Procedures for assessing the fitness-for-service (FFS) of pressure

equipment
containing defects or damage have developed since the late 1960's and there are now
many procedures available for engineers to choose from. Two of the most commonly
used are the recommended practice for assessing fitness-for-service published by the
American Petroleum Institute (API) in API 579 [1] and the guidance for the assessment of
defects metallic structures published by British Standards in BS 7910 . [2]

For many engineers, the decision of whether to use fitness-for-service assessment

procedures and which procedures to use can be difficult. While users and regulators
across industry now increasingly accept defects and damage in equipment assessed as
fit-for-service, the differences between the available procedures and the implied safety
margins are not so well understood. There can be uncertainty about the data and
technical skills required to make good assessments. As a result, the benefits from
fitness-for-service assessment may not have been as widespread as might have been
expected.

The aim of this paper is to review aspects of the API and BS fitness-for-service
procedures that will assist engineers make an informed decision about which
procedures to use. The historical background to the procedures is outlined and the
results of a recent survey into the use of fitness for service assessment are given. The
scope and organization of API 579 and BS 7910 are reviewed, particularly with regard
to the treatment of different levels of assessment.

A more detailed comparison is made of the procedures for the assessment of corrosion
and crack-like defects. It is here that some significant differences in approach arise.
These illustrate the importance of using FFS assessment in the context of the general
design criteria of the equipment. Finally, future developments of these procedures are
considered in the light of the standards set by the European Pressure Equipment
Directive and the expanding international pressure equipment market.

Historical development
Within general manufacturing industry, the pressure vessel codes had always
recognized the inherent occurrence of welding defects and had set standards on
permissible defect levels to control the minimum weld quality. The achievement of these
standards sometimes necessitated a large number of weld repairs that were not only
time consuming and expensive but could also be detrimental to integrity. It was
recognized that these standards of permissible defectiveness could, in some cases, be
very conservative, particularly where the material was ductile and the stresses low.
In order to reduce the number of weld repairs during manufacturing, a procedure to
assessing fitness for service of equipment containing welding defects was sought.
Research at TWI and elsewhere had characterized the fracture behavior of welds
containing defects by means of crack tip opening displacement (CTOD). [3] This
research, and developments in the theoretical understanding of the factors influencing
fracture, led to the development of PD 6493 - a British Standard Published Document
for the assessment of defects in fusion welded structures. [4]

The development of PD 6493 was fueled by the requirements of the oil and gas industry
for offshore jacket platforms to exploit the North Sea reserves. These platforms were of
large tubular construction, similar to large pressure vessels, and contained a huge
number of welded joints between plates and nodal connections. Not only was there a
need to achieve high weld production rates with minimum numbers of weld repairs, the
owners had also to assure the safety of the structures to the possibility of fatigue
cracking in the hostile North Sea environment. There was therefore a move towards the
assessment of fitness-for-service of welds containing defects generated in-service and
new rules for the assessment of fatigue cracks were added.

Another early driver for fitness-for-service assessment was within the nuclear industry
where it was necessary to demonstrate high integrity and tolerance to welding defects
of the safety critical pressure vessels. Subsequently, fitness for service assessment
became vital for justifying the safety of nuclear vessels that were difficult to inspect or
repair. These drivers led to the development of ASME XI and the R6 procedures. [5,6]

The wider application of fitness-for-service procedures to assess pressure equipment

used in the refining and petrochemical industries has been a more recent development.
The main drivers have been the need to extend the life of ageing equipment, to justify
reduced inspection through risk based inspection, and to lower the high cost of repairs
and replacement in terms of lost production. These and other factors prompted API to
compile procedures and to publish recommended practice as API 579 in 2000.

In addition to defects in welds, the refining industry was also interested in assessing
corrosion and locally thinned areas, and physical damage such as dents and gouges
and overheating. Solutions for some of these types of damage had been derived from
research work that had been published separately. Typical of these was the ANSI B31G
methods for the assessment of locally thinned areas in pipelines. [7-10]

In the UK, work continued to develop PD 6493, and this led to other defect and damage
mechanisms being considered. Work done by British Gas [11] had led to a procedure for
the assessment of corrosion and locally thinned areas in pipelines and this was
incorporated into PD 6493. After a significant period of world experience, consolidation
and revision, British Standards recognized the standing of fitness for service
assessment and PD 6493 became BS 7910.

