This course provides a discussion on damage mechanisms and the importance of identification, inspection techniques for flaw characterization, and an overview of remaining life, remediation, and methods to extend the life of damaged equipment. Course Highlights Learn the importance of damage mechanism identification and the role it plays when selecting the appropriate FFS procedure. Understand methods used to establish inspection intervals and the appropriate mitigation and monitoring methods for the particular types of damage. Recognize opportunities for proactive FFS and how these applications can aid in NDE and flaw sizing guidelines, shutdown planning, evaluation of undocumented equipment, and brittle fracture screening. Who Should Attend: Plant engineers in mechanical reliability programs Plant inspectors Central engineering staff Consultants for refining and petrochemicals Can also be beneficial for the fossil fuel utility, pulp and paper, nuclear energy, and other industries that use and maintain pressurized equipment For More Information Contact Equity Engineering via email: training e2g.
|Published (Last):||25 May 2006|
|PDF File Size:||9.1 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||4.73 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The purpose of the document is to provide a consensus of methods to quantitatively evaluate commonly observed damage to in-service pressure equipment. Since it was first issued by API in , this Fitness-For-Service standard has been used worldwide as a means of evaluating whether pressure equipment was fit for continued service, and in many cases, for how long.
This standard has been used to avoid costly and unnecessary unplanned outages, while maintaining safe and reliable equipment. The Second Edition was released in , followed by the most current release of the document in June of In addition to the many clarifications, updated references to codes and standards, several changes and additions have been made to improve the standard in its most recent update. In the edition, the material properties are no longer in a separate annex, but are instead moved to the assessment part where they are mostly referenced.
For example, material data needed for creep assessments — Part 10 — are now found in Annex 10B. Another example is the previous Annex B1, which contained the procedures for demonstrating protection against various failure modes using stress analysis, which is now under Part 2 in Annex 2D.
Several of the assessment methodologies are no longer shown in full, e. Introduction — Part 1 Scope of the standard has been expanded to include additional Construction Codes. Clarifies applicability of Div 1, Div 2 and B Clarifies stress determination in assessment of piping systems — Method A. General Metal Loss — Part 4 Revised definitions of corrosion losses. The Standard now has a lower minimum thickness limit for piping than for vessels.
Revised definition of average thickness, which now includes FCA. Since the FCA is included in the acceptance criteria, this appears to be a double counting error and we expect future errata documents will remedy this.
Local Metal Loss — Part 5 Revised definitions of corrosion losses. Revised procedure for assessing groove-like flaws. New Level 1 and Level 2 criteria for circumferential extent of flaw. Change in Level 2 procedure for combining closely spaced flaws. Pitting — Part 6 Includes criteria for minimum acceptable thickness. New criteria for evaluating pitting damage as LTA.
Crack-like Flaws — Part 9 Revised method for calculating plasticity interaction factor. Clarification of weld joint efficiency in stress computations for Crack-like flaw evaluations. Completely rewrite of old Annex E for residual stresses in what is now Annex 9D. Updated flaw interaction rules. Updated guidance on material toughness in crack-like flaw evaluations. Creep — Part 10 The standard now advises a higher allowable creep damage.
Suggested creep strain acceptance criteria are now offered. Guidance is given for how to implement the MPC Omega method in numeric analysis, i. The MPC Omega creep data have been expanded with additional materials. Laminations — Part 13 Re-arranging of the assessment procedures with unfortunate modifications that results in Level 1 and Level 2 assessment to yield identical results. Fatigue — Part 14 The new Part 14 includes the procedures for demonstrating protection against cyclic failure previously found in Annex B1.
These procedures have been divided into assessment levels with the screening methods as Level 1 and the stress analyses methods S-N curve and Structural Stress as Level 2. A Level 3 assessment is introduced in the form of a new strain-life assessment procedure with mean stress correction using the critical plane approach. This method is complex and will for all but the simplest cases require dedicated post-processing software.
Becht Engineering has extensive experience and expertise in the conduct of Fitness-For-Service. Our wealth of knowledge and experience enables us to provide authoritative, practical, knowledge based answers, and to solve your problems. Read more about the software HERE. Share This Article:.
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 Fitness-for-Service
The equipment may contain flaws, have sustained damage, or have aged so that it cannot be evaluated by use of the original construction codes. The main types of equipment covered by this standard are pressure vessels, piping, and tanks. The material presented in the course shows how the disciplines of stress analysis, materials engineering, and nondestructive inspection interact and apply to fitness-for-service assessment. The assessment methods apply to pressure vessels, piping, and tanks that are inservice. The course includes an extensive set of notes to supplement the contents of the recommended practice, and the recommended practice contains numerous example problems that illustrate fitness-for-service assessment.
Fitness-for-Service - Presented by Equity Engineering Group, Inc.
Brad Kelechava Leave a comment Standards for pressurized equipment, such as those developed and published by the American Petroleum Institute API and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASME , detail guidelines for the fabrication, design, inspection, and testing of new pressure vessels, piping systems, and storage tanks used in the oil and gas chemical process. However, while these codes and recommendations do prepare the equipment for use after manufacturing, they generally do not address deficiencies and acceptable flaws that arise after its long-term service use. Despite this, standards for the inspection, repair, alteration, and rerating of in-service pressure vessels, piping systems, and storage tanks do allude to the fact that equipment degrades in-service, even if all guidelines and requirements have been fulfilled. In addition, it compiles the responsibilities of every individual involved, including the Owner-User who has complete responsibility over the FFS , Inspector who works in conjunction with the Nondestructive Examination NDE engineer to assure that requirements for testing and inspection have been met , and Engineer who may need to provide input from the following disciplines: Materials or Metallurgical Engineering, Mechanical or Structural Engineering, Inspection Engineering, Fracture Mechanics Engineering, Nondestructive Examination NDE Engineering, and Process Engineering. Please note that this standard, which first appeared as an API publication, is the second edition of the jointly-published document, and different updates have been made to this latest revision to keep it current. Expanded equipment design code coverage.