This document provides an overview and summary of API 579-1/ASME FFS-1, which provides guidance for conducting Fitness-For-Service (FFS) assessments to demonstrate the structural integrity of in-service components that may contain flaws or damage. It describes the background, scope, assessment levels, acceptance criteria, procedures, and organization of the standard. The standard can be used to qualify components for continued operation or re-rating using different assessment levels from simplified screening to detailed analysis.

1. FITNESS FOR SERVICE
ASSESSMENT BASED ON
API 579-1/ ASME FFS-1
BY: M. ANEES AKHTAR

2. History and Background
 API RP 571 Fitness-For-Service (January
2000)
 reliable assessment of the structural integrity of
equipment for the refining and petrochemical
industry
 to be used in conjunction with the API existing
codes for pressure vessels, piping and
aboveground storage tanks (API 510, API
570, API 653)
 API & ASME
 joint committee was formed in 2001
 enhance the range to process, manufacturing
and power generation industries
10/7/2012 2

3. Introduction
 API/ASME Construction Codes
 The construction codes & standards do not provide rules
to evaluate equipment that degrades while in-service
and deficiencies due to degradation that may be found
during the service
 Fitness-For-Service (FFS)
 Quantitative engineering evaluations that are performed to
demonstrate the structural integrity of an in-service
component that may contain a flaw or damage
 API 579-1/ASME FFS-1
 This standard provides guidance for conducting FFS
assessments using methodologies specially prepared for
pressurized equipment
10/7/2012 3

4. Scope
 The methods and procedures in this standard
are intended to supplement and augment the
requirements in API 510, API 570, API 653 and
other post construction codes that reference
FFS
 The reference procedure in this standard can be used for
FFS assessments and/or re-rating of equipment designed
and constructed to the following codes;
 ASME B&PV Code, Section VIII, Division 1
 ASME B&PV Code, Section VIII, Division 2
 ASME B&PV Code, Section I
 ASME B31.1 Piping Code
 ASME B31.3 Piping Code
 API 650
 API 620
10/7/2012 4

5. Scope
 The assessment procedures in this standard may also
be applied to pressure containing equipment
constructed to other recognized codes &
standards, including international and internal
corporate standards
 The FFS assessment procedures in this standard cover
both the present integrity of the component given a
current state of damage and the projected remaining
life
 Analytical procedures, material properties including
environmental effects, NDE guidelines and
documentation requirements are included in this
standard
10/7/2012 5

6. Scope
 The FFS assessment procedures in this
standard can be used to evaluate flaws
commonly encountered in pressure
vessel, piping and storage tanks
 The procedures are not intended to provide
a definitive guideline for every possible
situation. However, flexibility is provided to
form an advanced assessment level to
handle uncommon situations
10/7/2012 6

7. Outcome
 If the results of FFS assessment indicate that the
equipment is suitable for the current operating
conditions, then the equipment can continue to be
operated at these conditions provided
monitoring/inspection programmes are
established, otherwise the equipment is re-rated.
 The re-rating of equipment is done by finding a
reduced Maximum Allowable Working Pressure
(MWAP) and/or coincident temperature for
pressurized components and reduced Maximum Fill
Height (MFH) for tank components
10/7/2012 7

8. Organization
 The FFS assessment procedures in
this standard are organized by the aw
type and/or damage mechanism
10/7/2012 8

9. Organization
10/7/2012 9

10. Organization
10/7/2012 10

11. 10/7/2012 11

12. General FFS Assessment Procedure
 If the damage mechanism cannot be identified, then a FFS
assessment should not be performed per API 579
 Identification of damage mechanism is the key component in
the FFS assessment
 Firm understanding of the damage mechanism is required to
evaluate the time-dependence of the damage
 Time-dependence of damage is required to develop a
remaining life and inspection plan
 API 579 provides guidance for conducting FFS assessments
using methods specifically prepared for equipment in the
refining and petrochemical industry; however, this
document is currently being used in other industries such as
the fossil utility, pulp & paper, food processing, and non-
commercial nuclear
10/7/2012 12

