API 579
An Introduction to API RP 579:
Section 9
Assessment of Crack Like
Flaws
Introduction
API 579
Classical engineering design
applied stress : material resistance
component is defect-free
Possible presence of defects
casting, welding, forming, develop during operation
Fitness for Service (FFS) procedure
8/19/2014
Determining the residual life of damaged plant
Ensuring safe operation beyond design life
Down-rating damaged plant below design
Demonstrating tolerance to defects within a safety case
Extending inspection intervals
Reducing duration of outage and shutdown
Codes
API 579
API: American Petroleum Industry
API Codes and Standards for:
design, fabrication, inspection and testing of new pressure
vessels, piping systems and storage tanks
do not address the fact that equipment degrades while inservice
deficiencies due to degradation or from original fabrication
may be found during subsequent inspections.
Can be applied to other industries
API Codes
API
API
API
API
510:
570:
653:
580:
Pressure vessel inspection code
Piping inspection code
Tank inspection code
Risk based inspection
API 579
8/19/2014
API 579
API 579
to ensure safety:plant personnel,
public
to provide sound FFS assessment
procedures
to ensure consistent remaining life
predictions
to enhance long-term economic
viability
8/19/2014
API 579
API 579
API's Recommended Practice 579 for FFS
API 579 can be used to make run-repairreplace decisions
The 1,000-page document is organized
into modules
Each section is based on a type of flaw or
damage, such as crack-like flaws
The document is primarily aimed at the
petrochemical industry
types of damage listed seen in
petrochemical applications
they are present in other industries
8/19/2014
Overview of Damage
Assessment Procedures
API 579
Section
8/19/2014
Introduction and Scope
Outline of Overall Methodology
Brittle Fracture
General Metal Loss
Local Metal Loss
Pitting Corrosion
Blisters and Laminations
Weld Misalignments and Shell Distortions
Crack Like Flaws
10
High Temp. Operation and Creep
11
Fire Damage
Methodology for All Damage
Types
API 579
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
8/19/2014
Flaw and damage mechanism identification
Applicability and limitations of the FFS
assessment procedures
Data requirements
Assessment techniques and acceptance criteria
Remaining life evaluation
Remediation
In-service monitoring
Documentation
7
Assessment Levels
API 579
Three levels of assessment for each flaw and
damage type
Level 1 to 3
Assessment level
Conservatism
Amount of information required
Skill of the assessor
Complexity of analysis
Level 1
NDE inspector
Level 2
Plant Engineer
Level 3
FFS Expert
8/19/2014
API 579
API 579 Section 9 - ASSESSMENT
OF CRACK-LIKE FLAWS
FFS for crack like flaws
Based on Failure Assessment Diagram (FAD)
method
Crack like flaws observed from inspection:
planar flaws
Length, depth, sharp root radius
Conservative to treat volumetric flaws as cracks
Micro-cracks at root
Relative flaw tolerance at design stage
Risk to fracture
a/t = 25%, length = 6a
8/19/2014
API 579
Applicability and Limitations of
the Procedure
Level 1 and 2
Original Design Criteria
Operating temperature less than Creep
range
Dynamic Loading effects not significant
No in-service crack growth
8/19/2014
10
API 579
Applicability and Limitations of
the Procedure : Level 1
Geometries
Flat plate, cylinder or sphere
R/t > 5
t < 38 mm
Away from major structural discontinuity
Loads
Only membrane stress field, within design limits
Material
C-Steel with specified max. tensile prop. And
min. fracture properties
8/19/2014
11
API 579
Data Requirement
Original Equipment Design Data
Maintenance and equipment
history
Loads and stresses
Material properties
Flaw Characterization
Recommendation for inspection
techniques
8/19/2014
12
Flaw Characterization
API 579
Simple geometry, amenable for fracture
mechanics analysis
Objective is to get a crack of conservative
size in plane to maximum principal
stress direction
Cracks from inspection:
8/19/2014
irregular in shape
arbitrarily oriented
multiple cracks
branched cracks
13
API 579
Flaw Characterization (Shape)
Through Wall Flaw
Surface Flaw
8/19/2014
Embedded Flaw
14
API 579
Flaw Characterization (length) when
flaw is not normal to principal stress
direction
Conservative Option
Co (measured length), C (length used in
calculations, normal to max. stresses)
Take C = Co
Equivalent flaw length
Inclined cracks -> align itself perpendicular
to the applied stress
Mixed mode to Mode I crack
Equivalent Mode I from energy
considerations
8/19/2014
15
API 579
Flaw Characterization (Length)
c c0 f 1 , 2 ,
8/19/2014
16
API 579
Flaw Characterization (depth)
Depth difficult to measure
A. Flaw depth by default values
Through wall flaw, a = t,
Surface flaw, a min t , c length=2c
B. Flaw depth from actual
measurements
Normal flaw, a=ao
8/19/2014
17
API 579
Flaw Characterization (Depth)
a aoW
8/19/2014
18
API 579
8/19/2014
Flaw Characterization (Branch Crack)
19
API 579
8/19/2014
Flaw Characterization (Multiple Cracks)
20
API 579
Level 1 Analysis
STEP 1 Determine the load cases and temperatures:
operating and design conditions.
