Asme API 579 SI Handouts

API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1

Fitness for Service
of Piping, Vessels and Tanks
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 FITNESS-FOR-SERVICE OF PIPING, VESSELS AND TANKS
Ron Frend
Document version 2011/01/v1.4 Last update - 21 Sept 2011
Daily Schedule
08:30 10:00
1st Session
10:00 1045
Coffee Break
10:45 12:30
2nd Session
12:30 13:30
Lunch
13:30 15:00
3rd Session
15:00 15:45
Coffee Break
15:45 17:00
Open session
In order to ensure the smooth running of the Seminar, it is extremely important

that daily timings are strictly adhered to.
Ron Frend
Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

z:\workshare\training\ASME\579\api579.p
pt
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
PROGRAMME OBJECTIVES
Understand FFS for static, mechanical equipment
Balanced fundamental technical principles with a practical application

to field conditions
See how ASME codes apply to FFS
Use ASME and API rules to assess remaining life
Apply practical examples to analyze conditions
Apply the step-by-step 3-level approach
Understand risk-based evaluation of remaining life.
Evaluate structural integrity and assess remaining life.

Ron Frend
Programme
DAY 1 FOUNDATIONS OF FITNESS-FOR-SERVICE ASSESSMENT
Introduction to Fitness For Service Assessment

ASME Construction Codes
PART 3 Brittle Fracture
PART 4 General Metal Loss
DAY 2 MECHANICAL INTEGRITY AND FITNESS FOR SERVICE
DAY 3 PITTING & CORROSION
PART 8 Weld Misalignment & Shell Distortions

PART 9 Cracks & Crack-Like Flaws
PART 10 Creep
PART 11 Fire Damage
DAY 4 FIRE & MECHANICAL DAMAGE
PART 5 Local Metal Loss

ANNEX A Thickness, MAWP & Stress equations for a FFS Assessment
PART 6 Pitting Corrosion
PART 7 Hydrogen Blisters, HIC & SOHIC
PART 12 Dents & Gouges

PART 13 Laminations
Overview & Wrap Up

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Ron Frend - Profile

Ronald Frend M.Sc.
Shell Tankers (UK) Ltd
1970 1984
Marine Engineer Certified Chief Engineer
Petroleum Development (Oman)
1984 1989
Mechanical Equipment Supervisor
Head of Maintenance Planning
Head of Surface Support (North Oman)
Private Consultant
1989 present
Petro-Chem, Manufacturing, Shipping, Process
Ron Frend
A Joint API/ASME Standard

for the evaluation of the
Fitness of Equipment to
remain in service while
suffering various types of
damage or code violation.
This standard is based on
STRENGTH
6

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
What is FFS?
ASME and API codes for pressurized equipment do not

address in-service equipment degradation nor deficiencies in
original fabrication.
These codes do not permit crack-like flaws, have empirical

rules used for acceptance of metal loss, and provide
minimum guidance on the acceptability of other flaws and
damage types (for example, blisters, creep, and fire damage).

Ron Frend
What is FFS?
An FFS assessment is an engineering analysis of equipment to

determine whether it is fit for continued service.
The equipment may contain flaws, may not meet current design
standards, or may be subject to more severe operating conditions
than the design conditions.
The product of an FFS assessment is a decision to operate the

equipment as is, or to alter, repair, monitor, or replace the
equipment.
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 also provides guidance on appropriate

inspection intervals.

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 FFS
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 supplements the

requirements in API 510, API 570, and API 653.
API 579 has three functions:

1.
2.
3.
To ensure safety of plant personnel and the public while

older equipment continues to operate.
To provide technically sound FFS assessment procedures
to ensure that different service providers furnish consistent
life predictions.
To help optimize maintenance and operation of existing
facilities to maintain availability of older plants and
enhance long-term economic viability.

Ron Frend
Continue In Service?
10
The following questions are frequently asked regarding the

mechanical integrity of the equipment in question:
"Can this equipment be put back in service without repair?"
"How long can this equipment be kept in service?"
"Can the repair work be deferred to the next scheduled turnaround

maintenance time?"
"What would be the consequence when the damage propagates if not

repaired?"
"What would be the most effective way to detect and monitor the
damage?"

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
FFS assessments
can be used at any stage of

the life of a structure:
In the concept and design

phase, material property
requirements can be set.
In the construction phase
During routine inspection.
Towards the end of the design

life of a structure.

11
Ron Frend
FFS Assessment
A "fitness-for-service" (FFS) assessment

demonstrates that failure of the defective
component will not occur by any recognized failure
mechanism within a reasonable time.
Such FFS analyses typically involve
12
stress analysis,
fracture mechanics,
material testing and
quantitative NDT measurements, in addition to
the operating conditions.

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Technical Integrity
Specifications
Specifications
Procedures
Procedures
Standards
Standards
Plan:
Risk Reliability Management

Asset Register
Action:
Improve:
Change Management
Modification Projects
Preventive Maintenance
Corrective Maintenance
Inspection
Operation
Analyse:
Root Cause Analysis
Fitness for Purpose

13
Check:
Deviation Control
Technical Authorities
Risk Management
Ron Frend
Introduction
2000 - The first edition of API 579 produced by API CRE FFS Task
Group becomes the de facto international Fitness-For-Service (FFS)
Standard for pressure containing equipment in the refining and
petrochemical industries
ASME forms Post Construction Committee (PCC) to develop standards

for in-service fixed equipment
API and ASME agreed to form a joint committee to produce a single

FFS standard that can be used for pressure-containing equipment for
all industries published in 2007.
CRE Committee on Refinery Equipment
14

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
New Joint API and ASME FFS Standard
API 579 forms basis of joint API/ASME standard produced by the

API/ASME joint committee
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 2007 supersedes API 579-2000
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 2007 standard includes all previous topics and
also includes new parts covering FFS assessment procedures that
addresses unique damage mechanisms experienced by other industries

15
Ron Frend
Overview of API 579-1/ASME FFS-1
Sections have been renamed to Parts and

Appendices to Annexes
New Enhancements Existing Sections and New Parts
16
Part 5 - Assessment of Local Thin Areas, assessment procedures for

gouges have been relocated to Part 12
Part 7 - Assessment of Blisters and HIC/SOHIC Damage, assessment
procedures for HIC/SOHIC damage have been added
Part 8 - Assessment of Weld Misalignment and Bulges, assessment
procedures for bulges removed, assessment procedures for dents,
gouges, and dent-gouge combinations have been relocated to Part 12
Part 10 - Assessment of Equipment Operating in the Creep Range,
assessment procedures for remaining life calculations for components
with or without crack-like flaws have been added
Part 12 - Assessment of Dents, Gouges, and Dent-Gouge Combinations,
new Part
Part 13 - Assessment of Laminations, new Part

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)

New Enhancements Existing and New Annexes
Annex B - Stress Analysis Overview for a FFS Assessment, complete

rewrite to incorporate new elastic-plastic analysis methods and fatigue
evaluation technology developed for the ASME Div 2 Re-write Project,
Structural Stress/Master S-N Approach will be included
Annex C - Compendium of Stress Intensity Factor Solutions, new stress

intensity factor solutions for thick wall cylinders, through wall cracks in
cylinders and spheres, holes in plates
Annex E - Compendium of Residual Stress Solutions, complete rewrite to

incorporate new solutions developed by PVRC Joint Industry Project
Annex F - Material Properties for a FFS Assessment, new stress-strain

curve model incorporated
Annex H - Technical Basis and Validation of FFS Procedures
Annex K - Crack Opening Areas, new annex covering crack opening areas
for through-wall flaws in cylinders and spheres

17
Ron Frend

Organization of Parts
18
Part 1 Introduction
Part 2 FFS Engineering Evaluation Procedure
Part 3 Assessment of Equipment for Brittle Fracture
Part 4 Assessment of General Metal Loss (tm < tmin - large area)
Part 5 Assessment of Localized Metal Loss (tm < tmin - small area)
Part 6 Assessment of Pitting Corrosion
Part 7 Assessment Of Hydrogen Blisters and Hydrogen Damage Associated

with HIC and SOHIC
Part 8 Assessment of Weld Misalignment and Shell Distortions
Part 9 Assessment of Crack-Like Flaws
Part 10 Assessment of Equipment Operating in the Creep Regime
Part 11 Assessment of Fire Damage
Part 12 Assessment of Dents, Gouges, and Dent-Gouge Combinations
Part 13 Assessment of Laminations

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)

Organization of Annexes
Annex A Thickness, MAWP, and Stress Equations for a FFS Assessment
Annex B Stress Analysis Overview for a FFS Assessment
Annex C Compendium of Stress Intensity Factor Solutions
Annex D Compendium of Reference Stress Solutions
Annex E Residual Stresses in a FFS Evaluation
Annex F Material Properties for a FFS Assessment
Annex G Deterioration and Failure Modes
Annex H Validation
Annex I Glossary of Terms and Definitions
Annex J Currently Not Used

Annex K Crack Opening Areas

19
Ron Frend
Covers equipment constructed to
20
ASME B&PV Section VIII, Div 1

ASME B&PV Section VIII, Div 2
B31.3, Process Piping
B31.1, Power Piping
API 650
API 620
It can also be used with equipment constructed

to other recognized standards

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
10
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
FFS Methods
Based on a variety of the American and British codes and

standards, such as
ASME Pressure Vessel and Boiler Code Section XI,

ASME/ANSI B31.G, Modified B31.G (also known as
"RSTRENG" method),
BSI PD 6493 (now BS 7910) and

21
Ron Frend
FFS assessments
Part of the plant life management process

as a means of increasing
22
Availability
Reliability
Efficiency and
Safety.

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
11
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
FFS Requirements
Require an interdisciplinary approach with

operations personnel consisting of an
understanding of
Damage mechanisms and material behaviour.

Past and future operating conditions.
Non-destructive examination techniques (flaw location
and sizing).
Material properties (environmental effects).
Stress analysis (finite element analysis; FEA) and
Data analysis (engineering reliability models).

23
Ron Frend
In-service damage mechanisms
Damage to a component
can occur in many forms
such as:
Mechanical damage
Overload
Overheating
Corrosion
Erosion
Fatigue
Creep and
Hydrogen
24

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
12
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Damage Mechanisms
Regardless what materials in what process

conditions, the symptoms of corrosion damage
normally exhibit in the following forms:
25
Uniform metal loss or wall thinning due to general attack;

Local wall thinning due to localized attack;
Surface breaking cracks;
Embedded cracks under metal surfaces and
Metallurgical change or materials property change.

Ron Frend
4 primary defect categories

Metal Loss
Crack-like
flaws
Geometrical
defects
Metallurgical
flaws
General (uniform)
corrosion
Fatigue Cracks
Dents
Toughness reduction
Crevice corrosion
SCC
Gouges
Strength reduction
Pitting corrosion
26
Planar fabrication Out-of-roundness

flaws

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Corrosion resistance
reduction
Ron Frend
13
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Other codes
When evaluating other codes and standards

the following should be considered:
Material specifications
Upper and/or lower temperature limits for specific materials
Material strength properties & design allowable stress basis
Material fracture toughness requirements
Design rules for shell sections
Design rules for shell discontinuities such as nozzles
Design requirements for cyclic loads.
Design requirements for operation in the creep range
Weld joint efficiency or quality factors
Fabrication details and quality of workmanship
Inspection requirements, particularly for welded joints

27
Ron Frend
Other codes (contd)
28
Material may be correlated to

equivalent ASME or API specification.
May then apply the acceptance limits

of these fitness for service procedures
unaltered.
User is cautioned to also consider the

effects of fabrication and inspection
requirements on the design basis
(e.g. joint efficiency with respect to
minimum thickness sizing).
Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
14
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Covers present integrity of the component given a current

state of damage and the projected remaining life
Flaw evaluation
29
general and localized corrosion

widespread and localized pitting
blisters and laminations
weld misalignment and shell distortions
crack-like flaws including environmental cracking
to brittle fracture
long-term creep damage
fire damage

Ron Frend
API 579 PART 2

FITNESS-FOR-SERVICE
ENGINEERING
ASSESSMENT
PROCEDURE
30
Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
15
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
What is API 579-1/ASME FFS-1?
API 579, first released in 2000,

is a recommended practice for
fitness-for-service that
combines 10 years of effort by
the leading petrochemical
companies.
It gives engineers and

technicians the tools needed to
make run-or-repair decision for
corroded and damaged
equipment.

31
Ron Frend
What API 579 is not ...
32
It does not predict how the

degradation will progress.
It evaluates the current

condition or a projected
future condition.

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
16
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
covers situations involving flaws commonly

encountered in the refining and petrochemical
industry in
pressure vessels,
piping and
tankage.

33
Ron Frend
The procedures are NOT intended to provide a definitive

guideline for every possible situation that may be
encountered.
flexibility is provided to the user in the form of an advanced

assessment level to handle uncommon situations that may
require a more detailed analysis
34

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
17
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
The assessment procedures are based on allowable stress

methods and plastic collapse loads for non-crack-like flaws,
and FAD-based (Failure assessment diagram ) strategies for cracklike flaws
Enables user to factor, scale, or adjust the acceptance limits

such that equivalent FFS in-service margins can be attained
for equipment not constructed to these codes.

35
Ron Frend
Who is involved in fitness-forservice?
Fitness-for-service, API 579, is multi-discipline:
36
Materials engineer
Designer (stress analysis)
System engineer
Inspector
Operator

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
18
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Is fitness-for-service a qualitative
method based on judgment?
A lot of experience has

been compiled in the
document, but it is
primarily a quantitative
method.

37
Ron Frend
How is the standard structured?
A part for each degradation mechanism.
Each part has three levels of evaluation:
38
Level 1 Evaluation in the field

Level 2 Evaluation in engineering office
Level 3 Expert evaluation
The standard is self-contained

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
19
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Three Levels of Evaluation
Provided for each flaw
Level 1 - Evaluation simplified to charts and simple

formulae, generally simplified by conservative
assumptions
Level 2 - Generally requires more detailed evaluation;

more accurate
Level 3 - Allows for flaw assessment by more

sophisticated methods

39
Ron Frend
Typical Level 1 Limitations
40
Original design in accordance with a

recognized code or standard
Equipment is not operating in the creep

range
Equipment is not in cyclic service

(fatigue)
Thickness governed by pressure so

equations relate required thickness to
pressure

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
20
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Level 2 Assessment
41
Includes components requiring more

complex calculations such as nozzles
and flanges
Includes consideration of supplemental

loads
Includes evaluation of piping systems

Ron Frend
PROCEDURE
1 - Damage mechanism
2 - Applicability
3 - Input data
4 - Analysis
5 - Remaining life prediction
6 - Remediation and repair
7 - In-service monitoring
8 - Documentation
42

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
21
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
FFS Assessment Steps

Stage
Description
Flaw and damage mechanism identification.

The first step in a fitness-for-service assessment is to identify the flaw type and cause of damage. The original design and
fabrication practices, the material of construction, and the service history and environmental conditions help to ascertain
the likely cause of the damage.
Applicability and limitations of the FFS assessment procedures.