13. General FFS Assessment Procedure
 General FFS assessment procedure used in API 579
for all flaw types is provided in Section 2 that includes
the following steps:
 Step 1 - Flaw & damage mechanism identification
 Step 2 - Applicability & limitations of FFS procedures
 Step 3 - Data requirements
 Step 4 - Assessment techniques & acceptance criteria
 Step 5 - Remaining life evaluation
 Step 6 - Remediation
 Step 7 - In-service monitoring
 Step 8 - Documentation
 Some of the steps shown above may not be necessary
depending on the application and damage mechanism
10/7/2012 13

14. Assessment Levels
 Level 1
 The assessment procedures included in
this level are intended to provide
conservative screening criteria that can
be utilized with a minimum amount of
inspection or component information. A
Level 1 assessment may be performed
either by plant inspection or engineering
personnel.
10/7/2012 14

15. Assessment Levels
 Level 2
 The assessment procedures included in this level
are intended to provide a more detailed
evaluation that produces results that are more
precise than those from a Level 1 assessment.
In a Level 2 Assessment, inspection information
similar to that required for a Level 1 assessment
are needed; however, more detailed calculations
are used in the evaluation. Level 2 assessments
would typically be conducted by plant
engineers, or engineering specialists
experienced and knowledgeable in performing
FFS assessments.
10/7/2012 15

16. Assessment Levels
 Level 3
 The assessment procedures included in this level
are intended to provide the most detailed
evaluation which produces results that are more
precise than those from a Level 2 assessment.
In a Level 3 Assessment the most detailed
inspection and component information is
typically required, and the recommended
analysis is based on numerical techniques such
as the finite element method or experimental
techniques when appropriate. A Level 3
assessment is primarily intended for use by
engineering specialists experienced and
knowledgeable in performing FFS assessments.
10/7/2012 16

17. Acceptance Criteria
 Allowable Stress
 This acceptance criterion is based upon calculation of
stresses resulting from different loading
conditions, classification and superposition of stress
results, and comparison of the calculated stresses in
an assigned category or class to an allowable stress
value. The allowable stress value is typically
established as a fraction of yield, tensile or rupture
stress at room and the service temperature, and this
fraction can be associated with a design margin. This
acceptance criteria method is currently utilized in
most new construction design codes. In FFS
applications, this method has limited applicability
because of the difficulty in establishing suitable stress
classifications for components containing flaws.
10/7/2012 17

18. Acceptance Criteria
 Remaining Strength Factor
(RSF)
 Based on the concepts of
elastic plastic fracture
mechanics.
10/7/2012 18

19. Failure Assessment Diagram (FAD)
 The FAD is used for the evaluation of crack like flaws in
components.
 In a FFS analysis of crack-like flaws, the results from a stress
analysis, stress intensity factor and limit load solutions, the
material strength, and fracture toughness are combined to
calculate a toughness ratio, Kr , and load ratio, Lr . These two
quantities represent the coordinates of a point that is plotted
on a two dimensional FAD to determine acceptability. If the
assessment point is on or below the FAD curve, the component
is suitable for continued operation.
10/7/2012 19

20. 10/7/2012 20

21. Remaining Life Assessment
 Once it has been established that the component
containing the flaw is acceptable at the current
time, the user should determine a remaining life for
the component. The remaining life in this Standard is
used to establish an appropriate inspection
interval, an in-service monitoring plan, or the need for
remediation. The remaining life is not intended to
provide a precise estimate of the actual time to
failure. Therefore, the remaining life can be estimated
based on the quality of available
information, assessment level, and appropriate
assumptions to provide an adequate safety factor for
operation until the next scheduled inspection.
10/7/2012 21

22. Part 10: Assessment of Components
Operating in the Creep Range
 Provides assessment procedures for
pressurized components operating in the
creep range
 Assessment procedures for determining a
remaining life are provided for components
with and without a crack-like flaw subject to
steady state and/or cyclic operating
conditions
 The procedures in this Part can be used to
qualify a component for continued operation
or for re-rating
10/7/2012 22

23. PART 10: Level 1 Assessment –
Applicability and Limitations
 Level 1 Assessment procedures apply only if
the following conditions are satisfied
 Component has been constructed to a recognized
code or standard
 Component has not been subject to fire damage
or another overheating event that has resulted in
a significant change in shape such as sagging or
bulging, or excessive metal loss from scaling
 The material meets or exceeds the respective
minimum hardness and carbon content
limitations.
10/7/2012 23

