Suitability-for-Service and

Fitness-for-Service

Tools for Integrity Management of Fixed Equipment

August 9 - 11, 2022 | Henry B. Gonzales Center | San Antonio, TX

 About the Speaker
• Brian Macejko, P.E.
• The Equity Engineering Group, Inc.
• Group Head – Consulting Engineer II
• 19 years of industry experience
• Fields of Expertise:
Fitness-For-Service, Advanced Stress Analysis, Fracture Mechanics, Design and
Post-Construction Assessments of Pressure Equipment & Piping
• Industry Involvement/Recognition:
Member of the ASME/API Joint Committee on Fitness-For-Service,
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1

API INSPECTION & MECHANICAL INTEGRITY SUMMIT

 BIO—Kate Gustoff
• E2G|The Equity Engineering Group, Inc.
• Consulting Engineer & Group Manager within Mechanical & Structural Engineering Team
• 12 Years in the Industry
• Field of Expertise:
• Mechanical Engineering,
• Fitness-for-Service,
• Pressure Vessel and Storage Tank Design,
• Fatigue and Fracture Mechanics.
• Industry Involvement/Recognition:
• Contributor to the development of Fitness-for-Service Methodologies in API 579-1/ASME FFS-1
Fitness-For-Service, including the development of Weld Residual Stress Guidance
• Research and publications on the topic of weld residual stress and crack propagation.
• E2G Instructor on Fitness-for-Service and Aboveground Storage Tank Courses
API INSPECTION & MECHANICAL INTEGRITY SUMMIT
 Overview
• Review of Life Cycle Management of fixed equipment.
• Importance of Technology Integration
• Benefit of Best Practices
• Discuss tools for addressing damage found in fixed equipment.
• Suitability-for-Service (SFS)
• Fitness-for-Service (FFS)
• Others?
• Case Study: Air Cooler General Thinning Assessment
• Step 1: SFS
• Step 2: FFS

API INSPECTION & MECHANICAL INTEGRITY SUMMIT

 Life-Cycle Management (LCM)
• Life Cycle Management (LCM): the process of managing the entire life-cycle of fixed
pressurized equipment, including design, construction, in-service use, repair if
required, and retirement.
• Owner-users of pressurized
fixed equipment, including
pressure vessels, piping, and
tankage are becoming
increasingly interested in LCM to
maximize equipment reliability
and availability.
• Regulators responsible for public
safety and the environment also
have a stake in assuring
reliability.
API INSPECTION & MECHANICAL INTEGRITY SUMMIT
 LCM Framework
• LCM for pressurized fixed equipment
involves:
• Damage Mechanism Identification
• Equipment Design per Construction Codes
• In-Service Inspection Codes
• In-Service “Tools”, as required
• Retirement/Replacement
• Construction codes for pressurized
equipment typically do not provide rules for
equipment management after initial
commissioning.
• Inspection/monitoring guidance
• Evaluation of a component containing a flaw or
damage from operation
• Repair procedures
API INSPECTION & MECHANICAL INTEGRITY SUMMIT

Pressure Vessels
 LCM Framework
• The LCM Framework may be developed
for any fixed equipment type:
• Pressure Vessels,
• Aboveground Storage Tanks,
• Process Piping,
• Pipeline,
• Rotating Machinery,
• Etc.
• The LCM Framework may also be modified
to account for different jurisdictions by
substituting the applicable codes and
standards.

API INSPECTION & MECHANICAL INTEGRITY SUMMIT

Pipeline
 Technology Integration in the LCM Framework
• Technology integration is starting to exist
between construction codes and in-service
codes—this is necessary for seamless
implementation of the LCM Framework.
• Standards writing organizations need to
develop consistency in both technology
and approach when developing
construction and in-service codes &
standards (e.g., MDMT/MAT).
• Consistency in the technology avoids
ambiguities that typically arise when rules
for construction are used for in-service
inspection, FFS, and repair.

API INSPECTION & MECHANICAL INTEGRITY SUMMIT

 Best Practices in the LCM Framework
• Best Practice: a technique or methodology that
upon rigorous evaluation through experience
and research, demonstrates success, has had an
impact, and can be replicated.
• Many corporations document their Best
Practices in internal engineering standards.
• Shown as an overlay to LCM Framework.
• Address both construction and in-service
equipment issues such as inspection, FFS, and
repair guidelines.
• Best practices include more requirements that
should be considered for long-term reliability.
• Best Practices in pressurized fixed-equipment
technology are becoming more difficult to
cultivate because of lack of infrastructure
(corporate memory) and/or expertise.
• Owner-Users must rely on industry forums and/or
codes & standards.
API INSPECTION & MECHANICAL INTEGRITY SUMMIT
 Tools for Integrity Management
• What’s in our toolbox to address damage that was
not planned for in the original equipment design?
• Suitability-for-Service
• Establish Design Basis
• Lacking Documentation
• Fitness-for-Service
• Damage Evaluation
• Rerate (or Derate)
• Repair

