41
Comparison of Comparison of EEMUA 159 to EEMUA 159 to API Standards API Standards Mark A. Baker, P.E. Mark A. Baker, P.E. National Petroleum Management Association’s Petro 2012 May 28 – 31, 2012 Washington D.C.

Comparison of EEMUA 159 to API Standards Mark A. Baker, P.E. National Petroleum Management Associations Petro 2012 May 28 – 31, 2012 Washington D.C

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Comparison of EEMUA 159 to API Standards Mark A. Baker, P.E. National Petroleum Management Associations Petro 2012 May 28 – 31, 2012 Washington D.C

Comparison of Comparison of EEMUA 159 to EEMUA 159 to API StandardsAPI Standards

Mark A. Baker, P.E.Mark A. Baker, P.E.

National Petroleum Management Association’sPetro 2012

May 28 – 31, 2012Washington D.C.

Page 2: Comparison of EEMUA 159 to API Standards Mark A. Baker, P.E. National Petroleum Management Associations Petro 2012 May 28 – 31, 2012 Washington D.C

EEMUA 159EEMUA 159

User’s Guide to the Inspection, Maintenance and Repair of Aboveground Vertical Cylindrical Steel Storage Tanks

2

Edition: 3rd Engineering Equipment and Materials Users Association / Jan-2003 / Amendments Feb-2004

Page 3: Comparison of EEMUA 159 to API Standards Mark A. Baker, P.E. National Petroleum Management Associations Petro 2012 May 28 – 31, 2012 Washington D.C

API Standard 653API Standard 653

Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and Reconstruction

Fourth Edition April 2009Addendum 1, August 2010Addendum 2, January 2012

3

Page 4: Comparison of EEMUA 159 to API Standards Mark A. Baker, P.E. National Petroleum Management Associations Petro 2012 May 28 – 31, 2012 Washington D.C

API Standard 653API Standard 653

This document addresses:Tanks built to API 650 and its predecessor API

12C.Minimum requirements for maintaining the

integrityThis standard employs the principles of API

650 Owner/operators may apply this standard to

any tank constructed to a tank specification.

4

Page 5: Comparison of EEMUA 159 to API Standards Mark A. Baker, P.E. National Petroleum Management Associations Petro 2012 May 28 – 31, 2012 Washington D.C

EEMUA 159EEMUA 159

This Standard addresses: Establishment of essential inspection requirements for tanks. Minimize problems and extend useful life. Gives guidance on design features, common problems

experienced during operation and on repair methods. This addresses tanks built in accordance with British Standards Where appropriate it refers to and makes use of international

standards and codes such as those from API. This publication is intended as a general inspection, maintenance

and repair guide applicable tanks

5

Page 6: Comparison of EEMUA 159 to API Standards Mark A. Baker, P.E. National Petroleum Management Associations Petro 2012 May 28 – 31, 2012 Washington D.C

Inspector QualificationsInspector Qualifications

API 653◦ Authorized inspector

Must have experience and pass a written examination Recertification is required every 6 years

◦ Owner/Operator Inspectors Must have knowledge tanks and local operating

conditions EEMUA 159◦ No certification process for tank inspectors◦ Inspectors should be experienced

6

Page 7: Comparison of EEMUA 159 to API Standards Mark A. Baker, P.E. National Petroleum Management Associations Petro 2012 May 28 – 31, 2012 Washington D.C

Inspection RequirementsInspection Requirements

Routine External InspectionsAPI 653:

◦Required to be conducted on a Monthly Basis

EEMUA 159:◦Required to be conducted on every 3 Months

7

Page 8: Comparison of EEMUA 159 to API Standards Mark A. Baker, P.E. National Petroleum Management Associations Petro 2012 May 28 – 31, 2012 Washington D.C

Inspection RequirementsInspection Requirements

Formal External Inspections

API 653:◦Required to be conducted the lesser of 5

years or the quarter corrosion rate life of the shell.

8

Page 9: Comparison of EEMUA 159 to API Standards Mark A. Baker, P.E. National Petroleum Management Associations Petro 2012 May 28 – 31, 2012 Washington D.C

Inspection RequirementsInspection Requirements

Formal External InspectionsEEMUA 159:

◦Ranges from 1 year to 15 year intervals. Factors include climate and type of product..

