API 579

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

API 579

Introduction
Classical engineering design
applied stress : material resistance
component is defect-free

Possible presence of defects

casting, welding, forming, develop during operation

Fitness for Service (FFS) procedure

Determining the residual life of damaged plant

Ensuring safe operation beyond design life
Down-rating damaged plant below design
Demonstrating tolerance to defects within a safety case
Extending inspection intervals
Reducing duration of outage and shutdown

API 579

Codes

API: American Petroleum Industry

API Codes and Standards for:
design, fabrication, inspection and testing of new pressure
vessels, piping systems and storage tanks
do not address the fact that equipment degrades while inservice
deficiencies due to degradation or from original fabrication may
be found during subsequent inspections.

Can be applied to other industries

API Codes

API
API
API
API

510:
570:
653:
580:

API 579

Pressure vessel inspection code

Piping inspection code
Tank inspection code
Risk based inspection

API 579

API 579
to ensure safety:plant
personnel, public
to provide sound FFS
assessment procedures
to ensure consistent remaining
life predictions
to enhance long-term
economic viability

API 579

API 579
API's Recommended Practice 579 for FFS
API 579 can be used to make run-repairreplace decisions
The 1,000-page document is organized into
modules
Each section is based on a type of flaw or
damage, such as crack-like flaws
The document is primarily aimed at the
petrochemical industry
types of damage listed seen in petrochemical
applications
they are present in other industries

Overview of Damage
Assessment Procedures

API 579

Section
1

Introduction and Scope

Outline of Overall Methodology

Brittle Fracture

General Metal Loss

Local Metal Loss

Pitting Corrosion

Blisters and Laminations

Weld Misalignments and Shell

Distortions

Crack Like Flaws

10

High Temp. Operation and Creep

Methodology for All

Damage Types

API 579

Flaw and damage mechanism

identification

Applicability and limitations of the FFS

assessment procedures

3
4

Data requirements

5
6
7

Remaining life evaluation

Assessment techniques and acceptance

criteria
Remediation
In-service monitoring

API 579

Assessment Levels
Three levels of assessment for each flaw and
damage type
Level 1 to 3

Assessment level

Conservatism
Amount of information required
Skill of the assessor
Complexity of analysis

Level 1
NDE inspector

Level 2
Plant Engineer

Level 3
FFS Expert

API 579

API 579 Section 9 ASSESSMENT OF CRACK-LIKE

FLAWS
FFS for crack like flaws
Based on Failure Assessment Diagram (FAD)
method
Crack like flaws observed from inspection:
planar flaws
Length, depth, sharp root radius
Conservative to treat volumetric flaws as cracks
Micro-cracks at root

Relative flaw tolerance at design stage

Risk to fracture
a/t = 25%, length = 6a

API 579

Applicability and
Limitations of the
Procedure

Level 1 and 2

Original Design Criteria

Operating temperature less than
Creep range
Dynamic Loading effects not
significant
No in-service crack growth

Applicability and
Limitations of the
Procedure : Level 1

API 579

Geometries

Flat plate, cylinder or sphere

R/t > 5
t < 38 mm
Away from major structural discontinuity

Loads
Only membrane stress field, within design limits

Material
C-Steel with specified max. tensile prop. And
min. fracture properties

API 579

Data Requirement
Original Equipment Design Data
Maintenance and equipment
history
Loads and stresses
Material properties
Flaw Characterization
Recommendation for inspection
techniques

API 579

Flaw Characterization
Simple geometry, amenable for
fracture mechanics analysis
Objective is to get a crack of
conservative size in plane to
maximum principal stress direction
Cracks from inspection:

irregular in shape
arbitrarily oriented
multiple cracks
branched cracks

API 579

Flaw Characterization
(Shape)
Through Wall Flaw

Surface Flaw

Embedded Flaw

API 579

Flaw Characterization (length)

when flaw is not normal to
principal stress direction
Conservative Option
Co (measured length), C (length used
in calculations, normal to max.
stresses)
Take C = Co

Equivalent flaw length

Inclined cracks -> align itself
perpendicular to the applied stress
Mixed mode to Mode I crack
Equivalent Mode I from energy
considerations