Procedures for fitness-for-service assessment had also developed in other countries. In

the late 1990's, within its fourth Framework Program, the European Commission
commissioned the SINTAP project [12] to review the available procedures and to
recommend procedures that could be used. This started a process of harmonization
within Europe. It is now being continued through a thematic network called FITNET with
the aim of determining if a European standard for fitness-for-service assessment can be
realized.

Survey of FFS assessment

In 2001, TWI carried out a survey of the use of fitness-for-service assessment among its
industrial members worldwide. All sectors of industry were represented, and many were
major users of pressure equipment. The survey included mostly offshore oil and gas,
petrochemicals, refining and nuclear and fossil power companies.

The response to the survey was good and informative. Of the respondents, 53% said
that FFS procedures were used within their company. Whilst this figure may be
regarded with some satisfaction, there are still a substantial number of companies that
have apparently not accepted or are aware of the benefits, or perhaps simply do not feel
capable of undertaking FFS assessment, preferring the established route of weld repair.

Another interesting statistic was that only 43% of respondents believed that the
regulator of their operation of pressure equipment accepted FFS assessment. There is
evidently a feeling among regulators that defects and damage in equipment should be
repaired and concern with leaving them in situ. There could be many reasons for this
reluctance to accept FFS assessment and further investigation to determine the barriers
to acceptance and how these might be overcome would be of benefit.

Most companies (59%) using FFS assessment used published procedures, while a
minority had developed their own procedures for dealing with certain damage types.
The procedures most commonly used by general industry were API 579 andBS 7910.
However, companies in the nuclear power sector tended to use procedures developed
specifically for their industry such as R6 and ASME XI.

Companies gave many reasons for undertaking FFS assessment. A ranking of the
reasons most frequently given gave the following results:

 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

It is of interest that only some of these reasons involve actual defects and damage in
equipment. FFS assessment is often made of postulated defects or damage so as to
demonstrate the tolerance and safety margins in hand.
The ranking by frequency of type of equipment assessed gave the following results:

 General pressure vessels

 Process piping
 Shell and tube heat exchangers
 Transportation pipelines
 Storage tanks
 Fired heaters and boilers
 Active equipment - safety relief valves, pumps, turbines and compressors

Whilst these results may reflect the experience of the respondents, it is significant that
the use of FFS assessment for defects and damage in active equipment such as valves
and rotary pumps is less than for passive equipment. Reasons for this could be that
most procedures were developed with passive equipment in mind, and methods for
moving parts where there may be inertial loads and dynamic effects are relatively
undeveloped. Further development of procedures for assessing defects and damage in
components of active equipment (e.g. shafts, blades) may be of benefit.

Scope and organization of API 579

The American Petroleum Institute prepared API 579 specifically for assessing
equipment in the refining and petrochemicals sectors designed to ASME codes. The
procedures and supporting data relate to ASME design specifications and materials and
are consistent with the design philosophy in terms of allowable stresses and factors of
safety. A wide range of defect and damage types typically found during in-service
inspection of refinery and petrochemical equipment are covered, with corrosion and
locally thinned areas given prominence. Defect and damage types specifically
considered include:

 General metal loss

 Local metal loss and gouges
 Pitting corrosion
 Blisters and laminations
 Weld misalignment, dents and shell distortions
 Crack-like flaws
 Creep damage
 Fire damage

API 579 has modular organisation based around each defect/damage type. The
procedures are largely self contained within each module and derived from recognised
authoritative sources. There are extensive annexes containing materials data, design
formulae and reference solutions. Each module generally has three levels of
assessment.
  Level 1 is aimed at inspectors for use on site for quick decisions with the
minimum of data and calculation.
 Level 2 is intended for qualified engineers and requires simple data and analysis.
 Level 3 is an advanced assessment requiring detailed data, computer analysis
and considerable technical knowledge and expertise in FFS assessment
procedures.

