Comparison of Technology Qualification Approaches

Prévia do material em texto

OTC-27527-MS
Comparison of Technology Qualification Approaches
Joanna Ye, Luis D`Angelo, and Martha Viteri, DNV GL; Robert Weston and Luis Caires, Schlumberger, Testing &
Process
Copyright 2017, Offshore Technology Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, 1–4 May 2017.
This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of
the paper have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of OTC copyright.
Abstract
New concepts and technology are vital for the Oil & Gas industry to meet ever more challenging
requirements for drilling and production in deep and ultra-deep waters. When new technology is deployed,
whether with novel equipment or standard equipment in novel applications, it is critical to build confidence
in ts safety and reliability before implementation. Given that current industry standards and codes might not
address all potential modes of failure for new technologies, a systematic technology qualification process
can be used to identify and mitigate any potential threats. Compliance with the required functionality and
reliability requirements can be demonstrated through qualification methods such as testing and analyses,
and the uncertainty or risks associated with the technology, system and interfaces can be eliminated or
minimized.
Several recognized technology qualification methodologiesare currently available to the industry that
completely or partially address qualification of new technology: ISO 20815 Petroleum, Petrochemical
and Natural Gas Industries - production assurance and reliability management [1], NASA technology
readiness level assessment system [2], DOE G 413.3-4A technology readiness assessment guide [3],
Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) Guidance, United States Department of Defense [4], , API RP
17N Recommended Practice for Subsea Production Systems Reliability and Technical Risk Management
[5], API RP 17Q Subsea Equipment Qualification [6], and DNV RP A203 Technology Qualification [7].
Two of the widely accepted technology qualification (TQ) methodologies in the offshore Oil & Gas
industry are API 17N [5] and 17Q [6] and DNV RP A203 [7]. Although both methodologies are quite
similar, the differences may confuse technology developers, this paper addresses differences including the
circumstances under which one might be more efficient/cost-effective than the other, how new technology
is defined, and how much rigor is needed to address potential threats.
In summary, this paper reviews and examines the similarities and differences that are presented in the
two widely accepted TQ methodologies. Further, this paper provides insights on how to employ these
methodologies to meet specific end user needs. In addition, a case study is included to demonstrate the
comparisons between the methodologies.
2 OTC-27527-MS
Introduction
Throughout history, new technologies have been developed and used to capture opportunity and solve
problems. Especially in the Oil & Gas industry, the development of new concepts and technology is vital
to meet ever more challenging requirements for drilling and production in deep water and ultra-deep water
fields.
Implementation of new technology can introduce uncertainty that implies risk for its stakeholders (e.g.,
developers, manufacturers, vendors, operators and other end users). When new technology is deployed, it
is critical to have the confidence in the achievement of functional and performance requirements as well
as the assurance that it will perform as safely and as reliably as designed. The technology qualification
(TQ) process can demonstrate that the required functionality and reliability requirements are met through
adequate qualification methods such as testing and analyses, and that the uncertainty or risks associated
with the technology, system and interfaces have been adequately minimized or eliminated.
Sseveral recognized technology qualification methodologies are currently available from various
industries such as aerospace, defense, and Oil & Gas. Given the differences in the experience, focus, and
application associated with each industry, the technology qualification approaches are quite different.
• ISO 20815 petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas industries - production assurance and
reliability management [1] covers downstream, midstream and upstream (subsea included)
activities with a focus on Oil & Gas production processing, covering the maintainability and
reliability analysis of the components. It includes requirements, guidelines and processes for
planning, execution and management of maintenance data and performance and the utilization of
the reliability methodology, to obtain cost effective solutions over the asset life cycle.
• NASA technology readiness level assessment system [2] describes that all new technologies must
pass through a number of grades before they are declared ready for graduation. At NASA, these
grades are called Technology Readiness Levels, or TRLs. The distance between TRL 1 and TRL
9 often amounts to years of paper studies, prototype modeling, component building and testing,
integration of tested components into other systems, and more tests in the laboratory and the real
world.
• DOE G 413.3-4A technology readiness assessment guide [3] assists individuals and teams involved
in conducting Technology Readiness Assessments (TRAs) and developing Technology Maturation
Plans (TMPs) for DOE capital asset projects.
• Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) Guidance, from the United States Department of
Defense [4] describes the Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) as a systematic metric-based
process to evaluate the maturity and associated risk with "critical technologies" used in defense
programs.
In the offshore Oil & Gas industry, the most commonly used technology qualification methodologies are
API 17N [5] and 17Q [6], and DNV RP A203 [7].
API 17N [5] and API17Q Edition 1 [6]
API 17N [5] provides operators, contractors and suppliers with guidance in the application of reliability
techniques to subsea projects. The recommended practice describes a general approach to achieve a desired
reliability performance within projects; it is based on the same twelve "key" reliability processes as defined
by ISO 20815 for production assurance and reliability management.
API 17N [5] states that the qualification of new technology is a topic closely related to reliability and as
such is identified as one of the key reliability processes, i.e., KP 8: Reliability Qualification and Testing.
An outline qualification process is illustrated in Figure 1 This incorporates appropriate TRL analysis and
the use of appropriate key reliability processes.
OTC-27527-MS 3
Figure 1—Qualification Process from API 17N [5]
No specific details are provided in API 17N [5] regarding how to implement each step. It only
recommends that existing industry standards should be regarded as a minimum, to be confirmed by a risk
assessment process such as those detailed in API 17N and API 17Q.
API 17Q [6] applies specifically to the qualification of subsea components and is based on established
industry standards. The method starts with a breakdown of the subsea equipment into component levels.
The component categories allow for component-specific forms, such as Failure Mode Assessment (FMA)
and Product Qualification Sheet (PQS).The FMA approach is based on a simplified version of a Failure Mode Effects and Criticality Analysis
(FMECA). The FMA templates allow operators to proactively identify failure modes and associated risks
and to test components and equipment prior to project execution. The FMA template also provides a
systematic way for operators to identify additional tests required to further qualify a component to ensure
its longevity or manage component technology extensions or upgrades.
API 17Q [6] provides guidance for improving subsea component qualification by specifying tests.
Operators and suppliers may need to reassess component qualification limits, as required, for different field
configurations and operating conditions. Therefore, this recommended practice is helpful for operators and
suppliers by providing a mutually-agreed communication protocol with regards to the qualification testing.
However, qualification testing is only one type of qualification activities.
4 OTC-27527-MS
The second edition of API 17Q is currently in draft form and consists of ten steps:
Step 1 - Requirements Planning: define the goals and requirements for the technology and its application
together with qualification requirements.
Step 2 - Technology Maturity Assessment: uses TRC/TRL tools to (a) evaluate the technical risk and
maturity of a concept in line with specified goals and requirements, (b) compare concepts to aid in concept
selection, and (c) identify the appropriate qualification path for the selected technology.
Step 3 - Select Qualification Program: the selection is dependent on the initial TRC and TRL assessed
for the technology.
Step 4 - Qualification FMECA (Q-FMECA): support identification and development of the qualification
plan (step 5).
Step 5 - Qualification Plan: the plan will generally include a combination of physical testing activities and
modelling and assessment activities. The plan should address the qualification activities to be undertaken
at each TRL to achieve TRL 4.
Step 6 - Qualification Execution: generate results to provide the basis for evidence of function and
performance.
Step 7 - Results Evaluation: following the qualification execution stage, the results of the tests and data
analyses should be evaluated against the initial goals and requirements.
Step 8 - Improvements and Modifications: design improvements or an evaluation of requirements can
be performed at any point in the qualification program wherever the design is found not to meet the
specification during qualification testing.
Step 9 - Qualification Assurance: qualification assurance document (QAD) is used to document
the qualification claims together with associated arguments and evidence of qualification achievements
throughout the technology qualification process.
Step 10 - End Users Qualification Program: once equipment has achieved TRL 4, the technology is ready
for an End User's application. The End User's Qualification Program will involve testing and monitoring to
progress the equipment TRL through TRLs 5, 6 and 7.
This qualification process tailors recommendations depending on the assessed technology maturity and
technical risk. TRLs are a means of assessing and communicating the maturity of technology and equipment
relative to a set of predefined criteria. TRCs are a means of assessing technical risk across a set of change
categories. The TRL and TRC are combined into a matrix to guide the user to the appropriate qualification
activities for that specific phase of development.
