VAIL-20-129-S-007 - Fitness For Service Assessment of Static Equipment - Rev. A

OIL & GAS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED (OGDCL)
INSPECTION & CORROSION STANDARDS
FITNESS FOR SERVICE ASSESSMENT OF

STATIC EQUIPMENT
Approved by:
Safdar Ali Channa

Manager (Corrosion, QC & Inspections)
DOCUMENT TITLE:
FITNESS FOR SERVICE ASSESSMENT OF STATIC EQUIPMENT
OGDCL DOCUMENT NO. VAIL-20-129-S-007 PAGE 1 OF 25
CONTRACT NO. OGDCL-MIA-CORR-4614 REV. A DATE: 23-08-2021

Authorized for Issue:
Revision History
The table below is a brief summary of the revisions to this document. Details of all revisions are held
on file by the issuing department
Revision
Date Originator Reviewed by Approved by Remarks
No.
A August 2021 M. Hassnain Azhar Gul Ijaz Rao Issued for approval
DOCUMENT TITLE: OGDCL DOCUMENT NO.

VAIL-20-129-S-007
FITNESS FOR SERVICE ASSESSMENT OF STATIC
EQUIPMENT PAGE 2 OF 25

ISO 9001:2015 & OGDCL PROCEDURE COMPLIANCE MATRIX
ISO
Procedure
9001:2015 ISO SOP
Clause
Clauses Clause Description Clause Description
Ref.#
Ref.#
4 Context of the Organization
4.4 Quality Management System
4.4.1 General Requirements 1, 2 and 3 Introduction, Objective and Scope
Appendices,
4.4.2 Documentation Requirements Appendix , Records & Documentation
12
4.3 Determining the Scope of the QMS 3 Scope
5 Leadership
5.1 Leadership Commitment 8 Resource Management
Organizational Roles,
5.3 6 Roles and Responsibilities
Responsibilities and Authorities
6 Planning
Action to Address Risks and

6.1 7 Planning
Opportunities
Quality Objectives and Planning to
6.2 7 Planning
achieve them
7 Support
7.1 Resources 8 Resource Management
7.2 Competence 9 Qualifications/Certifications
7.5 Documented Information 12 Records and Documentation
8 Operation
8.3 Design and Development 11 Detailed Procedure
9 Performance Evaluation
9.2 Internal Audit 13 Audit and Review
9.3 Management Review 13 Audit and Review
10 Improvement 13 Audit and Review

VAIL-20-129-S-007

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................6
2.0 OBJECTIVE ...........................................................................................................................6
3.0 SCOPE ...................................................................................................................................6
4.0 ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS ..................................................................................7
4.1 Abbreviations ..............................................................................................................7
4.2 Definitions ...................................................................................................................7
5.0 STANDARDS AND REFERENCES........................................................................................9
6.0 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES .......................................................................................10
7.0 PLANNING ...........................................................................................................................11
8.0 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ...............................................................................................11
9.0 QUALIFICATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS .................................................................................11
10.0 HEALTH, SAFETY AND THE ENVIRONMENT .................................................................... 12
10.1 Permit To Work System ............................................................................................12
11.0 DETAILED PROCEDURE ....................................................................................................13
11.1 Applicability and Limitations of FFS Assessment Procedure ................................ 13
11.2 Data Requirement .....................................................................................................13
11.2.1 Original Equipment Design Data .................................................................... 13
11.2.2 Maintenance and Operational History ............................................................ 14
11.2.3 Required Data Measurement for a FFS Assessment ...................................... 15
11.3 Assessment Techniques and Acceptance Criteria ................................................. 15
11.3.1 Level of FFS Assessment ..............................................................................15
11.3.2 Acceptance Criteria........................................................................................17
11.4 Assessment of Different Flaws/Damage Mechanisms............................................ 17
11.4.1 Assessment of Corrosion ...............................................................................17
11.4.2 Assessment of Brittle Fracture and Cracks..................................................... 18
11.4.3 Assessment of Hydrogen Blisters & Hydrogen Damage Associated with HIC &
SOHIC ...........................................................................................................18
11.4.4 Assessment of Components Operating in the Creep Range ........................... 18
11.4.5 Assessment of Weld Misalignment and Shell Distortions ................................ 19
11.4.6 Assessment of Fire Damage .......................................................................... 19
11.4.7 Assessment of Dents, Gouges, and Dent-Gouge Combinations ..................... 19
11.4.8 Assessment of Laminations ........................................................................... 19

VAIL-20-129-S-007

11.5 Steps to Carryout FFS Assessment......................................................................... 19
11.6 Remaining Life Assessment ....................................................................................20
11.7 In-Service Monitoring ...............................................................................................20
11.8 Remedial Action........................................................................................................21
12.0 RECORD AND DOCUMENTATION .....................................................................................21
13.0 AUDIT AND REVIEW ...........................................................................................................21
APPENDICES:
APPENDIX 1 – DAMAGE CLASSES ……………………………………………….……….……… 22
APPENDIX 2 – PROCESS MAP TO PERFORM FFS ASSESSMENT …………………………. 23
APPENDIX 3 – ALTERATION OR RE-RATING OF PRESSURE VESSEL FORM …………… 24
APPENDIX 4 – USER COMMENT / FEEDBACK FORM FOR ICS PROCEDURE …………... 25

