TWI FFS Analyses Compared

Which procedures for fitness-for-service assessment: API 579 or BS 7910? (July 2003...
Page 1 of 25
Home > Technical Knowledge > Published Papers >
WHICH PROCEDURES FOR

FITNESS-FOR-SERVICE
ASSESSMENT: API 579 OR BS
7910? (JULY 2003)
CONTACT US
Subscribe to our newsletter to receive
the latest news and events from TWI:
Subscribe >
John B Wintle
https://www.twi-global.com/technical-knowledge/published-papers/which-procedures... 17-10-2019
Which procedures for fitness-for-service assessment: API 579 or BS 7910? (July 2003... Page 2 of 25
Paper presented at International Conference on Pressure Vessel Technology,
Vienna, 7 - 10 July 2003
Proceedings ICPVT-1 - July 7-10, 2003 Vienna, Austria
Abstract
This paper discusses the choice that engineers face when selecting which
procedures to use to assess the fitness-for-service of pressure equipment
containing defects or damage. Results from a recent survey of the use of fitness-
for-service assessment in industry identify API 579 and BS 79210 as the two most
commonly used procedures. The scope and organisation of these procedures is
then discussed and comparison made of the treatments of corrosion damage and
crack-like defects. Future developments in fitness-for-service assessment
procedures are considered in the light of the evolving European framework and
international market for pressure equipment.
Introduction
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
Subscribe >
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 organisation 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
recognised 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

Subscribe a large number
to our newsletter of weld repairs that were
to receive
not only time consuming
the and expensive
latest news andbut couldfrom
events alsoTWI:
be detrimental to integrity.
It was recognised that these standards of permissible defectiveness could, in some

Subscribe >
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 characterised the fracture behaviour
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 fuelled 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
Subscribe
service assessment became vitaltofor
our newsletter
justifying the to receive
safety of nuclear vessels that
theorlatest
were difficult to inspect news
repair. anddrivers
These eventsled
from TWI:development of ASME XI
to the
and the R6 procedures. [5,6]

Subscribe >
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 recognised 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 Programme, the
European Commission commissioned the SINTAP project [12] to review the
Subscribe
available procedures and to our newsletter
to recommend to receive
procedures that could be used. This
the latest news

started a process of harmonisation and events
within from
Europe. It is TWI:
now being continued
through a thematic network called FITNET

Subscribe > with the aim of determining if a
European standard for fitness-for-service assessment can be realised.
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.
Subscribe >
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:
Subscribe >
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 organisation 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
Subscribe >
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.
Subscribe >
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 recognises 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
aboutthe 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 recognises

the need for adequate education and training in FFS assessment so that
companies may have confidence in their staff making safe and correct
Subscribe >
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 organisation 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
proceduresfor 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

Subscribe fatigue crack
to our newsletter growth based on quality
to receive
factors and crack growth
the calculation.
latest news A single
and procedure
events is given for assessing
from TWI:
flaws at high temperature and corrosion, with advice given on further assessment
Subscribe >
if initial results are not favourable. 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.
Subscribe >
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 the latest news and events from TWI:
Subscribe >
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
Subscribe
(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 theSubscribe

reserve strength factor predicted
to our newsletter by BS 7910 Appendix G, a
to receive
difference primarily due
theto the use
latest of and
news codeevents
minimum
fromthickness
TWI: as opposed to
nominal thickness in the formulae. With differing estimates of the remaining

Subscribe >
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 Level 1 - Requires the use of a

allowable length of defect related to the simple failure assessment diagram
minimum design temperature and fracture mechanics analysis
Level 2 - Uses a simple failure Level 2 - Generalised and material

assessment diagram similar to BS 7910 specific failure assessment diagram,
Level 1 with refined fracture similar to R6
parameters
Level 3 - More refined
theFAD similar
latest newstoand
BS events
Levelfrom
3 - Allows
TWI: for ductile tearing
7910 Levels 2 and 3 and plasticity effects through a
Subscribe > 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
Subscribe
minimum assumed fracture to our newsletter
toughness to receive
transition curve.
Subscribe >
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
Subscribe >
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
Subscribe >
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.
Subscribe >
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 generalised 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 organisations based in the USA where

most experience resides.
BS 7910 was developed in the UK where TWI is the main source of expertise,
training and software.
Subscribe >
Future developments
Both API 579 and BS 7910 will continue to be developed and updated. The latest
European development in fitness-for-service is FITNET, a thematic network set up
under Framework V. This has the objective of selecting, developing and extending
the use of FFS procedures in Europe. It will review the best procedures currently in
use and consider their application for pressure equipment meeting the new
harmonised standards and the essential safety requirements of the PED.
The safe use of FFS assessment must depend on having an adequate level of
competency, training, information and support necessary to make technical
judgements about potentially hazardous equipment. Industry will always like quick
simplified procedures that can be used on site without detailed information,
analysis and specialist knowledge. Expert systems may be the means to reconcile
these aims.
References
1. API Recommended Practice 579, Fitness-for-Service, API Publishing