API INSPECTION & MECHANICAL INTEGRITY SUMMIT

 What is Suitability-for-Service?
• Suitability for Service (SFS): the process of performing inspection and engineering to
obtain OSHA compliance for equipment that is lacking critical design documentation.
• Can be likened to “reverse engineering” an
asset using guidance, principals, and
procedures from design codes (such as
ASME Section VIII Division 1) and API 579.
• API 510 Section 7.7 “Evaluation of Existing
Equipment With Minimal Documentation” –
Recognized by OSHA interpretations as the
acceptable means to determine equipment
SFS for assets lacking documentation.
• The purpose of the SFS evaluation is to
define a rating for a piece of equipment so
that subsequent inspection plans (API 510
or API 581) can be developed for all
applicable damage mechanisms.

API INSPECTION & MECHANICAL INTEGRITY SUMMIT

 Opportunities for SFS
• What scenarios call for SFS?
• Equipment that does not have any one of the three OSHA-required NRS
components
• Nameplate
• Records (e.g., drawings, manufacturer’s data forms, inspection reports, repair
documentation)
• Code Stamping (implies validation of design)
• Modified or repaired equipment without proper NRS
• Equipment built to a Code or Standard not consistent with latest industry
Code or Standard requirements
• Minimum Design Metal Temperature (MDMT)
• Allowable Stress Changes
• Identified need to review or validate equipment design basis
• Define remaining life (e.g., corrosion allowance, cycles)
API INSPECTION & MECHANICAL INTEGRITY SUMMIT
 Why Apply Suitability-for-Service?
• An SFS evaluation is intended to validate equipment design and provide proper
documentation to enable future monitoring of the equipment mechanical
integrity.
• Without fulfilling these steps, an owner-operator cannot effectively manage their
equipment.
• An SFS evaluation is the fastest and most cost-
effective process for achieving OSHA
compliance for equipment lacking
documentation.
• SFS provides information on equipment
design basis to support inspection planning.
• Not intended to qualify equipment for a
specific damage mechanism—FFS assessment
may consequently be required if damage is
found.
API INSPECTION & MECHANICAL INTEGRITY SUMMIT
 What is Fitness-for-Service?
• Construction codes for pressurized equipment typically do not provide rules to
evaluate a component containing a flaw or damage that results from operation after
initial commissioning, exceptions include B31.4 and B31.8
• Fitness-For-Service (FFS) assessments: quantitative, multi-disciplinary engineering
evaluations that are performed to demonstrate the structural integrity of an in-
service component containing a flaw or damage.
• API 579/ASME FFS-1 (API 579) is the industry recognized standard for FFS.
• The FFS assessment is used to make run, repair, or replace decisions.
• The FFS evaluation must cover:
• Present integrity of the component given a current state of damage.
• Projected remaining life based on damage rate assumptions—provides guidance on an
inspection interval.

API INSPECTION & MECHANICAL INTEGRITY SUMMIT

 Why Apply Fitness-for-Service?
• Implementing FFS into an asset’s lifecycle management program can improve safety,
reduce risk, optimize construction, maximize equipment availability, and reduce
future maintenance and inspection costs.
• Qualify equipment containing flaws (service induced damage) for continued operation in
a safe and reliable manner. Improve performance and avoid unnecessary repairs or
replacements.
• Decrease Maintenance Cost
• Increase Production Time
• Assist with inspection planning and managing resources (time, $)
• Method
• Extent/Focus
• Interval
• Sensitivity
• Comply with Safety Legislation and/or Jurisdiction Requirements
• Determine the feasibility of increasing the severity of operations
API INSPECTION & MECHANICAL INTEGRITY SUMMIT
 Opportunities for FFS
• The traditional use of FFS has been in a reactive mode
• Flaws or damage are found during a shutdown inspection
• Flaws or damage are found during an on-stream inspection
• A leak occurs and the damaged equipment needs to be operated until a replacement can
be found
• A fire has occurred
• Equipment is out of design-code tolerances during initial fabrication or installation
• FFS technology can be used in a proactive mode to address the following:
• Change in design codes
• Brittle fracture screening
• Creep life assessment
• NDE and Flaw Sizing Guidelines
• Optimize remaining life (e.g., future corrosion allowance, cycles)
API INSPECTION & MECHANICAL INTEGRITY SUMMIT
 Suitability-For-Service W/ Fitness-For-Service
• FFS technology can be used to supplement SFS
• Equipment built to a Code or Standard not
consistent with latest industry Code or Standard
requirements
• Part 3 Brittle Fracture Evaluation
• Part 10 Creep Evaluation
• Part 14 Fatigue Evaluation
• Non-Standard Equipment or Components
• Annex 2D (and ASME Section VIII, Division 2)
• Remaining Life Studies
• Evaluation of Damage
• Ex: wall loss, cracking, distortion