A description of the applicability and limitations of the assessment procedure help the operator to decide whether or not to
proceed with an assessment.
Data requirements.
The flaw type or damage mechanism determines the data required. Data requirements may include original equipment design
data, information pertaining to maintenance and operational history, expected future service, and data specific to the FFS
assessment.
Assessment techniques and acceptance criteria.

Each section of the code provides assessment techniques and acceptance criteria. If multiple damage mechanisms are pre-sent,
more than one section apply to the evaluation.
Remaining life evaluation.

FFS assessment procedures help estimate the remaining life or limiting flaw size to establish an inspection interval.
Remediation.
Each section of the code provides remediation methods based on the damage mechanism or flaw type. Remediation techniques
may control future damage associated with flaw growth or material degradation.
In-service monitoring.
Each section of the code provides methods for in-service monitoring based on the damage mechanism or flaw type. In-service
monitoring may be used for those cases in which a remaining life and inspection interval cannot adequately be established.
Documentation.
Documentation should include a record of all information and decisions made in each of the previous steps to qualify the
component for continued operation.

43
Ron Frend
REMAINING STRENGTH FACTOR RSF
Remaining strength factor RSF

RSF = LDC / LUC
LDC = limit load (pressure, force, moment) of damaged component

LUC = limit load of undamaged component
Component is acceptable if
RSF > RSFa
RSFa = allowable remaining strength factor = 0.7 to 0.9
44

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
22
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Overview of an
FFS Analysis for
Crack-Like Flaws
Using the
Failure Assessment Diagram

45
Ron Frend
Flaw or damage - Section mechanism Overview

3.0
Brittle fracture
Provides assessment procedures for evaluating the resistance to brittle fracture of existing carbon and low alloy steel pressure
vessels, piping, and storage tanks.
Provides criteria to evaluate normal operating, start-up, upset, and shut-down conditions.
4.0
General metal loss
Provides assessment procedures to evaluate general corrosion.

Allows either point thickness readings or detailed thickness profiles for thickness data.
Provides a methodology to use the assessment procedures of Section 5.0 when the thickness data indicates that the metal loss can
be treated as localized.
5.0
Local metal loss
Provides assessment techniques to evaluate single and networks of local thin areas and groove-like flaws in pressurized
components.
Requires detailed thickness profiles for the assessment.
Can evaluate blisters.
6.0
Pitting corrosion
Provides assessment procedures to evaluate widely scattered pitting, localized pitting, pitting which occurs within a region of local
metal loss, and a region of localized metal loss located within a region of widely scattered pitting.
Can evaluate a network of closely spaced blisters.
7.0
Blisters, HIC & SOHIC
assessment procedures are provided in this Part for low strength ferritic steel pressurized components with hydrogen induced
cracking (HIC) and blisters, and stress oriented HIC (SOHIC) damage
8.0
Weld misalignment and shell

distortions
Provides assessment procedures to evaluate stresses resulting from geometric discontinuities in shell type structures including weld
misalignment and shell distortions (for example, out-of-roundness, bulges and dents).
9.0
Crack-like flaws
Provides assessment procedures to evaluate crack-like flaws.

Covers recommendations for evaluating crack growth, including environmental concerns.
10.0
High temperature operation

and creep
Provides assessment procedures to determine the remaining life of a component operating in the creep regime.
Covers recommendations for evaluating crack growth including environmental concerns.
11.0
Fire damage
Provides assessment procedures to evaluate equipment subject to fire damage.

Provides a methodology to rank and screen components for evaluation based on the heat exposure experienced during the fire.
Refers to assessment procedures in the other sections of this publication to evaluate component damage.
12.0
Dents & Gouges
Procedures for pressurized components containing dents, gouges, or dent-gouge combinations resulting from mechanical damage.
The procedures can be used to qualify a component for continued operation or for determining a reduced maximum
allowable working pressure
13.0
Laminations
Assessment procedures for pressurized components with laminations, excluding HIC or SOHIC damage
46

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
23
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Sensitivity Analysis
Consider different assumptions with regard to
loading conditions,
material properties and
flaw sizes
Demonstrate that small changes in input

parameters do not dramatically change the
assessment results
If a strong dependence on an input variable is

found, improve the degree of accuracy used to
establish the value of that variable
47
Ron Frend
Probabilistic Analysis
Evaluate dependence of
safety margin on uncertainty
of independent variables
Estimate failure probability

using
48
Monte Carlo simulation,

First order reliability methods
Or other analytical techniques,

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
24
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Remaining Life Assessment
Remaining life estimates will fall into one of three

general categories
The Remaining Life Can be Calculated With Reasonable

Certainty
The Remaining Life Cannot be Established With

Reasonable Certainty
e.g. SCC
Ensure remediation is effective
There is Little or No Remaining Life
49
Good history & accurate modelling
Remediation and/or frequent monitoring

Ron Frend
REMAINING LIFE
Remaining life for general metal loss
R life
t am t m in
C rate
Rlife = remaining life, years

tam = averaged measured wall, in
tmin = minimum code required wall, in
Crate = corrosion rate, in/year
50

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
25
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Documentation
The equipment design data, and maintenance and past operational history to
the extent available should be documented for all equipment subject to a FFS
assessment.
Inspection data including all readings utilized in the FFS assessment.
Assumptions and analysis results including:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
51
Part, edition, and assessment level of this Standard and any other supporting
documents used to evaluate the flaw or damage.
Future operating and design conditions including pressure, temperature and
abnormal operating conditions.
Calculations of the minimum required thickness and/or MAWP.
Calculations of remaining life and the time for the next inspection.
Any remediation or mitigation/monitoring recommendations that are a condition for
continued service.

Ron Frend
Brittle
Fracture
API
Codes, Standards &
Recommended Practices
52
Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
26
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
API Background
1924 first standard released

(interchangeability of oil field equipment )
Today, over 1000 API standards serve as the

basis for API quality programs covering
production material and lubricants, and
certification programs for storage tanks,
pressure vessels, and piping inspectors.
Based in Washington, D.C. with offices in 27

state capitals

53
Ron Frend
API History
54
Origin during World War I, when Congress and the domestic

oil and natural gas industry worked together to help the war
effort.
1911 - court-imposed dissolution of Standard Oil and the

"independents." These companies had no experience working
together, but they agreed to work with the government to
ensure that vital petroleum supplies were rapidly and
efficiently deployed to the armed forces.
The National Petroleum War Service Committee, which

oversaw this effort, was initially formed under the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce and subsequently as a quasigovernmental body.

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
27
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
55

Ron Frend
ASME Construction Codes

Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code
B31 Codes for Piping & Pipelines
56
Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
28
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
ASME
American Society of Mechanical Engineers was

founded in 1880
now >100,000 members
Programmes include
education,
technical conferences and exhibits
government relations
public education

57
Ron Frend
ASME's Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code
58
More than 2,000 boilers

exploded from 1880 to 1890.
Although numerous boiler

failures in the late 19th century,
there were no legal codes for
boilers in the USA
Code for the Conduct of Trials

of Steam Boilers was ASMEs
first standard, and set in motion
125 years of codes and
standards development.
more than 1,500 died when a boiler exploded on

the overloaded steamboat Sultana in 1865.

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
29
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Boiler failure in Brockton, Mass., on March

10, 1905, at the Brockton Shoe Factory
resulted in 58 deaths and 117 injuries, and
completely levelled the factory.
1906 - Massachusetts in 1906 established

a five-man Board of Boiler Rules, whose
charge was to write a boiler law for the
state; this board published its boiler laws
in 1908.
1911 - the ASME Council appointed a

committee to formulate a boiler code,

59
Ron Frend
60
The first Boiler and Pressure Vessel

Code was published in 1915; as a 114page book, measuring 5 x 8 inches.
Today there are 28 books, including a

dozen dedicated to the construction and
in service inspection of nuclear power
plant components, and two Code Case
Books.
The Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code

contains more than 14,000 pages, each
of which measures 81/2 by 11 inches; it
occupies 12 feet of shelf space.

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
30
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code
Individual Volumes
I-
Power Boilers
II -
Materials
III -
Rules for Construction of Nuclear Power Plant Components
IV -
Heating Boilers
V-
Nondestructive Examination
VI -
Recommended Rules for the Care and Operation of Heating Boilers
VII -
Recommended Guidelines for the Care of Power Boilers
VIII -
Pressure Vessels
IX -
Welding and Brazing Qualifications
X-
Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Pressure Vessels
XI -
Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components
XII -
Rules for Construction and Continued Service of Transport Tanks

61
Ron Frend
ASME B&PV Volume VIII
Division 1
Division 2
alternative (more rigorous) to the minimum requirements for

pressure vessels under Division 1 rules (no max)
Division 3
62
design, fabrication, inspection, testing, and certification of fired or

unfired pressure vessels operating at either internal or external
pressures exceeding 15 psig. (no max)
design, fabrication, inspection, testing, and certification of fired or

unfired pressure vessels operating at either internal or external
pressures generally above 10,000 psi. (no minimum)

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
31
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
ASME B31 CODES

63
Ron Frend
ASME B31 CODES
64
Power Piping
- ASME B31.1
Process Piping
- ASME B31.3
Liquid Petroleum Transportation Piping - ASME B31.4
Refrigeration piping
- ASME B31.5
Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping - ASME B31.8
Building Services Piping
- ASME B31.9
Slurry Transportation Piping
- ASME B31.11

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
32
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
What is our objective?
To introduce engineers and technicians

to the application of API 579, through
practical exercises.
The participants will apply API 579 to

evaluate the integrity and remaining life
of corroded, cracked, or damaged
tanks, vessels, piping systems and
pipelines.
It is a quantitative technique.
YOU NEED A LAPTOP WITH MSEXCEL or equivalent

65
Ron Frend
Cant I use the existing codes, ASME, to evaluate

the integrity of operating equipment?
The design codes contain acceptance criteria for fabrication flaws,

not for degradation in service.
66
ASME VIII pressure vessels

ASME B31.3 process piping
ASME B31.4 oil pipeline
ASME B31.8 gas pipeline
API 653 storage tanks
Note: ASME B31.4 and ASME B31.8 include rules for the evaluation
of local corroded areas, based on 1970s ASME B31.G.
Note: NBIC NB-23 contains simple rules for evaluation of corrosion.

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
33
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Is fitness-for-service a code?
With the new release in 2007 API 579

Fitness-for-Service is a STANDARD.
It combines in one place many references

and companies procedures.

67
Ron Frend
Are there other standards for fitness-forservice?
68
API 1104 Ap. A (Alaskan pipeline, 1970s)

ASME B31G for oil and gas pipelines
Canadian Standard Association CSA Z662 Ap. K (earlier CSA Z184, 1986)
DVS Guidelines 2401, Germany, 1996
European Pipeline Research Group EPRG Guidelines (1993 first published)
SINTAP (Structural Integrity Assessment Procedures for European Industry)
PrEN 13445-3, 1998 Fatigue verification of welded joints, European
British Standard Institute BSI PD 6493:1991, replaced by BS7910:1999 (TWI)
Australian Standard AS 2885.2-1995, similar to EPRG, Pipesafe software.
ASME B&PV code Section XI for US nuclear power
British standard R6 for UK nuclear power
NASA Nasgro software (SWRI, Boeing)
SQA/FoU report 96/08, Sweden

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
34
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
API 579 APPENDIX A
THICKNESS - MAWP - STRESS EQUATIONS
69
Ron Frend
STRESS DISTRIBUTION
70
Normal and shear stress at a point.

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
35
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
BASIC EQUATION
CYLINDRICAL SHELL
Hoop (circumferential) stress
hoop
Longitudinal (axial) stress
axial
PD
PR
2t
t
PD
PR
4t
2t

71
Ron Frend
EXERCISE
HOOP STRESS
72
A pressure vessel has a

diameter of 1300mm and
a wall thickness of 10mm.
It operates at 2000kPa.
What is the hoop stress in

the cylindrical shell? What
is the longitudinal stress?

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
36
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
OVERPRESSURE FAILURE

73
Ron Frend
API 579 APPENDIX A

THICKNESS - MAWP - STRESS EQUATIONS
Cylindrical shells, thickness for circumferential stress,

pressure only (ASME VIII, UG-27)
m in
PR
(SE 0.6P )
tmin = minimum wall of the cylindrical shell, in

P = design pressure, psi
R = inside radius, in
S = allowable stress, psi
E = weld joint efficiency factor
74

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
37
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
EXERCISE
ASME VIII SHELL
75
P = 690 kPa
S = 121 MPa SA 515-70 plate @
343oC
E = 0.85 (spot examination)
R = 1219mm
What is the ASME VIII Div.1
required wall thickness of the
cylindrical shell?

Ron Frend
CYLINDRICAL SHELLS
76
Weld Type
Double Butt
Or equivalent
100% RT
1.00
Spot RT
0.85
No RT
0.70
Single Butt
(with backing
strip)
Single Butt
(no backing strip)
0.90
0.80
0.65
0.60
Double Fillet Lap
0.55
Single Fillet Lap

With plug welds
0.50
Single Fillet lap

No plug welds
0.45

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
38
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
SPHERICAL HEAD

77
Ron Frend
SPHERICAL HEAD
Spherical or hemispherical head (ASME VIII, UG-27)

t min
PL
( 2 SE 0.2 P )
tmin = minimum wall of head, in

L = inside radius, in
E
Hemi. head
Type 1
Type 2
78
100% RT
1.00
0.90
Spot RT
0.85
0.80

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
No RT
0.70
0.65
Ron Frend
39
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
EXERCISE - ASME VIII

SPHERICAL HEAD
79
P = 690 kPa
S = 121 MPa psi SA 515-70
plate @ 343oC
E = 0.85 (spot examination)
R = 1219mm
spherical head?

Ron Frend
ELLIPSOIDAL HEAD
80

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
40
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
ELLIPSOIDAL HEAD

81
Ron Frend
ELLIPSOIDAL HEAD
Elliptical head (ASME VIII, Ap.I)

t min
PD ( K )
2( SE 0.2 P )

RC = inside radius, in
K = (2 + Rell2) / 6
Rell = ratio of major-to-minor axis of
elliptical head = B/A = 2 for 2:1
head (B= 2, A = 1).
82

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
41
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
ELLIPSOIDAL HEAD
E
Head
Other than hemi.
100% RT
1.00
Spot RT
1.00

83
No RT
0.85
Ron Frend
EXERCISE ELLIPSOIDAL HEAD
84
P = 690kPa
S = 121MPa SA 515-70
plate @ 343oC
E = 1.0
R = 1219mm
What is the ASME VIII
Div.1 required wall
thickness of the
2:1ellipsoidal head?

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
42
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
TORISPHERICAL HEAD
(FLANGED AND DISHED HEAD)

85
Ron Frend
TORISPHERICAL HEAD
Torispherical head
[Flanged and dished]
(ASME VIII Ap.I)
t min
0.885PL
2SE 0.1P

L = inside crown radius, in
For t/L 0.002
86

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
43
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
EXERCISE - ASME VIII

TORISPHERICAL HEAD
87
P = 690 kPa
S = 121 Mpa SA 515-70 plate
@ 343oC
E = 1.0 (seamless)
R = 1219mm
torispherical head with L/r =
16.66?