VAIL-20-129-S-007

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Fitness For Service (FFS) assessments are performed to quantitatively assess the
structural integrity of an in-service component that has been confirmed through inspections
or evaluations to contain a flaw or damage which may be beyond the acceptable tolerance
of either construction or in-service inspection codes. The FFS assessments is a decision
making tool that can be used to determine if pressurized equipment containing known flaws
can continue to operate safely for specified period of time in as-is condition or needs to be
altered, repaired, monitored, retire or replaced.
These FFS assessments are currently recognized as Standards (by both ASME as well as
API committee) and referenced by the in-service inspection codes i.e. API 510, API 570, &
API 653 and by NB-23 as suitable means for evaluating the structural integrity of pressure
vessels, piping systems and storage tanks where inspection has revealed degradation and
flaws in the equipment.
FFS assessments using API 579-1 / ASME FFS-1 Standard, is also recognized for
acceptance of fabrication defects.
The results of the assessment can be useful for:
• Determining safe operating limits (or IOWs) for the equipment in question.
• Developing an inspection reference plan to safeguard the integrity of the
equipment.
• Determining the mitigation measures required to prolong the remaining life of the
equipment.
• Develop the condition for alteration, or repair or replacement of the equipment.
2.0 OBJECTIVE
The objective of this document is to provide the process to perform “Fitness for Service”
assessment of static equipment. This procedure provides an evaluation of the structural
integrity of components containing known defects, and their suitability for continuous
service.
3.0 SCOPE
This procedure is applicable for all OGDCL’s fields and terminals. The evaluation for
Fitness for Service in compliance with API 579-1 / ASME FFS-1 is intended to estimate the
remaining life where the equipment is proposed to operate in a safe condition provided that
FFS assessment flaw / defect size or damage mechanism is arrested and does not grow
beyond the FFS tolerance limits.
This procedure does not cover the FFS assessment guidelines for Pipelines and Flow lines;
which is covered in separate ICS procedure “Assessment of pipelines, flow lines for fatigue
damage, SCC, SSC, Gouge, Dents, cyclic loadings.

VAIL-20-129-S-007

4.0 ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS
4.1 Abbreviations
OGDCL Oil and Gas Development Company Limited.
API American Petroleum Institute
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
C&I Corrosion & Inspection
COV Coefficient of Variance
CTP Critical Thickness Profile
FEA Finite Element Analysis
FFS Fitness For Service
FID Facility Integrity Department
IOW Integrity Operating Window
ISO International Organization for Standardization
MAWP Maximum Allowable Working Pressure
MOL Main Oil Line
NDT Non-destructive Testing
PTW Permit to Work
RSF Remaining Strength Factor
SCC Stress Corrosion Cracking
SSC Sulfide Stress Cracking
4.2 Definitions
C&I OGDCL’s Corrosion, QC & Inspections

Coefficient of Variance A statistical measure of a distribution defined as the ratio of
the standard deviation of the distribution to the mean of the
distribution.
Corrosion The deterioration of metal caused by chemical or
electrochemical attack as a result of its reaction with the
environment.
Crack-Like Flaw A flaw that may or may not be the result of linear rupture, but
which has the physical characteristics of a crack when
detected by an NDT technique.

VAIL-20-129-S-007

Creep The special case of inelasticity that characterizes the stress
induced time-dependent deformation under load, usually
occurring at elevated temperatures.
Damage Mechanism A phenomenon that induces deleterious micro and/or macro
changes in the material conditions that are harmful to the
material condition or mechanical properties. Damage
mechanisms are usually incremental, cumulative, and
unrecoverable. Common damage mechanisms are
associated with chemical attack, creep, erosion, fatigue,
fracture, embrittlement, and thermal aging.
Erosion The destruction of metal by the abrasive action of a solid,
liquid or vapor.
Future Corrosion The corrosion allowance required for the future operational
Allowance period of a component.
Fitness For Service A methodology whereby flaws or a damage state in a
Assessment component is evaluated in order to determine the adequacy
of the component for continued operation.
Flaw A discontinuity, irregularity, or defect that is detected by
inspection.
General Corrosion An electrochemical reaction that takes place uniformly over
the surface of the steel, thereby causing a general thinning
of the component that can lead to eventual failure of the
material.
Localized Corrosion Individual areas of Pitting or general corrosion areas at
discrete sites that may also contain Pitting. Areas of localized
corrosion in the area of girth or longitudinal welds should be
identified and documented.
Maximum Allowable The maximum gauge pressure adjusted for liquid head for a
Working Pressure component in its operating position at the design
temperature, based on calculations using the current
minimum thickness, exclusive of thickness required for future
corrosion allowance and supplemental loads. Note that this
term is also applied to piping components. For components
containing a flaw, the MAWP is also a function of the
Remaining Strength Factor. MAWP to be determined on
calculation methods described in API 579 on case to case
basis.
Pitting An electrochemical reaction that creates metal loss of the
outer surface in small, crater-like depressions which have
the potential to cause rapid wall loss. Pitting is defined as

VAIL-20-129-S-007

corrosion with a length and width less than or equal to three
times the uncorroded wall thickness.
5.0 STANDARDS AND REFERENCES

The following documents may be referred to when conducting Fitness for Service
assessment. Before consulting a referenced document, the user must confirm with OGDCL
Engineering Technical Library that the latest edition / revision is being used.
API 510 Pressure Vessel Inspection Code: In-service Inspection,

Rating, Repair, and Alteration
API RP 530 Calculation of Heater Tube Thickness in Petroleum

Refineries
API 570 Piping Inspection Code: In-service Inspection, Rating,

Repair, and Alteration of Piping Systems
API 571 Damage Mechanisms Affecting Fixed Equipment in the

Refining Industry
API 572 Inspection of Pressure Vessels
API 574 Inspection Practices for Piping System Components
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 Fitness For Service
API 579-2 / ASME FFS-2 Fitness-for-Service Example Problem Manual
API 580 Risk-Based Inspection
API 581 Risk-Based Inspection Technology
API 620 Design and Construction of Large, Welded, Low-Pressure

Storage Tanks
API 650 Welded Tanks for Oil Storage
API 653 Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration and Reconstruction
ASME Sec VIII Div 1 & 2 Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code
ASME B31.3 Process Piping Guide
VAIL-20-129-S-004 Piping System Inspection
VAIL-20-129-S-005 Pressure Vessel Inspection
VAIL-20-129-S-001 Welded Above Ground Storage Tank
ISO 9712 NDT – Qualification and certification of NDT personnel
NB-23 National Board Inspection Code