Compared to the first edition of API 17Q [6], the new edition adds more details on the technology
qualification process; however, it mostly (and effectively) provides high level guidance so that the industry
has a common set of principles to follow for equipment qualification.
DNV RP A203 [7]
DNV RP A203 [7] describes technology qualification as the "process of providing the evidence that a
technology will function within specified operational limits with an acceptable level of confidenc"e. This
recommended practice adopts a work process that systematically reduces uncertainties and thereby provides
technical evidence that the technology works as intended.
The technology is considered qualified for its intended use when the failure modes that have been
identified through the systematic process have been properly addressed, and the supporting evidence
substantiates that the technology fulfills all stated functional requirements and meets the stated reliability
target. The qualification process described in DNV RP A203 [7] consists of six steps and is illustrated in
Figure 2.
OTC-27527-MS 5
Figure 2—Technology Qualification Process from DNV RP A203 [7]
1. Qualification Basis
The purpose of the qualification basis is to provide a common set of requirements against which all
qualification activities and decisions will be assessed. Through further qualification processes, these
requirements are demonstrated to be fulfilled.
2. Technology Assessment
This step breaks down the technology and determines which elements are not completely covered
by existing relevant acceptance criteria, and identifies their key challenges and uncertainties.
3. Threat Assessment
This step identifies relevant failure modes with underlying causes and failure mechanisms for
the technology, and assesses the associated risks. The report from the threat assessment contains a
register of all identified risks and it specifies those to be further addressed by continued technology
qualification.
4. Development of Technology Qualification Plan
Based on the risks identified in the Threat Assessment, relevant qualification methods are
customized and documented for the purpose of mitigating risks to an acceptable level under the defined
conditions. The purpose of technology qualification planning is to describe how the qualification
evidence will be provided. Suitable qualification methods are identified. The qualification plan
explains the reason for justifying the selected qualification activities.
6 OTC-27527-MS
5. Execution of the Qualification Plan
In this step the details described in the qualification plan are executed in order to provide
qualification evidence.
6. Performance Assessment
In this step the results of the qualification activities are evaluated against the technology
qualification basis and the acceptance criteria in the qualification plan to ensure that all failure
mechanisms have been addressed and risks reduced to an acceptable level. A decision is then made
to approve the system for implementation, re-design the system for further qualification, or cancel
deployment of the technology.
Comparisons Between DNV RP A203, API RP 17N and 17Q
Technology Assessment
DNV RP A203 [7] adopts the categorization matrix described in Table 1 to determine the technology
maturity. Elements of Categories 2, 3 and 4 are considered as novel elements and thus require technology
qualification.
Table 1—Technology Categorization Matrix from DNV RP A203 [7]
This categorization indicates:
1. No new technical uncertainties (proven technology).
2. New technical uncertainties.
3. New technical challenges.
4. Demanding new technical challenges.
"Application area" refers to the experience with the equipment or component at the operating condition,
or within the environment, or being used for the same purpose for which the equipment or component shall
be used.
"Novelty of the technology" refers to the technology itself. A change in any of the elements of existing
technology (parts, functions, processes, subsystems) will lead to increased uncertainty, resulting in selecting
the technology novelty "Limited Field History" or "New or Unproven". The change may be related to
hardware or software components of the technology. Change may be related to technology elements such
as new architecture configuration, system interfaces, and increased reliability requirements.
API 17N [5] and 17Q [6] adopt the Technical Risk Categorization (TRC) matrix and the TechnologyReadiness Level (TRL) matrix. The purpose of the TRC and TRL assessment is to quantify the risk
associated with the package/component and to determine the extent to which a package/component can be
considered "ready for use".
During the technology assessment/categorization, DNV RP A203 [7] identifies the novel technology
elements which are then subject to threat assessment to understand what the potential risks are, what the
underlying failure causes are, and what the likelihood and what the severity of the consequence would be.
API 17N [5] and 17Q [6] adopt TRC to categorize the risk of each technology element and pinpoint where
the risk factors are with regards to reliability, technology, architecture, environment and organization. It also
OTC-27527-MS 7
adopts the TRL rating to indicate the extent to which an item is "ready for use" given specified qualification
requirements, i.e., how far the processes in a technology qualification program for a particular technology
have progressed.