API 579

Flaw Characterization
(Length)

c c0 f 1 , 2 ,

API 579

Flaw Characterization (depth)

Depth difficult to measure

A. Flaw depth by default values
Through wall flaw, a = t,
Surface flaw, a min t , c length=2c

B. Flaw depth from actual

measurements
Normal flaw, a=ao

API 579

Flaw Characterization
(Depth)

a aoW

API 579

Flaw Characterization (Branch

Crack)

API 579

Flaw Characterization (Multiple

Cracks)

API 579

Level 1 Analysis

STEP 1 Determine the load cases and temperatures:

operating and design conditions.
STEP 2 Determine the length and depth of the crack:
characterize
STEP 3 Determine the case from the list below
o
o
o
o
o

Flat Plate, Crack-Like Flaw Parallel To Joint

Cylinder, Longitudinal Joint, Crack-Like Flaw Parallel To Joint
Cylinder, Longitudinal Joint, Crack-Like Perpendicular To Joint
Cylinder, Circumferential Joint, Crack-Like Flaw Parallel To Joint
Cylinder, Circumferential Joint, Crack-Like Flaw Perpendicular To
Joint
o Sphere, Circumferential Joint, Crack-Like Flaw Parallel To Joint
o Sphere, Circumferential Joint, Crack-Like Flaw Perpendicular To Joint

API 579

Level 1 analysis

Tref = use 38oC (material specific

can also be obtained from
Section 3)
At Tref +33o Cv = 68J, l.e. >.89mm

t, flaw
t flaw
A flaw in base metal.
B flaw in weld metal that has been subject to PWHT.
C flaw in weld metal that has not been subject to

API 579

KI
K
K mat
ref
'
Lr
ys
'
r

Failure Assessment
Diagram
K r f Lr

API 579

Advantages of FAD
Double criteria approach:
Fracture
LEFM
EPFM

Collapse

Elasto-Plastic Fracture
Mechanics:
J-Integral calculation not required

API 579

Level 2 Analysis
If the component does not meet the
Level 1 Assessment requirements
then a Level 2 or Level 3 Assessment
can be done.
Method A: Using partial safety factors

Factor
Factor
Factor
Based

for applied loading

for material toughness
for flaw dimensions
on probabilistic methods

API 579

Level 2 Analysis
1 Evaluate operating conditions and determine the
pressure, temperature and loading combinations to be
evaluated.
2Stress distributions at the location of the flaw. Classify
Primary stress
Secondary stress
Residual stress

Appendix E of API 579 contains a compendium of residual

stress distributions for various weld geometries
3 Determine the material properties
yield strength
tensile strength
fracture toughness

API 579

Level 2 Analysis
Appendix F of API 579 contains information
on material properties, including toughness
Appendix does not contain a database of
toughness values
It provides correlations and estimation
methods
For ferritic steels, there are lower-bound
correlations of toughness to Charpy
transition temperature
From Sections III and XI of the ASME boiler and
pressure vessel code

API 579

Level 2 Analysis

API 579 endorses the use of the fracture

toughness Master Curve, as implemented in
ASTM Standard E 1921-97
4 Determine the crack dimensions:
characterize
5 Modify the primary stress, material fracture
toughness, and flaw size using the Partial
Safety Factors ( PSF )

Pm Pm .PSFS
Pb Pb .PSFS

K mat

K mat

PSFk

a a.PSFa

API 579

Need for Partial safety

Factors (PSF)
Consider a Design
R = L1 + L2 + L3
Let the factor of safety be 1.5
Thus:
R/(L1+L2+L3) = 1.5
1.5 to account for scatter in R, L
Probability of failure P(R < [L1+L2+L3])

API 579

Estimating the Probability

of failure
Let all the variables R, L1, L2, L3
follow a normal distribution.
Coeff. Of Var ()
R 0.1
L1 0.1
L2 0.2
L3 0.3

API 579

Reliability Index
The reliability index is given by

R 1 2 3

2
R

2
1

2
2

2
3

Now we will try to estimate probability

of failure for different load combinations

API 579

R = 300 Global Factor of safety = 1.5 i.e. R/ = 1.5

1

Pf

200

200

2.8x103

200

200

2.3x103

200

200

6.8x102

Need for safety factors (PSF) on each component of

load for consistent Reliability
R/f = f1.L1 + f2.L2 + f3.L3
PSF ensures guaranteed lower bound reliability