Ron Frend
FLAT HEAD
88

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
44
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
FLAT HEADS
Flat Heads
t d
CP
SE
t = minimum wall thickness

tr = minimum required thickness of
seamless shell
tS = actual thickness of shell, exclusive
of corrosion allowance
S = maximum allowable stress, psi

89
Ron Frend
EXERCISE
ASME VIII FLAT HEAD
90
P = 690 kPa
S = 121 MPaSA 515-70 plate @
343oC
E = 1.0 (seamless)
R = 1219mm
What is the ASME VIII Div.1 required
wall thickness of the flat head?

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
45
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
EXERCISE - FLAT HEAD
A heat exchanger has a design

pressure (Maximum Allowable
Working Pressure MAWP) of
2414 kPa at 205oC
It has a 0.915m diameter, and
the allowable stress is 124MPa.
The flat head is seamless.
minimum thickness of the flat
head?

91
Ron Frend
EXERCISE
Pressure vessel
92
Design pressure
Design temperature
Inside diameter
Corrosion allowance
Material
Weld joint efficiency
=
=
=
=
=
=
2068 kPa
177oC
1220 mm
2.5 mm
SA 516 Grade 70
0.85
What is the minimum wall thickness of the cylindrical shell?

Thickness of ellipsoidal head?

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
46
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
PIPING SYSTEMS
ASME B31.1 - ASME B31.3

93
Ron Frend

t
PD
2( SEW Py )

D = outside diameter, in
W = longitudinal weld joint efficiency factor
t =wall thickness, in
94

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
47
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)

Values of W
Seamless
Furnace butt weld
Electric fusion arc weld
Electric resistance weld
Double submerged arc weld
= 1.0
= 0.6
= 0.8
= 1.0
= 1.0
Values of y
T < 900oF
= 0.4

95
Ron Frend
EXERCISE
ASME B31.3 PIPING
96
P = 690kPa
S = 121 MPa carbon steel pipe @
343oC
W = 1.0 (seamless)
Pipe = 10 Sched 40 (254mm OD)
What is the B31.3 required pipe
wall thickness?

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
48
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Nominal Pipe
Size Outside
Diameter, in.
Schedule Number
Wall
Thickness (in)
Inside
Diameter (in)
Weight per
ft (lb)
Weight of
water per ft
(lb)
Moment of
Inertia (in4)
Section Modulus
(in3)
1/8
10S
0.049
0.307
0.2
0.03
0.0009
0.0044
0.405
40
Std
40S
0.068
0.269
0.2
0.02
0.0011
0.0053
80
XS
80S
0.095
0.215
0.3
0.02
0.0012
0.0060
1/4
10S
0.065
0.410
0.3
0.06
0.0028
0.0103
0.540
40
Std
40S
0.088
0.364
0.4
0.05
0.0033
0.0123
80
XS
80S
0.119
0.302
1.1
0.03
0.0114
0.0325
3/8
10S
0.065
0.545
0.4
0.10
0.0059
0.0174
0.675
40
Std
40S
0.091
0.493
0.6
0.08
0.0073
0.0216
80
XS
80S
0.126
0.423
0.7
0.06
0.0086
0.0255
1/2
10S
0.083
0.674
0.7
0.15
0.0143
0.0341
0.840
40
Std
40S
0.109
0.622
0.9
0.13
0.0171
0.0407
80
XS
80S
0.147
0.546
1.1
0.10
0.0201
0.0478
160
0.187
0.466
1.3
0.07
0.0221
0.0527
XXS
0.294
0.252
1.7
0.02
0.0242
0.0577
3/4
5S
0.065
0.920
0.7
0.29
0.0245
0.0467
1.050
10S
0.083
0.884
0.9
0.27
0.0297
0.0566
40
Std
40S
0.113
0.824
1.1
0.23
0.0370
0.0706
80
XS
80S
0.154
0.742
1.5
0.19
0.0448
0.0853
160
0.218
0.614
1.9
0.13
0.0527
0.1004
XXS
0.308
0.434
2.4
0.06
0.0579
0.1104
5S
0.065
1.185
0.9
0.48
0.0500
0.0760
1.315
10S
0.109
1.097
1.4
0.41
0.0757
0.1152
40
Std
40S
0.133
1.049
1.7
0.37
0.0874
0.1329
80
XS
80S
0.179
0.957
2.2
0.31
0.1056
0.1607
160
0.250
0.815
2.8
0.23
0.1252
0.1904
XXS
0.358
0.599
3.7
0.12
0.1405
0.2137
1-1/4
5S
0.065
1.530
1.1
0.80
0.1038
0.1250
1.660
10S
0.109
1.442
1.8
0.71
0.1605
0.1934
40
Std
40S
0.140
1.380
2.3
0.65
0.1948
0.2347
80
XS
80S
0.191
1.278
3.0
0.56
0.2419
0.2914
160
0.250
1.160
3.8
0.46
0.2839
0.3421
XXS
0.382
0.896
5.2
0.27
0.3412
0.4111
1-1/2
5S
0.065
1.770
1.3
1.07
0.1580
0.1663
1.900
10S
0.109
1.682
2.1
0.96
0.2469
0.2599
40
Std
40S
0.145
1.610
2.7
0.88
0.3100
0.3263
80
XS
80S
0.200
1.500
3.6
0.77
0.3913
0.4119
160
0.281
1.338
4.9
0.61
0.4825
0.5079
XXS
0.400
0.950
5.8
0.31
0.4205
0.4806
5S
0.065
2.245
1.6
1.72
0.3150
0.2652
2.375
10S
0.109
2.157
2.6
1.58
0.4993
0.4205
40
Std
40S
0.154
2.067
3.7
1.45
0.6659
0.5608
80
XS
80S
0.218
1.939
5.0
1.28
0.8681
0.7311
160
0.343
1.689
7.4
0.97
1.1626
0.9790
XXS
0.436
1.503
9.0
0.77
1.3116
1.1045

97
Ron Frend
LONGITUDINAL STRESS IN
PIPING SYSTEM
98
Weight, expansion,
wind, waves, vibration,
etc. bend the pipe.
This causes a
longitudinal bending
stress.

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
49
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
PIPING SYSTEM
The bending stress due to a bending moment M is
Sbending 0.75i
M
Z
Exercise:
The bending moment due to weight is

M = wL2/10
M = maximum bending moment, in-lb
w = weight per unit length, lb/in
L = span length, in
99
What is the maximum bending stress in the pipe span of a 6

sch.40 pipe full of water? (use i=1)

Ron Frend
ASME B31.4
OIL - LIQUID PRODUCTS PIPELINES
100

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
50
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
ASME B31.4 - OIL PIPELINES
B31.4
PD
2S
S = 0.72 E Sy
D = outside diameter, in
E = longitudinal weld joint efficiency factor
Sy = minimum specified yield stress (MSYS), psi

101
Ron Frend
EXERCISE
OIL PIPELINE B31.4
102
P = 4826 kPa at 30oC

D = 500 mm
ERW longitudinal weld E = 1.0
API 5L X42 SY = 42000 psi
(289.6MPa)
What is the minimum wall

thickness required by ASME
B31.4?

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
51
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
PIPELINE
Soil settlement causes a pipeline to bend down 6 over 100 ft.

Pipe is 24 x 0.5 w.t. (D = 24, d = 23) X52 (SMYS = 52 ksi)
sBENDING
8ED 8 (30 106 psi) 24"6"
24ksi
L2
(1200" ) 2
8 8
6"
S LONGITUDINAL , E (30 106 )
2ksi
3 L 3
1200"
PD 1200 psi 24"
S LONGITUDINAL , P
14.4ksi
4t
4 x0.5"
S LONGITUDINAL ,TOTAL 24ksi 2ksi 14.4ksi 40.4ksi
2
103

Ron Frend
ASME B31.8
GAS PIPELINE
104

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
52
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
ASME B31.8 - GAS PIPELINE

t
PD
2S
S = FET Sy
Values of F
Location class 1, wasteland, desert, mountains, etc. F = 0.72 or 0.8
Location class 2, 10 to 46 buildings within 1 mile, industrial area, F = 0.6
Location class 3, suburbs, F = 0.5
Location class 4, city, F = 0.4
Values of T
T < 250oF
T < 300oF
T < 350oF
T < 400oF
T < 450oF
T = 1.0
T = 0.967
T = 0.933
T = 0.900
T = 0.867

105
Ron Frend
EXERCISE
GAS PIPELINE B31.8
106
P = 4826 kPa at 30oC

D = 500 mm
ERW longitudinal weld E = 1.0
API 5L X42 SY = 42000 psi
(289.6MPa)
What is the minimum wall

thickness required by ASME
B31.8?

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
53
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
API 579
FITNESS-FOR-SERVICE
107

Ron Frend
Brittle Fracture
108
Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
54
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
API 579 PART 3

ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING
EQUIPMENT FOR BRITTLE FRACTURE
109

Ron Frend
API 579/ASME FFS PART 3

ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING
EQUIPMENT FOR BRITTLE FRACTURE
110

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
55
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
What is Brittle Fracture?
WWII Merchant Ships Etc.
The Great Boston Molasses Tank Disaster
Over 250 ships fractured or cracked. 19 broke completely in two!

Steel not tough enough.
1919. Tank 90 ft diameter and 50 feet high. When the tank split,
a wall of molasses surged down the street.
Steel was below its ductile/brittle transition temperature
The Silver Bridge Collapse
West Virginia December 1967. 46 deaths

Stress-corrosion cracking resulting from long exposure to H 2S
vapour from nearby paper mill digesters.
111

Ron Frend
112

Ron Frend
Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
56
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
What happened?
2007 in Pembroke, Wales.
Crack in the 30mm pipe allowing release of nitrogen into the

inner space between the SS inner pressure vessel and the CS
outer vessel.
This resulted in pressurisation of the external shell and brittle

facture.

113
Ron Frend
Assessment of Equipment for

Brittle Fracture
114
Possible reasons for assessment
Change in operating conditions
HAZOP identifies possibility of lower temperature

condition than considered in design
Equipment rerated using lower design margin

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
57
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Brittle Fracture
Level 1
compliance with new construction code exemption curves

or impact test requirements
Level 2
include consideration of low stress-based temperature

reduction rules
exemption based on hydrotest
exemption based on service experience

115
Ron Frend
Assessment Requirements
116
Summary of repairs and alterations
Past and future operating conditions
Current design pressure, temperature and current wall

thickness

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
58
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Data
117
Determine CET loading-temperature envelope
Potential for autorefrigeration due to depressurization
Shock chilling effects

Ron Frend
LEVEL 1 ASSESSMENT
Figure 3.4M Minimum Allowable Metal Temperature

API 579/ASME FFS Page 3-29
118

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
59
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
CURVES
A TO D
Assignment Of Materials To The
Material Temperature Exemption
Curves In Figure 3.4

119
Ron Frend
EXERCISE
A horizontal drum 40mm wall thickness is fabricated from

ASTM A516 Gr.70 steel, supplied in the normalized condition.
There is no toughness data on this steel. The vessel was

designed and constructed to ASME B&PV Code Section VIII
Div.1.
Determine the MAT.
120

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
60
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
BRITTLE FRACTURE SHOP

HYDROTEST
Cr-Mo-V vessel
16.76m long x 1.575m x
142,5mm wall
Hydrotest P = 48,650kPa at
10oC ambient

121
Ron Frend
EXERCISE
What is the hoop stress in the cylindrical shell of the

CR-Mo-V vessel during hydrotest at 48,650kPa?
If yield stress of the material is 275MPa, how do

you explain the failure?
Apply the following steps to this vessel:
122
Hydrotest temperature = 10oF

Material belongs to curve B.

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
61
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
CET - MAT
Critical Exposure Temperature (CET):

Lowest temperature at which component exposed to
Pressure vessels and piping: 30% MAWP

Tanks:
hydrotest temp.
daily min. operating temp. + 15oF (8oC)
Minimum Allowable Temperature (MAT):

Lowest metal temperature permitted in design code,
Based on resistance to brittle fracture.
CET > MAT

For MAT use construction code or Curves A to D.

123
Ron Frend
Level 2 Assessment
Pressure Vessels
Method A (3.4.3.1)
Method B (3.4.3.2)
Hydrotest
Consider METAL temperature
Method C (3.4.3.3)
124
Safe operating envelope

MAT Temperature reduction rules
Wall thickness <12.5 mm

Operational history

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
62
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Level 2 Assessment
Piping Systems
Method A (3.4.3.4)
Method B (3.4.3.5)
Safe operating envelope

Use 3.4.3.1 if op stress < allowable stress
Hydrotest
Consider sustained/thermal loads
Method C (3.4.3.6)
Figure 3.9 flowchart

Thickness < 38mm

125
Ron Frend
Level 2 Assessment
Storage Tanks
126
Flowchart figure 3.3
API 620 tanks evaluated as pressure vessels
Levels 1&2 NOT used for atmospheric or LP with

refrigerant

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
63
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
STORAGE TANK EXEMPTIONS
Figure 3.10M Exemption Curve for Tanks Constructed From Carbon Steel of Unknown
Toughness Thicker Than 12.7 mm And Operating at A Shell Metal Temperature Below 16C
Ron Frend
127
Level 3
Detailed determination of 1 or more:
128
stress,
flaw size
material toughness
Part 9 (crack) may be used as a basis for a Level 3

Assessment
Material Toughness

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
64
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Brittle Fracture Wrap Up
Resistance evaluated only of carbon and low alloy

steel units.
Not for Boilers.

Not for ferritic, martensitic or duplex stainless steels
This Part is for screening NOT EVALUATION of

an existing crack.
Use Part 9 for existing cracks.

129
Ron Frend
Avoidance???
130
Use notch tough parent material, HAZ & weld metal or ductile stainless
steel or non-ferrous metal. Avoid structural notches.
Good welding, WPQ, Qualified welder, NDE, QA, Inspection etc. Use low
H2 electrodes, controlled heat input, fine grain low O 2 weld metal
Keep applied stress low e.g. higher safety factor, accurate shape to reduce
local bending/discontinuity stress.
Limit impact/shock loading.
Use slow heating and cooling or thermal sleeve to reduce thermal stress.
Avoid low temperature service or hydrotest condition. Reduce residual

stress by PWHT.

