Department

Guest Column
By: GREG GARIC, P .E., Stress Engineering Services

Fitness-for-service assessment: Severe local corrosion When tmin isnt really the minimum
Welcome to the first in a new regular column in Sulfuric Acid Today. In this column, Ill discuss a wide range of acid plant fitness-for-service and reliability issues, such as: How to evaluate the mechanical integrity of converter bulges. When is it safe to operate with a crack? Failure analysis case studies and material issues and more. In this issue, Ill discuss the role of fitness-for-service (FFS) assessment in acid plants, followed by some detail on how to evaluate severe local corrosion by FFS methods. Publication of API RP-579 was a boon to the petroleum refining industry. It provides clear guidelines for dealing with degraded equipment in a manner that often allows continued service without requiring repair, replacement or reduction of the pressure rating. The good news is that this is just as useful in acid plants as in petroleum refineries. Your NDT contractor would clean the area and set up a grid. The size of the grid will vary depending on the size of the LTA and how fast the material thickness is changing. Typically, the grid spacing would be between 1 and 6 inches. For a Level 1 assessment, a few simple parameters are calculated from the minimum measured thickness (tmm) and geometry. The results are plotted on a simple graph that shows if the LTA is a pass or fail. assessment, this LTA did pass. There are also some other checks you have to pass. For example, in no case can the remaining thickness be less then 0.1 inches or less than 20 percent of tmin. In some cases, the geometry is too complicated (e.g. youre close to a nozzle) and the simpler methods of Level 1 and 2 cant be applied. Or, youve failed at both levels and you want to pull out all the stops. This is when a Level 3 assessment is used. Usually, Level 3 assessment involves finite element analysis, hardness testing, chemistry or other work to reduce the uncertainty. Since there can be a great deal of conservatism around nozzles and discontinuities, Level 3 analyses often prove to be worth the cost and time. Figure 3 shows an example of a finite element model used to evaluate a groove-type LTA near a nozzle. The groove resulted from cracking at the weld toe that was ground out.

Evaluation of local metal loss

Probably the most common FFS problems involve local metal loss. Say youre performing routine thickness monitoring and find an area below tmin. You do the usual thickness averaging and if that fails, youre done. Your only choices are to de-rate or repair. Well, the more advanced FFS techniques of API RP-579 will often allow you to operate as is. You may have noticed that Ive used the term metal loss rather than corrosion. This is because it doesnt really matter what causes the metal loss. For example, local corrosion that thins an area isnt really any different from a blend-ground area where a crack was removed. Youll also hear the term local thin area, or LTA. API RP-579 provides three levels of assessment, from simple and conservative (Level 1) to detailed and accurate (Level 3). But, they have many things in common. The starting point for a LTA assessment is to map the LTA (Figure 1).

What Is fitness-for-service assessment?

FFS assessments are, to quote the American Petroleum Institute, [quantitative] engineering evaluations that are performed to demonstrate the structural integrity of an in-service component containing a flaw or damage. So, for example, if you find cracking in your furnace waste heat boiler, excessive thinning in your absorption tower or severe bulging in your converter, youll need to apply FFS methods to evaluate the mechanical integrity not standard code analyses. FFS assessment starts with the understanding that most code analyses are very conservative. Ive heard it said (and I agree) that in a Section VIII, Div. 1 pressure vessel, the actual safety factor on failure is near 10. So, if youre willing to do some extra work in performing a more detailed analysis, you may find that the equipment can be safely operated even in a somewhat degraded condition. In the 1980s, when I was a pressure systems engineer at NASAs Stennis Space Center, fitness-for-service assessment was performed in accordance with generally accepted good engineering practice and was highly dependent on the analytical skills of the engineer. In the mid-80s, the folks in the ASME and API began developing a standard to address in-service equipment problems. With the strong support of major oil companies, API moved more quickly and in 2000 published its Recommended Practice for Fitness-for-Service, API RP-579.

Figure 2: Level 1 acceptance diagram. Level 2 assessment is a bit more detailed and makes use of the critical thickness profile (CTP). When you link up the thinnest grid points through a cross-section, you have the CTP. There is a longitudinal CTP and a circumferential CTP. The CTPs are shown in Figure 1. The Level 2 assessment is particularly helpful when the profile is very irregular.

Figure 3: Finite element analysis of groove. Fitness-for-service techniques are applicable to a wide range of damage types: LTAs, cracks, creep damage, dents and more. These are very powerful techniques that often can help to keep the plant running safely. If youd like a copy of this article, visit our Web site at www.AcidPlantReliability.com for a download. Ive also posted a couple of example problems, with more detail than would fit in the article. But remember, weve just scratched the surface. Before you try to apply these techniques, buy the standard and read it carefully. For more information, please contact Greg Garic of Stress Engineering by phone: (504) 889-8440 or send an email to: greg.garic@stress.com.

A quick example
Your absorption tower has a tmin = 0.25 inches (after corrosion allowance). NDT finds a minimum measured thickness of tmm = 0.20 inches. The LTA is about 11 inches long by 10 inches circumferentially. For the sake of this example, well just check the longitudinal direction. Using the formulas in Figure 2, we calculate two simple parameters: Rt and and plot the operating point on the graph (the square dot). Youll notice that the point just barely falls in the unacceptable range, so its a good candidate for trying a Level 2 analysis. In fact, when I ran a Level 2

Figure 1: LTA map and critical thickness profile.

PAGE 12

Sulfuric Acid Today Fall/Winter2006