|
|

    
      

| 
(Materials Operating Envelopes)

10th Annual IPEIA (formerly NPEC) Conference

Banff Centre in Banff Alberta, Canada
February 1 - 3, 2006

Gerrit M. Buchheim, P.E.

Jerry I. Danis
Jonathan D. Dobis
   

‡ RBI is a Key Reliability Tool

‡ RBI and Materials Operating Envelopes (MOE¶s)
‡ MOE Background
‡ Damage Mechanisms
‡ Implementing a MOE
‡ Lessons Learned
‡ Documentation
‡ Commitment and Ownership
‡ Summary

2
 h 
   

‡ Necessary to maintain units on-line to be profitable

‡ Unplanned outages/ extended T/A¶s can have severe

financial impact

‡ Incidents also affect reputation and have safety

consequences

3
 |
 

    

‡ Risk-Based Inspection (RBI) can help focus resources and

increase reliability and safety.
‡ Solomon has added RBI as a positive maintenance indicator
(200 NPRA presentation).
‡ RBI has been or is being implemented in most North American
refineries. Almost 75% of the refining capacity are members
of the API RBI user¶s group. RBI also being implemented in
ups-stream, mid-stream, and chemicals facilities.
‡ API 580 is the what-is-needed guide and has gained
jurisdictional approval by reference from API 510/570.
‡ API 581 is the API RBI method.
‡ Future trends in RBI will be to cover more specialty items
(tanks, bundles, PRD¶s), improved consequence assessments
and inspection data analysis, and controlling operations.


 |!   "
#  $!#%&
‡ RBI studies have a basis relying on assumptions regarding
past and future operating conditions.
‡ RBI focuses much more heavily on inspection activities than
on controlling operations and monitoring activities.
‡ Knowledge and control of unit¶s operating envelope helps an
RBI plan to succeed and together the two technologies help
provide an improved chance for reliability and safety.
‡ A MOE study, although it can be a stand-alone effort,
complements RBI and makes the RBI plan more relevant.
Creating a MOE is typically easier and more efficient in
conjunction with RBI or after RBI is implemented, as many of
the data requirements are similar.

5
 |" !#%
h ' 
‡ Most refining, mid-stream, and chemicals pressurized
equipment was designed and built for an operating
basis that changed long ago.

‡ Most plants continuously ³tweak´ the process to raise

throughput or process poorer quality (lower cost)
feedstocks (crudes or intermediates).

‡ Over many years, the effect of this process creep is

cumulative. An additional minor change can lead to a
much greater rate of damage than previously
experienced.

6
 | 

‡ Plants typically conduct Management of Change

(MOC) reviews when process changes are made
intentionally. Often changes are made inadvertently.
‡ In many cases, the people involved either do not have
the tools or experience to evaluate the effects of
minor process creep or knowledge of the boundaries
for materials degradation.
‡ Ideally, boundaries are established to permit the
process to safely operate within set limits without
major concerns for the health of the equipment.

7
 !   "#  
$!#%&   
‡ A MOE defines the limits for each part of a unit for
operating parameters such as feed contaminant
content, pH, flow rate, temperatures, chemical or
water injection rates, and acceptable levels of
corrosive constituents.
‡ If limits are not exceeded, degradation should be
predictable and reasonably low.
‡ If limits are exceeded, excessive equipment
degradation due to corrosion, stress corrosion
cracking, metallurgical embrittlement, or hydrogen
effects, such as high temperature hydrogen attack,
could occur.

8
     
   !#%

‡ Proactive management sees benefits of the

technology.
‡ Reaction to a failure or event that could have been
prevented, if such boundaries had been clearly
established.
‡ Discovery of more severe equipment degradation than
expected based on past experience due to operating
conditions that now place the equipment into a much
more active degradation zone. Such unexpected
degradation is a major cause of equipment failure and
unreliability.

Ã
 !#% '  
(   
‡ MOE¶s are similar to KPRP¶s (Key Process Reliability
Parameters), but differ in that MOE¶s contain parameters
that may not be controllable, but should be measured
and trended.
± Uncontrollable parameters are reviewed in order to provide ample
warning that additional inspection, surveillance, or replacement
may be needed.
± Example: Ammonia content in a crude tower overhead cannot be
readily controlled, but it should be trended to alert the refinery if
there is a major change in the potential, i.e. salt deposition
temperature, for ammonium chloride fouling and pitting in the
overhead.
‡ Some parameters having predefined controllable limits
include:
± Overhead drum pH (typically controlled by neutralizer)
± Free CN content (typically controlled by water wash with PS)
± Ammonium bisulfide concentration of sour water (typically
controlled by wash water)

10
 # h ) 

‡ Tower reflux rate and temperature can affect the top

of a tower or overhead line and cause shock
condensation.
‡ Steam stripping rates can affect H2S, NH3, CN or Cl
content and lead to corrosion and stress corrosion
cracking.