Development of Technology Qualification Plan
DNV RP A203 [7] states that the Technology Qualification Plan (TQP) shall be developed to provide the
evidence needed to manage the critical failure modes identified in the threat assessment, such as FMECA;
it emphasizes the reasoning that relates the evidence to the requirements specified in the Technology
Qualification Basis.
API 17N [5] and 17Q [6] leave it up to each user to develop technology qualification plans. In Figure
1, API 17N [5] shows that the inputs for the initial TQ plan are technical risk categorization (TRC) and
Reliability and Maintence (R&M) goals/requirements, TRL analysis feeds to the test requirement which
is then an input for the updated qualification plan. API 17Q [6] provides a PQS template to facilitate the
communication between operators and suppliers regarding the requirements for qualification performance
verification and assurance, acceptance testing, and quality control. Changes in the API 17Q upcoming new
release will include recommendations that the TQP should be directly informed by the FMECA, as well
as the detailed TRL assessment
In summary, DNV RP A203 [7] provides detailed guidance on how to develop a TQP, and states that
the TQP should be based on the outcome of the threat assessment, with the ability to trace back to the
failure mode register developed during the threat assessment. API 17N [5] shows what the inputs are to
the TQP. API 17Q [6] specifies recommended tests for different subsea components in accordance with
existing standards or industry practices. The new edition of API 17Q will be similar to DNV RP A203 [7],
recommending that all technology qualification activities in the Qualification Plan should be based on, and
traceable to, the Q-FMECA.
Scope of Qualification Activities
DNV RP A203 [7] recommends that qualification activities shall be selected so that each of the failure
modes and mechanisms are properly addressed with the aim of reducing uncertainties, documenting
sufficient performance margins and increasing system robustness. The qualification method uses an arrayof
techniques including technical analysis, dedicated qualification testing, procedural cautions measures,
design precautions and full scale tests.
In API 17N [5] and 17Q [6], the TQP is focused on qualification testing. The new edition of API 17Q
will state that the TQP will generally include a combination of physical testing activities and modelling
and assessment activities
In summary, DNV RP A203 [7] emphasizes that the selection of qualification activities is based on the
outcome of the threat assessment, and the required qualification scope depends on the risk of the associated
failure mode, technology category, and level of confidence. It is not limited to testing or assessment; for
example, the qualification activities can also be: development of new or modified QA/QC requirements
for manufacturing/assembly, development of spares policy, development of operating procedures resulting
from the Technology Qualification Process, etc. This extends beyond the TQ activities specified in API 17N
[5], API 17Q [6] and the new edition of API 17Q.
Performance Assessment
In DNV RP A203 [7], the performance assessment includes review of available qualification documentation
against the technology qualification basis and the acceptance criteria in the qualification plan. Evidence and
arguments are reviewed to assess whether the claims made have been adequately substantiated and whether
the critical failure modes identified in the threat assessment have been accounted for.
8 OTC-27527-MS
As shown in Figure 1, API 17N [5] step 6 refers to performance assessment, and flexibility is given on
definition and implementation. In API 17Q [6], the step "operator quality check and evaluatio"n judges the
suitability of a supplier's component for deployment by reviewing the supplier's PQS and comparing the
information to their actual service conditions as documented in the operator-prepared PQS. The new edition
of API 17Q will include a step for results evaluation, similar to a performance assessment, where the results
of the qualification analysis and physical testing are reviewed for compliance with the defined performance
goals and requirements aligned with specific TRL targets.
In DNV RP A203 [7], the acceptance criteria are established in the TQP and linked back to the
qualification basis, which includes the functional and performance requirements as well as other project-
specific requirements. The acceptance criteria are stated in terms of critical parameters which need to
be complied with for the qualification conclusion to be valid. While API 17 N [5] provides a high-level
instruction, API 17Q [6] requires the user to compare the test results with the requirements/criteria in
the existing standards. For those not covered by the existing industry standards or practice, there is no
guidance on the results evaluation. The new edition of API 17Q will provide detailed criteria for each TRL
to determine whether the specific TRL goal is met.
