Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
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
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
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
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
Data requiremcnl.S
Remedialioo
(n .~e rvice
Documentation
Rcren:nces
moni1oring
10
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
955
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.
2.2. Organization
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
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
Section in
API 579
Pitdng corrosion
\ Veld misaJignmenL a nd
shell di~ton ions
Crack-like f1aws
10
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
Stress Analysis
Flaw Dimensions
Material Toughness,
~.
Kr =
Kl
K~AT
Failure Assessment
Diagram Envelope
Brittle Fracture
Unacceptable
Region
"I
"-.. -- .. ----------
---.
l
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
I
Stress Analysis
"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
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
Valiclaoion
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
958
T.L Anderson. D.A. Osag' / lntenuuiOiwl Journal of Presmre Vessels and Piping 77 (2000) 953- 963
Table 4
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
lO;;. damage
6
7
An es1ima1e of 1he 1emaining life or limi1ing Oaw size should be made. The remaining life is eslablished using !he PFS
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
.,
.----.-----.-~-..---~~-------~
'
..-..
j. . .. : ..... ~
'
! . -~. +---~-
--i- .. +-----+ ~
'
...
.....
j . ~ , .. : : ++-:u~cJEPTABLE~EGii:m!
0.8 +--+~~ - ~- -~ j -<:<O<<O0
'
!+--; ..
0.6
+; ~naiCItli t.,!cut~
.. I . - ~ --:--
'
'
-1
:
--: --- - ~
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
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
K, = Kf + 4>K~R
(I)
K mao
L,
= u,.r .
(2)
Uys
K,
= fl -
for L, ::::
0.14(4)2](0.3
+ 0.7 expf -
0.65(1...,)6 ])
(3)
4im:uJ
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
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:
(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)
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.
K1c
(MP-a../iii.
(7a)
oq.
K1c = 33.2
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.
Km
= 29.5 +
1.344 exp[0.0260(T-
7~.r
+ 89))
(8a)
(MPaJffi, C),
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 -
=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
( 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)
TL Anderson. D.A. Osa..~ I lnttrmuiontll Journal of Pr.ssure Vns<& am/ Piping 77 (2000) 953-963
962
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).
( 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) >
H CTnuminal
( 15)
4 = I:
H = _ _u..!).:.
--
( 16)
Unomina:JIL,- 1 .
1:1.. Arukmm. V.A. Osu,qe l lfllenwtionfll Jounwl of Pressure Vessels und f>ipi11g 77 (2000) 9SJ- 96J
963
References
Appendix E will continually be expanded and revised as
new results become available.
[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,
(7]
[81
(91
110]
1111
I t2]
[ 13]
2000.
[ 14) Anderson TL, n-.orwaltl GV. Revelle 0 .1 . Strc intcn<ity sulutions for