Improve evaluation of brittle-fracture resistance for vessels | Hydrocarbon Processing | January...

Pgina 1 de 6

COPYING AND DISTRIBUTING ARE PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER

Improve evaluation of brittle-fracture resistance for vessels

01.01.2013 | Sims, J. R. , Becht Engineering Co. Inc., Liberty Corner, New Jersey

This article discusses a new approach and spreadsheet tool for engineers that can be used to provide operating pressure
limits as a function of vessel-metal temperatures.

Keywords:

Process vessels such as towers, drums and heat exchangers can be exposed to low temperatures as part of normal operating
conditions or due to a process upset. Carbon and low-alloy steels typically used in process vessels undergo a transition from
ductile to brittle behavior as temperature is reduced and are at increased risk of brittle fracture at low temperature. To
reduce this risk, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code contains
requirements for vessels and vessel components with respect to low-temperature operation.1 While these rules are
applicable to new construction, API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 Fitness-For-Service uses the rules as the basis to evaluate brittle
fracture resistance for existing vessels.2 This article discusses an approach and spreadsheet tool that can be used to provide
operating pressure limits as a function of vessel-metal temperatures. These limits can be used as part of a process hazard
analysis (PHA) to set operating pressure guidelines for process vessels identified with the potential for low-temperature
excursions from auto-refrigeration of light, low-temperature boiling point, liquid hydrocarbons.

DESIGNING FOR FRIGID CONDITIONS

The design temperature of process vessels constructed before 1987 used the expected operating temperature plus some
margin above that temperature as the design temperature. The code permitted the use of carbon steel (CS) and low-alloy
steels to 20F without requiring impact testing, which provides a measure of a steels resistance to brittle fracture. For
operating temperatures below 20F, there were additional material requirements, including impact testing. After 1987, the
code was revised with new rulesone of which included eliminating the impact testing exemption to 20F and requiring
the concept of minimum design metal temperature (MDMT).

In setting the MDMT, the code now requires that consideration shall include the lowest operating temperature, operational
upsets, auto-refrigeration, atmospheric temperature and any other source of cooling. For equipment constructed before
1987, where operational upsets or auto-refrigeration may not have been considered, the API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 procedures
can be used to assess risks for brittle fracture and to set operating pressure and temperature limits.

Assessment levels

The API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 methodology provides three assessment levels. Each level progressively requires a more in-
depth evaluation and more information:

Level 1 evaluates equipment meeting the toughness requirements of a recognized code or standard. It usually can be
accomplished through a review of equipment records.
Level 2 is divided into three methods (A, B and C). Each method considers not only the materials of construction but
also material-heat treatment, design stress, post-weld heat treatment (PWHT), hydrotest pressure and temperature,
service environment, and past and future operating conditions.
Level 3 is used for equipment not meeting acceptance criteria for Levels 1 and 2. This level typically involves in-
depth analysis using fracture mechanics.

The objective of the various levels is to determine the acceptability of the equipment for operational conditions at a given
pressure and temperature or within an envelope of pressures and temperatures.

AUTO-REFRIGERATION CASE

http://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com/Article/3137904/Improve-evaluation-of-brittle-fracture-... 20/01/2015
Improve evaluation of brittle-fracture resistance for vessels | Hydrocarbon Processing | January... Pgina 2 de 6

Auto-refrigeration can occur during the rapid depressurization of a vessel containing light liquid hydrocarbons. The
temperature will follow the vapor pressure curve, and the temperature may drop below the MDMT for the vessel if auto-
refrigeration is not included in the design specifications. The presented case history will consider process vessels
constructed before 1987 and the MDMT concept was implemented.

API 579-1/ASME FFS-1

API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 defines a materials minimum allowable temperature (MAT) as the permissible lower metal
temperature limit for a given material and thickness based on its resistance to brittle fracture. The MAT may be a single
temperature at the maximum allowable working pressure (MAWP) or an envelope of operating temperatures as a function
of pressure. To establish the MAT, mechanical design and material specifications for the process vessel information are
required.

Defining MAT

Fluid vapor pressure data and vessel information (drawings, calculations, material specifications and data) are usually
readily available. Establishing the MAT is more complex in that API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 has different levels of assessment,
along with related charts and equations, that guide the user through the process.

