My ASME VIII Div 2 Vessels Are at the End of Their Life ! What Now?

IPEIA Conference, BANFF February 2007 Izak J Roux P. Eng. RAE Engineering & Inspection Ltd
Izak.roux@raeengineering.ca

RAE

What did the Div 1 vessel said to the Div 2 vessel after the 10 year inspection?

RAE

This is the first day of the rest of your life!

RAE

Div 2 Vessels - Overview

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Introduction Div 2 vs. Div 1 Philosophy ABSA Requirements Case Study 1 Separators Case Study 2 Accumulators HP & LP Owners Strategy Conclusion

RAE

Introduction
Div 2 vessels we forgot about them Luckily ABSA remembered What now? Let us Analyze!

RAE

ASME 8 Div 1 vs. Div 2

ASME 8 Div 1
Design by committee Div 1 came out of 1900s public pressure, get it safe Margin of safety. Low allowable stress High Safety factor Penalties welding, inspection Conservative
RAE

ASME 8 Div 1 vs. Div 2

ASME 8 Div 2
Design for higher pressure and fatigue Div 2 later technology. Higher allowable stress For fixed location Increased inspection Less Conservative
RAE

ASME 8 Div 1 vs. Div 2

ASME 8 Div 2
Stress Analysis
Primary stress Secondary stress

Lower Design Factor/Margin of Safety Pressure >3000 psi (20.6 MPa) (for >600psi) Fatigue Analysis > 1000 CYCLES Design Specification
RAE

ASME 8 Div 1 vs. Div 2

REMEMBER
Life is based on anticipated load cycles Operation and maintenance log is required Fatigue evaluation may be required after useful life by the user User Specification VS Operational Specification!!
RAE

Section VIII Division 1

Pressure Limits Experimental Stress Analysis User Normally up to 3000 psig Normally not required User or designated agent to provide specifications (see U-2(a)) Manufacturer to declare compliance in data report Normally not required

Section VIII Division 2

No limits either way, usually 600+ psig May be required User's Design Specification with detailed design requirements (AG-301.1) include AD 160 for fatigue evaluation Manufacturer's Design Report certifying design specification and code compliance in addition to data report Professional Engineers' Certification of User's Design Specification as well as Manufacturer's Design Report Professional Engineer shall be experienced in pressure vessel design U2 Stamp with Additional marking including HT 1.25

Manufacturer

Professional Engineer Certification

Safety Relief Valve Hydrostatic Test

U Stamp with Addition markings including W, P, B, RES; L, UB, DF; RT, HT Hydrostatic Test 1.3 (Was 1.5 before the use of the 3.5 Design Factor in the 1999 Addenda)

Pressure Cycles in Fatigue

Full-range pressure cycles including start up and shutdown Pressure variation exceeds 20% of the MAWP Number of Hydro-tests Pressure disturbances

RAE

ABSA REQUIREMENTS
Registration we have done that Design Specifications vs Operations Wake Up and tell us what have you done to these Div 2 vessels!!! Operational log- show me! Monitor pressure and temperature

Future Life Report

RAE

ABSA Requirements
As per jurisdiction requirements for cyclic loaded vessels, the pressure and temperature cycles need to be reviewed and compared with the fatigue cycles that were anticipated at the design stage. Owners Specification Manufactures Specification Operating Specification
RAE

Case Studies
Approached followed for Analysis Check User Requirements/specification Check inspection records Check actual operations
pressure and temperature cycles Shutdowns Number of hydro tests done to date Repairs Possible change in product change in corrosion rate
RAE

Case Study 1 - Separator

Background Horizontal vessels, 76 mm thickness These vessels been in service since 1996 Cyclic service Pressure cycle and Temperature Cycle Sweet service
RAE

Case Study 1 - Separator

RAE

Case Study 1 - Separator

Diameter Length Wall Thickness MAWP Operating Temp. 78 in (1980 mm) 30 ft (9145 mm) 3.0 in (76 mm) 1650 psi (11.38 MPa) 100 F (38 C)

RAE

Case Study 1 - Separator

OPERATIONAL CYCLE (TYPICAL) Data Reference Dec 2000 to Apr 2001 Maximum Pressure 1472 psi (10.1 MPa) Minimum Pressure 228 psi (1.6 MPa) Maximum Temp. 100 F (38 C) Minimum Temp. 45 F (7 C)
RAE