VAIL-20-129-S-007

6.0 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Manager (Corrosion, QC & Inspections) department shall be responsible for Fitness For
Service assessments, documentation, and resulting recommendations. The RACI Chart is
given below in Chart 6.1 RACI Chart. Implementation and Management Section-6 Roles
and Responsibilities, which defines those who are responsible and accountable for integrity
management activities and tasks.
Chart 6.1 RACI Chart
Team Leader Operations
Engineering Department
Team Leader Technical
Technical Department
Inspection Engineers
Corrosion Engineers
C&I Team Leader
Asset Owners
ACTIVITY / TASK
Carry out Integrity

A C R R R I
Management Activity
Review and Evaluate
A C R R R C C
Anomalies
Raising the FFS Request A C I R R R I I
Conducting the FFS

A C C C C R R
assessment
Identification of FCA /
Anomaly growth rate and RL A C C C C R R
assessment
Propose Amendments to
A C I C C C R R
Integrity Management Activity
Update Integrity Management
A C I R R R I R
Plan
Schedule Next Activity A C I R R R C C
Verify Compliance with

Standards, Procedures and A C I C C C R R
Work Instructions
Where:
R is the Responsible party for the designated task (i.e. does the task).
A is Accountable party for making sure that the tasks gets done.
C is the party who is Consulted to provide advice regarding the tasks.
I is the Informed party who should be advised with the progress of tasks and actions.

VAIL-20-129-S-007

7.0 PLANNING
When it is required to conduct Fitness For Service of subject / specific static equipment,
the following requirements should be applied:
• Original equipment design data, operating condition and inspection history should
be assembled to perform a FFS assessment, the extent of the data required
depends on the damage mechanism and assessment level.
• Based on the damage / defect type, additional inspection / testing / NDT may be
required so as to obtain relevant data / measurements for conducting FFS. When
field evaluations are appropriate, the equipment needed for evaluation and
inspection, including that needed for personnel safety, shall be checked for
availability and proper working condition before the inspection.
8.0 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
The requirements for resources shall be determined according to expertise in FFS
assessment and understanding of API 579-1 / ASME FFS-1 standard. In a less
conservative assessment i.e. Level-3, the most detailed inspection and component
information is typically required and the recommended analysis is based on numerical
techniques such as the Finite Element Analysis (FEA) method or experimental techniques
designed to API 579-1 / ASME FFS-1 requirements. The software used for the assessment
shall be a licensed and company approved one.
9.0 QUALIFICATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS
The qualification and experience of all participants shall be commensurate with the
complexity, rigor, requirements and significance of the overall assessment. All individuals
involved shall be able to demonstrate their proficiency to the satisfaction of the asset
owners.
The Engineer performing the FFS assessment shall be competent to perform the level of
assessment required. The Engineer shall meet all required qualifications to perform
engineering work within applicable requirements. The Level 1 Assessment may be
performed by an Inspector or other experienced personnel; however, in these cases the
FFS Engineer should review the analysis.
The inspector shall be qualified and certified in accordance with the applicable in-service
inspection code, API 510, API 570, API 653, and ANSI/NB-23. Non-destructive examination
personnel responsible for data used in a Fitness For Service assessment shall be certified
to at least Level II in accordance with industry standards such as the American Society for
Nondestructive Testing (ANST) SNT-TC-1A, CP-189, ACCP, or equivalent. The inspector
shall have experience in the inspection, examination, or both, of the type of equipment and
associated process that is the subject of the Fitness For Service assessment.
A typical FFS assessment may involve several engineering disciplines, and it requires
collecting data from a number of sources. Some of the areas of expertise that may be part
of an FFS assessment are outlined below:
• Stress Analysis. An accurate estimate of stresses acting on the component of
interest is to assessing structural integrity and remaining life. The Engineer shall

VAIL-20-129-S-007

be well versed with use of construction Code like ASMEs and shall have
demonstrative capability of pressure vessel / piping / tank design calculations.
• Metallurgy/Materials Engineering. An understanding of the performance of
various materials subject to specific environments, temperatures, and stress
levels is essential for ensuring safe and reliable operation.
• Nondestructive Examination (NDE). Flaws must be detected and sized before
they can be assessed. The most suitable inspection technology depends on a
variety of factors, including type of the flaws or damage present and the
accessibility of the region of interest.
• Corrosion. An understanding of environmental degradation mechanism(s) that
led to the observed damage is a prerequisite for FFS assessments. Moreover
expertise in corrosion is useful for prescribing suitable remediation measures.
• Plant Operations. Interaction with plant personnel is usually necessary to
understand the operating parameters for the equipment of interest. Information
such as operating temperature & pressure, process environment, and
startup/shutdown procedures are key inputs to a FFS assessment.
• Fracture Mechanics. This discipline is used to analyze cracks and other planar
flaws.
• Probability and Statistics. This discipline is useful for data analysis and for
probabilistic risk assessments.
• Area of expertise. Part of the FFS assessment that include inspection/corrosion
and maintenance personnel.
10.0 HEALTH, SAFETY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
All activities outlined in this procedure must be performed in line with OGDCL’s policy on
health, safety and environment (HSE). Relevant Parts of the OGDCL HSE Manual must be
consulted prior to the performance of any of the activities outlined within this procedure.
10.1 Permit To Work System
OGDCL operates a permit to work system to ensure that safety hazards do not arise due
to conflicting operations being performed in the vicinity of one another. The C&I/FID section
shall obtain the necessary work permits for required inspection activity. No inspection
activity shall be performed without the appropriate permit to work. The instructions and
work requirements pertaining to the permit must be followed at all times till the validity of
the work permit.