11
 
"*

‡ Key is understanding damage mechanisms

‡ API and NACE practices and reports

‡ API RP 571/WRC 8Ã, 88, Ã0

‡ JIP¶s (MPC, PVRC, etc.)

‡ Plant experience

12
 _ "h   
" ! 


‡ Material (general and specific information including heat

treatment, chemistry, strength level, etc.)
‡ Service exposure (general and specific), normal and
upset (trace amounts of corrosives, concentration,
cycles, carryover, leaking valves, and particularly human
factors, etc.)
‡ How often and how quickly does damage occur?
‡ Mitigating factors (coking, crack closure, residual
stresses, coatings, chemical additives, water wash)
‡ Any monitoring data or other warning systems (probes)
‡ Previous inspections and their effectiveness at targeting
the particular mechanisms
‡ Morphology of the damage

13
 +   " 
 

‡ General Corrosion
‡ Localized Corrosion
‡ Pitting, Crevice, and Grooving Corrosion
‡ Planar Cracks
‡ Branched Cracks
‡ Metallurgical Changes & Hydrogen Effects
‡ Distortion

1
 +   " 
 
General Corrosion

‡ High Temperature Sulfidic Corrosion and H2/H2S

Corrosion
‡ Moderate Velocity Sour Water
‡ Oxidation
‡ Atmospheric Corrosion
‡ Some Hydrofluoric Acid (HF) Corrosion

15
 +   " 
 
socalized Corrosion

‡ Low or High Velocity Sour Water

‡ Naphthenic Acid Corrosion
‡ Dilute Acid Corrosion
‡ Galvanic Corrosion
‡ Corrosion Under Insulation (CUI)
‡ Erosion/Corrosion
‡ Injection Point and Dead-leg Corrosion

16
 +   " 
 
hitting, Crevice, and Grooving Corrosion

‡ Under deposit corrosion

‡ Weld knifeline attack
‡ Water services
‡ Amine salts
‡ Stainless steel
‡ Flashing H2S

17
 +   " 
 
hlanar Cracks

‡ Fatigue cracks of small attachments

‡ Thermal fatigue
‡ Long seam weld cracking

18
 +   " 
 
|ranched Cracks

‡ Chloride or Polythionic Acid Stress Corrosion Cracking

(SCC)
‡ Amine, Ammonia, Caustic, or Carbonate SCC
‡ Liquid Metal Cracking (Hg/Al, Zn/SS)

1Ã
 +   " 
 
retallurgical Changes & Hydrogen Effects

‡ Embrittlement (885, Sigma, strain age)

‡ Graphitization, Spheroidization
‡ Creep
‡ High Temperature Hydrogen Attack (HTHA)
‡ Hydrogen Induced Cracking (HIC)

20
 +   " 
 
uistortion

‡ Bulging
‡ Blistering (H2)
‡ Creep
‡ Ratcheting

21
 ! "!


‡ Corrosion probes
‡ Hydrogen probes
‡ Coupons and physical probes
‡ UT measurements and scanning
‡ RT
‡ Stream samples
‡ Process variable monitoring
‡ Infrared thermography & thermocouples

22
 ! " !


‡ Physically modify the process

± Change temperature and/or velocity
± Removal of stream fractions
‡ Chemically modify the process
± Water washing
± Injection of chemicals to change pH or tie up constituents
or to form a film barrier
‡ Isolate the environment from the material
± Organic coatings and thermal spray coatings
± Metallic linings
± Weld overlay
‡ Upgrade the materials

23
î
 '   "!#,

‡ Proactively or in response to an incident

‡ Often in conjunction with RBI or after RBI has been
completed. May also be performed during RBI
evergreening
‡ In conjunction with a critical Fitness-For-Service
assessment

2
 !#%))

‡ Having defined MOE boundaries also aids in the

implementation of Fitness-For-Service (FFS).
‡ As stated in API RP 57à ãitness-ãor-Service, the user
needs to estimate the future deterioration rate (future
corrosion allowance, crack growth rate, etc.).
‡ The FFS assessment may rely on monitoring to ensure
that the degradation rate does not exceed the assumed
future damage allowance.
‡ Having a MOE in place either increases the confidence
that the FFS assumptions remain valid, or it can alert
the refiner that a reassessment may be necessary.

25
   "#     

‡ Requires multi-disciplined team effort

± Operations
± Technical (Materials, Reliability, Process)
± Inspection

‡ Key is to have good understanding of the process and

the damage mechanisms.

26
   "#     

‡ Process flow plan used to ³walk through´ the unit.