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
65
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
API 579 PART 4

ASSESSMENT OF GENERAL METAL LOSS
131

Ron Frend
GENERAL METAL LOSS
132
Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
66
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
General Corrosion
Based on local thin area assessment rules
Point thickness readings may be used if metal loss

is confirmed to be general
133
COV<10%

Ron Frend
Level 1 Analysis
134

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
67
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
C.O.V.
Calculate the average thickness (minimum 15)
Calculate the difference between the actual thickness and the

average for EACH point
Calculate the square
Calculate the COV

135
Ron Frend
Coefficient of Variation
Location Thickness reading
trd, i i=1 to N
(trd, i - tam)
(trd, i - tam)2
1
2
3
4
5
We need t and tam (from table 4.2)
136

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
68
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Inspection Summary (table 4.2)
137

Ron Frend
Use Point Thickness
138

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
69
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Level 1 (cont.)
Based on CTP
L=Q(Dtmin)
If s< L, OK for meridional corrosion, check longitudinal
corrosion using LTA Level 1 chart
If s>L, use point thickness readings with tam=tmm, or
determine average and minimum thickness for circumferential

and meridional directions
determine tam over length L centered on tmm

139
Ron Frend
General Corrosion - Level 2
Evaluation methods for shells the same as level 1, but

considers supplemental loads
Evaluation methods provided for components with thickness

interdependencies, such as nozzles, using average thickness
measurements over prescribed lengths
140

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
70
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Level 1 using CTP
Step 1 Determine tmm
Step 2 - Determine thickness profile data
Step 3 - Determine wall thickness for assessment
Step 4 - Compute remaining thickness ratio
Step 5 - Compute L for averaging length
Step 6 - Establish CTPs
Determine tsam and tcam
Step 7 - Determine acceptability using Table 4.4

141
Ron Frend
EXERCISE
Pressure vessel
142
Design pressure/Temp.
Inside diameter/wall thickness
Corrosion allowance
Material
= 2068kPa
= 1292mm / 19mm
= 2.5mm
= SA 516 Grade 70
= 0.85

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
71
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
EXERCISE
Results of ultrasonic readings show a corrosion zone along

the longitudinal weld.
The readings are 40mm apart in the circumferential and

longitudinal direction.
Can the vessel be kept in service, or should it be shutdown for

repair?

143
Ron Frend
Data Evaluation
Level 1 Assessment
Level 2 Assessment
144
Type A Components subject to internal pressure or

external pressure (i.e. supplemental loads are assumed
to be negligible).
Type A or B Components (see Part 4, paragraph 4.2.5)

subject to internal, v external pressure, supplemental
loads (see Appendix A, paragraph A.2.6), or any
combination thereof.
A Level 3 Assessment can be performed when the

Level 1 and 2 Assessment procedures do not apply
Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
72
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
EXERCISE
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
M7
145
C1
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
C2
19
12.2
14.5
15.5
16
14.48
19
C3
19
13.2
15
11.9
15
15
19
C4
19
14.48
14
14.73
14.73
15.49
19
C5
19
14.22
15
9.15
14.48
14.48
19
C6
19
14.73
15.25
14.73
12.2
14.25
19

C7
19
15.25
16.76
16.25
15.75
12.45
19
C8
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
Ron Frend
CORROSION
PROFILE
146

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
73
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
147

Ron Frend
148

Ron Frend
Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
74
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Coefficient of Variation
Determine the COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION.
If the Coefficient Of Variation (COV) of the thickness readings is greater than 10%,
then use thickness profiles
total number of thickness readings, the number of thickness readings should

be greater than or equal to 15
The equation for the Coefficient of Variation is:
If using Critical Thickness Profile the minimum distance between the readings
is:
LS min{0.36 Dtmin ;2trd } min{0.36 1292 16.5;2 19} 38mm
LS = grid spacing, mm
D = outer diameter, mm
tmin = minimum code required wall, mm
tnom = nominal wall thickness, mm

149
Ron Frend
LEVEL 1 Analysis - STEP 1
STEP - 1. Determine the minimum required wall

thickness, and the future corrosion allowance FCA.
t min
150
Appendix A paragraph A.2
FCA = 0.10
PR
2068 (0.646 0.0025)
13.236mm
SE 0.6 P 120658 0.85 0.6 2068

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
75
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Level 1 STEP 2
STEP - 2. Measure thickness profile.

20
19
18
19
16
14
14
12.2
12
12.45
12.2
11.9
CTP
10
9.15
tmin
8
6
4
2
0
1
From the N measurement points ti, determine the minimum measured

thickness tmm

151
Ron Frend
LEVEL 1 - STEP 3
Determine thickness for assessment
tc = 19mm 2.5mm
= 17.5mm
Step 4
Remaining thickness ratio
Rt
152
tmm FCA 9.15 2.5
0.403
tc
16.5

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
76
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
LEVEL 1 - STEP 5
Factor Q, if Rt < RSFa. With RSFa = 0.90
If Rt RSFa then Q = 50
1 Rt
Q 1.123
Rt
1 RSF
a
153
1 1.123
1 0.403
1 0.461
1 0.403
0.9

Ron Frend
Table 4.5
154

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
77
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
LEVEL 1 - STEPS 5 and 6
Step 5 continues - Length for thickness averaging,
L Q Dtc 0.461 1292 16.5 67.36mm
Step 6
Critical thickness profile (CTP) and CTP-FCA
Calculate length s below tmin in the CTP

Readings are spaced 40mm
Readings are below tmin = 13.236mm over s=210mm
155

Ron Frend
Developing the CTP
156

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
78
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Determining s and c
157

Ron Frend
S in CTP
158

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
79
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
LEVEL 1 - STEP 6
Thickness averaging over L

L
t am
t
i
9.15 12.2
10.675
2
Take the lowest readings over L = 67.36

mm and average

159
Ron Frend
Level 1 Step 7
Based on the parameters L and s from STEP 4 and STEP 5,

respectively, perform the FFS assessment of the region of metal loss
using one of the following methods
Condition # 1 (for a shell)

tam - FCA tmin
10.675mm 2.5mm = 8.2mm (NOT 13.236mm) no
160
Condition # 2 (for a component)

tmm - FCA max{0.5tmin ; 0.10}
9.15mm 2.5mm = 6.65mm 4.575mm yes

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
80
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
LEVEL 1 - CONCLUSION
If wall thinning does not comply with level 1

assessment. Proceed with level 2
or derate the pressure to a pressure based on

tC = tam - FCA = 11.783 2.5 = 9.283
and RC = 646 + 2.5 = 648.5mm
MAWP corroded
161
120658kPa 0.85 9.7mm

1456kPa
648.5mm 0.6 9.7mm

Ron Frend
LEVEL 2 STEPS 1 to 6
Same Procedure for

Type A components
different acceptance
criteria (Table 4.4)
Type B components
use Annex A criteria
162

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
81
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Level 2 STEP 7
STEP - 7. For pressure vessels and piping, the average

measured thickness should satisfy the following:
For cylindrical and conical shells:

tam FCA RSFa tmin
11.783mm 2.5mm = 9.283 is not 0.90 x 13.236
and for pressure vessel components

tmm FCA max {0.5tmin ; 2.5mm}
9.15mm 2.5mm = 6.65mm 6.618mm yes
Level 2 is not met. Need to derate.

163
Ron Frend
EXERCISE
14 STD. Pipe (ID=336.65mm)

P = 800 psi @ 100oF (5516kPa @ 37.8oC)
ASTM A 106 Grade B
Design corrosion allowance was 0.10 (2.5mm)
Measured UT wall as given @ 1/4 (6mm) intervals.
0.375-0.375-0.200-0.200-0.150-0.200-0.375
(9.5mm -9.5mm-5.1mm-5.1mm-3.81mm-5.1mm-9.5mm)
164
Cause of corrosion eliminated so FCA = 0 until outage

in 7 months when pipe will be replaced.
Can pipe be left in service for the next 7 months?
Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
82
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
API 579 PART 5

ASSESSMENT OF LOCAL METAL LOSS
165
Ron Frend
Local Thin Areas
Also considers groove-like flaws

Level 1 based on charts & RSF=0.9
Level 2 based on equations
166
uses Folias factor (see Annex D2.3-p902)

method essentially must be computerized due to large
numbers of repetitive calculations
permits consideration of supplemental loads

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
83
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Remaining Strength Factor

167
Ron Frend
API 579 PART 5

ASSESSMENT OF LOCAL METAL LOSS
Evaluation Methods:
API 579 Section 5 Level 1
168
Modified B31G, 0.85 DL

RSTRENG
B31G
Thickness avg 510
Thickness avg 653
British Gas
BS 7910, isolated defect
BS 7910, group defects

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
84
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
EXERCISE
Pressure vessel
Design pressure/Temperature
Inside diameter/wall thickness
Corrosion allowance
Material
= 300 psi/650oF (2068kPa @ 330oC)

= 96 in/1.25 (2438mm/31.75mm)
= 0.125 in (2.5mm)
= SA 516 Grade 70
= 0.85
169

Ron Frend
170

Ron Frend
Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
85
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
EXERCISE
Ultrasonic inspection shows the

following corrosion profile
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
29.21
29.21
29.21
29.21
29.21
29.21
22.10
20.57
21.59
29.21
29.21
19.05
20.83
22.35
29.21
29.21
17.78
21.34
20.57
29.21
29.21
19.30
15.75
21.34
29.21
29.21
20.32
11.43
21.08
29.21
29.21
21.59
16.51
22.86
29.21
29.21
23.88
22.86
23.11
29.21
29.21
29.21
29.21
29.21
29.21
Spacing of UT readings is 12mm longitudinal and 25mm

circumferential. The corrosion is away from the weld seam.

171
Ron Frend
LEVEL 1 - STEP 1(CTP)
Step - 1. Determine the following input:
172
D
FCA
Lmsd
P
MFH
RSFa
= inside diameter = 2438mm

= future corrosion allowance = 2.5mm
= distance to structural discontinuity = >1600mm
=design pressure = 2068kPa
= maximum fill height of tank = if applicable
=allowable remaining strength factor = 0.90
Determine if the flaw has a gouge or a groove.

A gouge is an elongated mechanical removal of material, much
longer than wide.
A groove is an elongated erosion or corrosion removal of material,
much longer than wide.
gr = radius at base of groove = none
Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
86
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
STEP 1 determine the CTP
Determine the CTP data

29.21 20.574 19.05 17.78 15.748 11.43 16.51 22.86 29.21
Draw the CTP

35
30
25
20
Series1
15
10
5
0
1
173

Ron Frend
LEVEL 1
174

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
87
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Level 1 STEP 2
Determine the thickness to be used.

May be determined using Equation (5.4).
tc = trd FCA = 29.21 2.5 = 26.71mm
t min
PR
2068 (1219 2.5)
24.93
SE 0.6 P 120658 0.85 0.6 2068

175
Ron Frend
LEVEL 1 - STEP 3
Determine the minimum measured thickness in the LTA , t mm, and

the dimension, s.
(same as in Part 4 4.3.3.3)
29.21 20.574 19.05 17.78 15.748 11.43 16.51 22.86 29.21
t mm = 11.43mm
Calculate the remaining thickness ratio
176

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
88
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
LEVEL 1 - STEP 4
Calculate the length below tmin (24.93)
35
30
25
20
Series1
15
10
s = 42mm
5
0
1

177
Ron Frend
Calculate the shell parameter
178
(1.285) s
1.285 42.2
0.212
Dtc
2438 26.71

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
89
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
LEVEL 1 - STEP 5
Step - 4. Check the limiting flaw size. If these conditions are

not met, the flaw is not acceptable per Level 1.
Condition # 1
Rt 0.20
0.33 > 0.20
True
Condition # 2
tmm FCA 2.5mm (0.1)
11.43 2.5 = 8.93 > 2.5

True
Condition # 3
1.8 Dtc Lmsd 1.8 2438 26.71 459.3mm 1600mm
179
True
If these conditions are met, continue to step-6.
Ron Frend
LEVEL 1 - STEP 6
Groove parameters
180

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
90
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
LEVEL 1 - STEP 6
Step - 6. If there is no groove or gouge, then go

to step-7. If there is a groove or gouge, then
verify the following:
gr (1 Rt )tc (1 0.334) 26.71 17.79
Else evaluate as a crack (PART 9)

181
Ron Frend
LEVEL 1 - STEP 7
Determine the MAWP for the component (see Appendix A,

paragraph A.2) using the thickness from STEP 2. (as per
A2.2)
MAWP corroded
182
120658kPa 0.85 26.71mm

2214kPa
1221.5mm 0.6 26.71mm

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
91
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
LEVEL 1
- STEP 8
From STEP 4
0.33
Rt = 0.33
= 0.212
ACCEPTABLE
Else use
0.212
(5.14)

183
Ron Frend
Level 1 STEP 8 contd
If the flaw is unacceptable, then determine the RSF
RSF
184
0.334
0.904
1 1 / 1.056 * (1 0.334)
Mt comes from Table 5.2
If RSF RSFa , then the region of local metal loss is acceptable for
operation at the MAWP determined in STEP 7.
If a RSF < RSF , then the region of local metal loss is acceptable for
operation at MAWPr, where MAWPr is computed using the equations in
Part 2, paragraph 2.4.2.2. The MAWP from STEP 7 shall be used in this
calculation.
Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
92
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Folias
Factor
Mt

185
Ron Frend
LEVEL 1 - STEP 9.1

The assessment is complete for all component types except cylindrical
shells, conical shells, and elbows.
Step - 9.1
Determine circumferential flaw length parameter

c = 6mm x 3 = 18mm
35
(1.285)c
Dtc
1.285 18
0.091
2438 26.71
30
25
20
Series1
15
10
5
0
1
186

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
93
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Level 1 STEP 9.2
Step 9.2
If the following are satisfied go to STEP 9.3. Else the flaw

is NOT ACCEPTABLE.
c 9
D/tc 20 2438/26.71= 91
0.7 RSF 1.0
0.094 9
0.7 EL 1.0
0.7 Ec 1.0
TRUE
TRUE
0.7 0.914 1.0
TRUE
0.7 0.85 1.0
TRUE
0.7 0.85 1.0
TRUE

187
Ron Frend
STEP 9.3
Determine the Tensile Stress Factor

TSF
188
Ec
4 3E L
1
2 RSF
EL
2
0.85
4 3 0.85
1
1.467
2 0.914
0.85

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
94
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
STEP 9.4
189
Determine the screening curve

in Figure 5.8 based on TSF.
Enter Figure 5.8 with the
calculated values of c and R t
.
If the point defined by the

intersection of these values is
on or above the screening
curve, then the circumferential
extent of the flaw is acceptable
per Level 1.

Ron Frend
LEVEL 2 - STEPS 1 TO 7
STEPS 1 thru 7 same as LEVEL 1
190

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
95
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
LEVEL 2 STEP 8
29.21
30
29.21
29.21
STEP 8
Determine the
Remaining
20.574
Strength Factor
for the
19.05
Longitudinal
CTP rank the
17.78
readings in order
28
22.86
26
24
22.86
22
20.574
20
19.05
18
17.78
16.51
16.51
16
15.748
15.748
14
12
11.43
11.43
10
1

191
Ron Frend
STEP 8
STEP 8.2
Set the initial evaluation starting point as the location of

maximum metal loss,
STEP 8.3
192
this is the location in the thickness profile where t mm is recorded.
Subsequent starting points should be in accordance with

the ranking in STEP 8.1.
At the current evaluation starting point, subdivide the

thickness profile into a series of subsections.
The number and extent of the subsections should be
chosen based on the desired accuracy and should
encompass the variations in metal loss.