VAIL-20-129-S-007

11.0 DETAILED PROCEDURE
FFS assessment provides a quantitative measure of the structural integrity of a component
containing flaws. Standards used to carry out these assessments provide guidelines which
can be used to make run-repair-replace decisions or re-rating as per in-service inspection
codes as a result of FFS assessment, assisting plant management in identifying
appropriate mitigation actions to ensure that the component can be continued to operate
safely.
11.1 Applicability and Limitations of FFS Assessment Procedure
The FFS Assessment process as per this procedure is applicable to evaluate the pressure
boundaries of Pressure Vessels, boiler components, Piping and Storage Tanks Shell
Courses with a flaw resulting from single or multiple damage mechanisms. The Concepts
of this procedure may be extended for evaluations of non-pressure boundary components
such as supports. FFS for Tank Roofs and Tank bottoms are required to be evaluated as
per API 653.
Any component not designed or constructed to original design criteria, may be evaluated
as per this procedure, provided the subject engineer is knowledgeable and experienced to
perform the assessment.
Each of the damage mechanism listed in this procedure has its specific applicability and
limitations to perform FFS Assessment, for details refer to API 579.
11.2 Data Requirement
The data required for 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.
The following original design data should be assembled to perform a Fitness For Service
assessment. If some of these data are not available, physical measurements should be
made to provide the information necessary to perform the assessment.
11.2.1 Original Equipment Design Data
11.2.1.1 Pressure Vessels
• An ASME manufacturer’s data report or, if the vessel is not code stamped, other
equivalent documentation or specifications.
• Vessel fabrication drawings showing sufficient details to permit calculation of the
maximum allowable working pressure (MAWP) of the components containing a
flaw. If a rerate to a more severe condition of pressure and/or temperature is
required, this information should be available for all components. Detailed
sketches with data necessary to perform MAWP calculations may be used where
necessary if the original fabrication drawings are not available.
• Original design calculations including wind and/or earthquake loads and anchor
bolt calculations.

VAIL-20-129-S-007

• Fabrication inspection records.
• User design specifications if the vessel is designed to the ASME Code, Section
VIII, Division 2.
• Material test reports.
• Pressure relieving device information including pressure relief valve and/or
rupture disk setting and capacity information.
11.2.1.2 Piping
• Piping lists or other documentation showing process design conditions, and a
description of the piping class including material specification, pipe wall thickness
and pressure-temperature ratings.
• Piping isometric drawings to the extent necessary to evaluate the metal loss in
the piping system. The piping isometric drawings should include sufficient details
to permit a piping flexibility calculation if this analysis is deemed necessary by the
engineer in order to determine the MAWP of all piping components subjected to
corrosion/erosion. Detailed sketches with data necessary to perform MAWP
calculations may be used where necessary if the original piping isometric
drawings are not available.
• Original design calculations.
11.2.1.3 Tanks
• Original API data sheet.
• Fabrication drawings showing sufficient details to permit calculation of the
maximum fill height of the tank. Detailed data with sketches where necessary may
be used if the original fabrication drawings are not available.
• Original design calculation.
11.2.2 Maintenance and Operational History
The date of installation, a summary of all alterations and repairs including the required
calculations, material changes, drawings depicting changes to components, and repair
procedures should be obtained for the equipment being evaluated.
A progressive record including, but not limited to, the following should be available for the
equipment being evaluated.
• Actual operating pressure and temperature, including past operational upsets and
location relative to the equipment being analyzed. If the actual operating condition
envelope is not available, an approximation of one shall be developed based upon

VAIL-20-129-S-007

available operational data and consultation with operating personnel. An
operating histogram may be required consisting of pressure and temperature data
recorded simultaneously for some types of FFS assessment (e.g., components
operating in the creep regime).
• Documentation of any significant changes in service conditions including
pressure, temperature, fluid content and corrosion rate. Both past and future
service conditions should be reviewed and documented.
• Date of installation and a summary of all alteration and repairs including required
calculations, material changes, drawings depicting changes to components and
repair procedures. Calculations of required wall thickness and MAWP, including
definitions and calculations for supplemental loads such as static liquid head,
wind, earthquake, etc.
• Records of all hydro tests including the test pressure and water temperature at
the time of the test, or, if unavailable, ambient temperature.
• Results of prior in-service examinations including wall thickness measurements
and other NDE results that may assist in determining the structural integrity of the
component.
• Records of all internal repairs, weld build-up and overlay, and modifications of
internals.
• Records of transit instrument readings of vertical vessels that document past “out-
of-plumb” conditions.
• Foundation settlement records.
• Review of inspection history that includes visual and NDT results which states all
kind of information regarding flaws and damage necessary for FFS assessment.
11.2.3 Required Data Measurement for a FFS Assessment
Each part in this procedure that contains FFS assessment includes specific requirements
for data measurements and flaw characterization based on the damage mechanism being
evaluated. Examples of flaw characterization include thickness profiles for local
corrosion/erosion, pitting depth, and dimensions of crack-like flaws. The extent of
information and data required for a FFS assessment depends on the assessment level and
damage mechanism being evaluated.
11.3 Assessment Techniques and Acceptance Criteria
11.3.1 Level of FFS Assessment
Fitness for service assessments can range in complexity from simple screening evaluations
to highly sophisticated computer simulations, including finite element analysis (FEA) and
computational fluid dynamics (CFD). The necessary level of complexity varies from one
situation to the next. In some cases, an advanced analysis is performed when a simple
screening assessment is unable to demonstrate that the equipment in question is fit for
continued service. Standardized FFS procedures typically include a range of assessment