◦5 years – crude oil, and refined products with no internal liner

◦8 years finished products with internal liner

◦10 years for Jet A with internal liner

9

Page 10: Comparison of EEMUA 159 to API Standards Mark A. Baker, P.E. National Petroleum Management Associations Petro 2012 May 28 – 31, 2012 Washington D.C

Table B.3-1Table B.3-1

10

Page 11: Comparison of EEMUA 159 to API Standards Mark A. Baker, P.E. National Petroleum Management Associations Petro 2012 May 28 – 31, 2012 Washington D.C

Inspection RequirementsInspection RequirementsFormal Internal Inspections API 653:

◦ Based on the bottom corrosion rate not to exceed 20 years◦ Risk based inspection can be used – See API 580, “Risk-Based

Inspection”. MRT is:

0.100 for with no RPB or thick film liner 0.050 when RPB or Thick film liner is present

MRT = (Minimum of RTbc or RTip) – Or (StPr + UPr)

where:

MRT = minimum remaining thickness at the end of interval Or.

Or = in-service interval of operation (years to next internal inspection)

RTbc = minimum remaining thickness from bottom side corrosion after repairs,

RTip = minimum remaining thickness from internal corrosion after repairs,

StPr = maximum rate of corrosion not repaired on the top side.

UPr = maximum rate of corrosion on the bottom side.

11

Page 12: Comparison of EEMUA 159 to API Standards Mark A. Baker, P.E. National Petroleum Management Associations Petro 2012 May 28 – 31, 2012 Washington D.C

Inspection RequirementsInspection Requirements

Formal Internal Inspections EEMUA 159:

◦ Based on Table B.3 Ranges from 3 years to 20 year intervals. Factors include climate and type of product.

◦ 8 years – crude oil◦ 16 years finished products with internal liner◦ 10 years finished products with no liner◦ Allows for use of probabilistic preventive maintenance –

detailed explanation and guidelines are given. ◦ MRT at next inspection 2.5 mm or 1.5 mm

12

Page 13: Comparison of EEMUA 159 to API Standards Mark A. Baker, P.E. National Petroleum Management Associations Petro 2012 May 28 – 31, 2012 Washington D.C

Inspection RequirementsInspection Requirements

Formal Internal Inspections

EEMUA 159:

13

Page 14: Comparison of EEMUA 159 to API Standards Mark A. Baker, P.E. National Petroleum Management Associations Petro 2012 May 28 – 31, 2012 Washington D.C

Bottom ExtensionBottom Extension

API 653 requires a minimum thickness of 0.100 inches at 3/8 inch from the shell-to-bottom weld.

EEMUA 159 requires a minimum of 2.5 mm (0.098 in) at 9.5 mm (0.374 in) from the shell-to-bottom weld

Approximately the same requirements for each document.

14

Page 15: Comparison of EEMUA 159 to API Standards Mark A. Baker, P.E. National Petroleum Management Associations Petro 2012 May 28 – 31, 2012 Washington D.C

Inspection RequirementsInspection Requirements

Inspections Checklists

Both API 653 and EEMUA 159 use the same checklists

15

Page 16: Comparison of EEMUA 159 to API Standards Mark A. Baker, P.E. National Petroleum Management Associations Petro 2012 May 28 – 31, 2012 Washington D.C

Foundation SettlementFoundation SettlementDifferential Settlement

◦API 653 requires a total of D/10 survey locations with a minimum of 8. Tolerances are given as

16

)(2

)11( 2

ExH

xYxLS

Where:

S = maximum permissible deflection inft

L = arc length between measurements points in ft

YS = yield strength in lbf/in2

E = Young’s modulus in lbf/in2

H = tank height in ft

Page 17: Comparison of EEMUA 159 to API Standards Mark A. Baker, P.E. National Petroleum Management Associations Petro 2012 May 28 – 31, 2012 Washington D.C

Foundation SettlementFoundation SettlementDifferential Settlement

◦EEMUA requires a total of D/10 survey locations with a minimum of 8 with the distance not exceeding 10 m.