API 579

Partial safety Factors

Brittle

Ductile

API 579

Level 2 Analysis

6 Compute the reference stress for primary

stresses
reference stress solutions: Appendix D

7 Compute the Load Ratio p

Lr ref
y

8 Compute the stress intensity attributed to

the primary loads
9 Compute the reference stress for
secondary and residual stresses (used for )
10 Compute the stress intensity attributed to
the secondary and residual stresses
11 Compute the plasticity interaction factor,
in presence of secondary loads

API 579

Level 2 Analysis

K IP K ISR
ratio
Kr
K mat

12 Determine toughness
13 Evaluate results on FAD

K r 1 0.14 LPr

0.3 0.7 exp 0.65 LPr

for LPr LPr (max)

API 579

Level 2 Analysis
If Partial safety Factors are not
used
Kr

0.7

0
0

0.2

0.4

Lr

0.6

0.8

API 579

Residual Stress Profiles

Listed in Appendix E of API 579 Section 9
Residual stress distributions are provided
for the following weld joint configurations
Full Penetration Welds in Piping and Pressure
Vessel Cylindrical Shells
Full Penetration Welds in Spheres and Pressure
Vessel Heads
Full Penetration Welds in Storage Tanks
Full Penetration and Fillet Welds at Corner
Joints
Fillet Welds at Tee Joints
Repair Welds

API 579

Residual stress profiles

Based on upper bound values of the
extensive numerical analyses and a
literature survey of published results
Residual stress distributions are provided
for both the as-welded and PWHT
conditions
Distinction is not made concerning the
material of construction

Weld joint geometry

Single V-Type
Double V-Type
Fillet welds
Repair welds

API 579

Data required

The material specification

The material specified minimum yield strength
The wall thickness of the component
The heat input used to make the weld
The type of weld (i.e. girth or circumferential joint,
longitudinal seam, repair weld, or attachment weld)
The weld joint configuration (i.e. single V-groove,
double V-groove, corner joint, fillet weld, or repair
weld)
Procedures aimed at reducing the residual stress
level

hydrotest to 150% of the maximum allowable working

pressure (MAWP)per the ASME Code, Section VIII,
post weld heat treatment per the original construction code

API 579

Level 3 Analysis
Method A Assessment Level 2 the FAD with
user specified Partial Safety Factors based on
a risk assessment
Method B Assessment FAD is constructed
based on the actual material properties
E
ref

K r LPr

LPr ys

K r LPr 1

L ys

2 E ref

P 3
r

1 2

for 0.0 LPr LPr (max)

for LPr 0

t 1 es es
t ln 1 es

Where subscripts t = true, es = engineering

API 579

Level 3 Analysis
Method C Assessment FAD is constructed
based on the actual loading conditions,
component geometry and material
properties
J elastic
Kr

J total

Method D Assessment This method is a

ductile tearing analysis where the fracture
tearing resistance is defined as a function
of the amount of stable ductile tearing

API 579

Level 3 Analysis
Method E Assessment The recognized assessment
procedures listed below are subject to supplemental
requirements that may include the use of Partial
Safety Factors or a probabilistic analysis.

BS PD6493 or BS 7910
Nuclear Electric R-6
SAQ/FoU Report 96/08
WES 2805 1997
DPFAD Methodology
EPFM using the J-integral
The J-integral-Tearing Modulus method

Remaining Life
Assessment (RLA)

API 579

Sub-critical Crack Growth

Crack
Crack
Crack
Crack

growth
growth
growth
growth

by
by
by
by

fatigue
stress corrosion cracking
hydrogen assisted cracking
corrosion fatigue

Growth of a pre-existing crack is controlled by

a crack tip stress intensity factor
Laws for crack growth rates for these
mechanisms have been provided in Appendix
F

API 579

Difficulties in RLA
Crack growth rates can be highly
sensitive to changes in the process
environment
Models are fitted in carefully controlled
conditions in a laboratory experiment