STEP 2 Determine the length and depth of the crack:
characterize
STEP 3 Determine the case from the list below
o
o
o
o
Flat Plate, Crack-Like Flaw Parallel To Joint
Cylinder, Longitudinal Joint, Crack-Like Flaw Parallel To Joint
Cylinder, Longitudinal Joint, Crack-Like Perpendicular To Joint
Cylinder, Circumferential Joint, Crack-Like Flaw Parallel To
Joint
o Cylinder, Circumferential Joint, Crack-Like Flaw Perpendicular
To Joint
o Sphere, Circumferential Joint, Crack-Like Flaw Parallel To Joint
o Sphere, Circumferential Joint, Crack-Like Flaw Perpendicular
To Joint
8/19/2014
21
API 579
Level 1 analysis
Tref = use 38oC (material specific
can also be obtained from
Section 3)
At Tref +33o Cv = 68J, l.e. >.89mm
t, flaw
t flaw
8/19/2014
A flaw in base metal.
B flaw in weld metal that has been subject to PWHT.
C flaw in weld metal that has not been subject to PWHT
22
API 579
Failure Assessment Diagram
Kr f Lr
KI
K
K mat
ref
'
Lr
ys
'
r
8/19/2014
23
API 579
Advantages of FAD
Double criteria approach:
Fracture
LEFM
EPFM
Collapse
Elasto-Plastic Fracture Mechanics:
J-Integral calculation not required
8/19/2014
24
Level 2 Analysis
API 579
If the component does not meet the
Level 1 Assessment requirements then a
Level 2 or Level 3 Assessment can be
done.
Method A: Using partial safety factors
8/19/2014
Factor for applied loading
Factor for material toughness
Factor for flaw dimensions
Based on probabilistic methods
25
API 579
Level 2 Analysis
1 Evaluate operating conditions and determine the
pressure, temperature and loading combinations to be
evaluated.
2Stress distributions at the location of the flaw. Classify
Primary stress
Secondary stress
Residual stress
Appendix E of API 579 contains a compendium of residual
stress distributions for various weld geometries
3 Determine the material properties
yield strength
tensile strength
fracture toughness
8/19/2014
26
API 579
Level 2 Analysis
Appendix F of API 579 contains information
on material properties, including toughness
Appendix does not contain a database of
toughness values
It provides correlations and estimation
methods
For ferritic steels, there are lower-bound
correlations of toughness to Charpy transition
temperature
From Sections III and XI of the ASME boiler and
pressure vessel code
8/19/2014
27
API 579
Level 2 Analysis
API 579 endorses the use of the fracture
toughness Master Curve, as implemented in
ASTM Standard E 1921-97
4 Determine the crack dimensions: characterize
5 Modify the primary stress, material fracture
toughness, and flaw size using the Partial Safety
Factors ( PSF )
Pm Pm .PSFS
Pb Pb .PSFS
8/19/2014
K mat
K mat
PSFk
a [Link]
28
API 579
Need for Partial safety Factors
(PSF)
Consider a Design
R = L1 + L2 + L3
Let the factor of safety be 1.5
Thus:
R/(L1+L2+L3) = 1.5
1.5 to account for scatter in R, L
Probability of failure P(R < [L1+L2+L3])
8/19/2014
29
API 579
Estimating the Probability of
failure
Let all the variables R, L1, L2, L3 follow a
normal distribution.