Case Study: Combining API 17Q and DNV RP A203
The case study presented below shows a successful application of combining API 17Q [6] and DNV RP
A203 [7]. As detailed in "Cameron CDX TRL Assessment Report" [8], seawater injected into an oil reservoir
for the purposes of secondary recovery and pressure maintenance must be deoxygenated to prevent corrosion
of the downhole tubular. Cameron (now Schlumberger, Testing and Process) developed the Compact de-
Oxygenation (CDX) technology for applications in an offshore environment. The process objective is to
lower the concentration of dissolved oxygen in the injected seawater exiting the CDX package at or below
a specified value.
The CDX process can be divided into four stages:
1. Seawater filtration. The seawater feed to the CDX will have been membrane treated to prevent solids
accumulation in the catalyst bed. This will extend the operating life of the catalyst before it needs to
be taken offline for chemical cleaning in place (CIP) by means of soaking in sodium hydroxide.
2. Hydrogen gas production by alkaline water electrolysis, using standard industrial equipment packaged
for use in the offshore environment.
3. Mixing and dissolving hydrogen into seawater using a high shear static mixer and a mixing valve.
4. Wet combustion of hydrogen and oxygen in the seawater on a palladium catalyst in the CDX reactor
vessel.
Operators showed great interest in this technology and requested TRL assessment results and
qualification plans on how to mature the technology to achieve the target TRL 4.
To meet the customer's expectations, as the first step, an independent assessment was performed on the
technology readiness level (TRL) of Cameron's CDX system, according to definitions described in API 17N
[5]. The TRL assessment results are shown in Table 2.
OTC-27527-MS 9
Table 2—TRL Assessment Results
Elements Identified as TRL 4 Elements Identified as TRL 3
HMI (HumanMachine Interface) Deionized Water Unit
Ultrafiltration package Hydrogen Generator
Chemical cleaning in place equipment Container/Enclosure
Static Mixer (to provide the targeted flow rate)
Dynamic mixer (mixing valve-gate valve)
CDX Reactor
The TQ process described in DNV RP A203 [7] was followed to identify technology gaps and provide
recommendations on how to mature the technology and achieve the target TRL 4. The six elements identified
as TRL 3 were taken to the next step, i.e., threat assessment.
A Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) was selected for the threat assessment and
was performed on those six elements identified as TRL 3. The objective of the FMECA workshop was
to identify all relevant failure modes of concern. Each failure mode was then systematically explored to
capture its characteristics, such as underlying failure mechanism, system effects and current safeguards.
Additionally, the likelihood and consequence were ranked for each failure mode using the risk matrix
customized for Cameron's CDX application. Failure modes identified as high or medium risks were
specifically examined to ensure all practical mitigation efforts were employed; if not, they were recorded as
recommended mitigation actions to be implemented to mature the technology to the target TRL 4. A total of
48 risks were identified and discussed, 25 risks (52% of overall risks) were categorized as low, 19 risks (40%
of overall risks) were categorized as medium, and 4 risks (8% of overall risks) were categorized as high.
Though few items seemed to be associated with severe impacts, they must be reduced as low as reasonably
practicable to operator agreed acceptance criteria for the CDX technology to achieve the target TRL 4.
At the FMECA workshop, a total of 26 action items were proposed by the participants to address and
mitigate the risks of the identified failure modes. A sample list of recommended mitigation is shown in
Table 3 below.
Table 3—Recommended Mitigation Actions
Based on the documentation review and workshop discussions, DNV GL concluded that there were
technology gaps between the current technology state of Cameron CDX system and the desired technology
readiness level. To close out those gaps and mature the CDX system to achieve its target TRL 4, those
26 mitigation action items identified from the FMECA workshop shall be followed up and successfully
implemented.
For the benefits of effectiveness and traceability of the mitigation action execution, it was recommended
that based on the qualification action items generated from the FMECA workshop, Cameron developed a
10 OTC-27527-MS
detailed qualification plan where the qualification method, boundary conditions and acceptance criteria for
each qualification activity are specified. Those recommendations are being followed by Cameron and the
experience gained will be well used when facing the development of other new technologies.