Services, First edition January 2000
2. British Standard 7910, Guide on methods for assessing the acceptability

of flaws in metallic structures, 1999 incorporating amendment No 1
3. Wells A A, IIW Houdrement Lecture, Brit Welding J., 12, No 1, 2, Jan (1965)
4. British Standard Published Document 6493, Guidance on some methods

for the derivation of acceptance
Subscribe levels for
to our newsletter todefects
receiveI fusion welded joints,
1980
5. ASME Boiler andSubscribe >

Pressure Vessel Code Section XI, Rules for in-service
inspection of nuclear power plant components,, The American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, New York, 2001
6. British Energy, R6 Assessment of the integrity of structures containing

defects, Rev 3, February 1997.
7. Kiefner J F, Duffy A R, criteria for determining the strength of corroded

areas of gas transmission lines, American Gas Association Conference
1973
8. ANSI/ASME B31G, Manual for determining the remaining strength of

corroded, A supplement to the ASME B31 code for pressure piping, The
American Society of Mechanical Engineers 1984
9. Kiefner J F, Vieth P H, A modified criterion for evaluating the strength of

corroded pipe, Final report for Project PR 3-805 to the pipeline
supervisory committee of the American Gas Association, Battelle Ohio,
1989
10. ANSI/ASME B31G, Manual for determining the remaining strength of

corroded pipelines (revision of ANSI/ASME B31G-1984), A supplement to
the ASME B31 code for pressure piping, The American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1991
11. Fu B, Batte A D, Advanced methods for the assessment of corrosion in

linepipe, UK Health and Safety Executive Report OTO 97-065, HSE Books
1999
12. Bannister A C ed, Structural integrity procedures for European industry

(SINTAP), Final report BE95-1426/FR, British Steel plc (now Corus),
Swinden Technology Centre, September 1999
13. Kiefner J F,Maxey W A,Eiber R J, Duffy R, The failure stress levels of flaws
Subscribe
in pressurised to ASTM
cylinders, our newsletter to receive
STP 536, ASTM, Philadelphia, 1973
Subscribe >
For more information please email:
contactus@twi.co.uk
TWI Ltd (Head Office)
Granta Park, Great Abington, Cambridge, CB21 6AL, UK
+44(0)1223 899000
contactus@twi.co.uk
Subscribe to our newsletters
Copyright © 2019 TWI Ltd. All rights reserved.


Group Companies
Subscribe >
The Welding Institute
Training and Examinations
TWI Certification
CSWIP
TWI Software
Plant Integrity
The Test House
NSIRC
TWI Innovation Network
Subscribe >

TWI FFS Analyses Compared

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TWI FFS Analyses Compared

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TWI FFS Analyses Compared

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Which procedures for fitness-for-service assessment: API 579 or BS 7910? (July 2003...

Home > Technical Knowledge > Published Papers >

WHICH PROCEDURES FOR

Subscribe to our newsletter to receive

the latest news and events from TWI:

Paper presented at International Conference on Pressure Vessel Technology,

Vienna, 7 - 10 July 2003

Proceedings ICPVT-1 - July 7-10, 2003 Vienna, Austria

procedures to use to assess the fitness-for-service of pressure equipment

commonly used procedures. The scope and organisation of these procedures is

crack-like defects. Future developments in fitness-for-service assessment

international market for pressure equipment.

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

commonly used are the recommended practice for assessing fitness-for-service

for the assessment of defects metallic structures published by British Standards in

equipment assessed as fit-for-service, the differences between the available

assessments. As a result, the benefits from fitness-for-service assessment may not

have been as widespread as might have been expected.

procedures to use. The historical background to the procedures is outlined and

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

context of the general design criteria of the equipment. Finally, future

by the European Pressure Equipment Directive and the expanding international

pressure equipment market.

these standards sometimes necessitated

It was recognised that these standards of permissible defectiveness could, in some

In order to reduce the number of weld repairs during manufacturing, a procedure

to assessing fitness for service of equipment containing welding defects was

This research, and developments in the theoretical understanding of the factors

influencing fracture, led to the development of PD 6493 - a British Standard

structures to the possibility of fatigue cracking in the hostile North Sea

environment. There was therefore a move towards the assessment of fitness-for-

assessment of fatigue cracks were added.

industry where it was necessary to demonstrate high integrity and tolerance to

and the R6 procedures. [5,6]

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

recommended practice as API 579 in 2000.

In addition to defects in welds, the refining industry was also interested in

experience, consolidation and revision, British Standards recognised the standing

of fitness for service assessment and PD 6493 became BS 7910.

Procedures for fitness-for-service assessment had also developed in other

European Commission commissioned the SINTAP project [12] to review the

the latest news

through a thematic network called FITNET

European standard for fitness-for-service assessment can be realised.

Survey of FFS assessment

In 2001, TWI carried out a survey of the use of fitness-for-service assessment

be regarded with some satisfaction, there are still a substantial number of

established route of weld repair.

regulator of their operation of pressure equipment accepted FFS assessment.

There is evidently a feeling among regulators that defects and damage in

investigation to determine the barriers to acceptance and how these might be

overcome would be of benefit.

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