Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Api 579 Fundamentalspdf PDF
Api 579 Fundamentalspdf PDF
Post-construction Code for Pressure Equipment with Flaws and Corrosion Damage.
Abstract
Modern metal pressure equipment is designed and constructed according to ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel code and
ASME Piping codes to obtain safe operation through predictable material properties, specified stress limits and
fabrication quality requirements. After an “authorized inspector” stamps completed equipment to signify it conforms
to the code rules and has passed a final pressure test, the equipment is no longer covered by ASME B&PV codes.
Instead, because equipment is subject to corrosion and other damage over time, N. American and European authorities
have recently published standards prescribing standard methods for assessing the pressurized component’s fitness for
continued service (FFS) precisely because compliance with design or new-construction codes often is not practical or
economical.
The owner uses the standardized FFS assessment methods to determine if the damage will lead to “failure” however
that is defined, during the equipment’s projected service campaign in the service conditions. The stipulated FFS
assessment methodology, entailing recognized engineering methods that can be independently validated, is codified in
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1. This paper describes the fundamental intent and organization of this FFS post-construction
code, using the example of assessing crack-like flaws from stress-assisted corrosion (aka waterside cracking) in a
boiler tube, a damage mechanism that affects tubes in all types of boiler.
Pressure equipment, initially mostly boilers in ships and factories, was increasingly used after the industrial revolution
with very poor safety history. Because design and construction of early boilers was left up to individual
manufacturers, failures and fatalities were common, peaking at a rate of around one per day, as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Annual rates of boiler explosions in USA from 1880 to 1980: declines are attributed to adoption of ASME
codes and standards for constructing boilers and pressure vessels.(1)
The National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors(2) was created in 1919 to promote greater safety to life
and property through uniformity in construction, installation, repair, maintenance, and inspection of pressure
equipment. During the past 90 years the National Board Inspection Code (NBIC, NB-23) provided rules and guidance
for inspectors trained and certified by the National Board to carry out in-service inspections and approve repair and
alteration of pressure vessels and pressure relief equipment. NBIC NB-23 describes how to inspect for general and
However, in the last 30 years increased scientific analysis and engineering experience confirmed that pressurized
components constructed to B&PV rules can safely tolerate substantial damage, depending on the local material and
load conditions. This knowledge and experience spurred some industries - notably nuclear, petrochemical refining
and chemical - to utilize their inherently higher levels of engineering resources for caring for pressurized equipment to
devise consistent engineering procedures and assumptions for assessing the significance of damage that contravenes
the rules of NB-23.
The main impetus for creating these analytical tools came from the refining industry through the technical committees
of the American Petroleum Institute (API)(3), which already had published industry standards aimed at safe operation
of pressurized components and tanks, including ANSI/API 510, Pressure Vessel Inspection Code: Maintenance
Inspection, Rating, Repair, and Alteration; ANSI/API 570, Piping Inspection Code: Inspection, Repair, Alteration,
and Rerating of In-Service Piping Systems, and API 653, Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and Reconstruction.
These widely respected standards were the springboard for publishing documents for formally assessing the limits of
in-service damage: API 571, Damage Mechanisms Affecting Fixed Equipment in the Refining Industry
comprehensively describes all damage mechanisms including the controlling parameters, inspection methods and
mitigation measures. API 579-1/ASME FFS-1, Fitness for service describes the procedures and rules for assessing if
equipment with damage can be safely operated for a specified duration, or to prescribe the limits of tolerable damage
for a particular piece of equipment under its operating conditions.
First published in 2000, API 579, Recommended Practice for assessing fitness for service, represented a major
advance in standardizing the methods for assessing the structural significance of cracks, mechanical damage,
corrosion and fire or overheating damage in pressure equipment. Although API 579 placed emphasis on welded
vessels and piping made from ferritic and austenitic steels and from aluminum alloys, the assessment procedures can
be used to analyze equipment made from other metallic materials, as well as non-welded components or structures.
API 579 evolved from fracture/fatigue assessment procedure PD6493, published 30 years ago in the UK to formalize
rules for analyzing fabrication flaws and the need to repair them, thereby replacing arbitrary ‘workmanship’ rules.
Initially adopted by the offshore industry, this modern approach to flaw assessment was subsequently recognized by
safety authorities for application to pressure equipment. Recognizing the importance of a unified, rigorous
methodology, in 2007 a joint ASME/API committee published API 579-1/ASME FFS-1, which incorporates input and
acceptance from the National Board. A revised edition of API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 is expected in 2012.
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 not only provides a formal process for determining if pressure equipment with damage
symptoms is fit for continued service, the title shows it is embraced by ASME as the post-construction code for
pressure vessels built in accordance with the ASME B&PV Code. API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 also is endorsed and
accepted by the National Board, which recognizes it as a powerful engineering tool for reconciling the often
conflicting interests of owners who want to safely operate equipment with some corrosion or other damage, and
jurisdictional inspectors who want the equipment removed from service because of the same damage symptoms.