24. 10/7/2012 24

25. PART 10: Level 1 Assessment –
Applicability and Limitations
 The component does not contain:
 An LTA or groove like flaw
 Pitting Damage
 Blister, HIC or SOHIC damage
 Weld misalignment, out of roundness, or bulge that
exceed the original design code tolerances,
 A dent or dent-gouge combination,
 A crack-like flaw, or
 Microstructural abnormality such as graphitization
or hydrogen attack.
10/7/2012 25

26. PART 10: Level 2 Assessment –
Applicability and Limitations
 The Level 2 assessment procedures in this Part apply
only if all of the following conditions are satisfied:
 Component has been constructed to a recognized code
or standard
 A history of the operating conditions and
documentation of future operating conditions for the
component are available.
 The component has been subject to less than or
equal to 50 cycles of operation including startup and
shutdown conditions, or less than that specified in
the original design.
 The component does not contain any of the flaws
listed as in level 1 assessment requirements.
10/7/2012 26

27. PART 10: Level 3 Assessment –
Applicability and Limitations
 A Level 3 Assessment should be performed when the
Level 1 and 2 methods cannot be applied due to
applicability and limitations of the procedure or when the
results obtained indicate that the component is not
suitable for continued service. Conditions that typically
require a Level 3 Assessment include the following.
 Advanced stress analysis techniques are required to
define the state of stress because of complicated
geometry and/or loading conditions.
 The component is subject to cyclic operation.
 The component contains a flaw listed as in level 1
assessment requirements. A detailed assessment
procedure is provided for a crack-like flaw;
however, this procedure cannot be used to evaluate
crack-like flaws that are caused by stress
corrosion, oxide wedging, or similar environmental
phenomena.
10/7/2012 27

28. PART 10: Level 3 Assessment –
Applicability and Limitations
 The Level 3 Assessment procedures, with the exception
of the procedure for the evaluation of dissimilar metal
welds, can be used to evaluate components that contain
the flaw types listed as in level 1 assessment
requirements. A separate procedure is provided to
evaluate components with crack-like flaws.
 The assessment procedure provided for dissimilar metal
welds is only applicable to 2.25Cr – 1Mo to austenitic
stainless steel welds made with stainless steel or nickel-
based filler metals. An alternative assessment procedure for
this material and other materials that are not currently
covered may be used.
10/7/2012 28

29. Assessment Techniques and
Acceptance criteria
 Level 1 Assessments are based on a comparison with specified
time-temperature-stress limits and a simplified creep damage
calculation for components subject to multiple operating
conditions (i.e. temperature and applied stress combinations). In
addition, a check on material properties in terms of hardness or
carbon content and a visual examination of the component is
made in order to evaluate the potential for creep damage based
on component distortion and material characteristics such as
discoloration or scaling.
 Level 2 Assessments can be used for components operating in
the creep regime that satisfy the requirements for applicability.
The stress analysis for the assessment may be based on closed
form stress solutions, reference stress solutions, or solutions
obtained from finite element analysis.
10/7/2012 29

30. 10/7/2012 30

31. Assessment Techniques and
Acceptance criteria
 Level 3 Assessments can be used to evaluate those
cases that do not meet the requirements of Level 1
or Level 2 assessments. A detailed stress analysis
is required to evaluate creep damage, creep-
fatigue damage, creep crack growth, and creep
buckling. In addition, a separate procedure is
provided to perform a creep-fatigue assessment of
a dissimilar-weld joint.
10/7/2012 31

32. Level -1 Assessment Procedure
 The Level 1 assessment for a component subject to a single
design or operating condition in the creep range is provided
below.
 STEP 1 – Determine the maximum operating
temperature, pressure, and service time the component is
exposed to. If the component contains a weld joint that is
loaded in the stress direction that governs the minimum
required wall thickness calculation, then 14ºC (25ºF) shall be
added to the maximum operating temperature to determine
the assessment temperature. Otherwise, the assessment
temperature is the maximum operating temperature. The
service time shall include past and future planned operation.
 STEP 2 – Determine the nominal stress of the component for
the operating condition defined in STEP 1. The computed
nominal stress shall include the effects of service-induced wall
thinning.
 STEP 3 – Determine the material of construction for the
component and find the figure with the screening and damage
curves to be used for the Level 1 assessment.
10/7/2012 32