Cracking often occurs as the result of

an upset in operating conditions
Average crack growth rate would be
meaningless in such instances

New cracks can initiate at other

locations in the structure

API 579

Procedure for RLA

1 Perform a Level 3 assessment for the
initial crack size
If the component is acceptable apply remedial
measures to prevent further crack growth

2 If effective remedial measures are not

possible and slow sub-critical crack
growth is expected
If a crack growth law exists for the material and
service environment: a crack growth analysis
can be performed else, a leak-before break
analysis should be performed

API 579

Procedure for RLA

3 Compute the stress at the flaw based
on the future operating conditions
4 Determine an increment in crack
growth
5 Perform a Level 3 assessment for the
current crack size
If the assessment point is outside of the FAD or
the crack is re-categorized as a through-wall
crack, then go to STEP 6; otherwise, go to STEP
4 and continue to grow the crack

API 579

Procedure for RLA

6 Determine the time or number of stress cycles
for the current crack size (ao, co) to reach the
limiting flaw size
Acceptable if time to reach the limiting flaw size,with
FOS, is more than the required operating period
If the depth of the limiting flaw size is re-categorized
as a through-wall thickness crack, the conditions for an
acceptable leak before break (LBB) criteria should be
satisfied

7 At the next inspection, establish the actual

crack growth rate, and re-evaluate the new flaw
conditions. Alternatively, repair or replace the
component or apply effective mitigation measures

API 579

LBB Procedure
It may be possible to show that a flaw
can grow through the wall of a
component without causing a
catastrophic failure
In such cases, a leak can be detected
(taking into consideration the contained
fluid and type of insulation) and remedial
action could be initiated to avoid a
component failure

API 579

Leak Before Break

API 579

LBB Procedure Limitations

The leak should be readily detectable
Insulation
Tight crack
Contained fluid

The LBB methodology may not be suitable for

flaws near stress concentrations or regions of high
residual stress

API 579

LBB Limitations
Flaw at a stress concentration

Flaw subjected to high

residual stresses
Flaw growth in
predominantly length
direction

API 579

LBB Limitations
Crack growth rate high
Adequate time must be available to discover
the leak and take the necessary action

Possible adverse consequences of

developing a leak
hazardous materials
fluids operating below their boiling point
fluids operating above their autoignition
temperature

API 579

LBB Procedure
1 Demonstrate that the largest initial flaw size left
in the structure will not lead to fracture during the
life of the component.
2 Determine the largest (critical) crack length of a
full through-wall crack below which catastrophic
rupture will not occur for all applicable load cases.
3 Compute the corresponding leak areas
associated with the critical crack lengths
4 Determine the leakage rate associated with the
crack area computed above, and demonstrate
that the associated leaks are detectable with the
selected leak detection system

API 579

Remediation
Method 1 Removal or repair of the crack. The
crack may be removed by blend grinding
Method 2 Use of a crack arresting detail or device
Method 3 Performing physical changes to the
process stream
Method 4 Application of solid barrier linings or
coatings to keep the environment isolated from the
base metal
Method 5 Injection of water and/or chemicals on
a continuous basis to modify the environment or
the surface of the metal
Method 6 Application of weld overlay
Method 7 Use of leak monitoring and leak-sealing
devices

API 579

In-service monitoring
In all cases where sub-critical inservice crack growth is permitted
in-service monitoring or
monitoring
at
a
shutdown
inspection
of the crack growth by NDE is
required.
The
applicable
NDE
method will depend on the specific
case.

API 579

Example Calculation

A plate of SA 516 Grade 70 steel

Edge crack, depth a = 0.5 inch
Width of plate W = 5 inch
Thickness B = 1.25 inch
Service temp.T = 100o F
Axial Load F = 240 kips
Yield stress Sy = 38 ksi
Toughness not known
Safe ? Using a Level 2 analysis

API 579

Solution
Kc, from Table 3.3 of API 579,
Tref = 40o F

API 579

Solution

API 579

FAD
Example of Level 2 FAD

0.8

(1.12, 0.559)

Kr

0.6

Load = 171 kips

0.4
0.2
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6
Lr

0.8

1.2

API 579

Thank You