FFS assessment of a pressure vessel according to API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 involves rigorous engineering analysis of
local materials and stress conditions at the damage location to determine if the damage dimensions exceed the limits
for safe operation with standard code safety factor, allowing the owner to decide whether to continue operating the
equipment, to monitor the damage, to repair the damage or retire the vessel. Guidance also is provided for
determining when next and how to inspect the damage.
The FFS analysis is based on a fracture mechanics or a plastic collapse assessment of the flawed or damaged
equipment. The owner must show that the flaw(s) or damage will not reach unacceptable dimensional limits during
the specified next service period for the component under the specified service conditions. API 579-1/ASME FFS-1
principles apply to pressure vessels, piping and tanks constructed to the following codes: ASME BP&V Section VIII,
Division 1 and 2 for pressure vessels, and Section 1 for boilers; ASME B31.1 & B31.3 for power and process piping;
and API 620 and API 650 for storage tanks. FFS assessment principles also can apply to pressure equipment built to
other recognized standards in the public domain and to proprietary “corporate” standards. Additionally, current
editions of post-construction standards, such as API 653 (storage tanks), API 510 (pressure vessels) and API 570
(piping), reference and/or include some basic aspects of, API 579-1/ASME FFS-1.
1,280 pages of API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 are organized in the following 13 Parts and 10 Annexes:
Part 1: Introduction
Part 2: Fitness-For Service Engineering Assessment Procedure
Part 3: Assessment of Existing Equipment for Brittle Fracture
Part 4: Assessment of General Metal Loss
Part 5: Assessment of Local Metal Loss
Part 6: Assessment of Pitting Corrosion
Part 7: Assessment of Hydrogen Blisters and Hydrogen Damage HIC & SOHIC
Part 8: Assessment of Weld Misalignment and Shell Distortions
Part 9: Assessment of Crack-Like Flaws
Part 10: Assessment of Components Operating in Creep Regime
Part 11: Assessment of Fire Damage
Part 12: Assessment of Dent, Gouges, and Dent-Gouge Combinations
Part 13: Assessment of Laminations
Annex A - has thickness, MAWP and membrane stress equations.
Annex B - is an overview of how to analyze stresses
Annex C - is a collection of stress intensity factor solutions
Annex D - is a compendium of reference stress solutions.
Annex E - covers residual stresses mostly from welding
Annex F - shows how to incorporate material properties in the assessment
Annex G - discusses damage/deterioration and failure modes
Annex H - emphasizes the importance of validating assessment results
Annex I - is a glossary of terms and definitions
Annex J - presently is blank
Annex K - reviews concepts related to crack opening areas
Although the document essentially stands alone, assessments also use material properties and design information from
the original ASME/API construction codes.
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 has three assessment levels: each higher level assessments uses more detailed stress
information, more accurate characterization of the type of damage, and more specific materials’ property data to
generate increasingly less conservative assessment results.
Level 1 - Most conservative assessment (rationale similar to NBIC 23)
• Basic damage sizing (inspection) and component information
• Can be done by a trained “FFS inspector”
Level 2 - More detailed assessment produces less conservative results; Level 1 requirements, plus:
• Accurate damage sizing and growth rate
• More comprehensive knowledge of damage mechanism rate controlling parameters
• Qualified engineering skill in FFS methods and procedures
Level 3 - Most detailed and least conservative results; Level 2 requirements, plus:
• Highest detail in damage sizing; materials and component service data
• Local material properties
• Numerical stress and temperature analysis techniques, including finite element methods
Damage characterization
The damage mechanism(s) must be identified and understood, using industry references like API 571, Damage
Mechanisms Affecting Fixed Equipment in the Refining Industry, and WRB 488, Damage Mechanisms Affecting Fixed
Equipment in the Pulp and Paper Industry.(4) Inspections to characterize the shape and to size the damage must be
supervised by engineering specialists experienced with nondestructive testing methods and limitations. API 579-
1/ASME FFS-1 strongly emphasizes validation by requiring that every NDT procedure be written (to permit
subsequent retesting to monitor the damage), and also be qualified to confirm the test sensitivity before work-face
testing is done. For practitioners, Level 1 FFS inspectors should have relevant fitness-for-service knowledge and
training and may have API 510, 570, or 653 “certification”. FFS engineers are expected to have an engineering
degree and at least two years of relevant mechanical or materials engineering training and experience.
