Method Statement for Fitness-For-Service Engineering Assessment

1. Scope: 1.1 This method statement contains Fitness-For-Service or Fitness-for-Purpose (FFS/FPS) assessment procedures that can be used to evaluate pressurized components containing flaws or damage. Based on the results of a fitness-for-service assessment, conclusion can be drawn whether the equipment is suitable for the current operating conditions or not and the equipment can continue to be operated at these conditions provided suitable monitoring/inspection programs are established. If the results of the fitness-for-service assessment indicate that the equipment is not suitable for the current operating conditions, further engineering calculations can be done to rerate the component. For pressurized components (e.g. pressure vessels and piping) these calculation methods can be used to find a reduced Maximum Allowable Working Pressure (MAWP) and/or coincident temperature. For tank components (shell courses) the calculation methods can be used to determine a reduced Maximum Fill Height (MFH). 1.2 The Fitness-For-Service assessment procedures in this document are organized by flaw type and/or damage mechanism. The following list of damage mechanisms are covered in this procedure: General Metal Loss Brittle fracture Local metal loss Pitting corrosion Blisters and laminations Weld misalignment & Distortions Crack like flaws High temperature damages e. g. creep Fire damage 2.0: Reference Documents: 2.1 API 579-1/ ASME FFS-1: 2007 2.2 API 510: 2006 2.3 API 570: 2.4 API 653: 2008 2.5 ASME Sec VIII Div 1 & 2: 2010 2.6 ASME Sec I: 2010 2.7 ASME B31.3: 2010 2.8 ASNT SNT TC 1A: 2006 3.0 Procedures & Steps for a FFS Assessment: 3.1 Step 1 Flaw and Damage Mechanism Identification: Identify the flaw type and cause of damage. The original design and fabrication practices, the material of construction, and the service history and environmental conditions shall be used to ascertain the likely cause of the damage. After the identification of the flaw type, apply the appropriate assessment criteria and formulas to assess to severity of the defect. 3.2 Step 2 Applicability and Limitations of the FFS Assessment Procedures: Ascertain the applicability and limitations of the assessment procedure for the damage type already identified and a decision shall be made on whether to proceed with an assessment can be made. 3.3 Step 3 Data Requirements: Collect all the relevant data for 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. 3.4 Step 4 Assessment Techniques and Acceptance Criteria: On the basis of the data collected with regard to the damage mechanism identified in accordance with steps 1, 2 & 3 above, select the appropriate assessment technique and acceptance criteria in accordance with guidelines provided in API 579-1/ASME FFS-1. 3.5 Step 5 Remaining Life Evaluation: An estimate of the remaining life or limiting flaw size shall be made for the purpose of establishing an inspection interval. The remaining life shall be established using the FFS assessment procedures with an

