API 579

An Introduction to API RP
579: Section 9
Assessment of Crack Like
Flaws

ROHIT RASTOGI
API 579
Introduction
• 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
– 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
01/27/09 2
API 579
Codes
• 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 in-service
• deficiencies due to degradation or from original
fabrication may be found during subsequent
inspections.
• Can be applied to other industries
• API Codes
– API 510: Pressure vessel inspection code
– API 570: Piping inspection code
– API 653: Tank inspection code
– API 580: Risk based inspection
01/27/09 • API 579 3
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

01/27/09 4
API 579
API 579
• API's Recommended Practice 579 for FFS
• API 579 can be used to make run-repair-
replace 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

01/27/09 5
API 579 Overview of Damage
Assessment Procedures
Section
1 Introduction and Scope
2 Outline of Overall Methodology
3 Brittle Fracture
4 General Metal Loss
5 Local Metal Loss
6 Pitting Corrosion
7 Blisters and Laminations
8 Weld Misalignments and Shell
9 Distortions
Crack Like Flaws
10 High Temp. Operation and Creep
01/27/09 11 Fire Damage 6
API 579 Methodology for All
Damage Types
1 Flaw and damage mechanism
identification
Applicability and limitations of the FFS
2
assessment procedures
3 Data requirements
4 Assessment techniques and acceptance
criteria
Remaining life evaluation
5
6 Remediation
7 In-service monitoring
8 Documentation
01/27/09 7
API 579
Assessment Levels
• 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
01/27/09 8
 API 579 Section 9 -
API 579
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
01/27/09 – Risk to fracture 9
 Applicability and
API 579
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

01/27/09 10
 Applicability and
API 579
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
01/27/09 11
API 579
Data Requirement
• Original Equipment Design
Data
• Maintenance and equipment
history
• Loads and stresses
• Material properties
• Flaw Characterization
• Recommendation for
inspection techniques
01/27/09 12
API 579
Flaw Characterization
• 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:
– irregular in shape
– arbitrarily oriented
– multiple cracks
– branched cracks

01/27/09 13
API 579 Flaw Characterization
(Shape)

Through Wall Flaw

Surface Flaw

01/27/09
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

01/27/09 15
API 579
Flaw Characterization
(Length)

c  c0 f   1 ,  2 ,  
01/27/09 16
API 579
Flaw Characterization (depth)

• Depth difficult to measure

• A. Flaw depth by default
values
a =
a  min
– Through wall flaw, t , c t, length=2c
– Surface flaw,
• B. Flaw depth from actual
measurements
– Normal flaw, a=ao
01/27/09 17
API 579 Flaw Characterization
(Depth)

a  aoW   
01/27/09 18
API 579 Flaw Characterization (Branch
Crack)

01/27/09 19
API 579 Flaw Characterization (Multiple
Cracks)

01/27/09 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 Flat Plate, Crack-Like Flaw Parallel To Joint
o Cylinder, Longitudinal Joint, Crack-Like Flaw Parallel To
Joint
o Cylinder, Longitudinal Joint, Crack-Like Perpendicular
To Joint
o 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
01/27/09 To Joint 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

¼ t, flaw
t flaw

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
01/27/09 22
API 579 Failure Assessment
Diagram

K r  f  Lr 
KI
K  '
r
K mat
 ref
Lr 
'

 ys

01/27/09 23
API 579
Advantages of FAD

• Double criteria approach:

– Fracture
• LEFM
• EPFM
– Collapse
• Elasto-Plastic Fracture
Mechanics:
– J-Integral calculation not required

01/27/09 24
API 579
Level 2 Analysis
• 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
– Factor for applied loading
– Factor for material toughness
– Factor for flaw dimensions
– Based on probabilistic methods
01/27/09 25
API 579
Level 2 Analysis
1– Evaluate operating conditions and determine
the pressure, temperature and loading
combinations to be evaluated.
2–Stress 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
01/27/09 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
01/27/09 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 K mat a  a.PSF
K mat  a
Pb  Pb .PSFS PSFk

01/27/09 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])
01/27/09 29
API 579 Estimating the Probability
of failure
Let all the variables R, L1, L2, L3
follow a normal distribution.