Assessment methods generally use one or more of three fundamental acceptance criteria: allowable stress; remaining
strength factor (RSF); and failure assessment diagram (FAD). The majority of API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 is based on
RSF and FAD acceptance criteria. A frequently used criterion for most types of flaw assessments is RSF, which is the
ratio of the limit or plastic collapse load for a damaged component to that of an identical, undamaged component. The
FAD evaluates whether a crack-like flaw of known shape and size acted on by the postulated stress conditions will fail
either due to unstable crack growth (brittle fracture) depending on the metal toughness, or due to exceeding the limit
load for plastic collapse (ductile failure), on the y and x axes of the FAD, respectively.
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1, Part 9, Assessment of Crack-Like Flaws covers planar cracks, weld lack of fusion and lack
of penetration, sharply shaped corrosion or mechanical grooves, etc. Flaws that may end up being assessed as cracks
include aligned porosity or inclusions and deep weld undercuts. Data required for assessment include flaw length and
depth and material properties listed in Annex F.
The following example illustrates Level 2 assessment of stress-assisted corrosion (SAC, aka. waterside cracking) (5)
on the internal surface of an internally pressurized, steel boiler tube - a damage mechanism that occurs in water and
steam-filled steel tubes in many types of boilers.
Figure 2. Classic crack network from SAC inside a carbon steel boiler tube (left), with cross-sections (right) showing
their typical blunted tip shapes.
FFS analysis for a boiler tube with SAC starts with deciding whether to use Part 4, Part 5, or Part 9. Using rules in
Part 9 for multiple cracks (the most conservative conditions, confirmed by analyzing other scenarios), the damage is
treated as interacting, axial crack-like flaws, close enough to each other to be treated as interacting by rules in API
579-1/ASME FFS-1.
Of two options for integrating multiple interacting cracks of similar depth, damage consequences are more severe
when the network of cracks is assessed as a single, crack-like flaw with length and depth defined by the overlapping
projection rules and oriented perpendicular to the primary (hoop) stress. The modeled crack is located in the tube
crown to be least affected by the reinforcing effect of external welds, including membrane welds in this tube. This
scenario is illustrated in Figure 3. A less conservative option is to circle the cracks in an area of local metal loss,
with dimensions defined by the boundary of the cracked tube volume.
Analyzing the damage as a singular, infinitely-long, axial crack according to Part 9, Level 2 procedures:
• Overriding the < 2.5 mm thickness limitation that requires Level 3 assessment because ASME minimum wall
thickness is 1.75 mm
• With the local 800 psi tube pressure in the tube
• Taking the lowest temperature when crack-opening force is greatest, i.e., tube is pressurized, into consideration
for notch toughness.
• Estimating (or modeling) the possible reinforcing effect and residual stresses associated with membrane welds
attachments, as well as secondary forces, such as axial loads
the results show the crack could be 0.158” deep (79% through the 0.200” wall) before the tube damage fails to meet
Part 9, Level 2 assessment criteria for safe continued operation.
Other boiler tube damage that has been assessed for FFS per API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 includes external corrosion
along tangent lines, near-drum corrosion, and severe ‘divots’ under the studs (recovery boiler) revealed in tubes
removed for other reasons.
Summary
• API 579-1/ASME FFS-1, published in 2007, describes methods and procedures intended to supplement the
requirements in API 510, API 570, API 653, and NB-23 to provide post-construction code rules for assessing the
Fitness-for-Service of equipment designed and constructed to recognized codes and standards, including
international and internal corporate standards.
• The standard has broad application since the assessment procedures are based on allowable stress methods and
plastic collapse loads for non-crack-like flaws, and the Failure Assessment Diagram (FAD) Approach for crack-
like flaws. The FFS assessment procedures in the standard can be used to evaluate corrosion and other service-
related damage encountered in pressure vessels, piping and tanks.
• A case example is provided in which API 579-1/ASME FFS-1Part 9, Level 2 FFS assessment criteria are used to
determine the theoretical limiting depth for a continuous, infinitely-long, axial crack representing SAC in the fire-
side of a 50 mm OD., 5 mm w.t., carbon steel boiler tube in the floor panel of a recovery boiler.
References
1. "Practical Guide to ASME B31.3 Process Piping" 2nd Ed., G.E. Woods and R.B. Baguley CASTI Publishing
Company. Edmonton, AB (2000) ISBN 0-07-136471-4
2. National Board
3. API
5. Ref. www.tappi.org/Downloads/Conference-apers/2006/06EPE-Conference/06EPE41.aspx
API 571
API 580/581
API 579
PCC-2; PCC-3
Presentation outline
1. What is a Fitness-For-Service (FFS) assessment?
2. What types of equipment get FFS assessments?
3. When are FFS assessments justified?
4. Chronology of FFS code & post-construction standards
Assessment levels
– Minimum amount of inspection or component information
Level 1 – Conservative screening - general concurrence with NBIC rules
– Plant inspection or engineering personnel
Damage mechanism
and description
ASME PCC-2 Standard describes many repair methods for damaged code-
compliant pressure vessels and piping – the concept of a “code repairs” is
finally realized.