◦Tolerances are given as: 100 mm (3.94 inches) between any two

points at 10 m intervals

◦Alternatively

17

Page 18: Comparison of EEMUA 159 to API Standards Mark A. Baker, P.E. National Petroleum Management Associations Petro 2012 May 28 – 31, 2012 Washington D.C

Foundation SettlementFoundation Settlement

Differential Settlement◦Fixed roof tanks without an internal floating

cover

18

Page 19: Comparison of EEMUA 159 to API Standards Mark A. Baker, P.E. National Petroleum Management Associations Petro 2012 May 28 – 31, 2012 Washington D.C

Foundation SettlementFoundation Settlement Differential Settlement

◦ Floating roof tanks and large fixed roof tanks equipped with internal floating covers of diameters exceeding 40 m

)(2

)11000( 2

ExH

xYSxLS

19

Where:

S = maximum permissible deflection in mm

L = arc length between measurements points in meters

YS = yield strength in MPa

E = Young’s modulus in MPa

H = tank height in meters

Page 20: Comparison of EEMUA 159 to API Standards Mark A. Baker, P.E. National Petroleum Management Associations Petro 2012 May 28 – 31, 2012 Washington D.C

Foundation SettlementFoundation SettlementPlanar Settlement

◦API 653 does not address planar tilt tolerance

◦EEMUA 159 permits a maximum out-of-verticality should not exceed h/100

20

Page 21: Comparison of EEMUA 159 to API Standards Mark A. Baker, P.E. National Petroleum Management Associations Petro 2012 May 28 – 31, 2012 Washington D.C

SettlementSettlementAPI 653 Edge Settlement

21

Page 22: Comparison of EEMUA 159 to API Standards Mark A. Baker, P.E. National Petroleum Management Associations Petro 2012 May 28 – 31, 2012 Washington D.C

SettlementSettlementEEMUA 159 Edge Settlement

◦Maximum permissible edge settlement to 125 mm (4.92 in)over 750 mm (29.5 in)

◦If it is exceeded then the tank should be re-leveled

22

Page 23: Comparison of EEMUA 159 to API Standards Mark A. Baker, P.E. National Petroleum Management Associations Petro 2012 May 28 – 31, 2012 Washington D.C

SettlementSettlement

API 653 Bottom Depressions

◦Maximum permissible bottom settlement or Bulges is given by:

BB = 0.37R

Where:BB = maximum height of bulge or depth of local depression, in

R = radius of inscribed circle in bulged area or local depression, in ft

23

Page 24: Comparison of EEMUA 159 to API Standards Mark A. Baker, P.E. National Petroleum Management Associations Petro 2012 May 28 – 31, 2012 Washington D.C

SettlementSettlement

EEMUA 159 Bottom Depressions◦Depressions are acceptable provided

The aspect ratio of height to width of the ripple is not greater than 75:500 (mm:mm) i.e. 0.15 – (3”:20”)

They do not form a severe crease over any of their length

24

Page 25: Comparison of EEMUA 159 to API Standards Mark A. Baker, P.E. National Petroleum Management Associations Petro 2012 May 28 – 31, 2012 Washington D.C

SettlementSettlement

Center-to-Edge Settlement (Sagging)API 653 – Does not directly address the overall

center-to-edge settlementEEMUA 159 – The maximum settlement is

given as

25

Page 26: Comparison of EEMUA 159 to API Standards Mark A. Baker, P.E. National Petroleum Management Associations Petro 2012 May 28 – 31, 2012 Washington D.C

Shell ThicknessShell ThicknessAPI 653

26

SE

DGHt

)1(6.2min

Page 27: Comparison of EEMUA 159 to API Standards Mark A. Baker, P.E. National Petroleum Management Associations Petro 2012 May 28 – 31, 2012 Washington D.C

Shell ThicknessShell Thickness

EEMUA 159The procedure for evaluation of tmin is

essentially the same as API 653.

EEMUA adds a term for internal pressure which is not considered in API 653.

27

))3.0(98(20min PHWSE

Dt

Page 28: Comparison of EEMUA 159 to API Standards Mark A. Baker, P.E. National Petroleum Management Associations Petro 2012 May 28 – 31, 2012 Washington D.C

Shell ThicknessShell Thickness◦API 653 allows for the authorized inspector to

determine the number and location of UT measurements during an inspection

◦EEMUA 159 requires a grid system for obtaining UT measurements

28

Page 29: Comparison of EEMUA 159 to API Standards Mark A. Baker, P.E. National Petroleum Management Associations Petro 2012 May 28 – 31, 2012 Washington D.C

Roof ThicknessRoof Thickness

API 653 ◦Min of 0.090 in. in any 100 in2 area◦Structure corrosion is to be evaluated

EEMUA 159◦Min of 2 mm in a 500 mm by 500 mm area

(0.079 in. in 387.5 in2 area)◦Structure corrosion is limited to 25% before

replacement is required.