API 579 recognizes the need of plant inspectors and engineering personnel on site to
be able to undertake a quick initial assessment of defects and damage detected during
plant examination. The level 1 procedures are designed for this purpose. Personnel with
a broad engineering knowledge and experience can use these procedures with ease,
although they may be simplistic and very conservative in some cases.

A more refined FFS assessment can always be made using the level 2 or 3 procedures.
The degree of conservatism becomes progressively less as levels increase but this is
compensated by the increased knowledge that is available about the equipment, the
defect/damage and the margins in hand. Application of level 2 and 3 procedures is
usually a more complex process requiring greater specialist knowledge and experience.

Accordingly, API gives guidance for the knowledge and experience of engineers
considered competent to undertake FFS assessments to each level. It recognizes the
need for adequate education and training in FFS assessment so that companies may
have confidence in their staff making safe and correct judgements. Whilst qualifications
and accreditation of welders, non-destructive testing personnel and plant inspectors
have been in existence for some time, there is now perhaps a need to extend these
schemes to cover fitness-for service assessment in a more formal way.

Scope and organization of BS 7910

BS 7910 is published by British Standards for application to metallic structures across a
range of industries and is therefore more general in its approach than API 579. From its
origins From its origins in PD 6493, BS 7910 is strongly orientated towards the
assessment of defects in and around welds, and its most detailed procedures are for
the assessment of fatigue and creep crack growth and the proximity to fracture. Other
failure modes, such as corrosion in pipes and pressures vessels, are covered at a
guidance level.

BS 7910 comprises 10 sections and 15 annexes. Sections 1 to 6 describe the

information required for assessment in terms of defect characteristics and dimensions,
stresses and material properties. Section 7 to 10 give the procedures for assessment of
fracture, fatigue, flaws under creep conditions and other modes of failure. The annexes
contain normative procedures for dealing with certain situations (e.g. combined direct
and shear stresses, determination of fracture toughness from variable materials data)
and informative data (e.g. residual stress distributions for as- welded joints, weld
strength mismatch, and proof testing and warm pre-stressing). This information is
maintained at a state of the art level and is one of the most useful features of BS 7910.
BS 7910 gives procedures for assessing fatigue crack growth based on quality factors
and crack growth calculation. A single procedure is given for assessing flaws at high
temperature and corrosion, with advice given on further assessment if initial results are
not favorable. There are three levels for the assessment of fracture based around the
failure assessment diagram concept.

 Level 1 is a screening procedure and the most conservative.

 Level 2 is material specific and estimates the interaction between fracture and
plasticity.
 Level 3 involves a direct calculation of plasticity effects.

In general, BS 7910 is intended for use by qualified engineers trained in fracture

mechanics, and significant computation of stresses and fracture parameters is often
necessary. Because BS 7910 is intended to apply to equipment manufactured to
different design codes and materials, (unlike API 579 which is based around ASME
design and materials), specific stress and materials data is required even for level 1
fracture assessment. As a result, use of BS 7910generally requires personnel
experienced in FFS assessment with access to appropriate data and/or testing facilities.

Comparison of procedures for corrosion assessment

Both API 579 and BS 7910 provide procedures for the assessment of various types of
metal loss in pressure parts due to corrosion and other causes. API 579 has separate
procedures for dealing with general metal loss (Section 4),local metal loss (Section 5)
and pitting (Section 6). The BS 7910 Appendix G procedure can cover both general and
local metal loss in pipes and pressure vessels and is similar but subtly different to that
used by API 579 for local metal loss.

