FRP PIPING SYSTEM€¦ · Designation API 570), this piping system in spection also identifies...

LICENSED TO: UTCOMP DATA COLLECTED BY: JBW

INSPECTION REPORT

FRP PIPING SYSTEM IN

SPECTIO

N R

EPOR

T FRP PIPIN

G SYSTEM

PAG

E 1 OF 15

OVERVIEW Year of First UTComp Evaluation: ...................................................... 2015

Date of Current Inspection: ……………………………………….27/Jan/2015

Next UTComp Inspection: ................................................................... 2018

Engineering Review Date: ...........................................................................

Predicted Year at End of Service Life: ............................................... 2044

Remaining Service Life: ................................................................. 29 Years

General Corrosion Barrier Condition: ....................... No damage detected

End of Service Life Definition: ................................... 20% of original TNF

Probability that actual minimum is ≤ Engineering Review: ………..…7%

REMAINING SERVICE LIFE PREDICTION

Design Pressure Rating (kPa) Unknown Operating Pressure (kPa) 100

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1979 1994 2009 2024 2039

Thic

knes

s as

New

FR

P (m

m)

Year

Thickness as New FRP (mm) Minimum

Engineering Review Next Inspection

OWNER: SomeCompany FACILITY LOCATION: Any Town PIPING NAME: White Water Supply Header PIPING ID: FBW PROCESS UNIT OR AREA: MANUFACTURER: . INSPECTION PLAN REFERENCE: SomeCompanyFBW CORROSION BARRIER: FRP PIPE SPOOL FABRICATION METHOD: FILAMENT WOUND


INSPECTION REPORT


SPECTIO

N R

EPOR

T FRP PIPIN

G SYSTEM

PAG

E 2 OF 15

CONCLUSIONS The piping system is suitable for continued service.

Damage has occurred to the piping due to weathering and installation.

RECOMMENDATIONS

UTComp System evaluation is recommended after all significant process excursions and environmental events. UTComp recommends that a competent Engineer be engaged for all recommended engineering activities including replacement, review, evaluation, design of repairs and repair inspection.

Action Basis Timing

Next UTComp Inspection UTComp Calculations 2018

Repair improper pipe supports. External Inspection 2015

Repair all locations where roving has been exposed by weathering.

External Inspection. 2015

SUMMARY

The White Water Supply Header piping system was inspected on 27 January 2015. This is first inspection of this piping system using the UTComp System. The purposes of the inspection are:

Determine the current Mechanical Integrity of the FRP piping, and

Determine locations and components where decreased reliability is detected, and

Predict the remaining service life of the piping system.

At the time of the inspection there was liquid in the piping system.


INSPECTION REPORT


SPECTIO

N R

EPOR

T FRP PIPIN

G SYSTEM

PAG

E 3 OF 15

Conclusions, recommendations and the remaining service life prediction are above. General observations from the inspection are included below. For explanation of methods and terminology, please refer to the DISCUSSION & ANALYSIS section, below.

INSPECTION PLAN This inspection followed a plan that is modeled on “Piping Inspection Code: In-service Inspection, Rating, Repair, and Alteration of Piping Systems” (American Petroleum Institute, 2009), designation API 570. Figure 1 shows images of the piping system inspected and the locations of Condition Monitoring Locations (CML).


INSPECTION REPORT


SPECTIO

N R

EPOR

T FRP PIPIN

G SYSTEM

PAG

E 4 OF 15


INSPECTION REPORT


SPECTIO

N R

EPOR

T FRP PIPIN

G SYSTEM

PAG

E 5 OF 15

Figure 1 – Condition Monitoring Locations

Fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP) piping requires several different components to assemble the piping into a circuit. In general, although the resin and reinforcements used may be the same for all components, they are often made at different times and possibly by different personnel. Each component is evaluated differently to evaluate changes that have taken place. The components considered in FRP piping systems are listed in Table 1. The table also includes the number of CML’s associated with each component. Further descriptions of the components can be found in (UTComp FRP Piping System Inspection, 2015).

