Slides - Turnaround Planning and Execution

JULY 2023
Turnaround Planning and

Execution
Practical Damage Mechanism / Integrity Operating Window
and Fitness-for-Service Considerations
PRESENTED BY Brian L. Jack Kraig S. Shipley, P.E.

Principal Engineer II Principal Engineer I
Brian L. Jack
• Over 40 years experience in refining and petrochemical
industry
‒ Career roughly split between Chevron & Phillips 66 (Chief
Materials and Corrosion Engineer)
‒ At Equity since 2016
• Technical skill set/expertise:
‒ Metallurgy and Materials
‒ Corrosion Engineering
‒ Inspection
• Consulting support
‒ Mechanical integrity audits/reviews; identification of high-risk
Brian L. Jack equipment
‒ Turnaround worklist reviews and work scope definition
Principal Engineer II
‒ Assessment and repair of damaged equipment
‒ Development of fixed equipment inspection plans
‒ Preparation of corrosion control documents
‒ Damage mechanism reviews for process units
‒ Identification of acceptable operating envelopes for equipment
reliability
• Industry committee activity
2 © 2023 E2G | The Equity Engineering Group, Inc. All rights reserved
‒ Member, API and NACE for over 35 years through present
Kraig S. Shipley
• More than 30 years experience with 30+ turnarounds
‒ 10 yrs at BP Oil (Corp. Eng. and Refinery Maint.)
‒ Founding Members of Equity Engineering (2002)
• Technical skill set:
‒ Vessels, exchangers, piping, valves, and heaters
‒ FFS, code design, fatigue, vibration, creep, capital projects
• Consulting support
‒ Extend equipment run times through FFS evaluations using the
rules of API 579 and Finite Element Analysis (FEA)
Kraig S. Shipley ‒ Thermal and stress FEA with emphasis on non-linear behavior such
as buckling, contact, creep, plasticity, and large deformation
behavior
Principal Engineer I
‒ Supported major refinery capital projects as lead technical
specialist
‒ Provide real-time (on-site and remote) turnaround support
• Industry committee activity
‒ Member, ASME B31.3 Code Committee, 2000 – present
• Prior chairman of Design Subgroup B
‒ Member, API Subcommittee on Piping, SG Quarter Turn Valves,
1995 – 2000
Setting the Team Up for Success
Preparation Pays Off
Major Cost for TA Delays
• 66% of TAs finish late and overrun budget by 10%+
• 40% of turnarounds exceed budget by 30%+
• Average lost opportunity cost $2.5 million/day
⎼ Average US refinery profit margin $17.50/barrel
⎼ Average US refinery production rate 145,000 bpd
• Minimize TA Delays 🡺 Large Economic Advantage
Key Strategies
• Damage Mechanism (DM) and Integrity Operating Window (IOW) Reviews
⎼ Guide TA work scopes & inspection plans
• Pre-TA FFS
⎼ Immediate go/no-go and repair plan decisions
• TA Damage Discovery
⎼ Understanding the damage mechanism
⎼ Timely FFS execution
⎼ Minimize unplanned repairs
Setting the Team Up for Success
Planning and Execution – E2G Can Support
• Setting the premise • Execution
⎼ Goals and budget ⎼ Damage assessment (FFS)
⎼ Reliability/capital improvements ⎼ Execution of improvements
⎼ Production plan ⎼ Inspection/NDE
⎼ Market influence
⎼ Repairs
• Scoping phase
• Post-TA planning
⎼ Planned repairs
⎼ History ⎼ Planned repairs next TA
⎼ RBI inspections ⎼ Lessons learned
⎼ Proactive FFS ⎼ Update RBI
• Detailed planning
⎼ Job plans
⎼ TA organization
⎼ Progress tracking & Gantt charts
⎼ Securing labor resources
© 2023 E2G | The Equity Engineering Group, Inc. All rights reserved
Turnaround Planning and Execution
DM and IOW Reviews Discovery during TA (PST)

• Guide TA work scopes • Understanding DM
Pre-TA FFS • Timely FFS execution
• Go/no-go results for • Minimize unplanned repairs
immediate resolution FFS Case Studies
• Pre-TA and TA Discovery
JULY 2023
DAMAGE MECHANISM (DM) AND