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
96
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
LEVEL 2 - STEP 8.3

STEP 9 Determine the Remaining Strength Factor for the longitudinal CTP
193

Ron Frend
LEVEL 2 - STEP 8.4
194

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
97
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
LEVEL 2 STEP 8.5
30
28
26
24
11.43
22
STEP 8.5
Determine the
minimum value of
the Remaining
Strength Factors,
RSFi , found in
STEP 9.4 for all
subsections (see
Figure 5.8).
20
18
16
14
12
This is the minimum

value of the
Remaining Strength
Factor for the
current evaluation
point.
10
1

195
Ron Frend
LEVEL 2 STEP 8 contd

tm
196
x'
x''
s'
M' table 5.2
A'0
A'/A'0
RSF'
22.86
1.2
7.4
6.2
0.031221
1.0047
165.602
12.58065
1.005107923
20.574
1.5
7.1
5.6
0.028199
1.004
149.576
13.92857
1.004310726
19.05
2.4
6.9
4.5
0.02266
1.0035
120.195
17.33333
1.003715082
17.78
3.6
6.7
3.1
0.01561
1.0026
82.801
25.16129
1.002707902
16.51
4.2
6.4
2.2
0.011078
1.0023
58.762
35.45455
1.002366913
15.748
4.5
6.3
1.8
0.009064
1.002
48.078
43.33333
1.002047341
STEP 8.6 Repeat STEPs 8.3 through 8.5 of this calculation

for the next evaluation point that corresponds to the next
thickness reading location in the ranked thickness profile list.
STEP 8.7 The Remaining Strength Factor to be used in the

assessment, RSF, is the minimum value determined for all
evaluation points.
Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
98
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Level 2 STEP 9
STEP 9 Evaluate the longitudinal extent of the flaw for

cylindrical and conical shells, the larger of the circumferential
and meridional extent (whichever is bigger) for spherical shells
and formed heads.
If a RSF RSFa , then the region of local metal loss is

acceptable for operation at the MAWP determined in STEP 8.
If RSFa < RSF , then the region of local metal loss is
acceptable for operation at reduced MAWP
The MAWP from STEP 8 shall be used in this calculation.
1.002 0.9 TRUE

197
Ron Frend
Level 2 STEP 10
198
STEP 10 For cylindrical shells, conical shells, and

elbows, evaluate the circumferential extent of the
flaw using the following criteria.
If supplemental loads are not present or are not

significant, then circumferential dimension, c , of the flaw
determined from the circumferential CTP should satisfy
the criterion in paragraph 5.4.2.2.i.
If the supplemental loads are significant, then the

circumferential extent of the region of local metal loss shall
be evaluated using the procedures in paragraph 5.4.3.4.

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
99
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
EXERCISE 2
Pressure vessel
Design pressure/Temperature
Inside diameter/Wall Thickness
Corrosion allowance
Material
= 2085kPa/115oC
= 2285mm/20mm
= 3.5mm
= SA 516 Grade 70
= 1.0

199
Ron Frend
EXERCISE 2
The vessel has a Local Thin Area with the following dimensions
Is this condition acceptable?
Longitudinal readings taken at 10mm intervals

Circumferential readings at 5mm intervals
A516 70 1986 37.778 65.556 93.333 121.11 148.89 204.44
260 315.56 343.33 371.11 398.89 426.7 454.4 482.2
510 537.78
120663 120663 120663 120663 120663 120663 120663 120663 120663 114457 102046 82740 64124 44818 31028
200
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
M1
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
M2
20
18.5
17.9
18.4
19.6
18.3
18.5
19.9
20
M3
20
19.0
17.4
16.7
16.9
15.4
16.7
17.6
20
M4
20
19.5
18.2
15.6
13.3
8.3
11.9
14.6
20
M5
20
19.3
18.7
16.5
17.5
17.4
18.2
19.0
20
M6
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
17238
Ron Frend
100
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
API 579 PART 6

ASSESSMENT OF PITTING CORROSION
201
Ron Frend
ASSESSMENT OF PITTING
CORROSION
202
Pitting results in weeping leakage, rarely in rupture (burst).

The risk is that they would propagate into cracks.
Products of corrosion tend to be acidic inside the pit and
therefore the pits could have different rates of growth.
The evaluation of pitting corrosion in API 579 is based on

theoretical and numerical solutions, tests of pitted cylinders
may be conducted in the future.
The API 579 approach is based on ligament efficiency rule of

ASME VIII Div.1, UG-52 (based on 3 and 4 pit groups).
A limit of 80% on pit depth is the same consensus number as
for local thin area.

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
101
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
ASSESSMENT OF PITTING
CORROSION
There are pitting rules in API 510, but if they are not met there
is no way of rerating in API 510, while API 579 will give rerating rules.
In a Level 2 approach a sample of pit couples is chosen, and

the pit depth, width, and distance are measured. The pit
region is converted to an equivalent local thin area.
A level-3 approach would be based on finite element analysis,

but this is rarely done for pitting degradation.

203
Ron Frend
Assessment of Pitting
Level 1
Level 2
204
Based on typical pitting charts
Methods provided based on ligament efficiency

Pit couples evaluated
Consider at least ten pit-couples

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
102
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Level 2
Thickness partitioned into pitted thickness based on average

pit depth, and remaining thickness
Strength of pitted thickness adjusted based on ligament

efficiency
Region of local pitting may be evaluated as LTA with

equivalent thickness

205
Ron Frend
Level 2
206
Orientation of pits relative to direction of stress can be

considered
Thickness may be subdivided into a number of thickness

layers
Pitting on both sides can be considered

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
103
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Level 1 Assessment
4 Different types of pitting

1.
2.
3.
4.
widely scattered pitting

a local thin area (LTA) located in a
region of widely scattered pitting,
localized regions of pitting, and
pitting confined within a region of a LTA.
207

Ron Frend
208

Ron Frend
Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
104
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Level 1 Limitations
Not operating in creep range
The original design criteria were in accordance with a

recognized code or standard
The material is considered to have sufficient material

toughness (not brittle)
The component is not in cyclic service (fatigue)

209
Ron Frend
Level 1 Limitations contd
The following limitations on component types and

applied loads are satisfied:
Additional requirements for Level 1 analyses are:
210
Level 1 Assessment Type A Components

Level 2 Assessment Type A or B Components
The pitting damage is arrested.

The pitting damage is located on only one surface
(ID or OD) of the component.
The pitting damage is composed of many pits; individual
pits or isolated pairs of pits should be evaluated using the
assessment procedures in Part 5.

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
105
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Level 2 Limitations
A Level 2 assessment should be

performed if:
An appropriate pit comparison chart

cannot be found
A more detailed assessment of
widespread pitting (e.g. inclusion of the
pit-couple orientation) is required.

211
Ron Frend
Level 2 Limitations contd
212
Additional requirements for Level 2

analyses Assessments are:
The pitting damage is characterized by

localized regions of pitting, a LTA located
in a region of widely scattered pitting, or
pitting that is confined within a LTA.
The pitting damage is located on either

one surface or both surfaces of the
component and the pitting damage is not
overlapping.
The pitting damage is composed of many

pits; individual pits or isolated pairs of pits
should be evaluated as LTAs using the
Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
106
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Level 1 Assessment
Pit charts & max pit depth
The data required for an assessment should include a

photograph (with a reference scale) and/or rubbing of the
surface of the damaged component with an estimate of the
maximum pit depth.
A cross sectional UT thickness scan can also be performed to

determine the pitting profile.

213
Ron Frend
STEP 1
Determine the following parameters:

Di , FCA, trd and RSFa
Where
214
Di is the inside diameter of the cylinder, cone (at the location

of the flaw), sphere, or formed head
FCA is Future Corrosion Allowance
trd is the uniform thickness away from the pitted region
established by thickness measurements at the time of the
assessment.
RSFa is the allowable remaining strength factor

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
107
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
STEP 2
Determine the wall thickness to be used in the assessment

using Equation (6.1). If thickness readings are available, this
wall thickness may be determined using Equation (6.2).

215
Ron Frend
Step 3
216
Locate the area on the component that has the highest density
of pitting damage based on the number of pits.
Obtain photographs (include reference scale), or rubbings of

this area to record the amount of surface damage.

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
108
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
STEP 4
Determine the maximum pit depth, wmax , in the

region of pitting damage being evaluated.

217
Ron Frend
STEP 5
Determine the ratio of the remaining wall thickness to the

future wall thickness in the pitted region using Equation (6.3).
In Equation (6.3), trd can be replaced by

tnom LOSS
(6.3)
218
Rwt must be greater than 0.2

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
109
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
STEP 7
Compare the surface damage from the photographs or

rubbings to the standard pit charts shown in Figures 6.3
through 6.10. Select a pit chart that has a measure of surface
damage that approximates the actual damage on the
component.
If the pitting damage is more extensive than that shown in

Figure 6.10, then compute the RSF using the following
equation and proceed to STEP 9.
RSF = Rwt
219

Ron Frend
220

Ron Frend
Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
110
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
STEP 8
Determine the RSF from the table shown at the bottom of the
pit chart that was chosen in STEP 6 using the value of Rwt
calculated in STEP 5.
Interpolation of the RSF is acceptable for intermediate values

of Rwt .

221
Ron Frend
STEP 9
222
If RSF RSFa , then the pitting damage is acceptable for

operation at the MAWP determined in STEP 2.
If RSF < RSFa , then the region of pitting damage is

acceptable for operation at MAWPr, where MAWPr is
computed using the equations in then the component can be
rerated using the equations in Part 2, paragraph 2.4.2.2.
The MAWP from STEP 2 shall be used in this rerating

calculation,.

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
111
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Pitting
Level 2
LTA within
Widespread
Pitting
223

Pitting
within a
LTA
Localised
pitting
Ron Frend
LEVEL 2 - STEP 1
Step 1 - Determine parameters
20 w.t. 0.25 pipeline API 5L X60 ERW
P = 1000 psi
D = inside diameter of pipeline 20-2 x 0.25 = 19.5
FCA = 0
RSFa = 0.90
t = 0.25
224

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
112
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
LEVEL 2 STEP 2
225
Determine the wall thickness to be

used in the assessment
= 0.25 0 = 0.25

Ron Frend
LEVEL 2 STEP 3
Pit size and distance
dik = diameter of pit i in pit-couple k
djk = diameter of pit j in pit-couple k
Pk = pit-couple spacing (pitch) of pit-couple k
wik = depth of pit i in pit-couple k
wjk = depth of pit j in pit-couple k
For a detailed analysis consider the angle k
226

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
113
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
LEVEL 2 - STEPS 4
Determine the depth of each pit below trd in all pit-couples, , wi k
and , wj k (see Figure 6.11.b) and compute the average pit
depth, wavg , considering all readings.
In the following equation, the subscript k represents a calculation
for pit-couple k.

227
Ron Frend
STEP 5
Calculate the components of the membrane stress field, 1

and 2 (see Figure 6.11). Membrane stress equations for
shell components are included in Appendix A.
(A11)
(A17)
Appendix A. A.3
228

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
114
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
STEP 6
Determine the MAWP for the component (see Appendix

A, paragraph A.2) using the thickness from STEP 2
For B31.8 pipe:
PD
2S
S = FET Sy

229
Ron Frend
STEP 7
For pit-couple k ,
calculate the
Remaining
Strength Factor:
230
Single Layer
Analysis This
analysis can be
used when the
pitting occurs on
one side of the
component.

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
115
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
STEP 7
For pit-couple k ,
calculate the
Remaining Strength
Factor:
Multiple Layer Analysis
This analysis is used to
account for pitting on
both sides of the
component (see Figure
6.15).
number of layers, N , is
based on the depth of
pits on both sides of the
component
NOT overlapped for L2

231
Ron Frend
STEP 8
232
Repeat STEP 7 for all pit-couples, n , recorded at the time of

the inspection.
Determine the average value of the Remaining Strength

Factors, RSFk , found in STEP 7 and designate this value as
RSFpit for the region of pitting.

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
116
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
STEP 9
Evaluate results based on the type of pitting damage

1) Widespread Pitting For widespread pitting that
occurs over a significant region of the component, if
RSFpit RSFa , then the pitting damage is acceptable
for operation at the MAWP determined in STEP 6
2) Localized Pitting If the pitting damage is localized,

then the damaged area is evaluated as an equivalent
region of localized metal loss
3) Region Of Local Metal Loss Located In An Area Of

Widespread Pitting If a region of local metal loss
(LTA) is located in an area of widespread pitting, then
a combined Remaining Strength Factor can be
determined
4) Pitting Confined Within A Region Of Localized Metal

Loss If the pitting damage is confined within a
region of localized metal loss (see Figure 6.14), then
the results can be evaluated using the methodology in
subparagraph 3) above.
233
Ron Frend
STEP 10
234
Check the recommended limitations on the

individual pit dimensions:
1) Pit Diameter If the following equation is not satisfied

for an individual pit, then the pit should be evaluated as a
LTA. The size of the LTA is the pit diameter and the
remaining thickness ratio is defined below.
Q from Part 4 table 4.4
2. Pit Depth The following limit on the remaining

thickness ratio is recommended to prevent a local failure
characterized by pinhole type leakage

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
117
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
EXERCISE - PITTING
OD pits discovered during the excavation of a 20 pipeline.

Away from the pitting the pipe wall is 13.5mm
FCA -> 2.0mm
RSFa -> 0.9
Max pit depth -> 4.5mm

235
Ron Frend
Level 1 Pitting Exercise
236
Pressure Vessel with

pitting on the inside
surface
Di = 250mm
FCA = 3mm
Trd = 13mm (LOSS=0)
Max pit depth = 6.4mm
Can the vessel be
returned to service if the
pitted area is recoated?
250mm
350mm
Use RSFa=0.9
Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
118
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
EXERCISE - PITTING
P = 700 psi @ 70oF

API 5L X40 20 w.t. 0.25, ERW
Two pit couples
Couple
depth odd pit
depth even pit
width odd pit
width even pit
pitch in couple
237
1-2
0.08
0.10
0.5
0.5
2
3-4
0.06
0.08
1.0
0.8
2

Ron Frend
API 579 PART 7

BLISTERS, HIC & SOHIC
238
Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
119
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
SCOPE
Hydrogen blisters, HIC and SOHIC

239
Ron Frend
CAUSE OF H BLISTERS
240
Accumulation of H at
imperfections such as laminations
and inclusions, and in banded
microstructures. H combines into
H2 which slows down diffusion.
Lamination =
unfused plane in plate.
Low temperature, wet H2S service

or HF service.

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
120
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Blisters
Closely spaced blisters combined
based on LTA rules, and

distance between two adjacent blisters
Blisters generally drilled, if not already cracked, to

relieve accumulation of pressure

241
< 2tnom
Ron Frend
APPLICABILITY
242
Operating temperature 205oC or less.

Material ductile, not embrittled.
No cyclic service.
Physical bulging observed visually or by UT.
Internal pressure is only significant load.