The API procedure for assessing general metal loss determines the average minimum
thickness t am from a grid of spot thickness measurements around the corroded area.
This procedure is illustrated in Figure 1. The part is assessed as fit-for-service if
t am (minus any future corrosion allowance) is more than the ASME code minimum
design thickness t min for the part and the minimum measured thickness t mm within the
grid is greater than the larger of 0.5t min or 2.5mm. The approach is essentially to show
that the part still falls within the original design basis of the code while ensuring there is
adequate thickness for practical purposes and wear and tear.

t am - c > t min

and

t mm - c > max[0.5t min or 2.5mm]

The API procedure for assessing local metal loss determines a remaining strength
factor from which a revised maximum working pressure with the metal loss is calculated
as a fraction of the original maximum working pressure. The basis of the procedure is to
treat the locally thinned area as a part through wall defect and to use the form of the
equations developed by Battelle for local bulging failure through plastic limit
mechanisms (the Folias factor). [13] According to API 579 Level 1 procedure for
assessing local metal loss, the remaining strength factor RSF given by:

where

and

t mm = minimum measured thickness

t min = minimum (ASME) code design thickness
FCA = future corrosion allowance
s = length of corroded area

Fig. 1. Assessment of general metal loss in corroded pipe

The procedure in BS 7910 Appendix G for the assessment of corrosion in pipes and
pressure vessels is derived from research on pipelines carried out for British Gas. [12]
Based on a reserve strength factor, it uses the same form of the equations as API for
the remaining strength factor for assessing local metal loss. The differences between
the equations for reserve/remaining strength factor are:

(a) The constant in the formula for M is 0.31 instead of 0.48

(b) The wall thickness used in the expressions for R and λ is the nominal wall thickness
of the part instead of the minimum (ASME) code design thickness.

The reserve strength factor is defined as the reduction in the failure pressure as a result
of the metal loss. It has been extensively validated by tests and finite element analysis.
Although consistent with failure controlled by plastic flow, its basis is essentially
empirical.

In both cases the remaining/reserve strength factor is used to calculate a

reduced/rerated maximum allowable working pressure (MAWPr) from the original code
maximum allowable working pressure (MAWP), according to the API is

MAWP r = MAWP (RSF/0.9) for RSF<0.9

(API recommends the factor of 0.9 while BS 7910 leaves the choice of safety factors to
the user)

As an example of the differences in the remaining/reserve strength factors predicted by

the two procedures, consider a pipe made of SA 516 grade 70 with the following
dimensions.

D = 762mm
T min = 9.0mm
t nom = 9.8mm
s = 1000mm

Figure 2 shows the predicted remaining/reserve strength factor calculated according to

each procedure as a function of the minimum remaining pipe wall thickness. For this
particular pipe, the remaining strength factor predicted by API 579 is higher than the
reserve strength factor predicted by BS 7910 Appendix G, a difference primarily due to
the use of code minimum thickness as opposed to nominal thickness in the formulae.
With differing estimates of the remaining strength, use of the assessment procedures
may give rise to different judgements when appropriate safety factors are applied.
 Fig. 2. Comparison of remaining/reserve strength factors as a function of minimum
remaining wall thickness

Comparison of procedures for fracture assessment

API 579 and BS 7910 both define three levels of procedures for the FFS assessment of
equipment containing crack-like defects liable to fracture. A comparison of these
procedures is given below.

API 579 Section 9 BS 7910 Section 7

Level 1 - Based on a maximum allowable length of defect related
to the minimum design temperature
Level 2 - Uses a simple failure assessment diagram similar to BS
7910 Level 1 with refined fracture parameters
Level 3 - More refined FAD similar to BS 7910 Levels 2 and 3
Level 1 - Requires the use of a simple failure a
diagram and fracture mechanics analysis
Level 2 - Generalized and material specific fai
assessment diagram, similar to R6
Level 3 - Allows for ductile tearing and plastici
through a direct computation of J

Apart from API Level 1, the procedures are based on plotting a point on a failure
assessment diagram (FAD) relating K r, the stress intensity factor/fracture toughness,
and L r, the plastic limit load. The API acknowledges the use of these concepts from the
BS and is similar in its approach. The use of a FAD requires computation of the K r and
L r parameters from the stress distribution and reference solutions and therefore it
should be applied by suitably trained engineers with a knowledge of fracture mechanics.
 Fig. 3. Failure assessment diagram according to BS 7910 Level 1