‡ Typically facilitated by experienced materials
engineer (a team of off-site materials/process
engineers can often bring industry experience to light
and speed up the process).
‡ Questions to the team are geared to identify current
practices and problems.
‡ Historical and future conditions addressed.
‡ Inspection issues also identified.

27
   "#     

‡ Typically, probing of practices and issues is required.

‡ Cannot rely on impressions ± actual data is required

± Often requires additional monitoring and sampling
program to obtain accurate data

28
   -   

‡ A function of process unit being evaluated

‡ Typical data requirements include:
± Unit feed sources, volumes, and composition
± Existing sampling program on unit
± Temperatures at key points
± Piping and fixed equipment metallurgy
± RBI results (if available)
± Inspection records, RCFAs and piping isos /UT data

2Ã
 # (    
 -   

‡ Crude distillation ± desalter efficiency and furnace

monitoring
‡ Hydrotreating - wash water volumes and sources
‡ FCCUs ± polysulfide injection schemes
‡ Amine ± type and loading, filtration, regen overhead
bleed rate, etc.

30
 "h"

‡ Necessary to establish a baseline for comparison.

± Especially important if changes are being planned for
the unit
± Need to know where you have been before moving
forward
± Typically requires extensive sampling over short period
‡ Necessary to establish sampling frequency after
baseline established.
‡ Upper and lower limits set as applicable ± other
variables trended.
‡ Typically this effort results in the generation of
significant data.

31
    
 "!#%
— erations Issues

‡ Insufficient water being injected into hydrotreater

effluent train to force condensation.
‡ Vendor¶s soda ash wash procedure using a water rinse
cycle prior to introduction of soda ash solution.
‡ TAN not recognized as an issue in gas-oil hydrotreater
feed circuit.
‡ Much lower pH observed in a distillate hydrotreater than
previously predicted.
‡ Lack of a formalized procedure to address decisions on
crude slate changes.
‡ Positive - Stewardship of crudes has identified organic
chloride contamination ultimately traced to oil field fire
suppression chemicals.

32
    
 "!#%
Ins ection Issues

‡ Need for more UT coverage in some areas and less in

other areas.
‡ Improper inspection procedures being applied ± e.g.
reliance on straight beam or shear wave UT for HTHA
inspection rather than AUBT methods.
‡ Equipment taken out of service with blinding points that
create process deadlegs.
‡ Equipment being cycled in/out of service creating CUI
concerns.

33
    

‡ MOE documentation will vary; depends on whether

stand-alone, after RBI, or integral part of RBI program.
‡ The basis and assumptions are summarized. Specific
recommendations and limits are provided, typically in
tables that include intervals for measurements and
commentary regarding whether intervention is possible.
‡ Recommendation can be assigned a risk-based priority
in regards to importance.
‡ Ideally, the plant¶s process information system or
process control system can be used to store MOE
information and tracks compliance with boundaries.
‡ Example table: summarizes parameters and limits for a
specific process unit.

3
!   "#  )''"
#*h

35
 '  

RBI and MOE¶s require management and plant

commitment to:
± Allocate funds, make available knowledgeable plant
process / operations personnel, and collect base-line
data for the study
± Follow through with the MOE recommendations,
which often include:
+ Increasing the stream sampling program and
expanding the analyses (load on labs).
+ Some capital investment for corrosion probes or
elimination of a constraint by alloy upgrading

36
  


‡ Need Management System in place to address

ownership and operation outside of the envelope.
‡ Ideally, the unit process engineer or business unit
owner owns the MOE and is responsible for adhering to
the envelope limits and taking action as soon as
practical when limits are exceeded.
‡ They also should be responsible for evergreening the
MOE program.
‡ Although Inspection should be advised of MOE
boundary exceedences, they typically are not the best
group to ³own´ the MOE program.

37
 

‡ RBI will continue to evolve to including specialty items and

controlling operations.
‡ Creating MOE¶s involves time, expertise and funding. Can be
stream-lined, if conducted simultaneously with RBI.
‡ Requires a plant commitment to expanded work scope
(sampling and monitoring).
‡ The plant needs to identify ³owner´ and have business process
in place to keep unit operations within the limits stated in the
MOE.
‡ MOE process can contribute to increased profitability and
improved unit reliability by the prevention of failures due to
unexpected materials degradation. May also allow the plant to
confidently take advantage of an opportunity by having
predefined limits.
‡ MOE¶s should be part of a plant¶s reliability ³tool-kit´.

38
 Gerrit Buchheim, P.E.
Materials Team Leader
216-283-6020
gmbuchheim@equityeng.com

20600 Chagrin Blvd. ‡ Suite 1200

Shaker Heights, OH 122 USA
Phone: 216-283-Ã51à ‡ Fax: 216-283-6022
OOO equityeng com

3Ã