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 a.PSFa

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