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
121
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Level 1
Blisters are accepted based on
Diameter
`<50.8mm (2 inch) and blister is vented or unvented or

diameter< 0.6(Dtnom)1/2 and blister is vented
blister projection < 10% blister diameter

tmm for unbulged side is > 50% tnom
no periphery cracks towards inside or outside surface
distance to weld seam >25mm (1 inch)
distance from major structural discontinuity > 1.8(Dtnom)1/2

243
Ron Frend
Level 2
244
Permits consideration of blisters that exceeds limits of Level 1

as LTAs Permits consideration of peripheral cracking
Permits evaluation of blisters adjacent to weld seams
Permits evaluation of laminations in hydrogen charging

service

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
122
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
MULTIPLE BLISTERS

245
Ron Frend
LEVEL 1
246
Step - 1. Assemble the following

information

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
123
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
LEVEL 1 - BLISTER
Step - 2. Blisters are acceptable, without repair, if
One of these 2 conditions is met
The blister diameter is 50mm or less, or

The blister diameter is 0.6(Dtnom)0.5 or less (D is the shell ID).
The blister projection above the surface BP is less than

10% of the blister diameter.
The min. measured thickness tmm is 1/2 the plate
thickness or more.
There are no cracks in and around the bulge.
Distance to welds is more than max{25mm ; twice wall}
Distance to structural discontinuity is 1.8(Dtnom)0.5 or more
247
Ron Frend
LEVEL 2 - BLISTER
STEP 1.
STEP 2
Determine the wall thickness to be used in the

assessment
STEP 3
248
Same as level 1.
Distance between the edge of the Blister

damage and the nearest discontinuity

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
124
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Blister Level 2 contd
STEP 4
If the blister has periphery cracks toward either

the internal or external surface, then proceed to
STEP 5; otherwise, proceed to STEP 6.
STEP 5
If the Blister has periphery cracks on the

opposite side from the bulging, then the blister
does not pass the Level 2 assessment.
If the periphery cracks are on the same side as
the bulging, then proceed to STEP 9.

249
Ron Frend
STEP 6
STEP 7
250
If the blister does not have a crown crack, then proceed to

STEP 7. If the blister has a crown crack, then proceed to
STEP 9.
If the blister projection above the surface satisfies

Equation (7.13), then proceed to STEP 8. Otherwise,
proceed to STEP 9.

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
125
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
STEP 8
STEP 9
Blister vented go to STEP 10

Blister not vented go to STEP 11
Evaluate as LTA
STEP 10
If
Else go to STEP 11
go to STEP 12

251
Ron Frend
STEP 11
STEP 12
252
An in-service monitoring system should be developed to

monitor blister growth while the component is in service,
go to STEP 12.
The Level 2 Assessment is complete, the component may

be returned to service.

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
126
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
EXERCISE
Pressure vessel data:

MAWP = 1725kPa at
175oC
ID = 2438mm
tnom = 29mm
No metal loss
FCA = 3.175mm
Material SA 516 Gr.70
Allowable stress =
120658kPa
Weld joint efficiency =
0.85
Blister A
diameter s = 254mm
dimension c = 203mm
Lb = 457mm
bulge external
blister projection BP = 38mm
remaining thickness tmm = 18mm
no cracks
length of crown cracks sC = 150mm
spacing to nearest weld Lw = 254mm
spacing to structural discontinuity =
650mm

253
Ron Frend
EXERCISE
Blister A
254
diameter s = 254mm
dimension c = 203mm
Lb = 457mm
bulge external
no cracks
spacing to structural discontinuity = 650mm

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
127
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
EXERCISE
Blister C
255
diameter s = 150mm
dimension c = 150mm
Lb = 300mm
bulge external
no cracks
spacing to structural discontinuity = 750mm

Ron Frend
Hydrogen Induced Cracking
256

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
128
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Data Required for Assessment
257
HIC Spacing to Nearest HIC or Blister, H L and Hs

HIC Spacing to Weld Joints, LW
HIC Spacing to Major Structural Discontinuities, Lmsd
HIC Through-Thickness Extent of Damage, H w
Minimum Remaining Wall Thickness of Undamaged Metal, Internal
Side, tmm ID
Minimum Remaining Wall Thickness of Undamaged Metal, External
Side, tmm OD
Minimum Remaining Wall Thickness of Undamaged Metal, Total,
tmm
HIC Damage Dimensions, s and c

Ron Frend
HIC Damage
258

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
129
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
HIC Level 1 Assessment
STEP 1 Gather the data

STEP 2 Determine the wall thickness
to be used in the assessment

259
Ron Frend
Level 1 STEP 3
260
STEP 3 If all of the following requirements are

satisfied, then proceed to STEP 4.
The planar dimensions of the HIC damage satisfy:
The through-thickness extent of the damage satisfies

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
130
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Step 3 contd
261
The HIC damage is not surface breaking

The distance between the edge of the HIC damage and the
nearest weld seam
The distance from the edge of the HIC damage to the nearest
major structural discontinuity satisfies
Further HIC damage has been prevented by a barrier coating

or no further hydrogen charging of the metal will occur

Ron Frend
Software
VCESage
CodeCalc
ENG-Fit
262
Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
131
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
VCESage Brittle Fracture
263

Ron Frend
VCESage - Pitting
264

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
132
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
VCESage - LTA
265

Ron Frend
ENG-Fit TWI
266

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
133
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
API 579 PART 8
ASSESSMENT OF WELD MISALIGNMENT

AND SHELL DISTORTIONS
267
Ron Frend
SCOPE
General shell distortion
Out-of-Roundness
Inward or outward.
Dent
268
Difference in diameter.
Bulge
shape variation and flat spots.
Small local radius or notch.

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
134
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Weld Misalignment and Shell

Distortions
Permits consideration of general shell distortion,

out-of-roundness, bulges and dents
Level 1 based on comparison to limits of new construction

code
Level 2 based on stress analysis; equations are provided
Fatigue analysis may be required

269
Ron Frend
LEVEL 1
Fabrication tolerance of applicable construction code.
ASME VIII Pressure Vessel
Shell: 1% out-of-roundness internal pressure

Heads: 1.25% of outside shape, 0.625% inside shape.
Weld offset misalignment, longitudinal weld:
Weld offset misalignment, circ. Weld
t < 3/4 e = t/4

t = 3/4 to 1-1/2 e = 3/16
ASME B31.3 Process Piping
Out-of-Roundness
270
t < 1/2 e = t/4

t = 1/2 to 3/4 e = 3/16
8% internal pressure

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
135
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
LEVEL 1
API 620 and 650 Tank
Out-of-plumb 1/200 total height

Out-of-Round 1%
Out-of-Round 1 ft from bottom
D < 40 t radius 1/2 tolerance

D = 40 to 150 ft radius 3/4 tolerance
Weld offset misalignment - Butt joint
t < 1/4 e = 1/16

t > 1/4 e = min {t/4 ; 1/8}

271
Ron Frend
Level 2 Limitations
The component geometry must be one of the

following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1.
272
Flat plate
Pressure vessel cylindrical or conical shell section
Spherical pressure vessel
Straight section of a piping system
Elbow or pipe bend that does not have structural
attachments
Shell course of an atmospheric storage tank
If the component under evaluation is a cylinder with

out-of-roundness, the out-of-roundness must be
constant along the axis of the cylinder.
Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
136
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
EXERCISE - PEAKING
LEVEL 2
Step 1
Pipe OD = 36
Wall t = 0.5
R = 17.75 inside radius
Material = 1-1/4Cr 1/2Mo ASTM A691 Class 41
E = 25.5 106 psi
= 0.3 Poisson ratio
Design Pressure = 315 psi
Design temperature = 800oF
Sa = 16800 psi allowable stress at 800oF
Joint efficiency = 100%
FCA = 0.05
Peaking distortion = 0.31
Hf = 3.0 the induced stress is secondary
273

Ron Frend
Out of Roundness/Peaking
Global out of roundness
Local Peaking - Cylinder and Sphere
Ovalisation of a pipe bend

274

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
137
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Cf CHART PEAKING

275
Ron Frend
Weld Misalignment
Peaking Level 2
STEP 2
276
Determine thickness to be used in the

assessment

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
138
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Weld Misalignment
Peaking Level 2 contd
STEP 3
P R FCA
0.6
E t FCA
315psi 17.75"0.05"
0.6 12579psi
1 0.5"0.05"
Membrane stress
STEP 4
Ratio induced bending / applied membrane
12(1 )PR
E( t FCA )
2
S
P
0.5 0.05
12(1 0.3 )31517.75 0.05
2.81
(25.5 10 )(0.5 0.05)
3

277
Ron Frend
PEAKING LEVEL 2 STEP 3

Step 4 - continues
0.31
0.0175
R 17.75 0.05
Figure 8.16 SP = 2.81 and /R = 0.0175 Cf = 0.83
Ratio of induced bending stress to applied membrane stress

for the longitudinal joint of a cylinder with angular
misalignment is
Rb
278
clja
6
6 0.31"
Cf
0.83 3.43
t FCA
0.5"0.05"

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
139
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
PEAKING LEVEL 2 STEP 4

Step 5 Remaining strength factor
RSF
HS
3 16800psi
0.90
(1 R ) 12579psi(1 3.43)
f
Step 6
Compare RSF to allowable RSFa = 0.90
In this case, OK.
279

Ron Frend
PEAKING WITH FATIGUE

Can the pipe cycle 200 times 0 to 315 psi?
Step 1
Evaluate peaking at 315 psi without cycling.
Done. OK
Step 2
Determine the total stress range (Appendix F)
circumferential = 1 = 12579 psi + 12579 x 3.43
= 55725 psi
Longitudinal = 2 = 1 / 2 = 6290 psi ~ 0
Radial = 3 = 0
Srange = max{55725-0 ; 0-0; 0-55725} = 55725 psi

280

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
140
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)

Step 3
Determine the alternating stress
Srange = 55725 psi
3Sm < Srange < 3mSm
3 x 16800 < 55725 < 3 x 3 x 16800
Salt = (Srange/2) Ke = (68304/2) 1.72 = 58741 psi

Salt = 5.8 104 psi
281

Ron Frend

Step 4
Enter the fatigue curve and read number of
cycles
282

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
141
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
OVALITY
283

Ron Frend
OVALITY - LEVEL 1
Vessel deformed after repair post-weld heat treatment.
Design condition = 500 psi at 650oF
Wall thickness = 1.875
Inside diameter = 120
Material = SA 516 Grade 70
Joint efficiency = 100%
FCA = 0.125
Measured:
Dmax = 120.5
Dmin = 119.4
Dmax - Dmin = 120.5 - 119.4 = 1.1 1%D = 1.2 OK
284

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
142
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
OVALITY - LEVEL 2 STEP 1

Step 1: collect data
E = 26.1 106 psi
FCA = 0.125
Hf = 3.0
P = 500 psi
R = 60
Sa = 17500 psi
t = 1.875
= 0.3
= 0o (longitudinal weld seam location at 3 oclock)
Cs = 0.1 deformed shape significantly deviates from perfect oval (0.5 is ~ perfect oval)
D = 2R = 120
Dmax = 120.5
Dmio = 119.4
285
Ron Frend
OVALITY - LEVEL 2 - STEPS 2

AND 3
Step 2
membrane stress
P R FCA
0.6
E t FCA
500psi 60 0.125
0.6 17479psi
1.0 1.875 0.125
Step 3 induced bending / applied membrane ratio

R
or
b
1.5( D
D
) cos 2
P (1 )
D

( t FCA )

1 C
E
t FCA
m ax
m in
1.5(120.5 119.4) cos 0

0.593
500psi(1 0.3 )
122
(1.875 0.125)1 0.1
26.1 10 psi 1.875 0.125
286

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
143
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
EXERCISE - OVALITY STEPS 4

AND 5
Step 4
RSF
H S
(1 R
f
or
b
3 17500psi
1.0
17479psi(1 0.593)
use RSF = 1.0
Step 5
RSF = 1.0 > RSFa = 0.9
OK
287
Ron Frend
EXERCISE - OVALITY
288
Evaluate the effect of 6% ovality on an API 5L X60,

20 OD x 0.5 wall gas pipeline operating at 70oF
and 1000 psi in a populated area (0.4 location class
factor).

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
144
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
API 579 PART 9

ASSESSMENT OF CRACK-LIKE FLAWS
289

Ron Frend
CRACK FABRICATION (MILL - SHOP)

CONSTRUCTION (FIELD)
290

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
145
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
CRACK IN-SERVICE
CORROSION (ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT)
291

Ron Frend
CRACK IN-SERVICE
3RD PARTY DAMAGE
292

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
146
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
INTRODUCTION TO
FRACTURE MECHANICS
Fracture mechanics: Sensitivity of structures

(equipment, airplane fuselage, pressure vessels,
pipelines, etc.) to cracks.
Early research in fracture mechanics dates to

1920s and 1930s (A. Grifith, 1920, H.M.
Westergaard, 1939).
The origins of modern fracture mechanics are in

aeronautics: F. Erdogan, George Irwin, Hiroshi
Tada, Paul Paris.
293
Ron Frend
SIMPLE RULE - COMPLEX

PHENOMENON
A crack in a component is stable under operating

load (pressure, temperature, etc.) if the stress
intensity at the crack tip (K) is smaller than a limit
KC (fracture toughness) that depends on the
material, the temperature and the strain rate.
K < KC
294
Why is it important? What is the stress intensity?

What is the fracture toughness?
Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
147
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?
295
You have a vessel or pipeline in service, it develops cracks

30% through-wall. Should you shutdown? Immediately?
Should you repair or replace? Will it continue to grow?
You just installed a new vessel or pipeline, and find out that
the welds are not fully penetrated, or that there are weld
cracks missed by earlier radiography. What can you do?
Fracture mechanics will not tell us if the crack will continue to

grow. This depends on corrosion or fatigue in service.
Fracture mechanics will tell us if the crack will rupture or not, if

the component will leak or break.
Ron Frend
THREE FAILURE MODES
296

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
148
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
STRESS INTENSITY
The stress intensity is a parameter of the general

form
K (
a ) F
= nominal stress, as if there is no crack, ksi

a = a measure of the crack size, in
F = a factor that depends on the crack shape and the component
shape
KI = stress intensity factor for crack opening in mode I, ksi(in) 0.5

297
Ron Frend
FRACTURE TOUGHNESS KIC
See Appendix F.
Fracture toughness can also be estimated (very roughly) from CVN
IC
5(CVN )
0.25
S
y
298
Sy = yield stress, ksi

CVN = Charpy vee-notch impact toughness, ft-lb

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
149
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)

299
Ron Frend
EXERCISE
300
Estimate the fracture toughness of a

steel that has a yield stress of 60 ksi
and a CVN of 50 ft-lb at the minimum
operating temperature.

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
150
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
LEVEL 1
Step - 1. Determine MAWP (design pressure, MAOP), and temperature, and operating
loads.
MAWP = 3450kPa
T = 21oC
Material is PWHT
Step - 2. Determine length and depth of crack.

Base metal crack, longitudinal is shell (cylinder)
Crack depth = 20% t = t / 5
crack length = 6
Determine the applicable figure, for example cylinder with longitudinal joint and crack
parallel to joint
Solid = t/4 flaw, Dashed = t flaw.
301
A allowable flaw size in base metal no PWHT

B allowable flaw size in weld metal with PWHT
C Allowable flaw size in weld no PWHT

Ron Frend
LEVEL 1
302

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
151
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
LEVEL 1
Step - 4. Determine the screening curve from the step-3 figure.

