Mill, etc…)

- Materials properties reports
- Lower bound properties (knowing the weakest and strongest directions)
- Corrosion Science and Engineering
- Toughness data
- Metallurgy

1.3.2. Mechanical Engineering :

Thanks to mechanical engineering, specialists are capable of using various techniques such as:

-Finite element analysis

-Engineering assessment
-Stress analysis -Fracture mechanics

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)

1.3.3.2. Types of inspection :

1.3.3.2.1. Nondestructive testing :
Nondestructive testing (NDT) uses a variety of inspection techniques in order to locate and
monitor defects without causing damage to the component. External and internal corrosion
and cracks are often found using NDT methods. Some examples of common NDT methods
include: radiographic testing, ultrasonic testing, magnetic particle testing, electromagnetic
 FITNESS FOR SERVICE ASSESSMENT

testing, and many more. When selecting an NDT method to use for a piece of equipment, the
following four considerations should be accounted for:

 The type of damage mechanism to be inspected for

 The size, shape, and orientation of the defect
 Where the defect is located (external or internal)
 The sensitivities and limitations of the NDT method

1.3.3.2.2. Destructive testing :

In contrast to NDT, destructive testing causes damage to the test specimen. The purpose
of destructive testing, also known as mechanical testing, is to reveal material properties
when external forces are applied dynamically or statically. Important material properties
of interest include: tensile strength, elasticity, elongation, hardness, fracture toughness,
fatigue, and resistance to impact. Common mechanical tests that provide information
about those properties include tensile testing, compression testing, torque testing, bend
testing, hardness testing, charpy impact testing, and shear testing.

1.3.3.3. Inspection for reliability and remaining life :

The purpose of performing inspection is to provide information on the current state of a
piece of equipment or provide information for remaining life calculations. Fitness-for-
service (FFS) assessments is a standards used in the oil and gas and chemical
processing industries.

Fitness-For-Service

FFS is a recommended practice and industry standard that evaluates in-service

equipment for structural integrity. The purpose of FFS is to determine if a component is
suitable for continued service. There are three levels of FFS assessments, each
increasing in level of detail, analysis, and complexity. Typically, data from NDT and
mechanical testing provide critical inspection information used for FFS assessments. The
outcome of an FFS assessment, as it relates to inspection, is to establish inspection
intervals for specific equipment in order to monitor and eliminate potential failures.
Establishing inspection intervals improves the overall safety, reliability, and efficiency of
aging equipment.

2. Aims of project :
During this project i have to fulfill the following tasks:

 Flaw and damage mechanism identification.

 Applicability and limitation of the FFS assessment procedures understanding.
 Data requirement gathering for conducting the FFS assessment.
 FFS assessment techniques and acceptance criteria application.
 FITNESS FOR SERVICE ASSESSMENT

 Remaining life evaluation.

 Case study using API 579.

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.

4. FFS assessment procedure:

An overview of the procedure is provided in the following eight steps. Each part in this standard
utilize this assessment methodology for a specific flaw type or damage mechanism and provide
specific details covering Steps 2 through 8 of this procedure.

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.

5. Importance of damage mechanism:

A damage mechanism is something that causes damaging micro and/or macro changes to the
material condition or mechanical properties. Identification and understanding of the relevant
damage mechanisms is absolutely fundamental to any FFS assessment. If we don’t identify the
relevant damage mechanisms, we can’t possibly evaluate if the damage is acceptable or how it
might propagate. We can’t predict the rate of growth if we can't identify what is causing it, and
maybe there are more than one damage mechanism in play.

6. Flaw and damage mechanism identification:

API 579 Parts 3 through 14 address twelve different damage personnel mechanisms:

Part Damage mechanism

3 Brittle Fracture
4 General Metal Loss
5 Local Metal Loss
6 Pitting
7 Hydrogen Blisters, HIC, SOHIC
8 Weld Misalignment & Shell Distortion
9 Crack-Like Flaws
10 Creep
11 Fire Damage
12 Dents and Gouges
13 Laminations
14 Fatigue

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.

7. Applicability and limitation of the FFS assessment:

Each Part in the API code where a FFS Assessment procedure is described includes a statement of the
applicability and limitations of the procedure. The applicability and limitations of an analysis
procedure are stated relative to the level 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:

 Remaining Strength Factor (RSF) approach

 Failure Assessment Diagram (FAD) approach
 Other miscellaneous approaches

9.2. Remaining strength factor (RSF):

The remaining strength factor is the ratio of the limit or plastic collapse load in the damaged
component to the undamaged component. In equation form:

RSF = L(DC)/ L(UC)

L(DC) = Limit or collapse load in the damaged component

L(UC) = Limit or collapse load in undamaged component

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.

Six Parts of API 579 are assessed based on the RSF:

 Corrosion – Parts 4, 5, & 6

 HIC, Blisters, SOHIC – Part 7
 Weld Misalignment & Shell Distortion – Part 8
 FITNESS FOR SERVICE ASSESSMENT

 Dents and Gouges – Part 12

9.3. Failure assessment diagram (FAD):

Fracture mechanics analysis of crack-like flaws is based on the FAD for Levels 1 & 2, and some parts
of Level 3. In fracture mechanics, there has always been a problem with the degree of plasticity
surrounding the crack tip. Classical linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) is based on very brittle
materials (think “glass”) and assumes a very small plastic zone around the crack tip. Most real world
applications with steel involve much more plasticity. Many complex elastic-plastic fracture mechanics
(EPFM) approaches have been developed, but the relatively easy to implement FAD has increasingly
become the method of choice for most FFS assessments. A typical FAD is shown in Figure. There are
multiple complexities and nuances to a FAD, and a primer can't cover each of them in sufficient
detail. There are, however, 5 general elements that are worthy of note:

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

9.4. Other Miscellaneous Criteria:

The remaining 5 Parts use a variety of acceptance criteria, as follows:

 Part 3, Brittle Fracture – Uses the ASME UCS exemption curves.

 Part 10, Creep – Uses creep damage models.
 Part 11, Fire Damage – Uses “heat zones” and references other applicable sections.
 Part 13, Laminations – This Part is rule based.
 Part 14, Fatigue – Uses fatigue curves and linear damage accumulation models.

10. Remaining life assessment :

Once it has been established that the component containing the flaw is acceptable at the current
time, the user should determine a remaining life for the component. The remaining life is used to
establish an appropriate inspection interval, an in-service monitoring plan, or the need for
remediation.

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