Fitness For Service Assessment of

Crack-Like Flaws According to API 579

Standard
Prepared by: Mashallah Hosseini
Supervisor: Dr.
Rashed
Number of Slides: 45

5/11/15

Petroleum University of Technology, Abadan

Institute of Technology

Presentation Overview

Introduction to Fitness for

Service(FFS)
Overview of API 579/ ASME FFS-1
Assessment of Crack-Like Flaws
Study Goals
References
5/11/15

Petroleum University of Technology, Abadan Institute

of Technology

Introduction to Fitness
for Service(FFS)

5/11/15

Petroleum University of Technology, Abadan Institute

of Technology

Definition of Fitness-For-Service (FFS)

4

Quantitative

engineering

evaluations that are performed to

demonstrate

the

structural

integrity
of
an
in-service
component that may contain a flaw
or damage.[2]
5/11/15

Petroleum University of Technology, Abadan Institute

of Technology

Where is FFS Assessment Applicable?

5

Oil and Gas Industry

5/11/15

Petroleum University of Technology, Abadan Institute

of Technology

Where is FFS Assessment Applicable?

6

Fossil Fuel Utility

Nuclear Power Plant

5/11/15

Petroleum University of Technology, Abadan Institute

of Technology

Where is FFS Assessment Applicable?

7

Pulp & Paper Industry

Food Processing Industry

5/11/15

Petroleum University of Technology, Abadan Institute

of Technology

When is FFS Assessment

Needed?

Asset having Damages : such as metal loss,

distortion , laminations, cracking ,blisters, etc.
Asset lacks original design information or
exceeded its useful life.

When is FFS Assessment

Needed?

Asset that have undergone any event that might

have affected its serviceability like: fire
Decommissioned asset that may be used in a
different service

5/11/15

Petroleum University of Technology, Abadan Institute

of Technology

Benefits of FFS
10

Safe and reliable operation

Reduce Unnecessary repairs
Operation of aging facilities
Reduce
costs

5/11/15

Petroleum University of Technology, Abadan Institute

of Technology

FFS Standards
11

Standard Name
API 579-1/
ASME FFS-1
BS-7910
PD 6493(Withdrawn)
NUCLEAR
ELECTRIC R5
NUCLEAR
ELECTRIC R6
FITNET
5/11/15

Publisher
API & ASME
BSI
BSI
BRITISH
ENERGY
BRITISH
ENERGY

Date of First
Release
2000
(Joint 2007)
1999
1980
1990
1976

European Fitness2006
For-Service
Network
Petroleum
University of Technology, Abadan Institute
of Technology

FFS Softwares
12

Software Name

Publisher

Date of First
Release

Signal FitnessForService

Quest
Integrity
Group

1997

Crackwise

TWI

2005

ENGFIT

TWI

2007

R-Code

British Energy

1990

R-STRENG

PRCI

1989

FFS MASTER

PUT

2010

5/11/15

Petroleum University of Technology, Abadan Institute

of Technology

13

Overview of API 579

5/11/15

Petroleum University of Technology, Abadan Institute

of Technology

Background to API
579
14

First Edition Published in 2000 as

API RP 579 Recommended
Practice
Second Edition Published in 2007
as API 579-1/ASME FFS-1
Standard
Example Problems Published in
2009
as API 579-2/ASME FFS-2 Standard
5/11/15

Petroleum University of Technology, Abadan Institute

of Technology

Overview of API 579- Parts

15

Part 1,2:
Introduction
Part 3: Brittle
Fracture
Part 4: General Metal
Loss
Part 5: Local Metal
Loss
Part 6: Pitting
Corrosion
Part 7: Hydrogen Blisters and
Hydrogen
Damage
Part 8: Misalignment
and Shell
Distortions
Part 9: Crack-Like
Flaws
Part 10:
Creep
Part 11: Fire
Damage
Part 12: Dents,
Gouges, and
DentGouge
Combinations
Part 13:
Lamination
Annexes: A-K

5/11/15

Petroleum University of Technology, Abadan Institute

of Technology

General Assessment Procedure

16

1. Flaw and Damage Mechanism

Identification
2. Applicability and Limitations
3. Data Requirements
4. Assessment Techniques and
Acceptance Criteria

5.
6.
7.
8.

5/11/15

Remaining Life Evaluation

Remediation
In-Service Monitoring
Documentation

Petroleum University of Technology, Abadan Institute

of Technology

Assessment Levels
17

Level 1
Assessm
ent
Levels

Level 2
Level 3

5/11/15

Screening
Low complexity
High
conservatism
Medium detail
Medium
complexity
Medium
conservatism
Detailed
Most complex
Least
conservative

Petroleum University of Technology, Abadan Institute

of Technology

Evaluation Techniques
Start
Assessme
nt

18

Level1
Perform
Assessment

Level 2 or
3

Fit for
Servic
e?

