Sei sulla pagina 1di 11

API 579: a comprehensive fitness-for-service guide

Ted L. Anderson*, David A. Osageb


'Smtcluml Reliabilil) Teclmol<>gy, 1898 S Flmirort Cotm. Sui1e 235, Boulder. CO 80301. USA
'M & M Engineering, Sltaker fleiglm. OH. USA
Received 4

Augus12000; revised II Decemher 2000; accep1ed 13 Decemher 2000

Abstract
This an iclc presents an overv iew of the rcccmly published Amc1ican Pctroleumlnstitutc (API) Recommended Pwctice 579, which covers
fitness-for-service assessmem of pressure equi pmem in petrochemical and other industries. Although API 579 covers a wide range of flaws
and damage mechanisms, including local metal loss, pitting coiTosion, blisters, weld misal ignmem. and fi re damage, the emphasis of the
present arricle is on the assessment of crack-like llaws. The API 579 p rocerlure for evaluating c.-acks incorporates a fai lme assessment
diagram (FAD) methodology very similar to that in other documents. such as the British Energy R6 approach and the BS 7910 method. The
API document contains 1m extensive compendium of K solutions, including a number of new cases generated specifically for AP1579. In the
initial release of the document. API bas adopterl ex isting reference stress solutions fo.r the calcul.ation of L, in the FAD procerlure. In a future
release, however, API plans to replace these solutions with values based on a more rational definition of reference stress. These revised
reference stress solutions will incorporate the effect of weld mismatch. In addition to the Appendices of K and reference stress solutions, API
579 includes awendices that provide guidance on esti mating fracture toughness and we ld residual stress distributions. Over the next few
years these appemUces will be enhanced with advances in technology. Recently, API has entered into discussions with the American Society
of Mechanica l Engineers (ASME) to convert API 579 into a joint APIIASME fitness-for-service guide. 2001 PubJishcd by Elsevier
Science Ltd.
Keywords: American Petroleum Institute; Pai lun:: assessment diagram; f:o"Jaw assessment: J'}itness for service; Fracture toughness; Rcfcn::m:c Slress; Residual

stress; Stress imcosity fac1or

1. Background
Ex isting US design codes and smndards for pressurized
equipment provi de ru.les for the design, fabrication, inspection and testing of new pressure vessels. piping systems. and
storage tanks. These code-s do not address the fact that
equipment degrades whi le in -service and deficiencies due
to degradation or from original fabrication may be found
during subsequent inspections. Fitness-for-service (FFS)
assessmentS are quantitative engi neering eva.luations,
which are performed to demonstrate the structural integrity
of an in-service component containing a flaw or damage.
The American Perro.leum Institute (APT) Recommended
Practice 579 [ l] has been developed to provide guidance
for conducting FFS assessments of flaws commonly encountered in the refining and petrochemica l industry which occur
in pressure vessels, piping, and tankage. However, the
assessment procedures can also be applied to flaws encountered in other industries such as the pu lp and paper industry,
" Com:spondingaulhor. Tel.: +1 -303-415-1475; fa.: +J-303-415-1847.
E-mail address: tandcrson@m-bouldcr.com (T.L. Anderson).

0308-0 161/001$ - see fron1 mauer 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Lrd.
Pll: S0308-0161(01l000 18-7

fossil fuel util ity industry, and nuclear industry . The guideli nes provided in API 579 can be used to make run-repairreplace decisions to ensure that pressurized equipment
contain.ing flaws that has been ident ified during an inspection can continue to be operated safe.ly.
API 579 is intended to supplement and augment the
requirements in APT 510 [2], APT 570 [3], and API 653
[4): to ensure safety of plant personnel and the publ ic
whi le older equipment continues to operate; 10 provide technicall y sound FFS assessment procedures: to e nsure that
di:fferent serv ice providers furnish consistent remaining
life predictions; and to help optimize maintenance and
operation of e)(iSiing facilities to maintain avai.l ability of
older plants and enhance long-tenn economic viabili ty. In
addition. API 579 will also be used in conjunction with API
580 Recommended Practice For Risk-Based Inspection [5]
that is being developed to provide guidel ines for risk asse-ssment, and prioritization for inspection and m ai ntenance
planning for pressure-containing equ ipment.
The initial impetus to develop an FFS standard that cou ld
be referenced from the API inspection codes was provided
by a Joint Industry Project (JlP) administered by the

954

T.L Anderson. D.A. Osag' /lntenuuiOiwl Journal of Presmre Vessels and Piping 77 (2000) 953- 963

Material Properties Council (MPC). The driving force


behind this development was p lant safety. The methodology
provided for in this document, together with the appropriate
API inspection code, had to ensure that equipment integrity
cou ld be safely maintained when operating equipment with
flaws or damage, and could also be used to demonstrate
compUaoce with US Occupational Safery and Health
Administmtion (OSHA) 19 10 Process Safety Management
(PSM) Legislation.
A review of the existing international FFS standards by
the members of the MPC JlP was undertaken in 199 1 as the
starting point for the development of a new FFS standard.
Based on the resu lts of this review, it was detenn ined that a
comprehensive FFS standard covering many of the typical
ftaw types and damage mechanis ms found in the refining
and petrochemical industry did not ex ist. In addition, the
existence of many company-based FFS methods, the
complexity of the tech nology that no single company c;m
solve on its own, and the need to gain acceptance by local
jurisdicti ons in the US further indicated the need for a new
standard. Therefore, the JJP decided to start the development of the required FFS technology that would be needed
to write a comprehensive FFS standard for the refining and
petrochemical indus oy. The results of this work were docu-

mented in a MPC FFS TIP Consul tant's Report [6), and this
document was subsequently turned over to the API Committee on Refinery Equ ipment (CRE) FFS Task Force charged
with development of the FFS standard.
In terms adopted by the API CRE FFS Task Group developing APT 579, an FFS assessment is an engineering analysis of equipment to determine whether it ~s fit for continued
service. The equipment may contain flaws, may not meet
current design standards, or may be subjected to more
severe operating condi tions than the original or current
design. The product of a FFS assessment is a decision to
operate the equipment as is , alter, repa ir , monitor, or
replace; guidance on an inspection interval is also provided.
FFS assessments consist of analytical methods to assess
flaws and damage and usually require an interdisciplinary
approach consisting of the following:
Knowledge of damage mechanisms/material behavior.
Knowledge of past and future operating conditions and
interaction with operations personnel.
NDE (flaw location and sizing).
Material properties (environmenta l effe<.:ts).
Stress analysis (often finite element analysis).
Data analysis (engineering reliabil ity models).

