Inspection, Repair, Alteration, Re-rating.

What Should We Be Doing?

There don't need to Reinvent the
European Wheel.
Presented by Mered Klyčmuradov

Yuri Morozov
Post-construction Codes already exist and develop

European approach

EC Pressure Equipment Harmonized Standard – EN 13445, EN 12480 [ASME + Guide

Directive [97/23/EC] For ASME Stamp Holders Use of ASME Section VIII,
Division 1 to Meet the EC Pressure Equipment Directive
[97/23/EC]- GUIDE 2001); PD 5500; CODAP 2000; etc
Conformity to the Essential Requirements Pressure Equipment Directive and both administrative
and to technical requirements of the harmonized standard(s)
Responsibility – Manufacturer

Storage tanks EN 14015 for new aboveground storage tanks

Remark for AST:

Lowest boundary of PED equal 0.5 bar

Tank maximum design pressure by:

EN 14015 egual 0.5bar
API 620 egual 1.0 bar
Technical Aspects of Responsibility:

In the context of this requirement, the term Responsibility applies to the

combination of the following disciplines unless a specific discipline is cited
directly. A Fitness-For-Service assessment during service life may require input
from multiple engineering disciplines as described below.

a) Materials or Metallurgical Engineering.

b) Mechanical or Structural Engineering.

c) Inspection Engineering.

d) Fracture Mechanics Engineering.

f) Process Engineering.
API Recommended Practice 571:

“Damage Mechanism Affecting Fixed Equipment in the Refining

Industry”, Recommended Practice 571, first edition, December 2003 (previously
published as WRC Bulletin):
“The ASME and API design codes and standards for pressurized
equipment [just as EN Standards] provide rules for the design, fabrication,
inspection, and testing of new pressure vessels, piping systems, and storage
tanks.”
Fitness-For-Service (FFS) assessments are quantitative engineering
evaluations that are performed to demonstrate the structural integrity of an in-
service component containing a flaw or damage. The first step in a fitness-for-
service assessment performed in accordance with API RP 579 is to identify the
flaw type and the cause of damage.

API RP 571 -> API 579 -> API RP 580.

It is noted that at a September 30, 2004 European Pressure Equipment

session in Paris, proposals were presented for the development of a PED type
document covering in-service inspection in the EU member states.
 American practice
Design Construction Codes Design Construction Codes Post-Construction Codes Post-Construction Codes

ASME VIII - 1 & 2, ASME VIII - 1 & 2, NBIC NBIC

ASME B31 family ASME B31 family API 510 API 510

API 650 API 650 API 570 API 570

API 620 API 620 API 653 API 653

SPI SP001 00 SPI SP001 00

API 579 API 579

Inspection

Fabrication Installation Repair

Alteration

Manufacturer's Data Report fixes conformity to requirements design Code

In-service priority – structural integrity and fitness-for-service. Responsibility – User (Inspector, Notified body)
 API 510 “Pressure Vessel Inspection Code: Maintenance Inspection,
Rating, Repair, and Alteration”
API 570 “Piping Inspection Code: “In-service, Repair, Alteration, and
Re-rating of In-Service Piping Systems”

API RP 510 (1931) -> ANSI/API 510 (1980)

Both API 510 and API 570 have been recognized by many regulatory
bodies and are widely used by the Petrochemical and Chemical Process
Industries for in-service inspection activities related to pressure vessels and
piping.
Draft NBIC 2006 Addendum

NB05-0119

AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE

Existing text:

The American Petroleum Institute promulgates codes and standards for

the inspection, repair, alteration, re-rating, and fitness for service assessment of
pressure vessels and piping used by the petroleum and chemical process
industries

Proposed change:

API Owner / User Inspection and Repair Organization functioning within

recognized API standards, as adopted by each jurisdiction, shall be accepted and
monitored by the jurisdiction where the Owner / User is located. Frequency for
accepting and monitoring API Owner / User Inspection and Repair Organizations
quality assurance program shall be at least once every three years. Inspection
personnel shall meet the requirements of the applicable API Standard or as
required by the jurisdiction.
 Recently, industry identified a need to enhance international
recognition of these Codes

New in-service inspection (ISI) Code

API 510 + API 570 → Project for an In-service Inspection
Pressure Vessel and Piping Code for the Petroleum Refining and
Chemical process Industries

A Project Team was formed by the API Committee on Refinery

Equipment (CRE) and the ASME Board on Pressure Technology Codes
and Standards (BPTCS)

Result as we know : “In-service Inspection Pressure Vessel and

Piping Code for the Petroleum Refining and Chemical Process
Industries”.
 Structure and Scope PV ISI Code.

1. Scope
This Code covers inspection, repair, alteration, and re-rating requirements and
expectations for pressure vessels and metallic piping systems after they have been
placed in service.

1.1 Intent
This Code was developed for the petroleum refining and chemical process industries. It
is intended for use by organizations that maintain or have access to an authorized
inspection agency, a repair organization, and technically qualified pressure vessel and
piping engineers, inspectors, and examiners, as defined in Section 3.