VAIL-20-129-S-007

options that cover the full spectrum of complexity. The Fitness For Service standard API
579-1 / ASME FFS-1 provides three levels of assessment:
• Level 1. This is a basic assessment that can be performed by properly trained
inspectors or plant engineers. A Level 1 assessment may involve simple hand
calculations.
• Level 2. This assessment level is more complex than Level 1, and should be
performed only by engineers trained in the API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 standard.
Most Level 2 calculations can be performed with a spreadsheet.
• Level 3. This is the most advanced assessment level, which should be performed
only by engineers with a high level of expertise and experience. A Level 3
assessment may include computer simulation, such as finite element analysis
(FEA) or computational fluid dynamics (CFD).
These three assessment levels represent a trade-off between simplicity and accuracy. The
simplified assessment procedures are necessarily more conservative than more
sophisticated engineering analyses. In some cases, the component being evaluated may
fail at Level 1 assessment but pass a Level 2 or Level 3 component because of the
conservative simplifying assumptions in the former. In certain situations, the API/ASME 579
does not permit a Level 1 assessment. For example, Level 1 assessments are not
applicable to pressure equipment subject to significant supplemental loads, such as dead
loads, wind loads, thermal expansion loads, and seismic loads.
With Level 1 assessments, the specified procedures must be followed exactly, and there is
little or no room for interpretation. Level 2 procedures provide some latitude to exercise
sound engineering judgment. For Level 3 assessments, the API/ASME 579 provides a few
overall guidelines, but the details of the assessment are left to the user. The lack of
specificity in Level 3 is by design. There is no practical way to codify step by step
procedures for advanced engineering analyses because every situation is different, and
there is a wide range of approaches that may be suitable for a given situation. Therefore
below guidelines are provided to carry out FFS assessment.
The API/ASME standard uses the remaining strength factor (RSF) concept in a number of
assessment procedures. The RSF is defined by the following ratio:
RSF = LDC / LUC
Where LDC is the limit load or burst pressure of the damaged component (i.e., the
component with a flaw) and LUC is the corresponding load or pressure for the undamaged
component. For example, consider a pressure vessel in which corrosion has caused wall
thinning over a localized region of the shell. If an RSF of 0.85 is computed for this vessel,
it means that the burst pressure has been reduced to 85% of the original value as a result
of the corrosion. The RSF can be computed from Level 1 or Level 2 equations, or from a
finite element analysis in a Level 3 assessment.
The calculated RSF is compared with an allowable value, RSFa. If RSF < RSFa, then a
pressure vessel or pipe can be re-rated using the following expression:
MAWPr = MAWP [RSF / RSFa]

VAIL-20-129-S-007

Where MAWP is the original maximum allowable working pressure and MAWPr is the
rerated value. For atmospheric storage tanks, a similar re-rating of maximum fill height
(MFH) can be performed:
MFHr = MFH [ RSF / RSFa ]
The API/ASME standard recommends an RSFa value of 0.9 for most situations.
11.3.2 Acceptance Criteria
Acceptance criteria for all evaluations are to be addressed in accordance with API 579 and
includes the following:
• Calculated stresses, stress classification and allowable stress.
• Limit and plastic collapse loads and remaining strength factor.
• Failure assessment diagram, variability factors and safety factors.
11.4 Assessment of Different Flaws/Damage Mechanisms
It is recommended to refer API 579-1 / ASME FFS-1 for details and API 579-2 / ASME FFS-
2 for solved examples while carrying out Integrity assessments. In API 579-1/ASME FFS-
1, assessment procedures are organized by flaw type or damage mechanism. A list of flaw
types and damage mechanisms and the corresponding Part that provides the FFS
assessment methodology is provided in API 579-1/ASME FFS-1, Table 2.1. It is important
to note that each damage mechanism covered by API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 has its own
scope and limitations. These should be understood by the FFS assessor.
11.4.1 Assessment of Corrosion
There are three sections (or Parts, as defined in API 579 standard) that address
assessments of corrosion threats:
• Part 4 – Assessment of General Metal Loss.
• Part 5 – Assessment of Local Metal Loss.
• Part 6 – Assessment of Pitting Corrosion.
11.4.1.1 Assessment of General and Local Metal Loss
There is no quantitative demarcation between general and local metal loss in the
API/ASME standard. The qualitative approach is that Part 4 pertains to metal loss over
most or the entire component, while Part 5 is applicable to metal loss over a confined area.
Either or both assessments can be applied to a given instance of wall thinning. Part 5 is
usually less conservative than Part 4 because the former accounts for the finite extent of
the metal loss, while the assessment in Part 4 assumes that the metal loss is over the entire
component. The two assessments give similar answers when the metal loss extends over
long distances. Both the Part 4 and Part 5 assessments use the RSF concept to evaluate
wall thinning. Inspection data for local and general metal loss assessments typically
consists of wall thickness readings in a grid pattern.