Table 1 – Components Inspected

Component Name Number of CML’s Total UTComp Readings

Fitting 2 8 Butt & Wrap Joint 3 12 Socket Joint 0 0 Flange 0 Spool 3 9 Spool at Joint (SAJ) 2 8


INSPECTION REPORT


SPECTIO

N R

EPOR

T FRP PIPIN

G SYSTEM

PAG

E 6 OF 15

Component Name Number of CML’s Total UTComp Readings

Repad 0 0 Other 0 0 Injection Points 0 0

As recommended by API 570 (Piping Inspection Code: In-service Inspection, Rating, Repair, and Alteration of Piping Systems, Third Edition, Designation API 570), this piping system inspection also identifies CML’s within injection points, where fluids are added to the flow stream. The number of CML’s included in Injection Points and the total of readings associated is also shown in Table 1.

Piping System Inspection includes external inspection of the system to identify external defects and conditions that may result in damage to the piping system.

UTCOMP® SYSTEM INSPECTION RESULTS

SUITABILITY FOR SERVICE

The Inspector has provided information that is requested to determine Suitability for Service. The information provided is shown in Table 2.

Table 2

Piping System Service Information Y/N/U Details and Values Is the piping system in its original service or same service since last inspection?

Y

Are piping system contents provided? Y White Water What piping design and installation code was used? U What standard was used for pipe and fittings pressure rating?

U

What service factor was used for piping system design? U Operating pressure or relief pressure of the piping system

Y 100 kPa

EXTERNAL INSPECTION RESULTS

This section summarizes the observations of the external condition of the piping. Table 3 summarizes the results of the visual inspection. Conclusions and recommendations are included above.


INSPECTION REPORT


SPECTIO

N R

EPOR

T FRP PIPIN

G SYSTEM

PAG

E 7 OF 15

Table 3

ID

Cat

egor

y

Inspection Item

Y/ N

/ NA

Repairs Recommended Measurements, Notes, Observations, Photos

1a

Gen

eral

Con

ditio

n

Was Infra-Red scan used and anomalies identified?

N

1b Cracks in FRP N

1c

UV degradation of outer surface.

Y

Outer surface shows fiber bloom in veil and csm layers. Rovings visible in some locations.

1d

Paint/external gelcoat intact with no loose or visible glass fibers.

N

General fiber bloom.

1e External Damage (impacts, gouges, blisters, deformation)

N

1f Vibration or movement.

N

1g Foundation damage. N

1h Insulation damage. NA


INSPECTION REPORT


SPECTIO

N R

EPOR

T FRP PIPIN

G SYSTEM

PAG

E 8 OF 15

ID

Cat

egor

y

Inspection Item

Y/ N

/ NA


2a

Pipi

ng C

ondi

tion

Pipe supports are spaced so that pipe does not sag between them.

Y

2b FRP flanges are bolted to full faced flanges with full faced gaskets.

Y

2c Flange leaks. N

2d Flange cracks on hub. NA

2f Corroded flange bolts. NA

2g

Pipi

ng C

ondi

tion

(con

t’d)

Corrosion of clamps, supports or rods.

Y

Typical corrosion. No significant loss of capacity. Fiber bloom is visible.

2h Repads on nozzles and attachments.

NA

2i Are repads ≥ 3” beyond hole or attachment?

NA

2j Disbonding at nozzles, lugs or attachments.

NA

2k Are the branches supported?

NA


INSPECTION REPORT


SPECTIO

N R

EPOR

T FRP PIPIN

G SYSTEM

PAG

E 9 OF 15

ID

Cat

egor

y

Inspection Item

Y/ N

/ NA


2l Other items?

COMPONENT RESULTS

The following discusses the results from analysis of the CML inspections for each component type.