Solid curve (assume crack is t/4)
Curve A (base metal).
Step - 5. Knowing the wall thickness and material, determine Tref (MAT PART
3).
Tref for 12mm wall carbon steel curve B section 3 = -23oC
Step - 6. Calculate T - Tref + 55.6oC, and enter Figure 9.13. Read the
permitted crack length 2c.
T - Tref + 55.6oC = 70 -(-10) + 100 = 180oF
2c permitted = 203mm
Step - 7. Compare the measured crack length (step-2) to the permitted crack
length (step-6).
Actual crack is 150mm < permitted 203mm OK

303
Ron Frend
EXERCISE - LEVEL 1
Longitudinal crack close to weld of carbon steel

pipeline.
304
No PWHT.
Crack is 160mm long.
Crack is 30% through wall.
T = 20oC.
Base material is SA-516 55 normalised
Is crack acceptable by level 1?

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
152
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
LEVEL 2

305
Ron Frend
LEVEL 2 - STEP 1
Step - 1. Determine operating and design loads (pressure,

temperature, external loads).
Pipeline
OD = 24
t = 0.5
API 5L X52 SY = 52 ksi yield stress
P = 1200 psi at 50oF
Soil settlement = 1 over 100 ft
360o crack around girth weld, at OD, 20% penetrated
Penetration (a) = 20% x 0.5 = 0.10
SY* = flow stress ~ SY + 10 ksi = 62 ksi
306

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
153
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
LEVEL 2 - STEP 2
Step - 2. Determine the nominal
stress distribution at the location of the
flaw. Classify stresses as
307
Primary (membrane and bending)

Secondary
Residual

Ron Frend
LEVEL 2 - STEP 2
Primary bending stress through-wall
prim ary
PD
1200 24
14.4ksi
4t
4 0.5
Secondary bending stress at OD
sec ondary
b
8ED
8 (30 10 ) 24 1
4ksi
L
(1200)
6
Residual stress at crack (Appendix E)

residual = SY* = 62 ksi @ ID
up to 20% SY* = 12.4 ksi @ OD
308

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
154
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
LEVEL 2 - STEP 3
Step - 3. Determine the material properties
Yield SY (actual or mean) = 52 ksi

Tensile SU (actual or mean) = 90 ksi
Fracture toughness KIC (mean)
Appendix F - Curve B
t = 0.5
Tref = - 10oF
T = 50oF
T - Tref = 60oF
KIC = 100 ksi(in)0.5
309
Ron Frend
LEVEL 2 - STEP 4
Step - 4. Characterize the crack
360o all around 20% through wall from

OD
310

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
155
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
LEVEL 2 - STEP 5
Step - 5. Apply the partial safety factors
Primary Stress Correction

Pm = Pm PSFS
Pb = Pb PSFS
Material Toughness
KIC = KIC / PSFk
Flaw Size
surface flaw a = a PSFa
embedded flaw 2a = 2a PSFa
through-wall flaw 2c = 2c PSFa

311
Ron Frend
LEVEL 2 - PARTIAL
SAFETY FACTORS
If the crack is shallow (less than 0.2 in deep).

If the stress is well known (COV = 0.10).
If an acceptable probability of failure (pf) is 10-3
If the failure can be either fracture or plastic
collapse (Rky < Rc)
Then
PSFS = 1.40 = 1.40 calculated
PSFk = 1.43 KIC = 100 / 1.43 = 70 ksi(in)0.5
PSFa = 1.20 a = 1.2 x 20%t

= 1.2 x 0.2 x 0.5 = 0.12
312

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
156
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
LEVEL 2 - STEP 6
Step - 6. Compute the reference

primary stress refp from Appendix D.
re f
P
b
9( ZP )
3
1
2 2 y xy
1 x
2y
a
x
t
t
y
R
Z
313

Ron Frend
LEVEL 2 - STEP 6
x
a
0.12"
0.24
t
0.50"
t
0.5"
0.04
R
12"
1
1.3
2 2 0.04 0.24 0.04
1 0.24
2 0.04
ref ZPm 1.3 1.40 14.4ksi 26.2ksi
314

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
157
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
LEVEL 2 - STEP 7
Step - 7. Calculate the ratio Lrp
26.2
ref
0.50
SY
52
P
Lr
refp = reference primary stress (step-6) = 26.2 ksi

Sy = material yield stress (step-3) = 52 ksi

315
Ron Frend
LEVEL 2 - STEP 8
Step - 8. Compute the stress intensity attributed to
the primary load Kip (Appendix C), using the
factored stress.
KI
a F(
ri a
; )
ro t
ri
11.5"
0.96
ro
12"
ro
12"
1.04
ri
11.5"
a
0.12"
0.24
t
0.50"
1 0.24
0.43
1 1.04
a
r
( 0.24; i 0.96) 0.43F 0.65
t
ro
F 1.5
KI
316
a F (1.4 14.4 ksi )
0.12" 1.5 18.6 ksi

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
in
Ron Frend
158
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
LEVEL 2 - STEP 9
Step - 9. Compute the reference stress for secondary and residual stresses
refSR (Appendix D).
Secondary stress distribution through-wall

4 ksi @ OD
assume ~ 4 ksi at ID
i.e. assume membrane (constant) 4 ksi through-wall
Residual stress distribution through-wall

62 ksi @ ID
0.2 x 62 ksi = 12 ksi @ OD
Secondary + residual stress distribution through wall

66 ksi @ ID
16 ksi @ OD
= 41 ksi membrane 25 ksi bending
PSFS = 1.4 57.4 ksi membrane 35 ksi bending
317
Ron Frend
LEVEL 2 - STEP 9
ref
SR
35 352 9 (3 57.4) 2
184ksi SY 52ksi
3
Lr
318
184
3.5
52

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
159
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
LEVEL 2 - STEP 10
Step - 10. Compute the secondary and residual stress reduction

factor
If refRS > SY
26.2
Srf min (1.4 ref ;1 min (1.4

;1
S
62
flow
min{ 0.98;1} 0.98
P
If refRS < SY
Srf = 1.0
refp = reference stress associated with primary stress

f = flow stress = SY + 10 ksi
319
Ron Frend
LEVEL 2 - STEP 10
Step - 10. Compute the stress intensity due

to secondary and residual stresses KISR.
a
0.12"
0.24
t
0.50"
a
1
1 0.24
t
0.44
1 1.04
r
1
r
2
r
11.5
0.96
r
12
i
a
r
0.24;
0.96 0.44 F 0.65
t
r
i
F 1.48
K
320
SR
I
66 ksi
0.12" 1.48 60 ksi

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
in
Ron Frend
160
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
LEVEL 2 - STEP 11
Step - 11. Compute the plasticity interaction factor .

K I SR
2
SY
0.33"
aeff a
aeff
aeff
a
0.12"
1
60
2 1 52
0.33
1.66
0.12
= 1.0 for plane stress, 3.0 for plane strain
Then enter curve with Lrp and read / o, obtain .

LrP = 0.50 (step 7) and LrS = 3.5 (step 9)
/ o = 1.22
= 1.22 x 1.66 = 2
321

Ron Frend
322

Ron Frend
Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
161
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
LEVEL 2 - STEP 12
Step - 12. Determine the toughness ratio

Kr
323
KI
K I
K IC
SR
18.6 2 60
1.98
70
Step -13. Enter the failure assessment

diagram, and decide if the flaw is
acceptable.

Ron Frend
FAILURE ASSESSMENT
DIAGRAM
324

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
162
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
LIQUID LEAK RATE

THROUGH CRACK
The crack opening area is

COA = 2C2 / E
= applied membrane tensile stress

C = half length of through-wall crack
For a longitudinal crack in a cylinder
= 1 + 0.1 +0.16 2
= 1.818C/(Rit)0.5
For a circumferential crack in a cylinder
= (1 + 0.117 2)0.5
= 1.818C/(Rit)0.5
325

Ron Frend
CRACK OPENING AREA EXAMPLE

P = 747 psi
Ri = 27.0
t = 0.63
Membrane hoop stress
hoop = PD / (2t) = 747 x 54.6 / (2 x 0.63) = 32,400 psi
Membrane longitudinal stress
longitudinal = 32,400 / 2 = 16,200 psi
Flaw length
2C = 6 x depth = 6 x wall = 6 x 0.63 = 3.78
C = 1.89
326

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
163
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
CRACK OPENING AREA EXAMPLE

= 1.818 x 1.89 / (27 x 0.63)0.5 = 0.8332
= 1.194 longitudinal crack
= 1.037 circumferential crack
E = Youngs modulus in plane stress 28x106 psi
Crack opening area for a longitudinal crack

COA = 2 x 32,400 x 1.892 x 1.194 / 28 106
COA = 0.031 in2
327
Ron Frend
LEAK RATE
Leak rate of incompressible fluid (liquid) through orifice

q = Cd A ( 2g 144 P / )0.5
P = 747 psi
= 62.4 lb/ft3
g = 32.2 ft/sec2
Cd = 0.61
A = COA = 0.031 in2 = 2.15 10-4 ft2
q = 0.61 x 2.15 10-4 (2 x 32.2 x 144 x 747 / 62.4)0.5
q = 0.044 ft3/sec = 2.64 ft3/min = 2.64/0.134 gpm
~ 20 gpm
328

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
164
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
EXERCISE
A pipeline has a long ID

crack along a longitudinal
seam.
329
API 5L X40
D = 30, t = 0.25
Crack depth = 0.10
Is it safe to operate at 400 psi

and 100oF?

Ron Frend
API 579 PART 10

ASSESSMENT OF COMPONENTS
OPERATING IN THE CREEP RANGE
330
Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
165
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Level 1 Assessment
Limitations:
No fire damage or overheating event resulting in a significant

change in shape (e.g. sagging or bulging) or excessive metal
loss from scaling.
The component does not contain:
1) An LTA or groove-like flaw,

2) Pitting damage,
3) Blister, HIC, or SOHIC damage,
4) Weld misalignment, out-of-roundness, or bulge that exceed the
original design code tolerances,
5) A dent or dent-gouge combination,
6) A crack-like flaw, or
7) Microstructural abnormality such as graphitization or hydrogen
attack.

331
Ron Frend
Level 1 Assessment
Limitations contd:
material meets or
exceeds the respective
minimum hardness and
carbon content
(Table 10.1)
332

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
166
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Level 2
Limitations:
The Level 2 assessment procedures in this Part apply only

if all of the following conditions are satisfied:
a) The original design criteria were in accordance with Part

2, paragraph 2.2.2.
b) A history of the operating conditions and documentation of
future operating conditions for the component.
c) The component has been subject to less than or equal to
50 cycles of operation including startup and shutdown
conditions, or less than that specified in the original design.
d) The component does not contain any of the flaws listed in
paragraph 10.2.2.1.d).

333
Ron Frend
Level 3
Use Level 3 assessment if the following apply:
Advanced stress analysis techniques are required due to

complicated geometry and/or loading conditions
Cyclic operation
Contains a flaw listed in paragraph 10.2.2.1.d)
334

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
167
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Required Data for A FFS Assessment
Original design data

Maintenance & Operational history
Nominal stresses
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Detailed stress analysis

Material properties
Damage characterisation
NDE methods used

335
Ron Frend
Level 1 Assessment
(component subject to a single design condition )
STEP 1
336
Determine the maximum operating temperature, pressure, and

service time the component is exposed to.
If the component contains a weld joint that is loaded in the stress
direction that governs the minimum required wall thickness
calculation, then 13.9 C (25 F) shall be added to the maximum
operating temperature to determine the assessment
temperature.
Otherwise, the assessment temperature is the operating
temperature. The service time shall include past and future
planned operation.

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
168
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Level 1 Assessment
STEP 2
Determine the nominal stress of the component for the operating

condition defined in STEP 1 using Appendix A.
The computed nominal stress shall include the effects of service-induced
wall thinning.
e.g. for a boiler tube
Where:
e is a parameter used for computing the boiler tube thickness
Dc= D+2( LOSS+FCA)
D = tube inside diameter
P is the internal design pressure.
tc = nominal thickness LOSS - FCA

337
Ron Frend
Boiler tube thickness factor
e=0.0 for tubes strength welded to headers and drums

e=0.04 over a length equal to the length of the seat plus 25
mm ( 1in.) for tubes expanded into tube seats, except e=0.0
for tubes expanded into tube seats provided the thickness of
the tube ends over a length of the seat plus 25 mm (1 in.) is
not less than the following:
338
2.41 mm (0.095 in) for tubes 32 mm (1.25 in) OD and smaller,

2.67 mm (0.105 in) for tubes above 32 mm (1.25 in) and up to 51 mm
(2 in.) inclusive,
3.05 mm (0.120 in) for tubes above 51 mm (2 in) and up to 76 mm (3
in.) inclusive,
in.) inclusive,
in.) inclusive.

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
169
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Level 1 Assessment
) STEP 3
Determine the material of

construction for the
component and find the
figure with the screening
and damage curves to be
used for the Level 1
assessment from Figures
10.3 through 10.25.

339
Ron Frend
Level 1 Assessment
STEP 4
340
Determine the maximum permissible time for operation based on

the screening curve obtained from STEP 3, the nominal stress
from STEP 2, and the assessment temperature from STEP 1.
If the time determined from the screening curve exceeds the
service time for the component from STEP 1, then the
component is acceptable per the Level 1 Assessment procedure.
Otherwise, go to STEP 5.

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
170
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Level 1 Assessment
STEP 5
Determine the creep damage rate,

Rc and associated creep damage
Dc for the operating condition
defined in STEP 1 using the
damage curve obtained from STEP
3, the nominal stress from STEP 2,
and the assessment temperature
from STEP 1.
The creep damage for this
operating condition shall be
computed using Equation (10.4)
where the service exposure time is
determined from STEP 1.

341
Ron Frend
Level 1 Assessment
STEP 6
342
If the total creep damage determined from STEP 5 satisfies

Equation (10.5), then the component is acceptable per the Level
1 Assessment procedure.
Otherwise, the component is not acceptable and the
requirements of paragraph 10.4.2.3 shall be followed.

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
171
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Case History 1
Cracked ring-joint flange.
A hydrogen processing vessel had cracks in the ring-groove radius region of a

ring-joint flange. The operator conducted an FFS assessment based on an
FEA.
The analysis and fracture-mechanics concepts indicated that the driving force
for crack propagation was high for a very localized region near the ring groove
radius.
Crack propagation decreased significantly, however, for deeper cracks.
The assessment also showed that the highest stresses occurred during the
bolt-up operation. The chemistry, grain size, microstructure, and hardness of
the material indicated that the material had good resistance to hydrogenassisted crack growth during downtimes and to crack advances during service.
Based on the results of the FFS, the engineering and inspection team
recommended that starting up the unit without repair of flange cracks.
The plant realized a substantial cost savings from avoidance of repairs and
extension of the shutdown duration.