INTEGRITY OPERATING WINDOW (IOW)
REVIEWS
GUIDE TA WORK SCOPES

GUIDE INSPECTION PLANS
PREPARE FOR TA DISCOVERY
ASSISTANCE FOR TA FFS
DM and IOW Reviews
• Detailed DM and IOW reviews should be conducted well in advance of

scheduled TARs (ideally 18 months plus ahead of the TAR)
• Such reviews provide for:
⎼ Properly focused and efficient inspection plans at TAR
⎼ Identifying any needed pre-TAR onstream inspections to better define the
required TAR workscope
⎼ Identifying the needed inspection and support resources for the TAR
(contract inspectors, specialized inspection technologies, outside FFS
expertise etc.)
⎼ Identifying any needed metallurgy upgrades or design changes (e.g., a new
water wash) to control corrosion and reduce failure risk – ensuring such
upgrades & changes are well planned and non-expedited
⎼ Minimization of surprise finds at the TAR (i.e., minimizing those costly
workscope additions during TAR)
Rich Amine Piping Operating Beyond
Loading and Velocity IOWs
• DM and IOW reviews identify a corrosion risk in
a rich amine piping system due to high loading
& high velocity
• DM documentation for rich amine piping states
that inspections should focus at turbulent areas Classic weld HAZ corrosion in
like welds, reducers, letdown valves and ells rich amine piping; Using UT
with RT being the preferred inspection instead of RT could have easily
technique missed this corrosion
• Same RT, same spot 2 years prior showed no
corrosion. Line had been corrosion & leak free
for ~35 years
• Some preventative clamps are installed pre-TAR
= no leaks or unplanned S/Ds
• At scheduled TAR, piping is upgraded to SS; all
preplanned with pipe spools prefabricated and
ready to go at TAR etc. Flow
CU OVHD Operating Below Salt Point
• Revamp project lowers tower top temp from ~400°F to 250-300°F