RAE
Pressure (psi) 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Separator V-2002 Pressure Cycle

Separator Pressure data

Date

12 /4 / 12 200 0 /1 8/ 20 00 1/ 1/ 2 1/ 001 15 /2 1/ 001 29 /2 2/ 001 12 /2 2/ 001 26 /2 3/ 001 12 /2 3/ 001 26 /2 0 4/ 01 9/ 2 4/ 001 23 /2 00 1

RAE
Pressure (psi) 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Separator V-2001 Pressure Cycle

Separator Pressure data

Date

12 /4 / 12 200 0 /1 8/ 20 1/ 00 1/ 2 1/ 001 15 /2 1/ 001 29 /2 2/ 001 12 /2 2/ 001 26 /2 3/ 001 12 /2 3/ 001 26 /2 00 1 4/ 9/ 2 4/ 001 23 /2 00 1

RAE
Temperature (F)

120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0

Separator V-2001 Tem perature Cycle

Separator Temp data

Date

12 /4 / 12 200 0 /1 8/ 20 1/ 00 1/ 2 1/ 001 15 /2 1/ 001 29 /2 2/ 001 12 /2 2/ 001 26 /2 3/ 001 12 /2 3/ 001 26 /2 0 4/ 01 9/ 2 4/ 001 23 /2 00 1

Case Study 1 - Separator

Fatigue Analysis
Low cycle Number of cycles for 10 years operation Fatigue Analysis 1 per year = 274 cycles = Exempted

RAE

Case Study 1 - Separator

Conclusions
Separators will see >1000 cycles in 40 years Better recording of temp. & pressure cycles review changes annually De-rate to Div 1 may be considered
RAE

Case Study 2 - Accumulators

Low and High Pressure Accumulators Fabricated in 1986 The vessels are in cyclic service Fatigue life of 20 years Design to ASME VIII Division 2.
continued

RAE

Low Pressure (left) & High Pressure (right)

Case Study 2 - Accumulators

LP Accumulator Dia 72 in Height 22 7 MAWP 769 psi Temp 69 C C.A 0.0 in Wall thickness =1.63 in Tmin = 1.62 in HP Accumulator Dia 34 in Height 26 MAWP 3937 psi Temp 38 C C.A. 0.065 in Wall thickness = 4.45 in Tmin = 4.43 in

RAE

Operating Data for Low Pressure Accumulator

Criterion Maximum Pressure Minimum Pressure Ambient Temperature No. of effective cycles Design Life No. of Hydro test Low Pressure Accumulators 737 psi (5.0 MPa) 469 psi (3.2 MPa) 65 0F (18 0C) Refer to Appendix A 150000 cycles/year for 20 years 4

RAE

Operating Data for High Pressure Accumulator

Criterion Maximum Pressure Minimum Pressure Ambient Temperature No. of effective cycles Design Life No. of Hydro test High Pressure Accumulators 3645 psi (25.1 MPa) 3297 psi (22.7 MPa) 65 0F (18 0C) Refer to Appendix B 150000 cycles/year for 20 years 5

RAE

Case Study 2 - Accumulators

OPERATIONS Records complete, linked to production records History of the operating log is available in the plant. Typical operating data history was received from the plant. Press cycle is fixed small variation
RAE

LP cycles

RAE

HP Cycles

RAE

Case Study 2 - Accumulators

Inspection Records Detailed inspections well recorded UT Surveys done in 2003 and 2005 Used same 200 x 200mm grid Detail internal inspection in 2006

RAE

Case Study 2 - Accumulators

Criterion MAWP Corrosion Allowance Minimum required thickness for Cylindrical Shell Nominal Thickness Cylindrical Shell UT Thickness Cylindrical Shell Minimum required thickness for Elliptical Head Nominal Thickness for Elliptical Head UT Thickness for Elliptical Head nil 1.62 in (41.2 mm) 1.63 in (41.3 mm) 1.638 in (41.6 mm) 1.58 in (40.22 mm) 1.63 in (41.3 mm) 1.64 in (41.66 mm) LP Accumulator 769 psi (5.30 MPa)

Case Study 2 - Accumulators

Criterion MAWP Corrosion Allowance Minimum required thickness for Cylindrical Shell Nominal Thickness for Cylindrical Shell UT Thickness for Cylindrical Shell Minimum required thickness for Hemispherical Head Nominal Thickness Hemispherical Head UT Thickness Hemispherical Head HP Accumulator 3937 psi (27.15 MPa) 0.0625 in (1.6 mm) 4.43 in (112.7 mm) 4.50 in (114.3 mm) 4.5 in (114.3 mm) 1.95 in (49.68 mm) 2.141 in (54.4 mm) 2.291 in (58.2 mm).

