0
Technology Reviews

A Survey of Fitness-for-Service Trends in Industry

[+] Author and Article Information
C. M. Holtam

Structural Integrity Technology Group, TWI Ltd., Granta Park, Great Abington, Cambridge, CB21 6AL, UK

D. P. Baxter

 Atkins Boreas, 6 Golden Square, Aberdeen, AB10 1RD, UK

I. A. Ashcroft

Wolfson School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Loughborough University, Leicestershire, LE11 3TU, UK

R. C. Thomson

Department of Materials, Loughborough University, Leicestershire, LE11 3TU, UK

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 133(1), 014001 (Jan 20, 2011) (10 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4001946 History: Received September 12, 2008; Revised October 09, 2009; Published January 20, 2011; Online January 20, 2011

In 2002, TWI Ltd. carried out a questionnaire-based survey of “user experience of plant life management practices,” to gain a better understanding of the reality of plant life management and the needs of plant operators [Iravani and Speck, 2002, “Industry Survey of Risk Based Life Management Practices and Their Relationship to Fitness-for-Service Assessment,” TWI Report No. 13032/5/02]. In 2003, the European fitness-for-service network reported the results of their survey on “current application and future requirements for European fitness-for-service (FFS) technology” [Filiou2003, “Survey of Current Application and Future Requirements for European Fitness-for-Service Technology,” Technical Report No. FITNET/TR2/03, FITNET Consortium]. In 2006, the management of aging plant became a regulatory hot topic in the UK with a health and safety executive document on the subject being released [Health and Safety Executive, 2006, “Plant Ageing: Management of Equipment Containing Hazardous Fluids or Pressure,” RR509]. Considering also the recent release of the new API/ASME joint FFS standard [2007, API 579-1/ASME FFS-1, Fitness-For-Service, 1st ed., The American Petroleum Institute and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Washington, DC], TWI Ltd. decided 2007 was the ideal time to carry out an updated industry survey to assess how developments such as these might affect plant life management practices in different industry sectors across the world. The aims of this survey were to gain an insight into current FFS trends across several industry sectors and how these may change in the future. Information was gathered as to how different companies handle their FFS activities, both in terms of the types of flaw they assess and the complexity of the assessments they carry out. The survey also investigated how safety regulating authorities view FFS activities and whether or not they accept the results as the basis for plant integrity management decisions. Closely related to this is whether there is a need for better regulation of FFS activities, FFS training, or, indeed, whether FFS qualifications should be introduced. This paper presents the results of the online industry survey and draws pragmatic conclusions that will be of interest to all those involved with FFS activities, from inspectors to researchers and from engineers to insurers.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2011 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Fitness-for-service experience of survey respondents

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Primary operating regions

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Primary operating sectors

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Type of organization

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Company and local plant approach to fitness-for-service

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Importance of fitness-for-service applications to respondents’ companies operations

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Frequency of use of fitness-for-service procedures by respondents’ companies

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Frequency of use of published fitness-for-service procedures by respondents’ companies

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Number of companies/safety regulating authorities that specify a preference for fitness-for-service standards/procedures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Company and safety regulating authority preference for assessment procedures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Influence on choice of fitness-for-service standard

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Company third party reviews

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Use of fitness-for-service software

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Use of commercial fitness-for-service software packages

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In