• A DM and IOW review identifies a concern as the calculated salt
point temp is ~310°F. Salt point is very high due to no desalter in
this unit.
Contact RT of
• Special inspections by contact X-ray plus grid UT identify lots of large diameter
NH4Cl salting and associated deep pitting; section at right down to
0.13” from original 0.25” wall in just ~1 year! OVHD line. Dark
spots = deep
• Some preventative clamps are installed pre-TAR = no leaks or pits
unplanned S/Ds
• At scheduled TAR, piping is upgraded to Monel; all preplanned
with pipe spools prefabricated and ready to go at TAR etc.
• A new water wash is also installed (preplanned and efficiently
executed) to remove salts from piping and HX’s
Wet H2S Damage in Amine Contactor Due to
High Amine Loading
• Early 1990’s inspections of contactor show minimal wet H2S
damage
• No formal IOW program at the refinery at this time but
awareness that amine loading was very high in the late 1990s
leads to decision to inspect again for wet H2S damage in
2000. See next slide.
• Contingency plans for repairs and FFS assessments are
made pre-TAR, again due to high loading concerns
• 2000 inspection finds significant wet H2S damage in lower
half of tower; tower fails FFS and but is repaired within the
scheduled TAR window due to good pre-planning
Amine Loading for Contactor on Previous
Slide
Some Practical Guidance for Cooling Water
(CW) Exchanger Bundles
• Many refiners have found that HX bundle tube leaks and
tube fouling are, cumulatively, the biggest cause of LPO in
their refining system
• The refinery environment that causes the most corrosion and
fouling problems for HX tubes is our recirculating cooling
water systems (CW causes >30% of refinery HX tube leaks in
some studies)
• In reasonably well controlled cooling tower systems, CS CW
bundles should last 10-12 years (~2 TAR intervals) but
expecting 3 TAR intervals (15-18 years) from CS CW bundles
is unrealistic in today’s environmentally friendly cooling water
treatment programs.
Keys to Obtaining the Expected 10-12 Years
Life from CS Tubes in Today’s Recirculating CW
• Maintain tight control of CW treatment with particular
attention on biological activity (a common problem for
short lived bundles). Establish IOWs for your CW
systems
• Monitor & formally audit the performance of the water
treatment program
• To the best extent possible keep water velocities >3
FPS (5-8 FPS ideal), keep bulk water temps below
120F, never throttle CW flow and never employ
shellside cooling.
• Use seamless, not ERW, CS tubes. ERW tubes are
prone to preferential weld seam corrosion in CW
(photos at right)
Sulfide Stress Cracking (SSC) of B7 Flo-Head
Bolts
Another common issue with CW bundles
• Photo at right shows SSC fractured B7 flo-head bolts. SSC
can occur on any inherently hard materials (>Rc 22) operating
in a wet H2S environment.
• In service just a few months after a TAR in an OVHD
exchanger when about half of the B7 bolts completely
fractured causing a severe leak & a unit S/D. This was a
brand-new CW bundle at the scheduled TAR but B7 flo head
studs were used instead B7M due to no communication of
stud requirements from the refinery to the bundle fabricator
• Use B7M or other “NACE compliant” alloys for flo-head
bolts in all sour light ends services.
Cooling Water Bundle Practical Guidance
Summary
• Don’t use ERW CS for new/ replacement bundles. Seamless
CS should be the minimum bundle metallurgy for
recirculating CW services.
• Replace/ retube your seamless CS CW bundles at ~10-12
years or after ~2 TA’s. Inspections of >12 year old CS cooling
water bundles = money waste & high leak risk.
• For admiralty and CS CW bundles, perform thorough
inspections (visuals, micrometer and RFEC/EC/IRIS) at ~5
years (first major TA), to ensure the bundle is on track to
make another run.
• Duplex 2205 is a proven & cost-effective bundle metallurgy
upgrade for recirculating CW. Consider duplex upgrades for
chronic problem CS bundles. Duplex costs ~3X CS.
• And don’t forget, use B7M, not B7, for flo-head bolts in all wet
sour services (light ends, frac OVHD etc.)!
Some Comments on Advanced Inspection
Technologies
• Many advanced inspection technologies are used during TARs
(and sometimes pre-TAR) including:
⎼ RFEC/NFT/IRIS for exchanger tubes RFEC completely missed the
⎼ PAUT/TOFD/SWUT for cracking inspections of piping and vessel deep localized corrosion at this
welds, weld HAZs ERW weld seam of an
• Experience has shown that these technologies are prone to both exchanger tube
overcalls and under calls depending on the particular
circumstances involved
• Know the limitations of these technologies and always have plans
in place to verify results of advanced inspections prior to
embarking on expensive FFS assessments or equipment
replacements and also, before calling an inspection “clean”.
⎼ For example, back up RFEC & NFT inspections with some IRIS, good
visual inspections, 3 ball micrometers and perhaps a tube pull
JULY 2023
PRE-TA FFS
GO/ NO-GO RESULTS
REPAIR PLANS DEVELOPED
IMMEDIATE EXECUTION UPON TA DISCOVERY
Pre-TA FFS
• Plan Ahead and Save Time during TA
• Eliminate inspection scope for TA
⎼ Code calc Tmin
⎼ Remaining life
• Minimize weld buildup
⎼ Code calc Tmin
⎼ LTA assessment
• FFS of accessible damage like CUI
⎼ Determine what areas need repair during TA
• Develop go/no-go results
⎼ Immediate resolution of discovery at TA
⎼ Tmins
⎼ Critical flaw sizing
⎼ Limiting LTAs for grind out
⎼ Flange machining tolerance
Pre-TA FFS
• Develop repair plans
⎼ Grind out tolerance
⎼ Structural reinforcement
o Skirt or vessel openings
⎼ Weld repair plan
⎼ Post-weld heat treatment (PWHT)
o Layout to avoid distortion
o Structurally stable
JULY 2023
PRE-TA FFS
CASE STUDIES
REMAINING LIFE – SCOPE REDUCTION
CUI FFS
REACTOR FFS & REPAIR PLANS
COKE DRUM FFS & REPAIR PLANS
HEATER COIL PRE-TA CREEP ASSESSMENT
Pre-TA Remaining Life Assessment
Pre-TAR Potential Scope Reduction Scope
Reductio
• Client performed recent inspection and flagged TMLs n
• Review inspection records to establish:
⎼ Minimum measured thickness (Tmm)
⎼ Corrosion rate (CR) w/ metallurgist
• Perform Code calculations Tmm=0.370”, Tmin=0.330”, CR=3.6 mpy
⎼ Minimum required thickness (Tmin) 🡺 RL = 11.1 yrs (5.5 yr half-life)
• Evaluate the remaining life
⎼ RL = (Tmm-Tmin)/CR
• If RL > 10 years (half-life > 5 year)
⎼ TA inspection not required
• If RL < 10 years (half-life < 5 year)
Scope
⎼ TA inspection required
Reductio
⎼ Revisit RL during TA Tmm=0.400”,
n Tmin=0.298”, CR=6.0 mpy
🡺 RL = 17.0 yrs (8.5 yr half-life)
CUI Pre-TAR Assessment
• Tower with seven (7) CUI locations
• Pre-TA FFS performed
• All PASSED L2 GML FFS
• TOWER with APIFFS SagePlus™ deck created prior to TA
• Assessed loads
⎼ 415 psig at 185°F with 100-ton wt.
⎼ Seismic and wind loading
HP Reactor Pre-TA Assessment
• Critical flaw sizes (circ. and long. flaws)
• Required FEA for stress distribution
⎼ Thermal transient stress and pressure drop
⎼ Aligned thermal stress with assessment temperature
• Grind-out LTA assessments
⎼ Level 2 (Shell) and Level 3 (FEA) Multi Discipline (5)
Mech Engr, Metallurgist, Operations,
• Provided six (6) weld procedures Inspection, Welding Engr
• Structural assessment for 1300°F PWHT
Coke Drum Pre-TA FFS & Repair Plans
• Minimum required thicknesses (Tmins)
• Critical flaw sizes (circ. and long. flaws)
Multi Discipline (5)
• Grind-Out LTA assessments Mech Engr, Metallurgist,
Operations, Inspection,
⎼ Assumed sizes solved for depth Welding Engr
⎼ Level 2 (longitudinal and circumferential)
• Provided two (2) weld repair procedures
• PWHT plan developed
• Structural assessment for 1300°F PWHT
Heater Coil Pre-TA Creep Assessment
• Accumulate historic operation
⎼ Metal temperature e
⎼ Pressure Tim ming
o nsu
⎼ Longitudinal stress C
• Determine historic metal loss
• Timely creep RL at TA
⎼ Use smart pigging results
• Conclusion:
⎼ Convection 🡺 44.3 yr RL
⎼ Radiant 🡺 25.3 yr RL
⎼ Radiant U-bends 🡺 Replace 5
JULY 2023
TA DISCOVERY RESOLUTION
PROBLEM SOLVING TEAM
MULTI-DISCIPLINE
DEDICATED SPECIALIST
TIMELY RESOLUTION OF DISCOVERY
ON-SITE VS. REMOTE
Problem Solving Team
Team Expertise
• Discovery of unanticipated damage
⎼ Will it be critical path
⎼ Overrun budget
• TA problem-solving team
⎼ Properly staffed
⎼ Quickly and efficiently resolve discovery
⎼ Minimize loss opportunity costs
⎼ Dedicated resources to act quickly
• Key resources and tools for the team
⎼ Proactive FFS (pre-TA work familiarity…)
⎼ Equipment documentation and history
⎼ Software tools for quick and accurate analysis
⎼ Progress tracking and Gantt charts
⎼ Others
Team Expertise
Team Make-up
• Depends on size of TA (1 to 10)
• Multi-discipline
⎼ Mechanical (site or consultant)
⎼ Metallurgical (site or consultant)
⎼ Inspection (site Chief Inspector)
⎼ Operations/Process (site OPS)
⎼ Civil (site or consultant)
⎼ Welding (site or consultant)
⎼ TA management (site TA Engineering Manager)
• Tied closely to inspection for new discovery
• Optional disciplines
⎼ Refractory Specialist
⎼ Heater Specialist
⎼ Rotating Equipment Specialist
⎼ Fractionation Specialist (tower tray inspections/repairs)
⎼ Expansion Joint Specialist
⎼ NDE Specialist
Team Expertise
Dedicated Specialists
• Corporate or Consultant (E2G)
• Damage Mechanisms
⎼ API 571 & NACE
• Fitness-for-Service
⎼ API 579 (LTA, cracks, creep, fatigue, etc.)
• Vessel Design
⎼ ASME Sec VIII Div. 1 & 2
• Piping Design
⎼ ASME B31.3
• Repair Plans and Welding Procedures
• PWHT Plan Development
• Lifting Plan Reviews
Team Expertise
On-site vs. Remote Support
• On-site TA support – historically provided
⎼ Six 10-hour days/wk to seven 12-hour days/wk
⎼ In-person communication
⎼ Field measurements
⎼ Guide field inspection
⎼ Equipment documentation ON-SITE TA SUPPORT
⎼ TA execution meeting PROS CONS
∙ Immediate response for field ∙ Multiple discovery items handled by
⎼ Preferred execution style investigation one individual produces back-up
∙ Access to unit inspectors, ∙ Requires significant amount of
maintenance and operations “report writing” post-TA
personnel ∙ Congestion of support personnel –
∙ Access to inspection files and added safety risk
equipment records ∙ Added travel, living, and safety
∙ Impromptu meeting access training costs
Team Expertise
On-site vs. Remote Support
• Remote TA support has its advantages
⎼ TEAM of engineers (3-4 to share work)
⎼ Parallel execution of work
⎼ Quicker resolution of discovery
⎼ No safety risk
⎼ No travel expenses
OVERCOMING REMOTE TA SUPPORT HURDLES
• You can overcome support hurdles On-Site TA Support Pros Remote TA Support
(Hurdles for Remote) Overcoming Hurdles
∙ In-person communication ∙ Scheduled daily TEAMS meetings