Table J
Orgcmiza1ion of each .sec1ion in APJ 579
Section
subparagraph

Title

Overview

General

The scope and overall requircmcms for an FFS assessment arc provided

Applicability and limilations of

The applicability and limitations for each FFS assessmcnL procedure are clearly indicated; these
limitations arc stated in the front of each section for quick reference
The data requirements required for the FFS assessment arc clearly outlined; these data requirements
include:
Original equipmem dc.sign data
Maintenance and operationaJ hisrory
Required dma/mcaswerncncs for a r:-r:s assessment
Recommendatio ns for inspection technique and sizing requirements

number

the FFS assessment procedures

Data requiremcnl.S

Assessmen1 techniques and


acceptance Cl'ileJ'ia
Remaining life evaloalioo

Remedialioo

(n .~e rvice

Documentation

Rcren:nces

moni1oring

10

Tables and iigures

II

l'lxample problems

Detailed assessme nt rules aJ'e provided fOI' three levels of a.<ses$ment: Level I. Level 2,
and Level 3. A cUscussion of these assessment levels is cove1ed in the body of this paper
Guidelines for perfonning a 1-emaining life C$timate a1-e provided for the pUIpose of establishing an
inspection Interval in conjunction with the go,em ing inspection code
Guidelines are presemed on methods to mitigate and/or comrol fumre damage. In many cases.
changes can be made to the. component or LO rhe operat ing conditions to mitjgate t:he progression of
cia mage
Guidelines for monitoring damage while the component i:; in-service are provided. these guiclelineo;
are useful if a fuJUre damage rate can.not he estima1ed e-a..~>ily or the esLimmed remaining li fe is shon.
In-service monitoring is one 1t1ethod wht:reby future ctamage or conditions leading to future damage
can be assessed or confidence in Lhe remaining life cslimatc can be increased.
Guideli nes for documentation for an assessment are provjded; tbe general rule is - A practitioner
should be able to repeat the analysis from the documentari<m withow consulting an imlividual
origlnally invol ved in the FFS assessment
A comprehensive list of technical references used in lhc development of the FFS assessmcnl
procedures is provided: references to codes and standards are provided in this section
rabies and tlgurcs including logic diagn:unsa.n:: used extensively in each sec1ion to clarjfy assessment
rules and procedures

A number of example problems arc provided, which demonstrate tlle application of the FFS
assessment procedures

1:1-. Amlcrson, D.A. Os<1ge I lnrern(l(iona/ Journal of Pressure v,ssels tmd Piping 77 (2000) 953-963

Based on this definition , the APT CRE FFS Task Group


modified and greatly enhanced the initial efforts of the
MPC Jfp to produce the first edition of API 579. The
MPC JTP conti.nued tO provide valuable technical contributions throughout this development effort and essentia lJy
became the technical development ann of the API Task
Group. The MPC FFS JfP is sti ll in ex istence and conti nues
to provide FFS technology development while working
closely with the needs of the API CRE FFS Task Group.
The overall organi zation and assessment procedures
in API 579 are reviewed below. This is followed by a
more detailed discussion of the API 579 assessmem of
cracks.

955

consrructed to the following codes:

ASME B and PV code, Section Vlll, Division 1


ASME B and PV code, Section VJIT, Divis ion 2
ASME B and PV code, Section I
ASME B31.3 Piping code
ASME B31.1 Piping code
API 650
APT 620.

Guide lines are also provided for applying APL579 to pressure-contai ning equipmeot constructed to other recognized
codes and standards, inc luding international and internal
corporate standards.

2. Overview of API 579

2.2. Organization

2.1. Applicable codes

APT 579 is a highly srructured document designed to


faci litate use by practitioners and to facilitate future
enhancements and modifications by the API CRE FFS
Task Group. Section I of the document covers: introduction
and scope; responsibil ities of the owner-user, inspector, and
engineer; qualification requirements for the inspector and
engineer; and references to other codes and standards. An
outline of the overall FFS assessment methodology that is

API 579 provides guidelines for perfonning FFS assessments that can be useJ in conjunctio n with the APT Inspection codes (APT510, API 570 and API 653) to determine the
su itability for continued operation. The assessmem proceuures in this recommended practice could be used for FFS
assessments and/or rerati ng of components designed and
Table 2
Overview o f flaw anct dmnage assessment procedures

Flaw or damage mechanism

Overview

Brittle fract wc

Asscssmcn1 procedures an: provided to evaluate t.h c resistance to briulc rr.!Ctun: of in-service
l'arbon and low aJI()y s teel prcsswc vessels, piping. and storage tanks. C riteria arc pruvided to

General meta l loss

Section in
API 579

evaluaLe nonnaJ op-cra1ing, swn-up. upset, and shutdown condi1ions


Assessment procedures are provided to evaluate general <.'O JTOsion. Thkkncs.o; dma used ror the
assessment can be cilhcr point thk:kness n:adings ur detailed thickness profiles. A
methodology is provided w guide the practitioner to the local tnt:tal loss assessmcnL procedures
based on the type a nd variability o f th ickness data rc:cmded during an inspection

Local metal loss

Pitdng corrosion

Blisters and lamina1ions

\ Veld misaJignmenL a nd
shell di~ton ions

Crack-like f1aws

10

High tcm p~ralure oper..ttion


and creep

II

Fire damage

Assessmem techniques Ul'e provided to evaluate single and networks of Local Thin Al'eas
(LTAs), and groove-like Raws in p1essurized components. Detruled thickness profiles al'e
required for Lhe assessment. The assessment p1ocedures ca.n also be utitized to evalume blisters
Assessment procedures al'e provided to e'alume 'videly sca11ered pi uing. localized piuing.
piuing which occurs wit.hjn a region of local me1a lloss. a nd a re.g ion of localized me.t al loss
located within a region of widely scaue recl pitting. The. assessment procedures can aJso be
utilized to evaluate a network of clo~el y spaced hlis Le.n::. The asse$-~mem procedures ut ilize L,he.
methodology devel oped for Local meta l loss
Asseso;ment procedure~ are provided to evaluate e ither isolated. or nelwork.s of blisters ;md
laminations. The assessme.ot guideljnes include prO\' isions for blisters located at weld joints
and srruclur.tl disconlinuities such as s heJI transit ions, Sl i[ening rings. and nozzles
Asses.sment procedures are provided to evaluate s tresses resuhing rrom geometric
disconl inuiljes in shell type ~tructurcs including weld misa lignment and shcJI disto11ions
(e.g. ou t~of~ roundness, bulges, and dents)
Assessment procedures are provided to e valuate c rack-Like (l aws. Re((nnmc.ndations for
evaluating cr.lck gruwrb including enviroomentaJ concerns an= a lso covered
A.;sessment proccdl.lft!S a rc provided 10 derennine the remaining life of a component operating
in the c reep regime. T'he remaining li fe procedures are limited to the initiation of a c rack
Assessment prot..'Gd ures arc provided to evaluate equipment s ubjcct lO fire damage. A

