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 regu-
lar column in Sulfuric Acid Today. In
this column, Ill discuss a wide range of
acid plant fitness-for-service and reliabil-
ity 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 mate-
rial 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.
What Is fitness-for-service
assessment?
FFS assessments are, to quote the
American Petroleum Institute, [quan-
titative] 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, exces-
sive 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 under-
standing that most code analyses are very
conservative. Ive heard it said (and I
agree) that in a Section VIII, Div. 1 pres-
sure 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 assess-
ment 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 equip-
ment problems. With the strong sup-
port of major oil companies, API
moved more quickly and in 2000 pub-
lished its Recommended Practice for
Fitness-for-Service, API RP-579.
PAGE 12
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.
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 aver-
aging 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 corro-
sion. 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 conserva-
tive (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).
Figure 1: LTA map and critical
thickness profile.
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 sim-
ple 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.
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 assess-
ment is particularly helpful when the
profile is very irregular.
A quick example
Your absorption tower has a tmin =
0.25 inches (after corrosion allowance).
NDT finds a minimum measured thick-
ness of tmm = 0.20 inches. The LTA is
about 11 inches long by 10 inches cir-
cumferentially. For the sake of this
example, well just check the longitudi-
nal direction. Using the formulas in
Figure 2, we calculate two simple param-
eters: 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
assessment, this LTA did pass. There are
also some other checks you have to pass.
For example, in no case can the remain-
ing 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 noz-
zle) 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.
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 power-
ful 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 stan-
dard 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.
Sulfuric Acid Today Fall/Winter2006