∙ Visual inspection of damage
∙ Field measurements ∙ Direct access to inspectors
∙ Guide field inspection
∙ Equipment documentation ∙ Access to e-doc system
∙ TA execution meeting ∙ End-of-day update meeting
JULY 2023
TA DISCOVERY
PST CASE STUDIES
FLANGE FACE MACHINING
BOLTING PROCEDURE
CUI NEW TAR DISCOVERY
COKE DRUM SKIRT CRACKING
H2 BAKE-OUT
REACTOR FLAW GRIND-OUT
VESSEL LTA AND PITTING
Problem Solving in Action
Flange Face Machining – Exchanger Flange
• Up to 5/32” cupping
• ASME VIII-1 App. 2 design calculations
• Max loss of 1/8” allowed
• Switch to Kammpro gasket
• Delivery:
⎼ Immediate direction provided in 2 hrs
⎼ Draft report issued same day
Problem Solving in Action (could be pre-TA)
Bolting Procedure – 60” Body Flange
• Troublesome leaker – boxed in
• Reviewed planned bolt-up procedure
• IntelliJoint assessment performed
• Planned 13% yield (~13 ksi)
⎼ No margin on leakage
• Recommend 40% bolt yield (~41 ksi)
⎼ 9% Sy margin
• Had 3-yr run without leakage
If not reviewed, would have