methodology is po,ided ro rank and screen components for evaluation based on the hem
exposure expetienced during the 6re. The assessmem ptocedures of the other secLions of this
publication a re util!ized to eval uate component damage

956

T.L Anderson. D.A. Osag' / lntenuuiOiwl Journal of Presmre Vessels and Piping 77 (2000) 953- 963

common to all assessmen t procedures included in API 579 lS


provided in Section 2 of the documcm. The organ ization of
Section 2 is shown in Table I. This same organization is
utilized in aU subsequent sections that contain FFS assessment procedures.
Starting with Section 3, a catalogue of FFS assessment
procedures organized by damage mechanism is provided in
API 579. A complete listing of the flaw and damage assessment procedures currently covered is shown in Table 2.
These damage mechanisms can be grouped at a higher
level to foT111 a degradation class (see Fig. I). This higher
level of organization is useful in that it provides insight into
how the assessmem procedures of different sections may be
combined to address complex flaws in a componen1. As

shown in Fig. I, several flaw types and d;unage mechanisms


may need to be evaluated 10 detem1ine the FFS of a component. Each section in API 579 referenced within a degrada
tion class includes guidance on how to perform an
assessment when multiple damage mechanisms are present.
When assessment procedures are developed for a new
damage mechan ism, they wi II be added a.s a self-contained
section to maintain the strucmre of API 579. Currently, new
sections are being developed to address hydrogen induced
cracking (HIC) and stress-oriented hydrogen induced cracking (SOHlC) damage. local hot spots, assessment procedures for riveted components, and creep c rack growth.
A series of append.ices are provided which contam tech nical information that can be use with all sections of API

Stress Analysis

Flaw Dimensions

Stress Intensity Factor


Solution, K1

Material Toughness,

~.

Kr =

Kl

K~AT

Failure Assessment
Diagram Envelope
Brittle Fracture

Unacceptable
Region

"I

"-.. -- .. ----------

---.
l

Mixed Mode Brittle


Fracture And Plastic
Collapse

Assessment/
Point

(f)
(f)

l1J

Acceptable
Region

:I:

(!)

:::>
0
to-

Plastic Collapse

l
L=
r

LOAD RATIO

cr,.,

crys

Reference Stress
Solution, "ret

l
Flaw Dimensions

Material Yield Stress,

I
Stress Analysis

F'ig. I. Schemal ic overview of the FAD prn<:<!dure.

"Y

1:1-. Amlcrson, D.A. Os<1ge I lnrern(l(iona/ Journal of Pressure v,ssels tmd Piping 77 (2000) 953- 963

957

Table J
API 579 appendices
Appendix Tio le
Thickness. MAWP and membrane srress
equations ror a FFS assessment

c
D

Suess analysis overview for a FFS


assessment
Compendimu of SLTess intensity factor
solut.ions

Compendium of reference stress solutions

Overview

Equations for the thicklless. MAWP. and membrane stress are given foo onos1of lhe common
pressurized components. These equ~1tions are provided to assist intenlational practitioners who
may no1 have access 10 ohe ASfVlE code and who need 10 deoennine if ohe local design code is
simi lao10 ohe ASME code for which ohe FFS as,;essoneno procedures were primarily designed for
Recomonendaoions for ~1ress analysis oechoiques thai can he used 10 peri'ol'm an FFS assessmeno
are provided including guidelines for finite element analysis
A <.ornpendium of snes.s intensity f~tctor .soJutions for common pressur:ized components (i.e.
cyl_inders. spheres. nozzle. etc.) are given. These solu1ions are used for 1he-assessme.nt of crack
like naws . The solutions presented represent Lhe latest technology and have been re~derived using
the finile e.lement method in conj unction wilh weight functions
A compendium of refe.rencc stress solutions for common pressurized components (i.e. cylinders,

spheres. no.u.lc, e tc.) arc gi ven. These solutions are used fo r the assessment of crack ~ like llaws

Residual stresses in a FFS evaluation

Material propc11ies for a FFS assessment

Deteriooaolon and failuoe modes

Valiclaoion

Glossary o f 1em1.s and definit ion ~


Technical inqui(ies

Procedures to estimate the thmugh~wall residual stress fidel" for dilfercnt weld ge<>mctries are
provided; this infonnation is required ror the assessment of crack like Haws
Material proper! ies required for all FFS assessments arc provided including:
Sutngoh par.nnerers (yield and tensile sucss)
Physical properties (i.e. Young's Modulus, e1c.)
f'ra.clwe (Oughness
Dma for fariguc crack. growth cakulaLions
Pao igue cur l'es (lnioiao.ion)
Mareria.l data for co:ee1> analysis including remai ning life and creep crck growoh
An overview of tlle types of naws and damage mechanisms thai can occur is pl'ovided.
concem rating on service-induced degl'adation mechanisms. This appendix only provides an
abridge-d Q\'erview on damage mechanisms; API 57 1 is cunently beiog developed to provide a
definitive reference for damage mechanisms ohm can be used wioh API 579 and A PI 580
A.n overview of the smd ies use.d to valjdate the gene.ral and local nJet~llloss, and the crack-like
llaw a.c;sessmenL procedures are provided
DeHnilions for common terms used throughout the sect ions and appendj ce~ of API 579 are g iven
Guidelines for .submiuing a le-ehnical inquiry tn APr are provided. Techn ical inquires will be
forwarded 10 1he API CRE FFS task grour for resoluoioo