Fittings Results by CML

CML Nominal Thickness (mm)

Average Calculated Thickness (mm)

Percentage of Design Strength

Percentage of Design Capacity

02 8 8 71% 71% 09 8 8 65% 65%

Percentage of design capacity is determined by applying changes in thickness to the current strength. Notes and Comments from Inspections None provided.

Butt & Wrap Joints Results by CML



Average Bond Area


05 18 17 80% 80% 06 18 15 76% 76% 08 18 18 83% 83%

A portion of Butt and Wrap joints is usually exposed directly to the chemicals contained in a piping system. Thickness loss detected in the pipe in the joint should also be expected to occur in the portion of the joint that has been exposed. Any thickness loss detected in the pipe at a joint has been applied to the joint and the joint capacity reduced accordingly. The Percentage of Design Capacity reported is the minimum of the bonding fraction or the thickness loss value.

Notes and Comments from Inspections CML Notes and Comments 06 CSM exposed by UV on outer surface


INSPECTION REPORT


SPECTIO

N R

EPOR

T FRP PIPIN

G SYSTEM

PAG

E 10 OF 15

Socket Joints No socket joints in the piping system.

A portion of many socket joints is usually exposed directly to the chemicals contained in a piping system. Thickness loss detected in the pipe within the joint should also be expected to occur in the portion of the joint that has been exposed. Any thickness loss detected in the pipe at a joint has been applied to the joint and the joint capacity reduced accordingly. The Percentage of Design Capacity reported is the minimum of the bonding fraction or the thickness loss value.

Flanges No flanges in the piping system. FRP flanges are best inspected visually for cracking in the transition from the hub to the flange. Flat faced flanges should also be inspected for radial cracks at the bolt holes.

Spools Results by CML





04 6.5 6 60% 55% 07 6.5 6.5 72% 72% 10 6.5 6 72% 66%

Percentage of design capacity is determined by applying changes in thickness to the current strength. Notes and Comments from Inspections None provided

Spool at Joint (SAJ) Results by CML





01 6.5 6.5 70% 70% 03 6.5 6 60% 55%

Percentage of design capacity is determined by applying changes in thickness to the current strength. In many cases, pipe ends are not protected from the contained chemicals at joints. Damage to the pipe within the joint is normally contained by the additional material of the joint, but when it progresses beyond the joint this additional support is absent.


INSPECTION REPORT


SPECTIO

N R

EPOR

T FRP PIPIN

G SYSTEM

PAG

E 11 OF 15

Repads No repads.

Injection Points No Injection points.

PHOTOS

The following photos were supplied with the inspection.

PIPE JOINT IMPROPERLY LOCATED AT SUPPORT.

DISCUSSION & ANALYSIS

GENERAL

The analysis reported here does not replace full engineering review and stress analysis of a piping system. This analysis is limited to the information provided to the inspector. In general, engineering review and stress analysis of the actual installation will be recommended when a piping system is found to be at about 75% of its service life.


INSPECTION REPORT


SPECTIO

N R

EPOR

T FRP PIPIN

G SYSTEM

PAG

E 12 OF 15

EFFECT OF SUBMERGED READINGS

The UTComp System is able to use readings that have been taken from FRP where the opposite surface is submerged in liquid or where sludge or scale is attached. When this condition exists, the UTComp results may show artificially reduced strength values, usually as a result of chemical damage to the corrosion barrier of the FRP. UTComp has been able to quantify damage to corrosion barriers as well as provide adjusted strength values if readings can be taken from the same FRP when the opposite surface is not submerged. In storage and process vessels, readings taken at the liquid level can provide comparative data for submerged and un-submerged readings. In most process piping, the piping may have to be drained in a shutdown to provide this.

When ultrasonic readings are available from the same FRP in both submerged and dry or descaled conditions, use of the dry and submerged readings can provide adjustment of the submerged readings to compensate for the effects on the opposite surface and to provide information on the condition of the corrosion barrier of the FRP.