leaked upon startup and
required another leak box for
the next 3-year run.
CUI New TA Discovery
• Nine (9) new areas discovered during TA
⎼ Pre-TA seven (7) areas
• All areas PASS FFS (GML or LTA)
• Results within 8 hours
⎼ Tower/FFS analysis decks pre-built
• Assessed loads
⎼ 415 psig at 185°F with 100-ton wt.
⎼ Seismic and wind loading
Coke Drum Skirt Cracking
• Skirt to drum circumferential cracking 70% of circumference
• Detailed 14-step repair plan
2
• Two E G welding experts on site Mech Engr,
• Supervised repair 24/7 to completion Metallurgist,
Welding Engr
• Incorporated practical weld repair
⎼ Flex slots with orange peel alignment
⎼ No PWHT 🡺 temper bead
⎼ 350°F welding / 450°F temper bead
⎼ Detailed weld procedure with NDE hold points
Problem Solving in Action (could be pre-TA)
Hydrogen Bake-out – Required?
Do 24 couplings need H2 baked-out for welding? Mech Engr,
• H2 permeation calculations performed Metallurgist,
⎼ E2G’s Hydrogen Bake-Out web app Operations
⎼ 24 components (CS and 1.25Cr)
• Cooldown and depressurization within 15 min
⎼ Been shutdown for 8 days (50°F daily avg temp)
⎼ Assessed a 4-day (96-hr) hold time at 50°F
• H2 concentrations in the steel calculated
• All H2 < 0.5 ppm 🡺 NO H2 bake-out required
⎼ 1 ppm H2 risk for H2 cracking starts
⎼ 0.5 ppm H2 max impregnation from welding
⎼ Limit existing steel H2 to 0.5 ppm (0.5 ppm margin)
• Save $$$ not requiring 24 H2 bake-outs
Reactor Flaw Grind-out LTA
API-579 Part 5 Level 2 LTA FFS Assessment
• Water jet cutting internals out 🡺 Gouged shell 7/8” deep
• Require min 3:1 taper grind out
• Level 2 FFS
⎼ 6” L x 1” W x 7/8” D
⎼ RSF=0.994 ≥ 0.9
⎼ PASSES
• Margin on depth Mech Engr,
⎼ 3” deep (~3X)
Operations
⎼ RSF=0.930
⎼ PASSES
• Controlled start-up and shutdown
⎼ 50°F/hr max rate
⎼ 100°F DT between beds
⎼ ≤ 25% MAWP until 350°F
⎼ Minimum thermal stress
Vessel LTA and Pitting
• Tower with pitting and metal loss (50 trays)
• Combined LTA and pitting rules
• Worst is tray 4 (broken into 24 LTAs)
• 5 yr future FFS (1/2-life approach, 10 yrs)
⎼ Estimated pitting depth rate
⎼ Increase one pitting chart
• On-line monitor for pitting depth rate