579, which cover FFS assessment procedures. The maj ori ty


of the information in the appendices covers stress analysis
tech niques, material property data, and other pe11ine111 information that is required when performing a FFS assessment.
An overview of the appendices is provided i.n Table 3.
2.3. Assessmem me!hodology

The API 579 FFS assessment methodology used for aU


damage type_~ is provided in Table 4. The organization of
each section of APT 579 that covers an assessment procedure
is consistent with this methodology. This consistent
approach to the treatment of damage and the associated
FFS assessment procedures fac ilitates use of the document
in thai, if a pmctiti oner is fami liar with one section of the
document, it is not difficult ro utilize another section
because of the commoo structure. This assessment methodology has proven to be robust for all flaw and damage types
that have bee n incorporated into API 579. Because of this
success, when new sections are added to APT 579, the
template used for the development will be based on this
assessment methodology.
2.4. Assessmem levels
Three levels of assessment are provided in API 579 for

each flaw and damage type. A logic diagram is included in


each section tO illustrate how these assessment levels arc
interrelated. As an example, the logic diagram for evaluating crack-like flaws is shown in Fig. 2. In general, each
assessment level provides a balance between conservatism,
the amount of information required for the evaluation. the
skill of the practitioner perform ing the assessment, and the
complexity of analysis be ing performed. Level I is the most
conservative, but is easiest to use. Practi tioners usually
proceed sequentially from a Level l to a Level 3 assessment
(unless otherwise directed by the assessment techniques) if
the current assessment level does not provide an acceptable
result or a clear course of action cannot be determined.
A general overview of each assessment level and its
intended use are described below.
Level 1 - The assessment procedures included in this
level are imended to provide conservative screening
criteria that c;m be utilized with a minimum amount of
inspection or component information. The Level I
assessment procedures may be used by ei ther pl ant
inspection or engineering personnel.
Level 2 - The assessment procedures included in this
level are intended to provide a more detai led evaluation
that produces results that are less conservative than those

958

T.L Anderson. D.A. Osag' / lntenuuiOiwl Journal of Presmre Vessels and Piping 77 (2000) 953- 963

Table 4

API 579 FFS asses;men1 melhoctology for al l damage 1ypes


Srep l.kscriplion
Flaw tmd tltunage mechw1ism ldentijicmion - The first step in a FFS asses.~ment is to identify the tlaw type and cause of damage. FFS assessments
should not be pcrfonned unless the c~use of the damage can be identified. The o riginal design and fab1ication practices. materials of construction.

service his tory, and environmental conditions can be used to a.~>Certain Lhe likely cause of the damage. Once the naw type is idcntilicd, the appropriate
section of Lhis document t:an be sele<:led for the assessment
Applicabili(y and limitations of the FFS clsscs.ymem procetfures - The applicability and limitations of the asse5Smenl procedure arc described in each
seCti(>n 1 and a de<.:ision (>n whether 10 proceed with an assessment can be made
Data requinmems - The data required for FFs assessments depend on Lhe naw t)'pc or damage mechanism being c\aluated. Dma requirements may
include: original equipment design data~ information pcnaining to maintenance and operational history; expected fu1Urc service~ and data specific to the

FFS as.sessmem such as llaw size. s1a1e of stress in lhe componem ar lhe loca1ion of 1be Oaw. and material properties. Da1a requiremen1s common 10 all

FFS assessm_e nt procedures are covet'ed in Sectio1t J. Data reqWrements specific


4

lO;;. damage

mechanism or flaw type. are covered in lhe seclion

comai.ning the conesponding assessmem p.1ocedU1'es


Asse,n~me.nt teclmiques and acceptance trittria - Assessment techniqu-es and acceptance criteria al'e provided in each $ection. If multiple damage
mechanisms al'e p1e sem. more than one ~ Lion may have to he used for the evalua1.ion

6
7

An es1ima1e of 1he 1emaining life or limi1ing Oaw size should be made. The remaining life is eslablished using !he PFS

Remainillg life evaluurioll -

assessmem procedures with an eslima1e of furore damage nne (i.e. conosion allowance). T he remaining life can be used in conjunction with nn
inspection code to establish an inspec1ion interval
Remedimion - Remediation 1nerhods are provided in each sec1ion based on the damage mechanjsm or naw type.. _In some cases. remediation
techniques may be used 10 control fu ture damage associated with naw growth and/or material degradat ion
In-service monitoring - M.e Lhocts fo r in-service monitoring Hre provide d in each sectic.)n based on the damage mechanism or tlaw type . hH;ervice
monitoring may be U.""-d for Lhosc case5 where, a remaining life and inspeclion interval cannot be adequately established because of the complexilies
associated damage mechanis m and service environment
Dnrwnenration - The documentation of an FFS asse5Stnenl s hould incl ude a record of all data and decisions made in e ach of the previous steps to
qualify lbe component for continued operation . Documcnlat ion requircmenL~ tommon to all FFS assessment procedures arc given in Section 2 of API
579. Spcdfk <.locumentalion requjremems for a particular damage medt:anism or naw type are covered in Lhc sec.:tion conLaining the concsponding
assessment procedures

from a Level l assessment. In a Level 2 assessment,


inspection information similar to that required for a
Level I assessment are required; however, more detailed
calculations are used in the evaluation. Level 2 assessments are typically conducted by plant engineers or enginee ring special.ists experienced and knowledgeable in
performing FFS assessments.
Level 3 - The assessmen t procedures included in th.is
level are intended to provide the most detai led evaluation
1.2

that produces results that are less conservative than those


from a Level 2 assessment. In a Level 3 assessment the
most deta iled inspection and component information is
typically required, and the recommended analysis is
based on numerical techniques such as the finite clement
method. The Level 3 assessment procedures are primarily intended to be used by engineering specialists experienced and knowledgeable in perfon ning FFS
evaluations.

.,

.----.-----.-~-..---~~-------~

'

..-..

j. . .. : ..... ~

'
! . -~. +---~-

--i- .. +-----+ ~
'

1.0 -r~~..;.~-~- -;;,;t+;:;.;:+~- -~ : .... .

r-' --~-------; . :-r


'

...

.....

j . ~ , .. : : ++-:u~cJEPTABLE~EGii:m!
0.8 +--+~~ - ~- -~ j -<:<O<<O0

'

!+--; ..

