API 579

An Introduction to API RP 579:

Section 9
Assessment of Crack Like
Flaws
 Introduction
API 579

• 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

3/21/2019 2
 Codes
API 579

• 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 in-
service
• deficiencies due to degradation or from original fabrication
may be found during subsequent inspections.
• Can be applied to other industries
• API Codes
– API 510: Pressure vessel inspection code
– API 570: Piping inspection code
– API 653: Tank inspection code
– API 580: Risk based inspection
• API 579
3/21/2019 3
 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

3/21/2019 4
 API 579
API 579

• API's Recommended Practice 579 for FFS

• API 579 can be used to make run-repair-
replace 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

3/21/2019 5
API 579 Overview of Damage
Assessment Procedures
Section
1 Introduction and Scope
2 Outline of Overall Methodology
3 Brittle Fracture
4 General Metal Loss
5 Local Metal Loss
6 Pitting Corrosion
7 Blisters and Laminations
8 Weld Misalignments and Shell Distortions
9 Crack Like Flaws
10 High Temp. Operation and Creep
3/21/2019 11 Fire Damage 6
API 579 Methodology for All Damage
Types
1 Flaw and damage mechanism identification
2 Applicability and limitations of the FFS
assessment procedures
3 Data requirements
4 Assessment techniques and acceptance criteria
5 Remaining life evaluation
6 Remediation
7 In-service monitoring
8 Documentation
3/21/2019 7
 Assessment Levels
API 579

• 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
3/21/2019 8
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
3/21/2019 9
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

3/21/2019 10
API 579 Applicability and Limitations of
the Procedure : Level 1
• 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

3/21/2019 11
 Data Requirement
API 579

• Original Equipment Design Data

• Maintenance and equipment
history
• Loads and stresses
• Material properties
• Flaw Characterization
• Recommendation for inspection
techniques
3/21/2019 12
 Flaw Characterization
API 579

• 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

3/21/2019 13
 Flaw Characterization (Shape)
API 579

Through Wall Flaw

Surface Flaw

Embedded Flaw
3/21/2019 14
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

3/21/2019 15
API 579
Flaw Characterization (Length)

c  c0 f  1 ,  2 ,  
3/21/2019 16
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

3/21/2019 17
 Flaw Characterization (Depth)
API 579

a  aoW  
3/21/2019 18
API 579
Flaw Characterization (Branch Crack)

3/21/2019 19
API 579
Flaw Characterization (Multiple Cracks)

3/21/2019 20
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 Flat Plate, Crack-Like Flaw Parallel To Joint
o Cylinder, Longitudinal Joint, Crack-Like Flaw Parallel To Joint
o Cylinder, Longitudinal Joint, Crack-Like Perpendicular To Joint
o Cylinder, Circumferential Joint, Crack-Like Flaw Parallel To
Joint
o 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
3/21/2019 21
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

¼ 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 PWHT
3/21/2019 22
 Failure Assessment Diagram
API 579

K r  f  Lr 
KI
K  '
r
K mat
 ref
L  '

 ys
r

3/21/2019 23
 Advantages of FAD
API 579

• Double criteria approach:

– Fracture
• LEFM
• EPFM
– Collapse
• Elasto-Plastic Fracture Mechanics:
– J-Integral calculation not required

3/21/2019 24
 Level 2 Analysis
API 579

• 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 for applied loading
– Factor for material toughness
– Factor for flaw dimensions
– Based on probabilistic methods

3/21/2019 25
 Level 2 Analysis
API 579

1– Evaluate operating conditions and determine the

pressure, temperature and loading combinations to be
evaluated.
2–Stress 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
3/21/2019 26
 Level 2 Analysis
API 579

• 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

3/21/2019 27
 Level 2 Analysis
API 579

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 K mat a  a.PSFa
K mat 
Pb  Pb .PSFS PSFk

3/21/2019 28
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])
3/21/2019 29
API 579 Estimating the Probability of
failure
Let all the variables R, L1, L2, L3 follow a
normal distribution.

Coeff. Of Var (/ m)

R 0.1
L1 0.1
L2 0.2
L3 0.3

3/21/2019 30
 Reliability Index
API 579

The reliability index is given by

m R  m1  m 2  m 3 

   
2
R
2
1
2
2
2
3

Now we will try to estimate probability

of failure for different load combinations
3/21/2019 31
API 579 mR = 300 Global Factor of safety = 1.5 i.e. mR/Sm = 1.5

m1 m2 m3 Sm Pf

200 0 0 200 2.8x10-3

0 200 0 200 2.3x10-3

0 0 200 200 6.8x10-2

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
3/21/2019 32
 Partial safety Factors
API 579

Brittle Ductile

3/21/2019 33
 Level 2 Analysis
API 579

6 – Compute the reference stress for primary

stresses
–reference stress solutions: Appendix D
7 – Compute the Load Ratio  p

Lr 
p ref

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

3/21/2019 34
 Level 2 Analysis
API 579

K IP  FK ISR
12 – Determine toughness ratio Kr 
K mat
13 – Evaluate results on FAD


K r  1  0.14  LPr 
2
 
0.3  0.7 exp  0.65  LPr   for LPr  LPr (max)

6


3/21/2019 35
 Level 2 Analysis
API 579

If Partial safety Factors are not used

0.7
Kr

0
0 0.2 0.4 Lr 0.6 0.8 1

3/21/2019 36
 Residual Stress Profiles
API 579

• 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

3/21/2019 37
 Residual stress profiles
API 579

• 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

3/21/2019 38
 Data required
API 579

• 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
3/21/2019 construction code 39
 Level 3 Analysis
API 579

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
1 2
 E
K r  LPr    P
ref

 Lr   ys
P 3 
 for 0.0  LPr  LPr (max)
 Lr  ys 2 E ref 
 
K r  LPr   1 for LPr  0

 t  1   es   es
 t  ln 1   es 
Where subscripts t = true, es = engineering
3/21/2019 40
 Level 3 Analysis
API 579

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

3/21/2019 41
 Level 3 Analysis
API 579

• 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
3/21/2019 42
API 579 Remaining Life Assessment
(RLA)
• Sub-critical Crack Growth
– Crack growth by fatigue
– Crack growth by stress corrosion cracking
– Crack growth by hydrogen assisted cracking
– Crack growth by 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

3/21/2019 43
 Difficulties in RLA
API 579

• 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

3/21/2019 44
 Procedure for RLA
API 579

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

3/21/2019 45
 Procedure for RLA
API 579

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

3/21/2019 46
 Procedure for RLA
API 579

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
3/21/2019 47
 LBB Procedure
API 579

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

3/21/2019 48
 Leak Before Break
API 579

3/21/2019 49
 LBB Procedure Limitations
API 579

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

3/21/2019 50
 LBB Limitations
API 579

Flaw at a stress concentration

Flaw subjected to high

residual stresses

Flaw growth in
predominantly length
direction
3/21/2019 51
 LBB Limitations
API 579

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 auto-ignition
temperature

3/21/2019 52
 LBB Procedure
API 579

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

3/21/2019 53
 Remediation
API 579

• 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
3/21/2019 54
 In-service monitoring
API 579

In all cases where sub-critical in-service

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.

3/21/2019 55
 Example Calculation
API 579

• 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
3/21/2019 56
 Solution
API 579

• Kc, from Table 3.3 of API 579, Tref

= 40o F

3/21/2019 57
 Solution
API 579

3/21/2019 58
 FAD
API 579

Example of Level 2 FAD

0.8
(1.12, 0.559)
0.6 Load = 171 kips
Kr

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Lr

3/21/2019 59
API 579

Thank You

3/21/2019 60