API INSPECTION & MECHANICAL INTEGRITY SUMMIT

 Other “Tools”
• Rerating: a change in either the design temperature rating, the MDMT or
the MAWP rating of a vessel.
• Design temperature and MAWP of a vessel may be increased or decreased
because of a rerating.
• Derating below original design conditions is a permissible way to provide for
additional corrosion allowance.
• Repair: the work necessary to restore a vessel to a condition suitable for
safe operation at the design conditions.
• Many useful references:
• Inspection Codes (API 510, API 570, API 653), NBIC-23, ASME Post Construction Documents
(i.e., PCC-1/PCC-2), WRC Bulletins (e.g., WRC 452)
• Understand the design basis in order to be able to ensure repairs will conform
• Important to review jurisdictional requirements (e.g., NBIC-23, ABSA)

API INSPECTION & MECHANICAL INTEGRITY SUMMIT

 CASE STUDY: Air Cooler SFS w/ FFS
• SFS calculations performed for air
cooler pressure boundary
components to:
• Confirm adequacy for design
conditions
• Report maximum uniform corrosion
allowance
• Minor metal loss detected on
wrapper plates.
• Limited future corrosion allowance
(FCA) resulting in frequent
inspection to support continued
service life.

API INSPECTION & MECHANICAL INTEGRITY SUMMIT

 CASE STUDY: Air Cooler SFS w/ FFS
• Air Cooler Design Data:
• Code: ASME Section VIII, Division 1
• Year: 2015
• MAWP: 1650 PSIG at 350°F
• Material: SA-516-70N
• PWHT: Yes
• Dimensions: 14” tall x 9.25” wide x 66.75 “ long
• Thickness:
• Wrapper Plate (t1): 1.75 Inches
• Plugsheet/Tubesheet (t2): 2.50 Inches
• End Plate (t3): : 1.375 Inches
• Corr. Allowance: 0 inches
• Tubes: 128 x 1.25” OD, SA-214
• Tube Pitch: 2.5 inches*
• Nozzles: NPS 10 Sch. 80
• Flanges: AMSE B16.5 CL 900
* Field Measurements Required
API INSPECTION & MECHANICAL INTEGRITY SUMMIT
 CASE STUDY: Air Cooler SFS w/ FFS
• ASME Section VIII, Division 1 Mandatory Appendix 13:
Design of Vessels of Noncircular Cross Section
• Method of design has thickness-interdependency and is iterative
• Assume side plate thicknesses, calculate membrane and bending
stresses, and adjust thickness as required.
• Membrane stress at mid-span shall not exceed allowable stress value
of S
• Membrane plus Bending stress at mid-span at corner shall not exceed
1.5S
• Calculated stresses are adjusted to account for:
• Weld Joint Efficiency – at welded joints
• Ligament Efficiency – to account for the hole pattern
• Use limiting efficiency as applicable – do not need to apply both
• End closures typically designed in accordance with flat plate
solutions. ASME BPVC VIII-1, Figure 13-2(a)

API INSPECTION & MECHANICAL INTEGRITY SUMMIT

 CASE STUDY: Air Cooler SFS w/ FFS
• Air cooler design was
adequate and very slight
increase in corrosion
allowance was calculated.
• The minor corrosion
detected on the wrapper
plate did not satisfy the
component minimum
measured thickness (tmm).
• Limited FCA found on other
header box components
(i.e., tubesheet/plugsheet,
end plates)
• Remaining life is limited.
• Follow-up action required
for the header box.

API INSPECTION & MECHANICAL INTEGRITY SUMMIT

 CASE STUDY: Air Cooler SFS w/ FFS
• FFS assessment was performed in accordance with Part 4 Assessment of General Metal Loss of API 579
to qualify the header box for operation at design conditions with general thinning damage present on
the wrapper plate AND to establish an FCA to meet remaining life requirements.
• Closed-form Level 3 calculations were performed using the ASME VIII-1 Appendix 13 and UG-34 procedures
and the allowable Remaining Strength Factor (RSFa) of 0.9 per API 579.
• A maximum global CAFFS of
0.077 inches from nominal
thickness was calculated for the
subject air cooler header box
using the design conditions of
1650 psig at 350°F.
• All tmm data for the header box
satisfies the FFS minimum
required thicknesses (tmin.FFS).

API INSPECTION & MECHANICAL INTEGRITY SUMMIT

 Summary and Conclusions
• Construction codes for pressurized equipment typically do not provide rules
for equipment management after initial commissioning; however, industry
tools are available to support inspection, damage assessment, and repair of
fixed equipment.
• Consistency in technology integration across LCM framework can alleviate ambiguities
between design and in-service Codes.
• Best practices include more requirements that should be considered for long-term
reliability.
• SFS can be likened to “reverse engineering” an asset and is used to define
design conditions and design life.
• FFS is used to make run, repair, or replace decisions for damage and can
specifically be used to optimize remaining life.
• Both SFS and FFS are critical tools for the management of fixed equipment.
API INSPECTION & MECHANICAL INTEGRITY SUMMIT