1.2 Limitations
This Code shall not be used as a substitute for the original construction requirements
governing a pressure vessel or piping system before it is placed in service; nor shall it be
used in conflict with any prevailing regulatory requirements.
The following are exempted from the specific requirements of this Code:

a. Pressure vessels on movable structures

b. All classes of containers listed for exemption from construction in the

scope of the applicable code/standard of construction, including:

1. Fired process tubular heaters.

2. Pressure containers that are integral parts or components of

rotating or reciprocating mechanical devices.
Piping Systems

Included Fluid Services

This Code applies to piping systems for process fluids,
hydrocarbons, and flammable or toxic fluid services, such as the
following:
a. Raw, intermediate, and finished petroleum products.
b. Raw, intermediate, and finished chemical products.
c. Catalyst lines.
d. Hydrogen, natural gas, fuel gas, and flare systems.
e. Sour water and hazardous waste streams above threshold
limits, as defined by applicable regulations.
f. Hazardous chemicals above threshold limits, as defined by
applicable regulations
 Fitness-for-Service and Risk-based Inspection

This inspection Code recognizes fitness-for-service concepts for

evaluating in-service degradation of pressure-containing components.

PV and ISI Code -> blend to the API 510 and API 570
New Version of API 579 to Be Released

API RP 579 → API/ASME STD 579

Example of working process
API RP 579 Content
 General approach

RSF = LDC/LUC (base)

(vessel and piping) MAWPr = MAWP (RSF/RSFa) for RSF < RSFa

(vessel and piping) MAWPr = MAWP for RSF ≥RSFa

(storage tank) MFHr = MFH (RSF/RSFa) for RSF < RSFa

(storage tank) MFHr = MFH for RSF ≥RSFa

 API RP 579

Uses a local stress approach to assess wall loss and corrosion flaws.
Results of extensive FEA and numerous full-scale burst tests

Uses engineering failure assessment diagram (FAD) for crack-like flaws.

 General metal loss: CAe = tloss + CR x time

Alternatively, RL is computed as follows: RL = (tam - K tmin)/CR

 Illustration of Critical Thickness Profiles Through Planes of
Maximum Metal Loss.
Illustration of Inspection
Planes for Measuring
Critical Thickness
Profiles.
 Documentation of the results is an important part of fitness for service
assessment.

Recommendations for content.

1. Next assessment date.

2. Original design data, the maintenance and operating history
3. Inspection data
4. Assumptions and analytical results
4.1 Version, section, and level of API RP 579
4.2 Future design and operating conditions
4.3 Calculations of minimum required thickness or MAWP
4.4 Calculations of remaining life and inspection interval
4.5 Mitigation and monitoring recommendations
5. All documents should be stored with inspection records.
 The general assessment procedure recommended by API RP
579 has the following eight steps:

Step 1 Identify the type of flaw and the material damage

mechanism.
Step 2 Determine the applicability and limitations of the
assessment procedures.
Step 3 Define the data requirements.
Step 4 Apply the assessment techniques and acceptance criteria.
Step 5 Evaluate the remaining life or the limiting flaw size and
establish an inspection interval.
Step 6 Apply the required remediation methods.
Step 7 Employ in-service monitoring procedures when remaining
life and inspection interval cannot be adequately established.
Step 8 Document all information used and decisions made in
Steps 1 through 7, and store the documentation with inspection records.

These eight steps should be included in each fitness for service

assessment of a specific flaw and component combination.
References:
1. Service Experience and Reliability Improvement: Nuclear, Fossil, and Petrochemical
Plants, PVP-Vol. 288, Edited by W. H. Bamford, ASME International, New York, 1994.
2. Fitness-for-Service and Decisions for Petroleum and Chemical Equipment, PVP-Vol. 315,
Edited by M. Prager, ASME International, New York, 1995.
3. Fitness for Adverse Environments in Petroleum and Power Equipment, PVP-Vol. 359,
Edited by M. Prager, ASME International, New York, 1997.
4. Fitness-for-Service Evaluations in Petroleum and Fossil Power Plants, PVP-Vol. 380,
Edited by M. Zako and M. Prager, ASME International, New York, 1998.
5. Fitness for Service, Stress Classification and Expansion Joint Design - 2000, PVP-Vol.
401, Edited by W. J. Koves, ASME International, New York, 2000.
6. Service Experience and Fitness-for-Service in Power and Petroleum Processing, PVP-
Vol. 411, Edited by M. Cohn and M. Prager, ASME International, New York, 2000.
7. Fitness-For-Service, API Recommended Practice 579, First Edition, American Petroleum
Institute, Washington, D.C., January 2000.
8. H. Tada, P. Paris, and G. Irwin, The Stress Analysis of Cracks Handbook, Paris
Productions Incorporated, St. Louis, 1985.
9. Carl E. Jaske, Process Equipment Fitness-for-Service Assessments Using API RP 579,
CC Technologies, Dublin, OH, Process & Power Plant Reliability Conference, November 7-
8, 2001
10. Joint API / ASME Post-Construction Code Committee, “White Paper on Project for an In-
service Inspection Pressure Vessel and Piping Code for the Petroleum Refining and
Chemical process Industries”
11. Carl E. Jaske, Inspection and Remaining Life Evaluation of Process Plant Equipment,
Process & Power Plant Reliability Conference, November 13-14, 2002