Case Study 2 - Accumulators

UT Inspection HP Accumulator No Manway

RAE

Case Study 2 - Accumulators

Finite Element Models used for both vessels

RAE

Case Study 2 - Accumulators

LP FEM Model

RAE

Case Study 2 - Accumulators

HP FEM Model

RAE

Case Study 2 - Accumulators

Analysis LP Accumulator Membrane Stress

RAE

Case Study 2 - Accumulators

LP Accumulator Primary & Secondary Stress Intensity

RAE

Case Study 2 - Accumulators

HP Accumulator Peak Stress Intensity

RAE

Case Study 2 - Accumulators

Results Fatigue damage

RAE

Cumulative Damage for LP Accumulator next 10 years

Major area of discontinuity No. of Cycles Pressure Difference for cycles Alternating Stress Intensity Cumulative Damage LP Vessel 4500000 268 psi (1.85 MPa) 11840 psi (81.64 MPa) 0.90

Cumulative Damage HP Accumulator for next 20 years

Condition I Pressure Difference for cycles No. of Cycles Correct Cumulative Alternating Stress Intensity Cumulative Damage Condition II Pressure Difference for cycles No. of Cycles Correct Cumulative Alternating Stress Intensity Cumulative Damage Condition III Pressure Difference for cycles No. of Cycles Correct Cumulative Alternating Stress Intensity Cumulative Damage Total Cumulative Damage 5905 psi (40.71 MPa) 5 13126.58 psi (90.51 MPa) 5.00E-06 7.511E-05 348 psi (2.40 MPa) 7008000 773.59 psi (5.33 MPa) 7.008E-05 3937 psi (27.15 MPa) 200 8751.79 psi (60.34 MPa) 2.85E-08

Case Study 2 - Accumulators

Conclusions
Advantages Full history of pressure and temperature cycles Detailed inspection reports UT surveys Identified inspection areas to monitor Manway and nozzles
RAE

Case Study 2 - Accumulators

Benefits Extended life 10 years for LP Extended life 20 years for HP Surprise LP has shorter life than HP
RAE

Owners Strategy
Compare User / Fabricator & Operational specifications annually Review Failure Mechanisms insp. plan Understand the vessels aging
is it only fatigue pressure cycles or temperature cycles.

Can I stay below 1000 cycles?

RAE

Owners Strategy
Small change in operations can extend the life. Cumulative damage
start-up, Hydro tests pressure cycles max, min and avg.

Record everything keep good records

RAE

Owners Strategy
Remember

If it is not written down, it does not exist.

RAE

24

RAE

Owners Strategy
Div 2 or Div 1 Do you really need to go there? Is fatigue an issue? Is high pressure an issue? It do not have to be a problem need a integrity strategy for life.

RAE

Conclusion
A letter from ABSA should not be a surprise Owner should manage Div 2 vessel Engineering should check operational duty cycle and compare with design cycle do not wait 10 years Operations should monitor and record all stress cycles pressure and temperature
RAE

Conclusion
Chief inspector bring all info on record and track usage communicate with operations and engineering Any change in operational conditions should go through MOC and check influence on design specification and update
RAE

Users Responsibility
User Designs Specification To specify whether a fatigue analysis shall be made for cyclic service Certification of Users Design specification A Professional Engineer shall certify to the compliance of the requirements

RAE

Manufactures Responsibility
Compliance with Requirements Manufacturer shall certify with Data Report Manufacturers Design Report :
Design Calculation Drawing

Certification of Manufacturers Design Report A Professional Engineer shall certify

RAE

Conclusion
Final factors in the life of an ASME 8 Div 2 Vessel
Safety Reliability Ownership

RAE

THE END
Thank You!

Izak.roux@raeengineering.ca

ANY QUESTIONS?

RAE