Ye
s

Increase
Assessm
ent
Level?

Docume
nt
Results
Ye
s

No
No

Rerat
e?

Ye
s

Return
Equipment
to Service
Determine
Reduced Pressure
and/or
Temperature

No

Repair,
Replace
Or Retire
Equipment
5/11/15

Documen
t Results
Petroleum University of Technology, Abadan Institute
of Technology

19

Part 9- Assessment of
Crack-Like Flaws

5/11/15

Petroleum University of Technology, Abadan Institute

of Technology

9.1 Flaw and Damage Mechanism

IdentificationDefinition of Crack-Like Flaws

20

Crack-Like Flaws are Planar Flaws that

are Predominantly Characterized by a
Length and Depth, with a Sharp Root
Radius.
2

5/11/15

2
a

Petroleum University of Technology, Abadan Institute

of Technology

9.1 Flaw and Damage Mechanism

Identification21

Type of Crack-Like Flaws

Surface Breaking
Embedded

Through-wall

5/11/15

Petroleum University of Technology, Abadan Institute

of Technology

9.1 Flaw and Damage Mechanism

Identification22

Example of Crack-Like Flaws

Planar Flaws: Cracks, Lack of Penetration, Lack of

Fusion

Volumetric Flaws: Aligned Porosity or Inclusions,

Deep Undercuts ,Root Undercuts ,Overlaps

5/11/15

Petroleum University of Technology, Abadan Institute

of Technology

9.2 Applicability and Limitation of

Procedures

23

Limitations of Level 1
Assessment

Creep Range

Dynamic Loading Effects are not Significant

The Crack-like Flaw Does not Grow in
Service.
1) Limitations on Component and Flaw
Geometries
2) Limitations on Component Loads

5/11/15

Limitations of Level 2
Assessment

The Component is not Operating in the

Petroleumon
University
of Technology,
Abadan Institute
3) Limitations
Material
Properties
of Technology

9.3 Data Requirements

24

9.3.1 General
9.3.2 Original Equipment Design Data
9.3.3 Maintenance and Operating History
9.3.4 Loads and Stresses
9.3.5 Material Properties
9.3.6 Flaw Characterization
5/11/15

Petroleum University of Technology, Abadan Institute

of Technology

9.3 Data Requirements

9.3.6 Flaw Characterization

25

9.3.6.1 Overview
9.3.6.2 Characterization of Flaw Length
9.3.6.3 Characterization of Flaw Depth
9.3.6.4 Characterization of Branched Cracks
9.3.6.5 Characterization of Multiple Flaws
9.3.6.6 Recategorization of Flaws
5/11/15

Petroleum University of Technology, Abadan Institute

of Technology

9.3.6-Flaw Characterization
9.3.6.2 Overview
26

Ideal Shape for Crack Like Flaws

Ideal Shape for Crack Like Flaws

27
27

5/11/15

Petroleum University of Technology, Abadan Institute

of Technology

9.3.6-Flaw Characterization
28

9.3.6.2 Characterization of Flaw

Length
Flaw
Flaw
Perpendicular
Perpendicular to
to
Plane
Plane of
of
max
max
Characteriza
Characteriza
tion
tion
of
of Flaw
Flaw
Length
Length
Flaw
Flaw is
is not
not
Oriented
Oriented in
in
Principal
Principal Plane
Plane

Use Default
Value
2c =2cm
( or c =cm )

use 2c =2cm
Irrespective
of
Orientation
Mode 1 Flaw
(Figure 9.2)

Figure 9.2 Procedure for Defining an Effective Flaw Length on

a Principal Stress Plane
29

9.3.6-Flaw Characterization
9.3.6.3 Characterization of Flaw
Depth

30

Flaw
Flaw Depth
Depth by
by
Default
Default Values
Values

a= min [t,
c]

Characteriza
Characteriza
tion
tion
of
of Flaw
Flaw
Depth
Depth
Flaw
Flaw Depth
Depth
from
from Actual
Actual
Measurements
Measurements