estimate of future damage. The remaining life can be used in conjunction with an inspection code to establish an inspection interval. 3.6 Step 6 Remediation: Remediation methods should be provided based on the damage mechanism or flaw type. Whenever necessitated, remediation techniques may be used to control future damage associated with flaw growth and/or material degradation. 3.7 Step 7 In-Service Monitoring: Methods for in-service monitoring should be provided (if required) for the control of the damage mechanism identified in future. In-service monitoring may be used for those cases where a remaining life and inspection interval cannot adequately be established because of the complexities associated with the service environment. 3.8 Step 8 Documentation: A comprehensive report including all the analysis and calculations shall be prepared for submission to the client for preliminary approval. This report shall include a record of all information and decisions made in each of the previous steps to qualify the component for continued operation. The final report shall be submitted after getting due approval from the client in writing. 4.0 Assessment Techniques: There are three Levels of assessments for each type of damage mechanism and flaw types. In general, each assessment level provides a balance between conservatism, the amount of information required for the evaluation, the skill of the personnel performing the assessment, and the complexity of analysis being performed. Level 1 is the most conservative, but is easiest to use. It is recommended to proceed with the Level 1 and end up to Level 3 analysis (unless otherwise directed by the assessment techniques) if the current assessment level does not provide an acceptable result, or a clear course of action cannot be determined. Please refer below: 4.1 Level 1 Assessment - The assessment procedures included in this level are intended to provide conservative screening criteria that can be utilized with a minimum amount of inspection or component information. 4.2 Level 2 Assessment -The assessment procedures included in this level are intended to provide a more detailed evaluation that produces results that are more precise than those from a Level 1 assessment. In a Level 2 Assessment, inspection information similar to that required for a Level 1 assessment are needed; however, more detailed calculations are used in the evaluation. 4.3 Level 3 Assessment -The assessment procedures included in this level are intended to provide the most detailed evaluation which produces results that are more precise than those from a Level 2 assessment. In a Level 3 Assessment the most detailed inspection and component information is typically required, and the recommended analysis is based on numerical techniques such as the finite element method. Acceptance Criteria: Each of the FFS assessment methodologies described in this document utilize one or more of the following acceptance criteria: 5.1 Allowable Stress - The acceptance criteria is based upon calculation of stresses resulting from different loading conditions, classification and superposition of stress results, and comparison of the calculated stresses in an assigned category or class to an allowable stress value. The allowable stress value is typically established as a fraction of yield, tensile or rupture stress at room and the service temperature, and this fraction can be associated with a design margin. As an alternative, assessment methods based on elastic-plastic analysis can be used for Elastic-plastic analysis methods that were subsequently used to develop the Remaining Strength Factor. 5.2 Remaining Strength factor- Structural evaluation procedures using linear elastic stress analysis with stress classification and allowable stress acceptance criteria provide only a rough approximation of the loads which a component can withstand without failure. A better estimate of the safe load carrying capacity of a component can be provided by using nonlinear stress analysis to: develop limit and plastic collapse loads, evaluate the deformation characteristics of the component (e.g. deformation or strain limits associated with component operability), and assess fatigue and/or creep damage including ratcheting. Wherever applicable and if the conditions and all the data are available, the remaining strength factor can be estimated based on the formulas and criteria given in API 579-1/ASME FFS-1. 5.3 Failure Assessment Diagram - The Failure Assessment Diagram (FAD) can be used for the evaluation of cracklike flaws in components. The FAD approach provides a convenient, technically based method to provide a measure for the acceptability of a component with a crack-like flaw when the failure mechanism is measured by two distinct criteria: unstable fracture and limit load. Unstable fracture usually controls failure for small flaws in components fabricated from a brittle material and plastic collapse typically controls failure for large flaws if the component is fabricated from a material with high toughness. In a FFS analysis of crack-like flaws, the results from a stress

5.0

analysis, stress intensity factor and limit load solutions, the material strength, and fracture toughness are combined to calculate a toughness ratio, K, , and load ratio, L, . These two quantities represent the coordinates of a point which is plotted on a two dimensional FAD to determine acceptability. 6.0 Remaining Life Assessment Once it has been established that the component containing the flaw is acceptable at the current time, the remaining life for the component shall be determined whenever required. The remaining life is used to establish appropriate inspection interval and/or 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. Each FFS assessment shall be undertaken in accordance with the guidance provided in API 579-1/ ASME FFS-1 on calculating a remaining life. Remaining life estimates will fall into one of the following three general categories: The Remaining Life can be calculated with Reasonable Certainty- 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 established with Reasonable Certainty - In this case 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. Remediation Each situation will require a customized approach to remediation. Periodic checks shall be made to ensure that the remediation steps have prevented additional damage from occurring, and are in a condition that they can be expected to continue to provide protection in the future. Reference to other documents for detailed remediation procedures may be required; for example, weld repair guidelines can be found in applicable repair codes, such as API 510, API 570, API 653 and NBIC 23. Documentation A Fitness-For-Service analysis shall be sufficiently documented such that the analysis can be repeated at a later date. Documentation requirements specific to a particular assessment shall be as per the guidelines and format provided in the corresponding section of API 579-1/ASME FFS-1. As a minimum, the following items shall be included in the documentation. 8.1 The equipment design data, and maintenance and past operational history to the extent available for all equipment subject to a FFS assessment. 8.2 Inspection data including all readings utilized in the FFS assessment. 8.3 Assumptions and analysis results including: Section, edition, and analysis level of API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 and any other supporting documents used to analyze the flaw or damage. 8.4 Future operating and design conditions including pressure, temperature and abnormal operating conditions. 8.5 Calculations for the minimum required thickness and/or MAWP. 8.6 Calculations for remaining life and the time for the next inspection. 8.7 Any mitigation/monitoring recommendations that are a condition for continued service. All calculations and documentation used to determine the fitness-for-service of a pressurized component shall be kept with the inspection records for the component or piece of equipment in the owner-user inspection department. This documentation will be a part of the records required for mechanical integrity compliance.

7.0

8.0