33. Level -1 Assessment
 STEP 4 – Determine the maximum permissible time for
operation based on the screening curve obtained from STEP
3, the nominal stress from STEP 2, and the assessment
temperature from STEP 1. If the time determined from the
screening curve exceeds the service time for the component
from STEP 1, then the component is acceptable per the
Level 1 Assessment procedure. Otherwise, go to STEP 5.
 STEP 5 – Determine the creep damage rate, Rc and
associated creep damage Dc for the operating condition
defined in STEP 1 using the damage curve obtained from
STEP 3, the nominal stress from STEP 2, and the
assessment temperature from STEP 1. The creep damage
for this operating condition shall be computed using
Equation given below where the service exposure time is
determined from STEP 1.
10/7/2012 33

34. Level -1 Assessment
 STEP 6 – If the total creep damage determined from STEP 5
satisfies Equation given below
 then the component is acceptable per the Level 1
Assessment procedure. Otherwise, the component is not
acceptable and following requirements shall be followed.
 Rerate, repair, replace, or retire the component.
 Adjust the future operating conditions, the corrosion
allowance, or both; note that this does not apply if
 based on the current operating time.
 Conduct a Level 2 or a Level 3 Assessment.
10/7/2012 34

35. Level 2 Assessment
 The creep damage based upon the results
of a stress analysis is computed as follows:
 STEP 1 – Determine a load history based on
past operation and future planned
operation. The load histogram should
include all significant operating loads and
events that are applied to the component.
If there is cyclic operation, the load
histogram should be divided into operating
cycles as shown in Figure 1. Define K as the
total number of operating cycles.
10/7/2012 35

36. Level 2 Assessment
10/7/2012 36

37. Level 2 Assessment
10/7/2012 37

38. Level 2 Assessment
10/7/2012 38

39. Level 2 Assessment

10/7/2012 39

40. Level 2 Assessment
10/7/2012 40

41. Level 2 Assessment
10/7/2012 41

42. Level 2 Assessment
10/7/2012 42

43. Level 3 Assessment
 The Level 3 assessment procedures provide a means to evaluate
the remaining life of a component using advanced stress analysis
techniques. If the flaw is volumetric (i.e. LTA, pitting damage, weld
misalignment, out-of-roundness, bugle, dent, or dent-gouge
combination), then the stress analysis model used to evaluate the
remaining life must include the flaw so that that localized stresses
and strains are accounted for. These stress results are then
directly used in the assessment. If the component contains a
crack-like flaw, then the stress analysis used for remaining life can
be based on an un-cracked body analysis. The effects of the crack
are accounted for in the assessment procedure.
 As in the case for the Level 2 assessment, the predominant failure
mode for components operating in the creep regime is creep
rupture. If the component is subject to cyclic operation, then the
effect of creep-fatigue interaction needs to be evaluated. Both of
these damage mechanisms involve a time-based failure mode;
therefore, a remaining life needs to be evaluated as part of the
assessment.
10/7/2012 43

44. Corrosion Assessment
 Following three parts of API/ASME 579-1
address corrosion
 Part 4 – Assessment of General Metal Loss.
 Part 5 – Assessment of Local Metal Loss.
 Part 6 – Assessment of Pitting Corrosion.
10/7/2012 44

45. Corrosion Assessment
 Part 5 is usually less conservative than Part 4
because the former accounts for the finite extent of
the metal loss
 The assessment in Part 4 assumes that the metal loss
is over the entire component.
 The two assessments give similar answers when the
metal loss extends over long distances.
 Both the Part 4 and Part 5 assessments use the RSF
concept to evaluate wall thinning.
 Inspection data for local and general metal loss
assessments typically consists of wall thickness
readings in a grid pattern.
10/7/2012 45

46. Corrosion Assessment
 The pitting corrosion assessment entails
computing an RSF that depends on the
diameter, depth, and spacing of pits.
 In the Level 1 assessment, the RSF is
estimated by visually comparing pitting
charts with the observed pitting.
 The Level 2 assessment requires
measurement of pit dimensions and
spacing and includes a series of
calculations to estimate the RSF.
10/7/2012 46