Coeff. Of Var (/ m)
R
L1
L2
L3
8/19/2014
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
30
Reliability Index
API 579
The reliability index is given by
m R m1 m 2 m 3
2
R
2
1
2
2
2
3
Now we will try to estimate probability
of failure for different load combinations
8/19/2014
31
API 579
mR = 300 Global Factor of safety = 1.5 i.e. mR/Sm = 1.5
m1
m2
m3
Sm
Pf
200
200
2.8x10-3
200
200
2.3x10-3
200
200
6.8x10-2
Need for safety factors (PSF) on each component of
load for consistent Reliability
R/f = f1.L1 + f2.L2 + f3.L3
PSF ensures guaranteed lower bound reliability
8/19/2014
32
API 579
Partial safety Factors
Brittle
8/19/2014
Ductile
33
API 579
Level 2 Analysis
6 Compute the reference stress for primary
stresses
reference stress solutions: Appendix D
7 Compute the Load Ratio
ref
Lrp
y
8 Compute the stress intensity attributed to the
primary loads
9 Compute the reference stress for secondary and
residual stresses (used for F)
10 Compute the stress intensity attributed to the
secondary and residual stresses
11 Compute the plasticity interaction factor, F in
presence of secondary loads
8/19/2014
34
Level 2 Analysis
API 579
12 Determine toughness ratio
13 Evaluate results on FAD
K r 1 0.14 LPr
8/19/2014
K IP FK ISR
Kr
K mat
6
0.3 0.7 exp 0.65 LPr for LPr LPr (max)
35
Level 2 Analysis
API 579
If Partial safety Factors are not used
Kr
0.7
0
0
8/19/2014
0.2
0.4
Lr
0.6
0.8
36
API 579
Residual Stress Profiles
Listed in Appendix E of API 579 Section 9
Residual stress distributions are provided for
the following weld joint configurations
Full Penetration Welds in Piping and Pressure Vessel
Cylindrical Shells
Full Penetration Welds in Spheres and Pressure
Vessel Heads
Full Penetration Welds in Storage Tanks
Full Penetration and Fillet Welds at Corner Joints
Fillet Welds at Tee Joints
Repair Welds
8/19/2014
37
Residual stress profiles
API 579
Based on upper bound values of the extensive
numerical analyses and a literature survey of
published results
Residual stress distributions are provided for
both the as-welded and PWHT conditions
Distinction is not made concerning the material
of construction
8/19/2014
Weld joint geometry
Single V-Type
Double V-Type
Fillet welds
Repair welds
38
Data required
API 579
The material specification
The material specified minimum yield strength
The wall thickness of the component
The heat input used to make the weld
The type of weld (i.e. girth or circumferential
joint, longitudinal seam, repair weld, or
attachment weld)
The weld joint configuration (i.e. single Vgroove, double V-groove, corner joint, fillet
weld, or repair weld)
Procedures aimed at reducing the residual
stress level
8/19/2014
hydrotest to 150% of the maximum allowable
working pressure (MAWP)per the ASME Code,
Section VIII,
post weld heat treatment per the original
construction code
39
Level 3 Analysis
API 579
Method A Assessment Level 2 the FAD with user
specified Partial Safety Factors based on a risk
assessment
Method B Assessment FAD is constructed based on
the actual material properties
P 3
E
Lr ys
K r LPr P ref
Lr ys
2 E ref
K r LPr 1
1 2
for 0.0 LPr LPr (max)
for LPr 0
t 1 es es
t ln 1 es
Where subscripts t = true, es = engineering
8/19/2014
40
API 579
Level 3 Analysis
Method C Assessment FAD is constructed
based on the actual loading conditions,
component geometry and material properties
Kr
J elastic
J total
Method D Assessment This method is a
ductile tearing analysis where the fracture
tearing resistance is defined as a function of
the amount of stable ductile tearing
8/19/2014
41
Level 3 Analysis
API 579
Method E Assessment The recognized assessment
procedures listed below are subject to supplemental
requirements that may include the use of Partial
Safety Factors or a probabilistic analysis.