:... <.<OO< O <O ~M<0<01 .. -~- - ; :- : :

; , .AbcsPr.Aa~ iimioN- : .. .......

0.6

+; ~naiCItli t.,!cut~
.. I . - ~ --:--

'

'

-1
:

--: --- - ~

. i ... )...... ' ... .,.__J


~..C~!9([f!!t.*~!J.~ilri.a.Xri~.P,!a!ll4U

.... ... .'

0.4 .

;, '

!01

. :

~ :,

. .. .. .. : _

.!.- . , .. . .
I

!- . .

.4ut-o~.mr.CM~Ss ; . . .
l cui-otr tot

''

.
i
; Stain~~- ; --

.--!--.:----- ..;.-...

. . .L . ..;. .

0.2

:,'

.Q.ll-ohr.As!MMPa
!
'
:

---! ... !

-~ -r-
'-;-J...+--i--t---1-~-+-~-r----~

0.0 +--+--+--+---+-+~-

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

10

1.2

1.4

1.6

Fig. 2. Level 2 FAD. which s hows 1ypical cut off values.


8

1.8

2.0

2.2

959

7:1_ Andersu, , D.A. O.wge I lnrern(lfiOn(l/ Journ"l of Pressure V<ssels """Piping 77 (2(}0()) 953- 'MJ

2.5. Remaining life and rerating


The FFS assessment procedures in API 579 cover both
the present in tegrity of the component gi ven current stare
of damage and the projected remaining life. Tf the results of
a FFS assessment indicate that the equipment is suitable for
the current opemting conditions. the equipment can
continue to be oper.ned at these conditions. if a suitable
inspection program is established. If !he resultS of the FFS
assessment indicate that the equipment is not suitable for the
current opemting conditions, calculat ion methods are
provided in API 579 to rerate the component. For pressurized components (e.g. pressure vessels and piping) these
calculation methods can be used to find a reduced maximum
allowable working pressure and/or coincident temperature.
For tank components (i.e. shell courses) the ca lculation
methods can be used to determine u reduced Maximum
Fill Height. The remuining life calcu lation in APT 579 is
not intended to prov ide a precise est imate of the actual
time to failure. Alternatively, the remui ning life calcu lation
is used to establish an approprime inspection interval in
conjunction with the governing inspection code and/or inservice monitoring plan, or the need for remediation.

2.6. Relations/tip to other FFS swndards


As previously di scussed. members of the MPC FFS JTP
reviewed existing interm1tional FFS standards to detern1ine
!he suitability for use in the refining and petrochemical
industry. Although a ~ingle comprehensive standard did
not exist. technology contained in these international standards was identified that could be utilized for certain flaw
types. Where possible. parts of these methodologies were
incorporaled into API 579. and in many cases they were
significantly enhanced. In some cases. where the technology
was not directly incorpomted. the APT CRE FFS Task
Group members felt that <llternate nppronches may be desirable for usc by more advanced practitioners. Therefore, the
Level 3 assessment in API 579 penn its the usc of alternative
FFS assessment methodologies. For example, the Level 3
assessment in Section 9 of API 579 covering crack-l ike
flaws provides references to British Energy R6 [7], BS
79 10 [8], SAQ!FoU-Report 96/08 (9] , WES 2805 (10] ,
and EPR1 ./-Jntcgral methodology [Ill.

3. Overview of API 579 crack-like flaw assessm ent


Section 9 of API 579 covers the assessment of cr;1cks and
other planar flaws. As is the case with other prominent
procedures. such as R6 and OS 79 10, the failure assessment
diagr.tm (FAD) methodology fom1s the basis of the flaw
evaluation.
Fig. l illustrates the FAD concept. The toughness ratio,
K.- and the load mtio. /..,. for the structure of interest are
plotted on the diagmm. The FAD curve represents the

predicted failure locus. If the assessment point f;lls within


the curve, it is considered acceptable.
The roughness mtio is computed from the following
expression:

K, = Kf + 4>K~R

(I)

K mao

where Kf is the applied stress intensity factor due to primary


loads. K~R is the stress intensity factor due to secondary and
residual stress. Krna~ is the fmcture toughnes . and 4> is a
plasticity adjustment factor on K15 R. Note that the above
fonnulation, whkh was recently suggested by Ainsworth
et al. [ 12], differs somewhat from that in the current versions
of R6 and BS 79 10, which account for secondary and residual stress plasticity effects through the p factor. which is
added ro K,. Eq. (I). which has a multiplying factor on KfR .
is a more rigorous formu lation . Both the p and cl> formulations were derived from the same analyses. However, the p
factor fomlUiation implies a toughness dependence on plastic zone formation, wh ich has no theoretica l bas is. T he more
correct form forK, in Eq. ( I) will most likely appear in
furure revisions of R6 and BS 7910.
The load ratio in API 579 is def'ined ;._.;

L,

= u,.r .

(2)

Uys

where u ref is the reference srress ;md u 1, is the yield


strength. Eq. (2) is identical to the 4 definition in R6 and
BS 7910. However. API 579 proposes an alternative definition of the reference stress. as discussed later in this article.
The main cr.tck-Jike flaw assessment in API 579 is Level
2, which uses !he following FAD equmion:

K,

= fl -

for L, ::::

0.14(4)2](0.3

+ 0.7 expf -

0.65(1...,)6 ])

(3)

4im:uJ

which is !he same as the R6 Option I FAD, as well as !he


one of the available Level 2 FAD expressions in BS 7910.
This FAD has a cut-off at~"'"''' which is defined as

Lr(max)

= -I (
2

u,. )'

+ -

(4)

U y,,.

where u,,, is the tensile strength. Fig. 2 shows a plot ofEq. (3)
with typical cut-offs for various steels.
Level2 util izes partial s afety factors (PSFs) on toughness,
flaw size and stress. whereby the user can select a t:1rget
reliability and perfom1 a deterministic analysi s. If. after
adjusting the input va lues by the PSFs. the assessment
point lies inside the FAD. one can conclude that the actual
probability of fai lure is less than the target value. The PSFs
tabulated in Section 9 of API 579 were generated as part of
tbe MPC FFS project (13].
The API 579 Level 3 assessment is a more advance analysis !hat gives the user a subsmntial mount of flexibility. The

960

TL Anderson. D.A. Osa..~ I lnttrmuiontll Journal of Pr.ssure Vns<& am/ Piping 77 (2000) 953-963

available options for a Level 3 assessment include:


Method A - Level 2 assessment with user-generated
partial safety factors or a probabilistic analysis.
Method B - Material-specific FAD. similar to R6
Option 2.
Me thod C - J -based FAD obtained from clastic - pl;tstic
finite element analysis, si milar to R6 Option 3.
Method D - Ductil e teari11g assessment.
Method E - Use a recognized assessment procedure.
such as R6 orBS 7910.
The Level I as e~sment is very simple screening evaluation
that can be perfonned by a qualified inspector. Level I
consists of a series of allowable flaw size curves. These
curves were gcner.ucd using the Level 2 assessment with
conservative input assumptions. l'ote that the APT 579
Level I asscssmcm of cracks is completely diffcrcnr than
the BS 7910 Level I iiSSessment. The Iauer is u pseudo FAD
ana lysis that is intended to mai ntain backward compatibility
wi th the 1980 vc1sion of the BS PD 6493 procedure. Unlike
Level I of BS 79 10, the APT 579 Level I assessment
requires almost no calcu lations.

tion. which can be used to infer K for an arbitrary throughwall stress field. The procedure for generating weight functions from the uniform and linear crack face pressures is
outlined in Appendix C of APT 579.
The range of dimensional paramerers for the cylinder 01nd
sphere analyses is as follows:

R;lt = 3, 5, 10. 20. 60, 100, oo.


all = 0.2, 0.4, 0.6. 0.8.

cia= 0.5, I. 2, 4. 8, 16. 32.


where R, is the inside hell radius. 1 is the wall thickness. a is
the depth of the surface flaw. and 2c is the surface flaw
length.
Fig. 3 is a plot o f typical resultS from the recent analyses.
Uniform crack face pressure was applied. giving a stress
intensity solution of the following form:

(5)
where p is the crack face pressure, G0 is a dimension less
geometry fuctor, and Q is the flaw shape parameter:

Q =I+ 1.464 ( ~

)1.65

(6)

4. New K solu tions in API 579


Appendix C contains an extensive library of stress imensity solutio ns for cracked bodies. Many of these solutions
were obtained from the published literature as well as other
assessment procedures, including BS 7910. New K solutions
were also generated for inclusion in APl579. Tn particular, a
comprehensive set of solutions for c racks in cyli ndrical and
spherical shells was recently developed [14]. Th is study
involved over 2400 finite clemem runs. Of course. there
were a number or existing solut ions for cylinders and
spheres. bm these tended to cover a limited mnge of
radius/thickness and flaw aspect ratios.
ln a study commissioned by the MPC FFS project [14),
the following geometries and Haw orientations were
considered:

Internal axial surface flaws in a cylinder.


External axial surface flaws in a cy linder.
Interna l circumferential sUJ:face flaws in a cylinder.
Ex ternal c ircumferential surface flaws in a cyl inder.
Interna l meridiana! surface flaws in a sphere.
External meridiana! surface flaws in a sphere.
Three load cases were analyzed:

Uniform crack f01ce pressure.


Linearly varying crack face pressure.
Global bending moment (circwnfcrcntial cr.tck.~ in
cyl inders).
The first 2 load cases can be used to derive a weight func-

Note that there is a significant R/1 efl'ect on the nondimcnsional stress intensity factor, G0 Consequently. using a K
solution for a surt'<~ce cmck in a flat plate when assessing a
curved shell could lead to significam errors.
The K solurion libmry in APT 579 will be expanded as
new cases become avai Iable. Currently. solutions for cy linders with R/1 = I arc being computed. ln the ncar future. K
solutions for cracks at structural discontinuities such as
noz2eles and stiffening rings wi ll be generated.

5. Fra cture toughness estimation


Appendix F of API 579 eomains information on material
properties. including 10ughness. This appeodix does not
contain a database of toughness values, however. Rather.
it provides correlations and estimation methods. For ferritic
steels, there are lower-bound correlations of toughness to
Charpy transition temperature. These correlations were
adapted from Sections lTl and Xl of the ASME boiler und
pressure vessel code. For static loading in the <~bsence of
dissolved hydrogen. the lower-bound toughness correla tion
is as follows:

K1c

= 36.5 + 3.084 exp[0.036(T- T,cr + 56))

(MP-a../iii.

(7a)

oq.

K1c = 33.2

+ 2.806 cxpt0.02(T- T,.r +

100)]
(7b)

961

1:1-. Amlcrson, D.A. Os<1ge I lnrern(l(iona/ Journal of Pressure v,ssels tmd Piping 77 (2000) 953- 963

2.5

.... _____ _

C)

..- . -

---6.

...

: . - .. t.

----- ----------------e

1.5
Uniform Crack Face Pressure
alt 0.6 cJa s
"12

= +=

Cylinder-Circumferential-lntemal
- - ~ - - Cyllnder-Circumferential-Extemal
Cylincler-Axial-lntemal

Cylincler-Axial-Extemal
---.!.-- Sphere-Meridianal-lntemal
.u Sphere-Meridianai-Extemal

0.5

0.05

0.1

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.3

0.35

t/R.I
Fig. 3. Nondimensiona.l stress intensity factot at the deepest point of a surface crack (<f>= 7rl2) as a funct ion of thickness/radius mtio in cylinders and spheres.

where Trer is the 20 J ( 15 ft-lb) tr-ansition temperature in the


case of carbon steels. For dynamic loading or for hydrogen charged steels, the foll owing lower-bound correlati on can
be used: 1

Km

= 29.5 +

1.344 exp[0.0260(T-

7~.r

+ 89))
(8a)

(MPaJffi, C),

K1R = 26.8 + 1.223 exp[0.0144(T-

7~cr

+ 160))
(8b)

(ksi.Jin.. 0 F}.
An upper-shelf cut-off must be imposed on the above
expressions. For older, high-su lfur steels. a cut-off of
11 0 MPaJffi (100 ksi.Jin.) is recommended. For newer,
low-sulfur steels, a cut-off of 220 MPa.JiTI (200 ksi.Jin.)
may be assu med.
For probabil istic fracture analyses of steel structures, API
579 endorses the use of the fracture toughness Master
Curve, as implemented in ASTM Standard E 1921-97
l l5]. The Master Curve quantifies the temperature dependence of steels in the transition range, as well as the statistical d istri bution of toughness at a given temperature. The
lat.ter is characterized by a three-parameter We ibull di stri -

bution with two of the three parameters specified:


F

=I-

K)c - 18.2 )
F = I - exp [ -8 ( Ko _ _
18 2

4
] (lllJll,

MPaJffi), (9a)

(m., ks1v111.),

(9b)

where F is the cumulative probability. 8 the specimen thickness (crack front length), and K0 is the Weibullmean toughness, wh.ich corresponds to the 63rd perceotile value. The
temperature dependence of the median (50th percentile)
toughness is given by
KJc{median)

= 30 +

KJc{rncdiun1

= 27 + 64 exp[0.0106(T - To)] (ksi.Jin., "F),

70 exp[O.OI90(T- To)] (MPaJffi, "C),


( lOa)

( lOb)
where To is the index transition temperature material for the
material of interest. It corresponds to the temperature at
which the median tOughness for a 25 mm ( l in.) th ick specimen is I00 MPaJiil (9 1 ks i.Jin.). The median and Wei bull
mean are related as follows:

Ko=
1
The rationale for using a dynamic cra.ck iliTcst fracture toughness com>
lalion for hydrogen charged steels is as follows: If dissohe d hydrogen is
present, it may degrade the material's ahility to resisl brittle fracture i ni t ia~
tion. Once mpid crack propagation begins, however, lhc hydrogen can no
longer inlluencc the 111atcrial behavior. Therefore, the crck arre~t toughness should be a reasonable lower-bound estitnate of the mate1iaPs ability
to resist unstable crack propagation.

[ B (K~c0-- 2020)

exp - - -2;,.4

Ko=

K Jc(mcdi.m) -

[ln(2)]0.25

20

+20

Kk(median) - 18.2
[In (2)]025

+ L8.2

(MPaJiU),

(ksiJin.).

( !Ia)

{II b)

By combining Eqs. (9a), (9b), (lOa), ( lOb) and ( II a), ( lib),


we see that once T0 is known , the toughness in the transition

TL Anderson. D.A. Osa..~ I lnttrmuiontll Journal of Pr.ssure Vns<& am/ Piping 77 (2000) 953-963

962

region is completely described. ASTM E 1921 -98 outlines


the procedure for determining To from fmcrure 10ughness
test ing in the transition region.
When fracture 10ughness testing is not feasible. To can be
esti mated from the 27 J (20 ft-lb) rransition temperature:

To= T21 J

(12a)

18C.

To = T2o 11 1~ - 32.4oF.

( 12b)

The above correlation has a standard deviation of approx imate! y I5C (2'PF).

6. Refer ence strcs.~ and weld mismatch


Appendix D of API 579 contains reference stress solutions for a variety of cracked bodies. Fo r the most part, these
solutions were adopted directly from R6 and BS 79 10 and
are bascu on lim it loau solutions.
The authors believe that the current uefinition of refe re nce stress based o n li mit load is inappropriate and should
be replaced in the long run. When rigorous c lastic- plastic J
solution~ for cr;1cked bodies are plolted in terms of FADs.
the resulting curves exhibit a strong geometry dependence
when 4 is compute<l base<l on the limit load solmions. This
apparent geometry depenuence bas led some to criticize the
FAD methodology as being inaccurate.
Appenuix B of API 579 outlines a procedure to obtai n a
self-consistent reference stress definition from the clasticp lastic J solution. This alternative definition removes
virtUally all of the geometry dependence in the FAD. This
approach also provides an effective means to account for
weld mewl mismatch through 4 .
Of coun;c. there is no ambiguity in the definition of the
vertical ordinate (1 axis) of the FAD from an e lastic- plast ic
J solution:

( 13)

K, = v ---:~

This is ploned against the load ratio. a.~ defined in Eq. (2).
The potential geometry dependence of the FAD curve arises
in the uefinition ofreference stress. A self-consistent defini tion of
1 can be derived from the R6 Option 2 FAD
equation , wh ich is material-specific but is assumed to be
geometry-independent. Setting L, = 1 in this expression
leads to

u,.

- J-

_ ) -l
= I+ 0.002 +-I ( I + _0._002

} <I:L"IC , - 1

CT) S

( 14)

fF) >

The above expression a.~sumes that u 1, is the 0.2% offset


yield strength. The reference stress is linearly relate<l to the
nominally applied stress rhrough a geometry factor. H:
CTrer =

H CTnuminal

( 15)

where H is inferred from the nominal stress at

4 = I:

H = _ _u..!).:.
--

( 16)

Unomina:JIL,- 1 .

Thus. the refcrenuc stress is chosen in such a way that the


Optj~n 2 FAD will nearly match a rigorous elastic-plastic J
analysis. That is. give n the above definition of reference
srress, Option 2 unci Option 3 FADs will be virtua lly
identical.
The forgoing begs the question: if an elastic- plastic J
analysis is ncquircd to determi ne 4- wh<tt is the point in
usinl! the FAD methodology? Traditionally one of the
adv;ntages of the FAD approach has been that it is considerably simpler than a rigorous elastic- plastic analysis. At
first glance. the propo eu defin ition of u..,r would seem to
eliminate th is auvun tugc. Such is not the case, however. as
discussed below.
Whe n L, is set to uni ty in the Option 2 FAD expression.
the strain hc1rdening dependence disappears. Conseque ntly.
the geometry factor H, defined above, should be insensitive
to the shape or the stress-strain curve. lf an elastic- plastic
analysis is perfonned once for a given crdcked body. it
should not have to be repeated for other stress-strai n curves.
Non-uimensional reference stress solmions can be
computed and tabuluted for use in standard FAD am1lyses.
much like compendia of K solutions are currently published.
As part of the ongoing effons to enhance the technology
in API 579. a project is planned in which reference stress
solutions (based on the above definition) will be generated
for a range of crackeu bouies. This project will also auuress
weld mismatch e ffects.