Summary and Conclusion
Since DNV RP A203 [7], API 17N [5] and API 17Q [6] are widely recognized recommended practices for
technology qualification, the question arises for the technology developer or end user: which RP should be
chosen to qualify a new technology?
API 17N [5] focuses on reliability qualification and testing (KP8) with high level guidance. API 17Q [6]
recommends qualification testing from existing industry standards or practices. It is left up to the user to
identify additional qualification testing for those items not covered by the existing industry standards.
API technology qualification recommended practices provide a philosophy, and DNV RP A203 [7] has
more detailed guidance. Depending on the specific application, API may therefore be seen to provide
more flexibility; in other applications, more detailed guidance may be desired. In any case, the technology
qualification process needs to be customized to meet stakeholder's expectations, including operator, vendor
and regulator as applicable, due to the different perspectives and focuses of the RPs. For example, the TRL
to be adopted in the new edition of API 17Q systematically ranks the maturity of a particular technology.
TRL can be defined both for a system and for components; it provides a progress technology development
high-level measure and the associated qualification state. However, the TRL levels are still subjective. For
the same technology element, the TRL rating may be different from person to person depending on the
subject matter expert's experience or expertise level towards the particular technology under assessment.
For this reason, when comparing similar technologies, TRL is suitable for the purpose of ratings/scores; It is
often used for vendor selection. When there is a need to determine specific activities towards qualification,
DNV RP A203 [7] would be more suitable.
Often, the operator or technology end user asks the technology developer to report the TRLs for the
technology under assessment and request a plan to mature the technology to the target TRL level. In this
case, complementing the use of TRLs defined in API 17Q [6] with DNV RP A203 [7] will better serve
the purpose, i.e., adopt API 17Q [6] to assess the TR level and refer to DNV RP A203 [7] to develop the
qualification plan in order to mature the TRL to the target level, as presented in the case study above.
After review of the widely accepted TQ methodologies in the offshore Oil & Gas industry, the API
technology qualification recommended practices provides a high-level philosophy and DNV RP A203 [7]
provides a detailed guidance for technology qualification. Due to different perspectives and the focuses of
these recommended practices, technology developers can draw from each technology qualification process
in a custom way to maximize cost effectiveness and desired results. In some situations, the combination of
these recommended practices is the optimal option to meet the needs and expectations of stakeholders.
Acknowledgments
DNV GL would like to thank Cameron, a Schlumberger Company, for permission to publish this paper.
Nomenclature
CDX Catalytic DeoXygenation
FMA Failure Mode Assessment
FMECA Failure Mode Evaluation and Criticality Analysis
PQS Product Qualification Sheet
QAD Qualification Assurance Document
QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Q-FMECA Qualification FMECA
OTC-27527-MS 11
R&M Reliability & Maintainability
RP Recommended Practice
TQ Technology Qualification
TQP Technology Qualification Plan
TRC Technical Risk Categorization
TRL Technology Readiness Levels
TRA Technology Maturation Plan
References
1. ISO 20815, Petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas industries - Production assurance and
reliability management Revision 2009.
2. NASA/SP-2007-6105 - NASA Systems Engineering Handbook, Rev 1, December 2007.
3. DOE G 413.3-4A technology readiness assessment guide, U.S. Department of Energy, 2009.
4. Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) Guidance, United States Department of Defense. April
2011.
5. API 17N, Recommended Practice for Subsea Production System Reliability and Technical Risk
Management, First Edition, March 2009.
6. API 17Q, Subsea Equipment Qualification - Standardized Process for Documentation, First
Edition, June 2010.
7. DNV GL, Det Norske Veritas, Recommended Practice DNV-RP-A203, Technology
Qualification, October 2013.
8. Cameron CDX TRL Assessment Report, 1123LHQ1-2, Rev. 0
	Comparison of Technology Qualification Approaches
	Introduction
	API 17N [5] and API17Q Edition 1 [6]
	DNV RP A203 [7]
	Comparisons Between DNV RP A203, API RP 17N and 17Q
	Technology Assessment
	Development of Technology Qualification Plan
	Scope of Qualification Activities
	Performance Assessment
	Case Study: Combining API 17Q and DNV RP A203
	Summary and Conclusion
	References