In the case of a process vessel, there will be a limiting component, e.g., shell, head, skirt, nozzle, flange, tray support,
tubesheet, welded attachment, etc. This limiting component will set the MAT for the vessel. For example, a vessel shell
fabricated from 1-in.-thick CS plate (SA-516 Grade 70 Normalized) has a MAT of 30F. However, if an internal tray support
ring or some other component welded to the shell is fabricated from -in. plate of the same material but not normalized,
then MAT is 15F. In the case of a vessel, there are many components of varying thicknesses and, in many cases, different
materials. Such variation of components and materials adds more complexity in establishing the MAT for the vessel.

Other key factors such as PWHT, hydrotest temperature and pressure, weld-joint efficiency and impact test data are
additional considerations influencing the MAT for a vessel. Determining the MAT for a single vessel using API 579-1/ASME
FFS-1 procedures is not a large task. However, establishing the MAT vs. operating pressure for hundreds of vessels as part of
a multi-plant PHA is a major undertaking.

New MAT tools needed

To efficiently determine the MAT for a large number of process vessels of varying types, an Excel spreadsheet tool was
developed based on API 579-1/ASME FFS-1. Overall vessel input data include design temperature and pressure (or MAWP),
hydrostatic test temperature and pressure, design corrosion allowance, previous metal loss and future corrosion allowance.
Data on major vessel components (shell, heads and cones) and all components welded to that component (skirt, nozzles,
flanges, lugs, etc.) are input in logical information blocks to facilitate identifying components limiting/setting the total vessel
MAT.

Dedicated input blocks are provided for heat-exchanger components (tubesheets and girth flanges) and flat components
(flat heads and blinds). Vessel component data include nominal thickness, materials of construction, heat treatment, impact
test temperature (if available) and joint efficiency, as shown in Figs. 1 and 2.

http://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com/Article/3137904/Improve-evaluation-of-brittle-fracture-... 20/01/2015
Improve evaluation of brittle-fracture resistance for vessels | Hydrocarbon Processing | January... Pgina 3 de 6

Fig. 1. Example of process

vessel and components
used to determine the MAT.

For example, Fig. 2 lists vessel component information that was used in a typical assessment. Historic operating conditions
can be entered and are used in some circumstances to establish the MAT based on past operations at low temperatures. The
vapor pressure curves for fluids of interest curves for MAT vs. material specifications and thickness as well as allowable
reduction in MAT based on hydrostatic proof testing are preprogramed into the spreadsheet.

Fig. 2. Data organized to establish MAT

for low-temperature operations.

The spreadsheet output, shown in Fig. 3, is a plot of fluid vapor pressure and the vessels MAT plotted as a function of
pressure. The code rules permit lower metal temperatures as the pressure drops due to reduced stress.

http://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com/Article/3137904/Improve-evaluation-of-brittle-fracture-... 20/01/2015
Improve evaluation of brittle-fracture resistance for vessels | Hydrocarbon Processing | January... Pgina 4 de 6

Fig. 3. Plot of fluid vapor pressure and the

vessels MAT as a function of temperatures.

The cold metal temperatures experienced during auto-refrigeration are considered with the coincident pressure; they do not
need to be considered in conjunction with the design pressure. There is a greater risk of brittle fracture for any point of
temperature and pressure on the MAT curve above the fluids vapor-pressure curve. These points do not meet the code
criteria.

If the points on the MAT curve are below the fluids vapor-pressure curve, then the pressure is within the envelope of
acceptable operation. This information can be used as input to a PHA to set the operating pressure guidelines in the event of
an auto-refrigeration incident or re-pressurization limits after an incident.

AUTO-REFRIGERATION INCIDENTS

If the potential exists for the vessel-metal temperature to drop below the MAT during an auto-refrigeration incident, there
are several options that can be considered, either alone or in combination:

Limiting the operating pressure until the vessel is warmed to the MAT. These limits can be used in conjunction with
temperature and pressure alarms.
Re-hydrotesting the vessel at a lower temperature or higher pressure. API 579/ASME FFS-1 provides for a reduction
in MAT based on hydrostatic testing. The allowable reduction is a function of the ratio of design pressure to hydrotest
pressure. For example, at a ratio of 23 (test pressure = 150% of design pressure), the reduction in MAT is 35F. The
hydrotest MAT reduction has a number of qualifiers outlined in API 579-1/ASME FFS-1:
It is limited to materials with an allowable design stress of less than, or equal to, 25 ksi.
A maximum primary membrane stress during hydrotest no greater than 90% of the materials specified
minimum yield strength.
Actual metal temperature as opposed to water temperature is used as the relevant temperature parameter.
The MAT cannot be less than 155F after the hydrotest adjustment. Note: There is an increased risk of
brittle fracture during hydrotesting.
PWHT can lower a vessels MAT by 30F for certain materials of construction, provided the material thickness is less
than or equal to 1.5 in. However, the adjusted MAT cannot be below 55F. For vessels with no PWHT, it may not be
practical to do field PWHT because of vessel size or other limitations. However, local PWHT of a limiting component
(s) may be practical and could be accomplished, using the code procedures for local PWHT, in conjunction with
supplementary rules in WRC Bulletin 452.3
If the material of construction of a vessel component limits and sets the MAT, it may be possible to upgrade the
materials. The code aggregates CS and low-alloy steels into four groups, A through D, based on their resistance to
brittle fracture (toughness). Group D materials have better resistance to brittle fracture than Group A materials. The
MAT for a material within a group is a function of material thickness, with thicker material having higher MATs. For
example, a 4-in.-thick tubesheet of a Group B material has a MAT of 31F if welded to a 1-in. or thinner shell.

http://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com/Article/3137904/Improve-evaluation-of-brittle-fracture-... 20/01/2015
Improve evaluation of brittle-fracture resistance for vessels | Hydrocarbon Processing | January... Pgina 5 de 6

Upgrading the tubesheet to a Group D material would reduce the MAT to 30F. This solution has been applied for
heat exchangers as part of retubing.
Reduction in MAT is permitted for vessels and components where there is excess wall thickness above that required
at design pressure and temperature. API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 provides a curve for determining the reduction in MAT.
The curve is a function of weld joint efficiency, governing thickness, and past and future corrosion rates. The simple
examples presented here did not take credit for excess wall thickness, but the spreadsheet will perform this
calculation for cases where the joint efficiency is less than 1, the future corrosion allowance plus previous metal loss is
less than the original design corrosion allowance or if a minimum required thickness as calculated by a pressure
vessel design program is entered.

The spreadsheet considers the hydrotest, PWHT, material group, weld joint efficiency and corrosion allowances in arriving
at the MAT, and it can be used to study the effect on MAT of changes in these parameters.

Recent experience in the evaluation of more than 2,000 vessels has shown such a spreadsheet tool to be an efficient way to
establish the MAT. Although the spreadsheet facilitates the process, the largest time consumer is extracting data from older
drawings, vessel specification sheets, mill reports, etc. In addition, the spreadsheet can be used to establish minimum
temperatures for both shop and field hydrotesting in accordance with code rules. HP

LITERATURE CITED

1
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII, Division 1, Rules for Construction of Pressure Vessels, Part UCS,
Paragraph UCS-66, 2010 Ed.
2
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1, 2007 Ed.
3
WRC Bulletin 452, Recommended Code Practices for Local Heating of Welds in Pressure Vessels, June, 2000.

POSTHUMOUS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTJOHN L. DEBIASE

John Debiase was a major contributor to the development and testing of this software tool. Mr. Debiase had a broad
background in mechanical and rotating equipment, solids handling, noise control and environmental engineering. He spent
much of his professional career at Foster Wheeler and Exxon Research and Engineering. At the time of his passing in 2010,
Mr. Debiase had been with Becht Engineering for five years.

The author

J. Robert Sims is a senior engineering fellow with Becht Engineering Co., Inc. He is a recognized authority in risk-based
technologies, high-pressure equipment, mechanical integrity evaluation of existing equipment and fitness-for-service
analysis including brittle-fracture analysis. Mr. Sims is past chairman of the ASME Codes and Standards Board of Directors
and is currently a member of the ASME Board of Governors. Mr. Sims has more than 40 years of experience in design,
analysis, troubleshooting, design audit and mechanical integrity evaluation.

Abdul Sattar Abdul Hannan

02.13.2013

Article is very useful to determine MAT of vessels in process plant. Most of the vessels in gas ser ice are suseptible to brittle
failure and but not impact tested, for these vessels it is necessary to calculate MAT. Pl. let me know how i can get copy of the
spread sheet? Thanks

Roy Young
01.23.2013

OK... How do I get a copy of the spreadsheet?

Thanks,
Roy

http://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com/Article/3137904/Improve-evaluation-of-brittle-fracture-... 20/01/2015
Improve evaluation of brittle-fracture resistance for vessels | Hydrocarbon Processing | January... Pgina 6 de 6

http://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com/Article/3137904/Improve-evaluation-of-brittle-fracture-... 20/01/2015