VAIL-20-129-S-007

11.4.1.2 Assessment of Pitting Corrosion
The pitting corrosion assessment Part 6 entails computing an RSF that depends on the
diameter, depth, and spacing of pits. In the Level 1 assessment, the RSF is estimated by
visually comparing pitting charts with the observed pitting. The Level 2 assessment requires
measurement of pit dimensions and spacing and includes a series of calculations to
estimate the RSF.
11.4.2 Assessment of Brittle Fracture and Cracks
There are two parts that pertain to brittle fracture and cracks:
• Part 3 – Assessment of Existing Equipment for Brittle Fracture.
• Part 9 – Assessment of Crack-Like Flaws.
Part 3 does not assess specific flaws and their effect on the risk of brittle fracture. Rather,
this assessment procedure evaluates the material of construction relative to the
temperatures at which it is subject to significant applied stress. The Part 3 assessment is
based on the toughness rules and exemption curves in Section VIII of the ASME Boiler and
Pressure Vessel Code.
11.4.2.1 Assessment of Crack Like Flaws
Part 9 When cracks or other planar flaws are detected, Part 9 of the API/ASME 579 fitness-
for service standard provides suitable assessment procedures. The failure assessment
diagram (FAD) approach is used for Level 2 crack evaluation. Engineers who apply this
assessment procedure should have at least a basic understanding of fracture mechanics.
A simple screening assessment is provided at Level 1, which can be applied without having
a background in fracture mechanics.
11.4.3 Assessment of Hydrogen Blisters & Hydrogen Damage Associated with HIC & SOHIC
Part 7 of the API/ASME standard API 579, which is entitled Assessment of Hydrogen
Blisters and Hydrogen Damage Associated with HIC and SOHIC, has been extensively
revised since the 2007 edition of API 579 was released. A new assessment procedure for
hydrogen induced cracking (HIC) damage has been added. This methodology relies on the
remaining strength factor (RSF) concept to account for loss of load-carrying capacity in
HIC-damaged steel. Although the title of Part 7 mentions stress-oriented hydrogen induced
cracking (SOHIC), it does not include a Level 1 or 2 assessment procedure for SOHIC.
When SOHIC is present, a Level 3 assessment using Part 9 is recommended.
11.4.4 Assessment of Components Operating in the Creep Range
Part 10, of the API/ASME standard API 579 is entitled as Assessment of Components
Operating in the Creep Range, is a new addition to the FFS standard. Creep damage is
assessed using the Omega method, which was developed in a joint-industry project in the
1990s. The Omega model has a number of advantages over the traditional Larson-Miller
approach. It can be used to estimate creep rate, creep damage, and time to rupture in
components operating at elevated temperatures. In a Level 3 assessment, creep
deformation can be modeled with finite element analysis. The API/ASME standard lists
material constants for the Omega model for a wide range of alloys.

VAIL-20-129-S-007

Fired heater FFS analysis will be performed for a creep life assessment of both the
convection and radiant tubes. A remaining creep life will be assessed to achieve 80% creep
damage per API-579 or failure of the elastic criteria per API RP530.
11.4.5 Assessment of Weld Misalignment and Shell Distortions
Part 8 Assessment procedures are provided to evaluate stresses resulting from geometric
discontinuities in shell type structures including weld misalignment and shell distortions
(e.g. out-of-roundness and bulges).
11.4.6 Assessment of Fire Damage
Part 11 Assessment procedures are provided to evaluate equipment subject to fire
damage. A methodology is provided to rank and screen components for evaluation based
on the heat exposure experienced during the fire. The assessment procedures of the other
Parts of this publication are utilized to evaluate component damage.
11.4.7 Assessment of Dents, Gouges, and Dent-Gouge Combinations
Part 12 Assessment techniques are provided to evaluate dent, gouge, and dent gouge
combinations in components.
11.4.8 Assessment of Laminations
Part 13 Assessment procedures are provided to evaluate laminations. The assessment
guidelines include provisions for laminations located at weld joints and structural
discontinuities such as shell transitions, stiffening rings, and nozzles. In some cases it is
required to use the assessment procedures from multiple Parts based on the damage
mechanism being evaluated.
11.5 Steps to Carryout FFS Assessment
• Review and evaluate all data in terms of required information.
• In cases where design data is incomplete or not fully supported, arrange to
develop the required data.
• Define Inspection, Measurement, and Testing requirements needed to support
the engineering evaluation. This may include, but not be limited to, complete,
detailed inspection drawings showing all nozzle sizes, types, ratings, and any
stampings which may be found in the vessel. Additional nondestructive testing
requirements may be specified to measure the current condition of the equipment
in question.
• Preliminary non-intrusive inspections and tests may be used to evaluate the need
for additional inspection procedures to be applied.
• Provide a condition assessment in accordance section 11.3.1 using an
appropriate level of assessment.
• Begin condition assessment in accordance with worst case conditions (Level 1).
If the equipment does not pass the assessment in accordance with worst case
conditions then following to be carried out:
o Define other actions needed (such as field inspection, measurement, and
testing) and advise the equipment owner of requirements.

VAIL-20-129-S-007

o Using equipment owner input, determine if it is appropriate to proceed to a
less conservative level of evaluation.
o Recalculate using a less conservative level of evaluation, as appropriate.
• Document the evaluation and forward all records of the evaluation to the
equipment owner.
When the equipment is not Fit for Service, perform one of the following:
• Evaluate repair or re-rate options to bring the equipment within acceptable
operating limits.
• Decommission of the equipment shall be carried out in accordance with the
Management of Change process.
11.6 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 in this procedure is used to establish an appropriate inspection interval, an in-service
monitoring plan, or the need for remediation. The remaining life is not intended to provide
a precise estimate of the actual time to failure. Therefore, the remaining life can be
estimated based on the quality of available information, assessment level, and appropriate
assumptions to provide an adequate safety factor for operation until the next scheduled
inspection.
Remaining life estimates will fall into one of the following three general categories:
The Remaining Life can be Calculated with Reasonable Certainty – An example is
general uniform corrosion, where a future corrosion allowance can be calculated and the
remaining life is the future corrosion allowance divided by the assumed corrosion rate from
previous thickness data, corrosion design curves, or experience in similar services. Another
example may be long term creep damage, where a future damage rate can be estimated.
An appropriate inspection interval can be established at a certain fraction of the remaining
life. The estimate of remaining life should be conservative to account for uncertainties in
material properties, stress assumptions, and variability in future damage rate.
The Remaining Life cannot be Establi’shed with Reasonable Certainty – Examples
may be a stress corrosion cracking mechanism where there is no reliable crack growth rate
data available or hydrogen blistering, a future damage rate cannot be estimated. In these
examples, remediation methods should be employed, such as application of a lining or
coating to isolate the environment, drilling of blisters, or monitoring. Inspection would then
be limited to assuring remediation method acceptability, such as lining or coating integrity.
There is Little or No Remaining Life – In this case remediation, such as repair of the
damaged component, application of a lining or coating to isolate the environment, and/or
frequent monitoring is necessary for future operation.
11.7 In-Service Monitoring
In order to check if the degradation has actually stopped, it may be necessary to monitor
the degradation process for at least a limited amount of time. Monitoring could be either;
• Damage, if sufficiently accurate measurements can be made.
VAIL-20-129-S-007