When ultrasonic readings are only available from submerged FRP, adjustment is made to the strength values as follows:

1. If a previous inspection has readings from both submerged and dry then the adjustment calculated for the previous inspection is used. In this case the owner is advised that the actual strength values may be greater than stated if the corrosion barrier condition has declined.

2. If there is no previous Inspection with readings from both submerged and dry, then no adjustment is made. In this case, recommendations will be made to obtain readings under set and dry conditions. Without the adjustment possible from wet and dry conditions, this practice will probably results in shorter calculated service life.

For this piping system, the only readings available are with liquid in the piping so adjustment of the readings is not possible.

REMAINING SERVICE LIFE

Remaining service life is best determined when the original piping system design criteria and the operating pressure of the system are known. When this information is known, the remaining service life can be calculated directly from the changes from design capacity. When this information is unknown, a conservative calculation is completed.

One parameter used to determine Remaining Service Life is the Percentage of Design Strength (PDS) which is


INSPECTION REPORT


SPECTIO

N R

EPOR

T FRP PIPIN

G SYSTEM

PAG

E 13 OF 15

calculated according to Equation 1.

(1)

In addition to changes in the structural properties of the FRP, thickness loss can occur in piping systems. For this reason, Thickness as New FRP (TNF), shown in Equation 2 is determined and used in Remaining Service Life calculations.

(2) Often, FRP pipe is purchased as a “near commodity” product, where it is classified based on a pressure rating developed by following calculations and tests according to a standard specification. One example is ASTM 2992 (ASTM, 2012). This differs from most vessels, where the design is based on operating conditions and is custom-built to design factors. Piping systems are often designed and installed such that the pressure rating exceeds the actual conditions of the pipeline. To determine the true minimum allowable thickness, a full analysis of the pipeline is required, including all operating conditions, supports and environmental loads. If this analysis is not available, the UTComp System uses the following relationship:

20% (3) where: Critical PDS is as defined above for the Original Design Factor. These calculations determine remaining service life based on the following parameters that define the point where piping system replacement will be recommended. When the piping system capacity reaches 75% of its predicted lifespan, engineering review will be recommended, including stress analysis to assure that the components, connections and supports are adequate.

HYPOTHESIS TESTING

All data has variation. The UTComp results from this inspection have been evaluated to determine the probability that the results could have an average less than or equal to the minimum TNF. From this evaluation, it has been determined that the probability that the actual TNF is less than 40% of the original thickness is less than 10%. At this probability, no action is recommended.

CERTIFICATION The person who collected the data has certified that the data was obtained and provided in accordance with UTComp procedures, training and licensing.


INSPECTION REPORT


SPECTIO

N R

EPOR

T FRP PIPIN

G SYSTEM

PAG

E 14 OF 15

Data analysis and reporting has been completed by UTComp Inc in accordance with UTComp procedures and training. Analysis and reporting are valid only for data received. Warrantee or representation is limited to areas or sections of an asset from which data or inspection information has been provided. For further information about the UTComp System or the results reported above contact the licensee. UTComp may be contacted directly at:

Telephone: +1 519.620.0772 Email: [email protected] Web: www.utcomp.ca

DATA ANALYST: REVIEWED BY:

Appendices

APPENDIX A – PIPING INSPECTION PLAN

References American Petroleum Institute. (2009). Piping Inspection Code: In-service Inspection, Rating, Repair, and

Alteration of Piping Systems, Third Edition, Designation API 570. Washington: API Publishing Services. Geoffrey E. Clarkson, P.Eng.(2015). UTComp FRP Piping System Inspection. Cambridge, ON: UTComp Inc. J.M. Juran, E. (1988). Juran's Quality Control Handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc.


INSPECTION REPORT


SPECTIO

N R

EPOR

T FRP PIPIN

G SYSTEM

PAG

E 15 OF 15

Appendix

FRP PIPING SYSTEM€¦ · Designation API 570), this piping system in spection also identifies...

Documents

Transcript of FRP PIPING SYSTEM€¦ · Designation API 570), this piping system in spection also identifies...