Mech Engr, Metallurgist,
Operations, Inspection
JULY 2023
SUMMARY
Turnarounds
Summary
• DM and IOW reviews are key
⎼ Guides TA work scopes and inspection plans
⎼ Prepares for TA discovery and FFS assistance
• Pre-TA FFS
⎼ Go/no-go results
⎼ Repair plans developed
⎼ Immediate execution upon TA discovery
• Problem solving team
⎼ Multi-discipline staff of dedicated experts
⎼ Timely resolution of discovery
⎼ Avoid TA extension and control repair/replacement costs
⎼ Engineer long-term solution (not just in-kind replacement)
⎼ On-site and off-site (hybrid?)
Turnarounds
Summary
• Problem solving team can SAVE MILLIONS $$$
⎼ Significant lost opportunity cost for TA extension
o ~$2.5 million/day 🡺 ~$100,000/hr
⎼ Up-front investment can pay for itself
• E2G can support your TA
⎼ Multi-disciplinary experts
o Mechanical, Metallurgical, Civil, Welding
⎼ 1000s of TA problems solved
JULY 2023
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME & ATTENTION
QUESTIONS?
Brian L. Jack Kraig S. Shipley

Principal Engineer II Principal Engineer I

Slides - Turnaround Planning and Execution

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Slides - Turnaround Planning and Execution

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JULY 2023

Turnaround Planning and

PRESENTED BY Brian L. Jack Kraig S. Shipley, P.E.

DM and IOW Reviews Discovery during TA (PST)

DAMAGE MECHANISM (DM) AND

GUIDE TA WORK SCOPES

• Detailed DM and IOW reviews should be conducted well in advance of

• Revamp project lowers tower top temp from ~400°F to 250-300°F

• Structural assessment for 1300°F PWHT

∙ In-person communication ∙ Scheduled daily TEAMS meetings

If not reviewed, would have

Multi Discipline (4)

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME & ATTENTION

Brian L. Jack Kraig S. Shipley

You might also like