• Process conditions, the aim would be to check if the degradation mechanism is
still active.
Highly unpredictable or rapid degradation would require process monitoring, a steady
predictable degradation mechanism could allow monitoring of the damage growth if it could
be accurately and reliably measured. In addition to the practicality and effectiveness of
monitoring damage or process conditions, the economics of both also affect the decision.
Monitoring of critical process parameters shall be part of the inspection plan. Critical
parameters are those elements of the process operations that significantly influence the
growth of damage mechanism under consideration. Therefore the Integrity operating
windows (IOW) should be set to prevent degradation rates which would reduce component
remaining life.
Similarly if the operators have found that the process is outside the safe operating window,
then the damage must be checked for growth. These actions have to be scheduled into
future inspection and monitoring program.
11.8 Remedial Action
The term remedial action covers any action required to restore the integrity of the
equipment. The term includes replacement, repair, permanent or temporary pressure
reduction etc. Repair can cover such measures as grinding out cracks, cutting out and
replacing plates etc. Periodic checks should be made to ensure that the remediation actions
have prevented additional damage and can be expected to prevent future damage.
12.0 RECORD AND DOCUMENTATION
At the conclusion of the condition assessment, the evaluator shall make a recommendation
for acceptance as is, Repair, Rerating or Replacement of the equipment in question, it is
recommended that the equipment owner maintain the results of the evaluation as
applicable. The results of the evaluation should be maintained in the equipment files. Upon
acceptance of the evaluator’s report, the equipment owner will take the necessary steps to
satisfy OGDCL requirements for equipment registration. Records and data shall be
forwarded to the appropriate file in accordance with Integrity Software (VAIL-PLANT).
13.0 AUDIT AND REVIEW
The procedure shall be subject to review in accordance with latest edition or addendum of
in-service codes. This may vary subject to the age of the infrastructure and the responses
that become incumbent on the C&I/FID department as a result of any variations that occur.
The procedure shall also be subject to review for internal audit at planned intervals to
provide information on whether the procedure conforms to OGDCL’s requirements for
Inspection Management System and requirements given by international standards and
best industry practices as applicable to OGDCL facilities and shall be effectively
implemented and maintained.

VAIL-20-129-S-007

APPENDIX 1 - DAMAGE CLASSES
Damage Classes
Brittle Fracture Corrosion /Erosion Crack-Like Flaws Fire Damage Creep Damage Mechanical Damage
Part 5
Part 3 Part 4 Part 9 Part 11 Part 10
Assessment of
Brittle Fracture Assessment of Assessment of Assessment of Fire Assessment of
Localized Metal
Assessment General Metal Loss Crack-Like Flaws Damage Creep Damage
Loss
Part 9 Part 5 Part 8

Part 4
Assessment of Crack- Assessment of Assessment of
Like Flaws – Below the
Assessment of
Localized Metal Misalignment and
Creep Regime General Metal Loss
Loss Shell Distortions
Part 5
Part 6 Part 9
Assessment of
Assessment of Assessment of
Localized Metal
Pitting Damage Crack-Like Flaws
Loss
Part 8 Part 12
Part 7
Assessment of Weld Assessment of Dents,
Assessment of
Misalignment and Gouges, and Dent
Blisters Gouge Combination
Shell Distortions
Part 9 Part 13
Assessment of Assessment of
Crack-Like Flaws Laminations
Part 10
Assessment of
Creep Damage

VAIL-20-129-S-007

APPENDIX 2 - PROCESS MAP TO PERFORM FFS ASSESSMENT
Equipment
Data Last resort
Perform No Perform No Perform No Repair /

Level 1? Level 2? Level 3? Retire
Yes Yes Yes
No No No
Accept? Accept? Accept?
Yes No Yes No Yes No
Preferred Rerate? Rerate? Rerate?

outcome
Yes Yes Yes
Return to Service

VAIL-20-129-S-007

APPENDIX 3 - ALTERATION OR RE-RATING OF PRESSURE VESSEL FORM
REPAIR ALTERATION OR RERATING OF PRESSURE
VESSEL FORM
OIL & GAS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Report No.:
Field:
LIMITED (OGDCL Plant Area:
Asset Tag Number: Equipment Description:
1. See attachments for additional data? □ Yes □ No

2. Original construction Code ___________________________________________________________________________________________
3. Original Maximum Allowable Working Pressure ________________________ Year Built ________________________________________
4. Original Design Temperature _______________________________________ Year Built ________________________________________
5. Original Minimum Design Metal Temperature __________________________ At Pressure ______________________________________
6. Original Test Pressure ____________________________________________ Fluid ________________ Position _________________
7. Shell Material ___________________________________________________ Head Material ____________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
8. Shell Thickness _________________________________________________ Head Thickness ___________________________________
9. Original Joint Efficiency ______________________________________________________________________________________________
10. Original Radiography ___________________________________ □ Yes □ No
11. Original PWHT ________________________________________ □ Yes □ No
If yes, __________________________ Temp (°F) ___________________ Time (Hrs)
12. Original Corrosion Allowance ___________________________________________________________________________________________
13. Work on Vessel Classified as □ Repair □ Alteration □ Rerating
14. Construction Code for present Work _____________________________________________________________________________________
15. New Maximum Allowable Working Pressure _______________________________________________________________________________
16. New Minimum Temperature ____________________________________________________________________________________________
17. New Minimum Design Metal Temperature ______________________________ At Pressure ______________________________________
18. New PWHT □ Yes □ No
________ Tem(°F) ________ Tem(°F)
19. New Joint Efficiency, if Applicable E= _____________________________________________________________________________________
20. Type of Examination or Inspection Performed:
□ Radiographic □ Ultrasonic
□ Magnetic particle □ Penetrant
□ Visual □ Other
21. New Pressure Test if Yes, Pressure ________________________ Test Medium ___________________ Test Position _________________
22. New Corrosion Allowance ______________________________________________________________________________________________
23. Describe work performed (attach drawings, calculations, and other pertinent data):
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Inspected By Reviewed By Approved By