47. Part 4: General Metal Loss
 Required Data/Measurements for a FFS
Assessment.
 Thickness readings are required on the component
where the metal loss has occurred to evaluate the
general metal loss.
 Two options for obtaining thickness data:
 Point Thickness Readings: point thickness
readings can be used to characterize a metal loss
in a component if there are no significant
differences in the thickness reading values
obtained at thickness monitoring locations.
 Thickness Profiles: thickness profiles should be
used to characterize metal loss in a component if
there is a significant variation in the thickness
readings.
10/7/2012 47

48. 10/7/2012 48

49. 10/7/2012 49

50. Part 5: Local Metal Loss
 The type of flaws that are
characterized as local metal loss are
defined as follows
 Local Thin Area (LTA) – local metal
loss on the surface of the
component; the length of a region of
metal loss is the same order of
magnitude as the width.
10/7/2012 50

51. Part 5: Local Metal Loss
 Groove-Like Flaw – the following flaws are included in this
category; a sharp radius may be present at the base of a
groove-like flaw.
 Groove – local elongated thin spot caused by directional
erosion or corrosion; the length of the metal loss is
significantly greater than the width.
 Gouge – elongated local mechanical removal and/or
relocation of material from the surface of a
component, causing a reduction in wall thickness at the
defect; the length of a gouge is much greater than the
width and the material may have been cold worked in the
formation of the flaw. Gouges are typically caused by
mechanical damage, for example, denting and gouging of a
section of pipe by mechanical equipment during the
excavation of a pipeline. Gouges are frequently associated
with dents due to the nature of mechanical damage. If a
gouge is present, the assessment procedures of Part 12
shall be used.
10/7/2012 51

52. 10/7/2012 52

53. 10/7/2012 53

54. Part 6: Pitting
 The assessment procedures is used to evaluate metal
loss from pitting corrosion
 Pitting is defined as localized regions of metal loss
which can be characterized by a pit diameter on the
order of the plate thickness or less, and a pit depth
that is less than the plate thickness
 Assessment procedures can be used to evaluate four
types of pitting
 widely scattered pitting that occurs over a significant region of
the component
 A local thin area (LTA) located in a region of widely scattered
pitting
 localized regions of pitting, and
 Localized Pitting confined within a region of a LTA.
10/7/2012 54

55. Part 6: Pitting
 Pitting Charts
 FFS by visually
comparing pit
chart to actual
damage plus
estimate of
maximum pit
depth
Pitting Chart – API 579
Grade 4 Pitting
10/7/2012 55

56. Part 6: Pitting
 Pitting Charts
 Pit charts provided for
a different pitting
damages measured
as a percentage of
the affected area in a
6 inch by 6 inch
 RSF provided for each
pit density and four
w/t ratios
(0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8)
Pitting Chart – API 579
Grade 4 Pitting
10/7/2012 56

57. Part 9: Crack-Like Flaws
 Crack-like flaws are planar flaws which are
predominantly characterized by a length and depth, with
a sharp root radius, the types of crack-like flaws are
 Surface breaking
 Embedded
 Through-wall
 In some cases, it is conservative and advisable to treat
volumetric flaws such as aligned porosity or
inclusions, deep undercuts, root undercuts, and overlaps
as planar flaws, particularly when such volumetric flaws
may contain microcracks at the root
 Grooves and gouges with a sharp root radius are
evaluated using Section 9, criteria for the root radius is
in Section 5
10/7/2012 57

58. Part 9: Crack-Like Flaws
 The assessment procedures in Part 9 are based on a
fracture mechanics approach considering the entire
range of material behavior
 Brittle fracture
 Elastic/plastic fracture
 Plastic collapse
 Information required to perform an assessment is
provided in Part 9 and the following Appendices
 Appendix C - Stress Intensity Factor Solutions
 Appendix D - Reference Stress Solutions
 Appendix E - Residual Stress Solutions
 Appendix F - Material Properties
10/7/2012 58

59. QUESTIONS
10/7/2012 59

60. THNAK YOU
10/7/2012 60