In contrast, the API Level 1 procedure is designed as a screening tool that inspectors
can use on site. The procedure uses a diagram, Figure 4, that relates the maximum
allowable length of flaw to the minimum design temperature of the equipment calibrated
according to the reference temperature of the material. Important conditions for the
application of the procedure are that the equipment must be designed to an ASME code
and be made from a range of ASME specified materials, since these effectively define a
maximum level of reference stress and a minimum assumed fracture toughness
transition curve.
 Fig. 4. API Level 1 screening curves for longitudinal defect in a cylindrical section

Different curves are provided for defects in base metal, welds with post weld heat
treatment and welds without PWHT, and for defects in flat plates, cylinders and
spheres. The most conservative assessment uses curves based on the assumption of a
through thickness defect. These curves are applicable when the defect depth cannot be
accurately determined by qualified non-destructive testing (NDT) or when the defect
depth exceeds 6.3mm wall thickness in wall thicknesses between 25mm and 38mm.
When NDT can accurately determine the depth of the flaw, curves based on a quarter
thickness defect may be used for depths up to 0.25t in wall thicknesses less than
25mm, and for defects less than6.3mm depth in wall thicknesses between 25mm and
38mm.

The advantage of the API Level 1 method is that it can be used in conjunction with
radiography and penetrant non-destructive testing methods when defect depth is not
determined. Apart from the defect length, it just requires knowledge of the material, the
minimum design temperature and the wall thickness. The method is therefore easy to
use and avoids computations, and in many cases will be sufficient to assess FFS.

Both API 579 and BS 7910 provide reference solutions for the computation of stress
intensity factor and limit load for defects in flat plates and cylinders. In a comparison
exercise, differences were noted between the limit load solutions for an internal defect
in a cylinder and the correction for plasticity, Figure 5, although these are not quite as
much as the Figure would indicate with the false zero and unity extremes. The solutions
for flat plates are very similar. It is not the objective of this paper to say which is right;
simply to note that there are differences that could affect the outcome of an
assessment.
 Fig. 5. Comparison of fracture parameters calculated from API 579 and BS 7910
reference solutions

Which procedure to choose?

The industry survey shows FFS assessment of pressure equipment containing defects
and damage is now well accepted, although there is still a degree of reluctance to rely
on FFS assessment among some companies and regulators. The reasons for this are
not clear, but the endorsement of FFS assessment by the American Petroleum Institute
and British Standards should give its use more confidence and impetus. More use of
FFS assessment can be expected as plant owners extend the life of ageing equipment
and apply risk based inspection.

For pressure equipment in a non-nuclear context, API 579 and BS 7910 are the most
commonly used procedures for FFS assessment. Both are recognised as representing
best practice and safe, although they may not always give the same results. In many
applications both API 579 and BS 7910 will be suitable. The choice may depend on
company policy and the attitude of the national regulating authority and access the
necessary data and sources of information, training and support.

In terms of the advantages and applicability of the two procedures, readers may find the
following points helpful.

 API 579 is intended for equipment designed using the ASME code and materials
and gives results consistent with the original ASME design safety margins.
 API 579 may be used for equipment designed to other codes but users should be
prepared to interpret the procedures in an appropriate manner.
 BS 7910 is applicable to all metallic structures and materials and is written in a
more generalized manner without reference to a particular industry, design code
or material thereby allowing users to decide safety margins.
 API 579 covers a wide range of damage types typically found in refining and
petrochemicals application, and gives procedures for different types of metal
loss, physical damage, low and high temperatures, and crack like defects.
 BS 7910 deals comprehensively with fatigue and fracture of defects in and
around welded joints and gives annexes covering advanced aspects such as
mismatch, mixed mode loading , residual stress effects and leak before break.
 API 579 is designed at level 1 for use by plant inspectors and plant engineering
personnel with the minimum amount of information from inspection and about the
component.
 BS 7910 requires some technical expertise in fracture mechanics and access to
fracture parameter solutions and toughness data at all levels.
 API 579 is supported by a number of organizations based in the USA where most
experience resides.