Date Inspected Date Date
Inspector/Technician: C&I/FID Engineer: Asset Owner:

VAIL-20-129-S-007

APPENDIX 4 - USER COMMENT / FEEDBACK FORM FOR ICS PROCEDURE
User Comment Form

If you find something that is incorrect, ambiguous or could be better in this Procedure, write your comments
and suggestions on this form and send the filled in form to ICM, TC (IO). TC (IO) focal point shall make a
record of your comment/s and consider them for inclusion during next planned revision of this document.
This form also has spaces for your personal details. This lets TC (IO) to ask you about your comments and
send feed back to you about the decision.
Procedure Details Title: Issue Date:
Doc No.: Rev No.:

Page Number: Heading Number: Figure Number:
Comments: (add attachments if any required)
Suggestions:
User’s personal details

Name: Ref. Signature: Date:
Ind.:
Phone:
TC (IO) Actions
Comments / Number: Date: ICM
Recd.:
Recd. Decision: Inits.: Ref. Date:

Date: Reject: Ind.

Accept, revise at next issue: 
Accept, issue temporary amendment 
Comments:
Originator given Date: Inits.: Document Date: Inits.:

feedback (Yes/No) Controller
Advised.

VAIL-20-129-S-007

VAIL-20-129-S-007 - Fitness For Service Assessment of Static Equipment - Rev. A

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

VAIL-20-129-S-007 - Fitness For Service Assessment of Static Equipment - Rev. A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OIL & GAS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED (OGDCL)

INSPECTION & CORROSION STANDARDS

FITNESS FOR SERVICE ASSESSMENT OF

Safdar Ali Channa

OGDCL DOCUMENT NO. VAIL-20-129-S-007 PAGE 1 OF 25

CONTRACT NO. OGDCL-MIA-CORR-4614 REV. A DATE: 23-08-2021

DOCUMENT TITLE: OGDCL DOCUMENT NO.

CONTRACT NO. OGDCL-MIA-CORR-4614 REV. A DATE: 23-08-2021

4 Context of the Organization

4.4 Quality Management System

4.4.1 General Requirements 1, 2 and 3 Introduction, Objective and Scope

4.3 Determining the Scope of the QMS 3 Scope

5.1 Leadership Commitment 8 Resource Management

Action to Address Risks and

7.1 Resources 8 Resource Management

7.2 Competence 9 Qualifications/Certifications

7.5 Documented Information 12 Records and Documentation

8.3 Design and Development 11 Detailed Procedure

9.2 Internal Audit 13 Audit and Review

9.3 Management Review 13 Audit and Review

10 Improvement 13 Audit and Review

DOCUMENT TITLE: OGDCL DOCUMENT NO.

CONTRACT NO. OGDCL-MIA-CORR-4614 REV. A DATE: 23-08-2021

DOCUMENT TITLE: OGDCL DOCUMENT NO.

CONTRACT NO. OGDCL-MIA-CORR-4614 REV. A DATE: 23-08-2021

APPENDIX 1 – DAMAGE CLASSES ……………………………………………….……….……… 22

APPENDIX 2 – PROCESS MAP TO PERFORM FFS ASSESSMENT …………………………. 23

APPENDIX 3 – ALTERATION OR RE-RATING OF PRESSURE VESSEL FORM …………… 24

APPENDIX 4 – USER COMMENT / FEEDBACK FORM FOR ICS PROCEDURE …………... 25

DOCUMENT TITLE: OGDCL DOCUMENT NO.

CONTRACT NO. OGDCL-MIA-CORR-4614 REV. A DATE: 23-08-2021

DOCUMENT TITLE: OGDCL DOCUMENT NO.

CONTRACT NO. OGDCL-MIA-CORR-4614 REV. A DATE: 23-08-2021

C&I OGDCL’s Corrosion, QC & Inspections

DOCUMENT TITLE: OGDCL DOCUMENT NO.

CONTRACT NO. OGDCL-MIA-CORR-4614 REV. A DATE: 23-08-2021

DOCUMENT TITLE: OGDCL DOCUMENT NO.

CONTRACT NO. OGDCL-MIA-CORR-4614 REV. A DATE: 23-08-2021

5.0 STANDARDS AND REFERENCES

API 510 Pressure Vessel Inspection Code: In-service Inspection,

API RP 530 Calculation of Heater Tube Thickness in Petroleum

API 570 Piping Inspection Code: In-service Inspection, Rating,

API 571 Damage Mechanisms Affecting Fixed Equipment in the

API 572 Inspection of Pressure Vessels

API 574 Inspection Practices for Piping System Components

API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 Fitness For Service

API 579-2 / ASME FFS-2 Fitness-for-Service Example Problem Manual

API 580 Risk-Based Inspection

API 581 Risk-Based Inspection Technology

API 620 Design and Construction of Large, Welded, Low-Pressure

API 650 Welded Tanks for Oil Storage

API 653 Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration and Reconstruction

ASME B31.3 Process Piping Guide

VAIL-20-129-S-004 Piping System Inspection

VAIL-20-129-S-005 Pressure Vessel Inspection

VAIL-20-129-S-001 Welded Above Ground Storage Tank

ISO 9712 NDT – Qualification and certification of NDT personnel

NB-23 National Board Inspection Code

DOCUMENT TITLE: OGDCL DOCUMENT NO.

CONTRACT NO. OGDCL-MIA-CORR-4614 REV. A DATE: 23-08-2021

Team Leader Operations

Carry out Integrity

Raising the FFS Request A C I R R R I I