343
Ron Frend
Case History 2
Severe out-of-roundness of a new pressure vessel.
344
During field erection in a petrochemical plant, one company

accidentally dropped a new pressure vessel. The vessels shell
distorted in excess of ASME code limits.
The operator used an FFS assessment to evaluate the integrity
of the distorted shell under internal pressure loading. Engineers
constructed a finite-element model of the distorted geometry
based on field measurements. The assessment included an
evaluation of the collapse strength under internal pressure
loading as well as a fatigue assessment.
The results of the FFS assessment indicated that the vessel
shell was acceptable for future operation at the original design
conditions. The use of FFS technology eliminated the need for
costly repairs to the new vessel as well as significant costs
associated with unplanned operational interruption.

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
172
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Case history 3
Fire-damaged vessel.
A major fire in a refinery resulted in excessive distortion of

the shell of a vacuum tower. Using field measurements of
the distorted shell profile, the refinery performed an FFS
assessment to evaluate the structural integrity of the
damaged shell.
The assessment indicated that the integrity of the vessel
had not been compromised.
This evaluation eliminated the need for costly repairs and
avoided an extension of the unplanned shutdown,
resulting in savings of more than $500,000.

345
Ron Frend
Case History 4
Creep life assessment of a refinery pressure vessel.
346
One refinery conducted an FFS assessment to evaluate a fluidcatalytic cracking reactor vessel that had operated in the creep
range for almost 45 years. An initial damage assessment based
on elastic stress analysis indicated that the vessel was
approaching its predicted failure life. Thus, there was little
potential for increasing the operating temperatures.
In this situation, engineers performed an FFS assessment that
included material testing of vessel samples and using nonlinear
FEA to re-evaluate the vessel.
The assessment indicated that operation at increased
temperatures was feasible for a projected time of 20 years. The
owner saved about $4 million associated with process
improvements and the avoidance of vessel replacement.

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
173
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
API 579 PART 11

ASSESSMENT OF FIRE DAMAGE
347

Ron Frend
FIRE DAMAGE
348

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
174
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
FIRE DAMAGE

349
Ron Frend
Fire Damage
Methods provided to determine fire zone (maximum

temperature)
350
Level 1 acceptance based on fire zone, depending on

material of construction
Level 2 acceptance based on evaluation of fire exposed
material properties

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
175
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
APPLICABILITY
Vessel, piping and tank condition following a fire: should it be used-as-is?

repaired? replaced?
Degradation from fire is
Visible structural
Invisible mechanical, corrosion resistance
Pressure vessels, tanks and piping systems.
For floating tank roofs and tank bottom, also refer to API 653.
Does not address non-pressure retaining structures (ladders, platforms, etc.).
Does not address electrical distribution and control system.

351
Ron Frend
REQUIRED DATA
352
Type of fuel (estimate of fire temperature).
Location of ignition source.
Plot plan of affected areas.
Wind direction.
Time at temperature.
Cooling rate.
Fire fighting agent (sea/water/river/tank water).
Estimate of cooling rate.

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
176
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
HEAT EXPOSURE ZONE
353

Ron Frend
HEAT EXPOSURE ZONE
354

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
177
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
HEAT EXPOSURE ZONE
355

Ron Frend
HEAT EXPOSURE ZONE
356

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
178
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
ZONE III
357

Ron Frend
ZONE IV
358

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
179
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
ZONE V
359

Ron Frend
ZONE VI
360

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
180
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
REPAIR REPLACEMENT
DECISIONS
Zone I
Zone II
No damage.
Insulation, insulation jackets.

Electronics.
Plastics,PVC.
Zone III
Gaskets (non-metallic).
Valve trims.
Belts.
Non-metallics.
Electrical, electronic.

361
Ron Frend
REPAIR REPLACEMENT
DECISIONS
Zone IV
Zone V
362
Motors.
Valve springs.
Rupture disks.
Roll joints (HX).
Sag tubing.
Aluminum equipment.
All small equipment replaced.

All copper replaced.
All non-metallic goods replaced.
Clean, inspect and pressure test major equipment.
Replace B7 bolts.
Replace sensitized SS.
Replaced distorded supports.

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
181
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
REPAIR REPLACEMENT
DECISIONS
Zone VI
363
Replace all.
Some fire protected equipment may be
inspected, pressure tested, and still used.
Areas exposed to molten metal experience
cracking.
Change in grain size, hardness, mechanical and
corrosion resistance properties.

Ron Frend
STEEL COLOR SPECTRUM
364

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
182
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
LEVEL I
Carbon steel: IV
Low alloy steel: IV
Austenitic SS: IV
Alloy 20: IV
Alloy 400: III
Duplex SS: II
Alloy 800: IV
Alloy 600: IV
Copper alloys: II
Aluminum alloys: II
365
Ron Frend
LEVEL II
366
Step 1. Measure hardness and

convert to ultimate strength.
Brinell (3000kg)
Vickers
Su (ksi)
313
330
150
243
255
120
190
200
90
143
150
70
124
130
60

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
183
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
LEVEL II
Determine the allowable stress

Safd = Cism Suht (SaT / SaA)
But noless than SaT
Safd = allowable stress for fire damage

Cism = 0.25 margin
Suht = ultimate strength based on hardness test
SaT = code allowable stress at design temp.
SaA = code allowable stress at ambient temperature
Step 3. Calculate MAWP using Safd.
Reduce the MAWP for thinning, blisters, laminations, shell distortion, cracks.
367
Ron Frend
EXERCISE
A horizontal vessel.
368
ID = 150
Thickness = 9/16
Length = 35 ft
2:1 elliptical head.
Material SA 516 Gr. 70 carbon steel.
Not stress relieved.
Contains heavy oil.
Epoxy phenolic outer coating.
No insulation.
MAWP = 80 psig at 650oF
E =0.85
FCA = 1/16

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
184
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
EXERCISE
Fire damage:
369
Melted aluminum conduit next to vessel.

Vessel not sagged.
Iron oxide scale spalled off fire side of vessel.
Paint discoloration opposite side of fire source.
No damage by visual internal.
Wall thinning from service is 0.03.
Oil inside vessel in good condition.
Hardness measured 132 HB hot side, 152 HB cool side.
Based on the melted Al conduit what was the local temperature?

What heat exposure would you assign?
Would the vessel be operable by a level 1 evaluation?
Would the vessel be operable by a level 2 evaluation?
Ron Frend
PART 12
ASSESSMENT OF DENTS,
GOUGES, AND DENTGOUGE COMBINATIONS
370
Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
185
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Dents or Gouges?
a) Dent An inward or outward

deviation of a cross-section of a shell
member from an ideal shell geometry
that is characterized by a small local
radius or notch.
b) Gouge An elongated local

removal and/or relocation of material
from the surface of a component
caused by mechanical means that
results in a reduction in wall
thickness;
c) Dent-Gouge Combination A dent

with a gouge present in the deformed
region.

371
Ron Frend
Limitations
Must have sufficient toughness
372
Consider the damage may result in cold work
Must be cylindrical shell
Maximum load = internal pressure
Damage is to inward
Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
186
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Overview of dent-gouge
combinations
Level 1 Assessment limited to dent-gouge combinations in carbon

steel cylindrical shells located away from structural discontinuities. A
screening curve is provided to determine the acceptability for
continued operation based on the ratio of the dent depth to cylinder
outside diameter and the ratio of the gouge depth to wall thickness.
Level 2 Assessment limited to dent-gouge combinations in carbon

steel cylindrical shells located away from structural discontinuities. A
remaining strength factor approach is utilized to determine an
acceptable MAWP based on the dent depth and gouge depth. In
addition, a fatigue assessment to evaluate the effects of cyclic
pressure loading is provided.
Level 3 Assessment rules are intended to evaluate dent-gouge

combinations in complex geometries subject to general loading
conditions. A Level 3 Assessment is also required for materials other
than carbon steel. Numerical stress analysis techniques are utilized
in a Level 3 assessment.

373
Ron Frend
Dent-Gouge Assessment
Level 1
STEP 1
Collect the data
374
Dent Depth in the Pressurized Condition, ddp , and

Unpressurized Condition, dd0.
Gouge Depth dg
Minimum Specified Yield Strength, ys
Minimum Specified Ultimate Tensile Strength, uts
Cyclic Pressure Components, Pmax and Pmin.
Dent-gouge Combination Spacing to Weld Joints, Lw.
Dent-gouge Combination Spacing to Major Structural
Discontinuities, Lmsd
Additional data includes D, FCA , either trd or tnom, and
LOSS

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
187
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Level 1 contd
Determine thickness and gouge depth to be used in the

assessment
Ensure the following requirements are satisfied:

375
Ron Frend
Level 1 contd
STEP 4
STEP 5
376
Determine Hoop Stress
Determine the gouge depth to wall thickness ratio, d gc/tc , and the
dent depth to component diameter ratio, ddp/D. Enter these data
with the circumferential stress, Cm , determined in STEP 4 on
Figure 12.4. If the point defined by the intersection of these
values is on or below the curve in this figure that corresponds to
the circumferential stress in terms of the minimum specified yield
strength for the component and the component is not in cyclic
service, proceed to STEP 6. Otherwise, the Level 1 Assessment
is not satisfied.

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
188
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Level 1 STEP 5
Figure 12.4

377
Ron Frend
Level 1 - STEP 6
STEP 6
378
Determine the MAWP for the component (see Annex A,

paragraph A.2) using the thickness from STEP 2. If the
MAWP is greater than or equal to the current design
condition, then the component is acceptable for continued
operation.

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
189
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
PART 13
Laminations
379
Ron Frend
Definition
380
Laminations are a plane of non-fusion in the interior

of a steel plate that results from the steel
manufacturing process.

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
190
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)

381
Ron Frend
Overview of Level 1
Assessment
382
The Level 1 Assessment procedure is a screening criterion for

laminations based on: the lamination size, orientation and spacing to
weld joints, structural discontinuities, and other laminations.
If the lamination has any evidence of an associated surface bulge, then it

shall be evaluated as a blister using the Level 1 blister assessment
procedures of Part 7.
If there are two or more laminations that are closely spaced at different
depths in the wall thickness of the component, then the group of
laminations are evaluated as equivalent HIC damage using the Level 1
If the lamination has a through-wall component (i.e. not parallel to the

surface), then the through-wall component is evaluated as a equivalent
crack-like flaw using the Level 1 assessment procedures of Part 9

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
191
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Level 1 Assessment
STEP 1
Check for surface bulging. If so, evaluate as a blister
Step 2
Determine:
a) Lamination Dimensions, s and c.

b) Lamination Height Lh ,.
c) Lamination-to-Lamination Spacing, Ls
d) Lamination Minimum Measured Wall Thickness, t mm
e) Lamination Spacing To Weld Joints, Lw.
f) Lamination Spacing To Major Structural Discontinuities, L msd .
g) Lamination Cracking

383
Ron Frend
Level 1 STEP 3
STEP 3
If > 1 lamination
If > 1 lamination
AND at different depths

AND NOT
Treat as HIC
384
AND no through thickness cracking

AND
Treat as one lamination

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
192
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Level 1 STEP 4
STEP 4
If Lh 0.09 . Max [s, c]
Go to STEP 5
Else evaluate Lh as a crack.
STEP 5
Determine thickness to be used in the

assessment

385
Ron Frend
Level 1 STEP 6
STEP 6
Check the following:
386
No indication of through thickness cracking

Not surface breaking
Distance to nearest weld seam
Distance to MSD
If hydrogen charging:

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
193
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
Level 1 STEP 7
STEP 7
Determine the MAWP for the component using the

thickness from STEP 5. The component with the
lamination is acceptable for operation at this calculated
MAWP.

387
Ron Frend
Lamination Level 2
388
Essentially the same as Level 1
EXCEPT STEP 6-5
If the lamination is in hydrogen

charging service, then the
lamination shall be evaluated as an
equivalent local thin area using the
methods of Part 5.
The remaining sound metal

thickness to use in the LTA
analysis is the value of
max [( tc Lh tmm), tmm]
and the longitudinal and
circumferential extend of the LTA
are s and c , respectively.
Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
194
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
What have we learned?
389
The FFS techniques described herein are

essentially based on STRENGTH.
The techniques are computational.
IT IS EASY TO MAKE MISTAKES.
For iterative computations use proven

methodology. E.g. MS-Excel.
Ron Frend
The Test
This is an open book test.
390
Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
195
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)
And now to work

GOOD LUCK
391

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

pt
Ron Frend
196

Asme API 579 SI Handouts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asme API 579 SI Handouts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)

API 579-1/ASME FFS-1

API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 FITNESS-FOR-SERVICE OF PIPING, VESSELS AND TANKS

Document version 2011/01/v1.4 Last update - 21 Sept 2011

In order to ensure the smooth running of the Seminar, it is extremely important

API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 FITNESS-FOR-SERVICE OF PIPING, VESSELS AND TANKS

Document version 2011/01/v1.4 Last update - 21 Sept 2011

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)

Understand FFS for static, mechanical equipment

Balanced fundamental technical principles with a practical application

See how ASME codes apply to FFS

Use ASME and API rules to assess remaining life

Apply practical examples to analyze conditions

Apply the step-by-step 3-level approach

Understand risk-based evaluation of remaining life.

Evaluate structural integrity and assess remaining life.

DAY 1 FOUNDATIONS OF FITNESS-FOR-SERVICE ASSESSMENT

Introduction to Fitness For Service Assessment

DAY 2 MECHANICAL INTEGRITY AND FITNESS FOR SERVICE

DAY 3 PITTING & CORROSION

PART 8 Weld Misalignment & Shell Distortions

DAY 4 FIRE & MECHANICAL DAMAGE

PART 5 Local Metal Loss

PART 12 Dents & Gouges

API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 FITNESS-FOR-SERVICE OF PIPING, VESSELS AND TANKS

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)

Ron Frend - Profile

API 579-1/ASME FFS-1

A Joint API/ASME Standard

This standard is based on

API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 FITNESS-FOR-SERVICE OF PIPING, VESSELS AND TANKS

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)

ASME and API codes for pressurized equipment do not

These codes do not permit crack-like flaws, have empirical

API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 FITNESS-FOR-SERVICE OF PIPING, VESSELS AND TANKS

An FFS assessment is an engineering analysis of equipment to

The product of an FFS assessment is a decision to operate the

API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 also provides guidance on appropriate

API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 FITNESS-FOR-SERVICE OF PIPING, VESSELS AND TANKS

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)

API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 FFS

API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 supplements the

API 579 has three functions:

To ensure safety of plant personnel and the public while

API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 FITNESS-FOR-SERVICE OF PIPING, VESSELS AND TANKS

The following questions are frequently asked regarding the

"Can this equipment be put back in service without repair?"

"How long can this equipment be kept in service?"

"Can the repair work be deferred to the next scheduled turnaround

"What would be the consequence when the damage propagates if not

API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 FITNESS-FOR-SERVICE OF PIPING, VESSELS AND TANKS

Doc. vers. 2009/08/v3.0 Loc:

API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 (2007)

can be used at any stage of

In the concept and design

In the construction phase

During routine inspection.

Towards the end of the design

API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 FITNESS-FOR-SERVICE OF PIPING, VESSELS AND TANKS

A "fitness-for-service" (FFS) assessment