8/19/2014
BS PD6493 or BS 7910
Nuclear Electric R-6
SAQ/FoU Report 96/08
WES 2805 1997
DPFAD Methodology
EPFM using the J-integral
The J-integral-Tearing Modulus method
42
API 579
Remaining Life Assessment
(RLA)
Sub-critical Crack Growth
Crack growth by fatigue
Crack growth by stress corrosion cracking
Crack growth by hydrogen assisted cracking
Crack growth by corrosion fatigue
Growth of a pre-existing crack is controlled by a
crack tip stress intensity factor
Laws for crack growth rates for these mechanisms
have been provided in Appendix F
8/19/2014
43
API 579
Difficulties in RLA
Crack growth rates can be highly
sensitive to changes in the process
environment
Models are fitted in carefully controlled
conditions in a laboratory experiment
Cracking often occurs as the result of an
upset in operating conditions
Average crack growth rate would be
meaningless in such instances
New cracks can initiate at other locations
in the structure
8/19/2014
44
API 579
Procedure for RLA
1 Perform a Level 3 assessment for the initial
crack size
If the component is acceptable apply remedial
measures to prevent further crack growth
2 If effective remedial measures are not
possible and slow sub-critical crack growth is
expected
If a crack growth law exists for the material and service
environment: a crack growth analysis can be
performed else, a leak-before break analysis should be
performed
8/19/2014
45
API 579
Procedure for RLA
3 Compute the stress at the flaw based
on the future operating conditions
4 Determine an increment in crack
growth
5 Perform a Level 3 assessment for the
current crack size
If the assessment point is outside of the FAD or
the crack is re-categorized as a through-wall
crack, then go to STEP 6; otherwise, go to STEP
4 and continue to grow the crack
8/19/2014
46
API 579
Procedure for RLA
6 Determine the time or number of stress cycles for
the current crack size (ao, co) to reach the limiting flaw
size
Acceptable if time to reach the limiting flaw size,with FOS,
is more than the required operating period
If the depth of the limiting flaw size is re-categorized as a
through-wall thickness crack, the conditions for an
acceptable leak before break (LBB) criteria should be
satisfied
7 At the next inspection, establish the actual crack
growth rate, and re-evaluate the new flaw conditions.
Alternatively, repair or replace the component or apply
effective mitigation measures
8/19/2014
47
API 579
LBB Procedure
It may be possible to show that a flaw can
grow through the wall of a component
without causing a catastrophic failure
In such cases, a leak can be detected
(taking into consideration the contained
fluid and type of insulation) and remedial
action could be initiated to avoid a
component failure
8/19/2014
48
API 579
8/19/2014
Leak Before Break
49
API 579
LBB Procedure Limitations
The leak should be readily detectable
Insulation
Tight crack
Contained fluid
The LBB methodology may not be
suitable for flaws near stress
concentrations or regions of high
residual stress
8/19/2014
50
API 579
LBB Limitations
Flaw at a stress concentration
Flaw subjected to high
residual stresses
Flaw growth in
predominantly length
direction
8/19/2014
51
API 579
LBB Limitations
Crack growth rate high
Adequate time must be available to discover the
leak and take the necessary action
Possible adverse consequences of
developing a leak
hazardous materials
fluids operating below their boiling point
fluids operating above their auto-ignition
temperature
8/19/2014
52
API 579
LBB Procedure
1 Demonstrate that the largest initial flaw size left in
the structure will not lead to fracture during the life of
the component.
2 Determine the largest (critical) crack length of a full
through-wall crack below which catastrophic rupture
will not occur for all applicable load cases.
3 Compute the corresponding leak areas associated
with the critical crack lengths
4 Determine the leakage rate associated with the crack
area computed above, and demonstrate that the
associated leaks are detectable with the selected leak
detection system
8/19/2014
53
API 579
8/19/2014
Remediation
Method 1 Removal or repair of the crack. The crack
may be removed by blend grinding
Method 2 Use of a crack arresting detail or device
Method 3 Performing physical changes to the
process stream
Method 4 Application of solid barrier linings or
coatings to keep the environment isolated from the
base metal
Method 5 Injection of water and/or chemicals on a
continuous basis to modify the environment or the
surface of the metal
Method 6 Application of weld overlay
Method 7 Use of leak monitoring and leak-sealing
devices
54
API 579
In-service monitoring
In all cases where sub-critical in-service
crack growth is permitted
in-service monitoring or
monitoring at a shutdown inspection
of the crack growth by NDE is required.
The applicable NDE method will depend
on the specific case.
8/19/2014
55
Example Calculation
API 579
8/19/2014
A plate of SA 516 Grade 70 steel
Edge crack, depth a = 0.5 inch
Width of plate W = 5 inch
Thickness B = 1.25 inch
Service temp.T = 100o F
Axial Load F = 240 kips
Yield stress Sy = 38 ksi
Toughness not known
Safe ? Using a Level 2 analysis
56
API 579
Solution
Kc, from Table 3.3 of API 579, Tref
= 40o F
8/19/2014
57
API 579
8/19/2014
Solution
58
FAD
API 579
Example of Level 2 FAD
0.8
(1.12, 0.559)
Kr
0.6
Load = 171 kips
0.4
0.2
0
0
8/19/2014
0.2
0.4
0.6
Lr
0.8
1.2
59
API 579
Thank You
8/19/2014
60