Coeff. Of Var (σ/ µ)

R 0.1
L1 0.1
L2 0.2
L3 0.3

01/27/09 30
API 579
Reliability Index

The reliability index is given by

µ R − ( µ1 + µ 2 + µ 3 )
β=
σ +σ +σ +σ
2
R
2
1
2
2
2
3

Now we will try to estimate probability

of failure for different load
01/27/09 combinations 31
API 579 µ R = 300 Global Factor of safety = 1.5 i.e. µ R/Σµ = 1.5

µ1 µ2 µ3 Σµ Pf

200 0 0 200 2.8x10-

3

0 200 0 200 2.3x10-

3

0 0 200 200 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
01/27/09 32
API 579
Partial safety Factors
Brittle Ductile

01/27/09 33
API 579
Level 2 Analysis
6 – Compute the reference stress for primary
stresses
–reference stress solutions: Appendix D
7 – Compute the Load Ratio p  p

Lr  ref
y
8 – Compute the stress intensity attributed to
the primary loads
9 – Compute the reference stress for
secondary and residual stresses (used for Φ)
10 – Compute the stress intensity attributed to
the secondary and residual stresses
11 – Compute the plasticity interaction factor,
Φ in presence of secondary loads

01/27/09 34
API 579
Level 2 Analysis
K IP  K ISR
12 – Determine toughness ratio
Kr 
K mat
13 – Evaluate results on FAD


K r  1  0.14  LPr 
2
 0.3  0.7 exp  0.65  LPr  

6

  for LPr  LPr (max)

01/27/09 35
API 579
Level 2 Analysis

If Partial safety Factors are not

used
0.7
Kr

0
0 0.2 0.4 Lr 0.6 0.8 1

01/27/09 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

01/27/09 37
API 579
Residual stress profiles
• 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
– Weld joint geometry
– Single V-Type
– Double V-Type
– Fillet welds
– Repair welds

01/27/09 38
API 579
Data required
• 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 V-
groove, double V-groove, corner joint,
fillet weld, or repair weld)
• Procedures aimed at reducing the
residual stress level
– hydrotest to 150% of the maximum allowable
working pressure (MAWP)per the ASME Code,
Section VIII,
01/27/09 39
API 579
Level 3 Analysis
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
1 2

K r  LPr   
 E
ref

L 
P 3
r  ys 
 for 0.0  LPr  LPr (max)
 LPr ys 2 E ref 
 
K r  LPr   1 for LPr  0

 t   1   es   es
 t  ln  1   es 
Where subscripts t = true, es = engineering
01/27/09 40
API 579
Level 3 Analysis
Method C Assessment –FAD is
constructed based on the actual loading
conditions, component geometry and
material propertiesJ elastic
Kr 
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
01/27/09 41
API 579
Level 3 Analysis
• 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.

• BS PD6493 or BS 7910
• Nuclear Electric R-6
• SAQ/FoU Report 96/08
• WES 2805 – 1997
• DPFAD Methodology
• EPFM using the J-integral
01/27/09
• 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

01/27/09 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
01/27/09 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

01/27/09 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
01/27/09
grow the crack 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
01/27/09 component or apply effective mitigation47
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
01/27/09 failure 48
API 579
Leak Before Break

01/27/09 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
01/27/09 50
API 579
LBB Limitations

Flaw at a stress concentration

Flaw subjected to high

residual stresses

Flaw growth in
predominantly length
direction
01/27/09 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-
01/27/09
ignition temperature 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
01/27/09 system 53
API 579
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-
01/27/09 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.
01/27/09 55
API 579
Example Calculation
• 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
01/27/09 56
API 579
Solution

• Kc, from Table 3.3 of API 579,

Tref = 40o F

01/27/09 57
API 579
Solution

01/27/09 58
API 579
FAD

Example of Level 2 FAD

0.8
(1.12, 0.559)
0.6 Load = 171 kips
Kr

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Lr

01/27/09 59
API 579

Thank You

01/27/09 60