5/11/15

a = t for a
Surface
Flaw

flaw is
normal to
the surface:

a= am

flaw is not
normal to
the surface:
See Figure
9.4

Petroleum University of Technology, Abadan Institute

of Technology

9.3.6-Flaw Characterization
31

9.3.6.3 Characterization of Flaw

Depth

Project The flaw onto the principal

plane

a=Wam, W is determined
using Equation 9.7 or
Figure9.5

32

Determination of W from formula or

Curve

9.3.6-Flaw Characterization
9.3.6.4 Characterization of
Branched Cracks

33

5/11/15

Petroleum University of Technology, Abadan Institute

of Technology

9.3.6-Flaw Characterization
9.3.6.4 Characterization of
Branched Cracks

34

5/11/15

Petroleum University of Technology, Abadan Institute

of Technology

9.3.6-Flaw Characterization
9.3.6.5 Characterization of
Multiple Cracks

35

5/11/15

Petroleum University of Technology, Abadan Institute

of Technology

9.3.6-Flaw Characterization
9.3.6.5 Characterization of
Multiple Cracks

36

5/11/15

Petroleum University of Technology, Abadan Institute

of Technology

9.3.6-Flaw Characterization
9.3.6.6 Flaw Recategorization
Guidelines

37

5/11/15

Petroleum University of Technology, Abadan Institute

of Technology

38

Level 1
Assessment
5/11/15

Petroleum University of Technology, Abadan Institute

of Technology

Level 1 Assessment
39

STEP 1 Determine the load cases

and temperatures to be used in the
assessment
STEP 2 Determine the length, 2c ,
and depth, a , of the crack-like flaw
from inspection data.
STEP 3 Determine the Figure from
the list below
5/11/15

Petroleum University of Technology, Abadan Institute

of Technology

Level 1-AssessmentChoosing Assessment Figure

40

Joint Type

Crack-Like
Flaw to Joint
Orientation

Reference
Figure

----

Parallel

Figure 9.12

Cylinder

Longitudinal

Parallel

Figure 9.13

Cylinder

Longitudinal

Cylinder

Circumferentia
l

Parallel

Figure 9.15

Cylinder

Circumferentia
l

Perpendicular

Figure 9.16

Sphere

Circumferentia
l

Sphere

Circumferentia
l

Equipment
Type
Flat Plate

Perpendicular

Parallel
Perpendicular

Figure 9.14

Figure 9.17
Figure 9.18

Figure 9.16M Level 1 Assessment Cylinder, Circumferential

Joint, Crack-Like Flaw Perpendicular to the Joint
41

A: Allowable
flaw size in
base metal.
B: Allowable
flaw size in
weld metal
with PWHT
C: Allowable
flaw size in
weld metal
without
PWHT

Obtain From
Inspection
Data

Max crack
length:
2c=8in(200m
m)
Dash
line: 1tflaw
Solid line:
1/4t-flaw

T: Assessment
Temperature

Tref: Reference
Temperature

Flaw Dimensions

42

Stress Intensity
Factor Solutions, KPI
& KSRI

Stress Analysis
Material
Toughness
Kmat

Kr
Unacceptable
Region
Assessment Point
Acceptable
Region

Lr

Reference Stress
Solutions, Pref
Flaw
Dimensions

Stress Analysis

Material Yield
Strength, ys

43

Study Goals

5/11/15

Petroleum University of Technology, Abadan Institute

of Technology

Study Goals
44

Developing a Fitness-For-Service Software

Package for Assessment of Crack-like Flaws
According to Part 9 of API579
Implementation and Validation of Software
Case Study
Investigating the Technical Basis and Validation of
Methods Proposed in API 579, Part 9
Proposing Suitable Methods for Level 3
Assessment
Recommendations for Improving Upon Existing
Methodologies
5/11/15

Petroleum University of Technology, Abadan Institute

of Technology

45

References

5/11/15

Petroleum University of Technology, Abadan Institute

of Technology

References
46

[ 1]
1388
[2] Fitness-For-Service, API 579-1/ASME FFS-1,Second Edition,
American Petroleum Institute and The American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, Washington, D.C., JUNE 5, 2007.
[3] introduction to Fitness-For-Service (FFS) Assessment Using
API/ASME Standard API 579-1 / ASME FFS-1,Webinar Series,
Lloyds Register Group, April 22, 2010
[4] API 579: a comprehensive fitness-for-service guide, Ted L.
Anderson, David A. Osage, Structural Reliability Technology,
1898 S Flatiron Court, Suite 235, Boulder, CO 80301, USA
[5] http://www.fitness4service.com/
[6] http://www.questintegrity.com/

5/11/15

Petroleum University of Technology, Abadan Institute

of Technology

Question?
To look is one thing,
To see what you are looking at is something else,
To understand what you see is another,
To learn from what you understand is another,
But,
To act on what you learn is all that really matter!
Winston Churchill

5/11/15

Petroleum University of Technology, Abadan Institute

of Technology

THANK YOU
5/11/15

Petroleum University of Technology, Abadan Institute

of Technology