29

Page 30: Comparison of EEMUA 159 to API Standards Mark A. Baker, P.E. National Petroleum Management Associations Petro 2012 May 28 – 31, 2012 Washington D.C

Brittle FractureBrittle FractureAPI 653 Assessment per

Section 5 of API 653

EEMUA 159No specific guidance

for brittle fracture considerations

30

Page 31: Comparison of EEMUA 159 to API Standards Mark A. Baker, P.E. National Petroleum Management Associations Petro 2012 May 28 – 31, 2012 Washington D.C

RepairsRepairsAPI 653

Comprehensive repair section for the tank shell and bottom including nondestructive examination

Section 8 – Design Considerations for Reconstructed TanksSection 9 – Tank Repair and AlterationSection 10 – Dismantling and ReconstructionSection 12 – Examination and Testing

31

Page 32: Comparison of EEMUA 159 to API Standards Mark A. Baker, P.E. National Petroleum Management Associations Petro 2012 May 28 – 31, 2012 Washington D.C

RepairsRepairs

EEMUA 159◦The document provides minimal guidance to

the user.

◦The document refers the user to international standards

◦Appendix C has some examples for welding sequence and tank jacking

32

Page 33: Comparison of EEMUA 159 to API Standards Mark A. Baker, P.E. National Petroleum Management Associations Petro 2012 May 28 – 31, 2012 Washington D.C

Hydrostatic TestingHydrostatic Testing

API 653

◦Comprehensive section detailing when a hydrostatic test is required

◦Provides calculation for maximum fill level

◦Provides rules for foundation settlement surveys when settlement is anticipated.

33

Page 34: Comparison of EEMUA 159 to API Standards Mark A. Baker, P.E. National Petroleum Management Associations Petro 2012 May 28 – 31, 2012 Washington D.C

Hydrostatic TestingHydrostatic Testing

EEMUA 159

◦Provides a detailed filling sequence

◦Water quality requirements

◦Provides a reprint from API 653 as well as discusses the BS 2654 requirements

◦Discusses survey requirements

34

Page 35: Comparison of EEMUA 159 to API Standards Mark A. Baker, P.E. National Petroleum Management Associations Petro 2012 May 28 – 31, 2012 Washington D.C

Filling SequenceFilling Sequence

35

Page 36: Comparison of EEMUA 159 to API Standards Mark A. Baker, P.E. National Petroleum Management Associations Petro 2012 May 28 – 31, 2012 Washington D.C

36

EEMUA 159

Hydrostatic Test Flow Chart

Page 37: Comparison of EEMUA 159 to API Standards Mark A. Baker, P.E. National Petroleum Management Associations Petro 2012 May 28 – 31, 2012 Washington D.C

Additional Requirements Additional Requirements EEMUA 159 EEMUA 159

Details not in API 653: Tank painting

Cathodic protection

Corrosion mechanisms

Product characteristics

Risk based inspection

Tank jacking

Detailed foundation design

Tank relocation

37

Page 38: Comparison of EEMUA 159 to API Standards Mark A. Baker, P.E. National Petroleum Management Associations Petro 2012 May 28 – 31, 2012 Washington D.C

Other informationOther information

◦Much of the information presented in EEMUA 159 is present in other API standards: Tank painting - API 652 Cathodic protection - API 651 Corrosion mechanisms - API 570 Product characteristics - API 570 Risk based inspection - API 580 Tank jacking - API SCAST

studying this issue for inclusion in API 653

Foundation design - API 650 (Appendix B)

Tank relocation - API 653 (reconstruction)

38

Page 39: Comparison of EEMUA 159 to API Standards Mark A. Baker, P.E. National Petroleum Management Associations Petro 2012 May 28 – 31, 2012 Washington D.C

CollaborationCollaboration

No official collaboration between the two standards is underway

The Chairman of the EEMUA 159 committee has attended API SCAST meetings

Some members of the SCAST committee have attended EEMUA 159 meetings

39

Page 40: Comparison of EEMUA 159 to API Standards Mark A. Baker, P.E. National Petroleum Management Associations Petro 2012 May 28 – 31, 2012 Washington D.C

ConclusionsConclusions◦API 653 and EEMUA 159 are both good

documents

◦API 653 provides a procedure to demonstrate that the tank inspector posses a minimum body of knowledge and experience

◦In general, API 653 is more conservative than EEMUA 159

◦EEMUA 159 contains information which fills in topics not covered in API 653

40

Page 41: Comparison of EEMUA 159 to API Standards Mark A. Baker, P.E. National Petroleum Management Associations Petro 2012 May 28 – 31, 2012 Washington D.C

Thank youThank you

Mark A. Baker, P.E.Baker Consulting Group, [email protected]