7. Residual stress distributions for FFS assessment


One of the key assumptions in fracture assessments of
welded structures is the residual stress distribution. Earlier
assessment procedures. uch as PO 6493 (both the 1980 and
1991 versions). made the very conservative assumption of
yield-magnituue membrane residual stresses in as wclue<l
components. More recent assessment procedures, including
APT 579. have removed much of this con servatism.
Appendix E of /\PI 579 contains a compendium of residual stress distributions for vari ous weld geometries. These
distributions are based on fin ite e lement analyses of weld
residual stresses in a series of pipe girth welds, scam welds.
and nozzle-to- heau attachment welds perform.e d under MPC
sponsorsh ip. Based on these results, <I series of parJmetric
residual stress distributions were developed and included in
API 579 Appendix E. However, an in-depth review of the
residual stress analyses pcrfom1e<l thus far and a large body
of recent residual stress results from other sources over the
last few years suggest that additional work should be
performed to improve the current FFS procedures for pressure vessel and pipi ng components. An upcoming research

1:1.. Arukmm. V.A. Osu,qe l lfllenwtionfll Jounwl of Pressure Vessels und f>ipi11g 77 (2000) 9SJ- 96J

project will ;tddress the following issues:


Confirmation of some of the parametric distributions in
Appendix E.
A c lear criterion for electing 'bending' and 'self-equilibrating' type of residual stress distributions in pipe/
vessel welds.
Development o f improved residual stress distributions
for fillet welds at comer joints. nozzle welds. and repai r
welds.
Tncorpomti on of local post-weld heat treatment e lfects.

963

as requ ired by the standards committee. Discussions are


already in progress. and suggest ions have been made to
have the new standards com mittee meet ings in conjunction
with PVRC. This would help to create a focal point for FFS
technology development in that the PVRC COE and MPC
FFS JlP have previously met at this time. In addition. the
members of the standard~ committee could directly
interface with members of these groups to define technology
needs and help arrange for appropriate fu nding levels.

References
Appendix E will continually be expanded and revised as
new results become available.

[I) API. Re<:onunended practice for litncfor<el\ ice. API 579.


\Vashington, DC: American Peunleum Jn,.l itule, 2000.
121 API. Pressure ves.~>el inspec1ion code: mainlenance in~peclion.

8. API and ASME FFS activities


T he American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
has formed a new main comm ittee, the Post ConsmJCtion
Mai.n Committee. with a charter to develop codes and standards for in-service pressure containing equ ipment covering
all industries. Curre ntly. standards development activity is
underway in the areas of Risk-Based Inspection (RBI) and
repair methods (e.g. leak seal ing. boxes, patches. etc.).
Tn the area of FFS. API and ASME are working to create a
new standards comminee that will jointly produce a s ingle
FFS standard in the US thai c;m be used for pressure
containing equipment. It is envis ioned that once the negotiations and opemti ng procedures for the new committee
srrucrure arc complete. API 579 will form the basis of the
joint APIJASME stand;trd that will be produced by this
committee. The inili<tl release of the new standard will
include all topics currently contained in API 579 and will
also contain an FFS asse~sment procedure for the evaluation
of creep crack growth. This assessment procedure is
currently being developed jointly by the Pressure Vessel
Research Council (PVRC). Continued Operation of Equipment (COE) Di vision and the ASME Post ConstrUction
Committee Subgroup on Creep and Fatigue Growth, and
is being sponsored by Edison El ectric Institute.
The agreement to produce joint standard on FFS technology is a landmark deci sion that will focus resources in
the US to develop u single document that can be used in all
industries. Th is wi ll help ;tvoid jurisdictional conflic ts and
promote uniform acceptance of FFS technology. It also
prov ides an opportuni ty for pooling of resources of API.
ASME, PVRC, and MPC to develop new FFS technology

rerating. repair and alteration. API 51 0. Vl u.;.hinglOn. DC: American


Petroleum Institute. 1999.
[3] API. Piping inspection code: in<pection. repuir. altermion, nnd
rerating of inscrvice piping systems. API 570. \Vushing1on, DC:
American flerroleum lnli.tilure. 199g,
1.41 API. Tank inspcclion. repair, altcmrion. and rccnns1n1clion, API653.
\Vashington. DC: American Petroleum 11\sli lutc, 199R.

[5) API. Recommended practice i'o risk bascd inspcctitlll. API 580 (in
development). \Vashing1on, DC: American Petroleum fno,; tilutc.
PI'OCctlure~ rur operating pre~
surc vessels, tank.-;, and piping in renncl'y und chemical .~rvicc.
FFS-26. New York. NY: The Material> Pt"l>pcttic< Council. Ocwlx:r,
1995.
British Energy. Assessment of the integrity of <tructure< containmg
defects. Britislt Energy R-6. 1999.
BSI. Guide on method< for O'<e"lng the acceptahiluy of flaw< 10
sttuc1ures. BS 7910. Briti<h Standard< ln<tllule, 1999.
SAQIFoU. A pro.:edure for safety a<<c:menl of component< "11h
crnc:ks - Handhook. SAQ/FoU-Repon 96/0ll. 1997.
Method of asses<menl for Haw< in fu<ton "elded jo101< "11h re<pect to
briule fracture and fatigue crack grt)\\lh. WF.S 2805. 1997.
Kumar V, Gennan MD, Shih CF. An engin.:e.ring approach for el><tic-plastic fracture analy<i<. EI'RI Repon J>. t93J. l'alo Aho. CA:
EPRI. 1981.
Ainsworth RA. Sharples JK. Smith SO. EfTccts of rc:'<idu>l <trc: on
fracrurc behavior - experimental rcsuJL~ and a<sc"'~mcm mtlhcxls.
J Strain Anal 2000:53.
Osage DA, Shipley KS, Wirsching I' H. Man<eur AE. Applicmion of
partial safely factors for pressure containing cquipmcnl. 11csemed at
lhe2000 ASME Pressure Vessel and l' iping Cunfet'Cnce, Seaulc, July,

16l MPC. F'itncss-ror-servic.:c cvaluutiun

(7]

[81
(91
110]

1111
I t2]

[ 13]

2000.
[ 14) Anderson TL, n-.orwaltl GV. Revelle 0 .1 . Strc intcn<ity sulutions for

surface cracks and bwied t racks in cylinders, sphere~. and nmplmes.


Presented at the 2000 ASME l'ressu1'C Vessel and Piping Conference,

Seattle. July. 2()()().


[ 15] ASTM E 192 J -97 St:111dard 1<.>1 method for detct'lllination of reference
1emperatu1'e. T0 liJt feritic steels In the trnn<itionrunge. l'hiladeltlhia:
Amel'ican Society for Tes1ing nnd Mutel'iul<, 1997.

Potrebbero piacerti anche