Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is a computerized system of theoretical modeling used to predict stress locations and causes of failures in different materials. This method is useful for simulating, modeling, and analyzing problems that could affect complicated systems, such as oil pipelines or oil platforms.
FEA is based on the idea that most engineering problems can be solved more easily by using mesh generation techniques to divide a component into a large number of smaller, finite elements. Each of these finite elements can then be analysed individually. The analysis works by using equations to predict the behavior of each individual object under specific conditions. These individual behaviors are then calculated together to gain an understanding of how the system will behave as a hole under the set conditions.
Some of the things that can be analysed and predicted by FEA include: the effects of stress, damage caused by contact between parts, fatigue and fractures, vibration fatigue, and damage due to fire or heat transfer. The method is particularly useful because it tends to be more accurate than other methods and can examine a complicated system with great precision. Likewise, it can be performed much more quickly than traditional hand calculations.
On the other hand though, use of computerized models has several limitations as well. They are unable to account for things such as: human error in input data, the properties of materials, and geometrical features that could possibly be missed by analysts. Likewise, there is to expected a certain amount of error in every type of numerical analysis, and FEA is no different in this regard. The degree of error in any one analysis is dependant on the type, size, and accuracy of the model used in the analysis.
FEA is covered, along with other fitness-for-service analysis techniques, under API RP 579-1 / ASME FFS-1.
Is this definition incomplete? You can help by contributing to it.
|
July/August 2018 Inspectioneering Journal
By Greg Garic at Stress Engineering Services, Inc.
API 579-1 is a complex document covering several different types of equipment that may contain flaws or damage. Due to its complexity, this article condenses it into six things you need to know. |
|
May/June 2018 Inspectioneering Journal
By Dhananjay H. Rawal at Systech Consultancy Services
This article details the experience an oil company had when using FEA to evaluate the implications of a damaged pipeline. Specifically, it presents an efficient method that combines analytical techniques with FEA to determine the pipeline’s fitness for continued service. |
|
January/February 2018 Inspectioneering Journal
By Phillip E. Prueter at The Equity Engineering Group, Inc.
Given the concern throughout industry regarding the potential for brittle fracture failures, PWHT guidance to address potential issues arising from the recent changes in PWHT code requirements for carbon steel is examined in this article, and commentary on the potential reduction in fracture toughness due to PWHT is provided based on a review of published literature. |
|
September/October 2017 Inspectioneering Journal
By Tyron Kimble at Sonomatic
Due to its high-cost, Level 3 FFS is typically carried out after Levels 1 or 2 and only in extreme cases. However, advancements in inspection technology and improved use of inspection data have made Level 3 analysis more practical and affordable, even in less critical cases. |
|
July/August 2017 Inspectioneering Journal
By Michael Turnquist at Quest Integrity Group
This article outlines the engineering and assessment methodologies applied during the analysis of a failure of a 15-foot diameter reactor tank supported by four legs. |
|
November/December 2016 Inspectioneering Journal
By Michael Turnquist at Quest Integrity Group
This article exhibits how modern inspection methodologies combined with innovative computational analysis practices demonstrate the value of conducting fitness-for-service (FFS) assessments on sectional piping. |
|
July/August 2016 Inspectioneering Journal
By Mark Geisenhoff at Flint Hills Resources, Jonathan D. Dobis at The Equity Engineering Group, Inc., Phillip E. Prueter at The Equity Engineering Group, Inc., and Dr. Michael S. Cayard at Flint Hills Resources
This article summarizes a recent finite element analysis (FEA)-based study that employs creep simulation techniques to investigate the elevated temperature response of piping with peaked longitudinal weld seams. |
|
May/June 2015 Inspectioneering Journal
By Rhett Dotson, P.E. at Stress Engineering Services
Historically, regulations regarding dent severity have been governed by one of two metrics: dent depth or strain. In the case of the former, plain dents with a depth up to 6% of the nominal diameter are permitted in both gas and liquid pipelines. However, many operators typically set stricter limits on dent depth targeting those above a depth of 2% for evaluation. |
|
November/December 2013 Inspectioneering Journal
By Michael Turnquist at Quest Integrity Group
While there are many types of damage mechanisms that can occur in a piece of equipment, localized metal loss is one of the most common. If an inspection reveals that metal loss has occurred, many questions are raised... |
|
March/April 2013 Inspectioneering Journal
By Greg Garic at Stress Engineering Services, Inc.
If an operator finds cracking in a furnace waste heat boiler, excessive thinning in an absorption tower, or severe bulging in a converter, FFS assessments—not standard code analyses—are needed to evaluate the unit’s mechanical integrity. FFS assessments, according to the American Petroleum Institute (API), are “quantitative engineering evaluations that are performed to demonstrate the structural integrity of an in-service component containing a flaw or damage.” |
