An Overview of the API Section 10: Assessment Of

Components Operating In The Creep Regime

Rohit Rastogi}
Reactor Safety Division
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre
Mumbai

Indian Nuclear Society

COURSE ON DESIGN OF COMPONENTS OPERATING AT HIGH
TEMPERATURE

July 25-29, 2005

}
[email protected]

Introduction to API 579, Section 10 Page 1 of 18

 INDEX
1. Introduction___________________________________________________ 3
2. Applicability and Limitation of the procedure ______________________ 4
3. Data Requirement______________________________________________ 6
4. Assessment Levels ______________________________________________ 7
5. Level 1 Assessment _____________________________________________ 7
6. Level 2 Assessment _____________________________________________ 8
7. Level 3 Assessment ____________________________________________ 11
8. Remaining Life Assessment _____________________________________ 12
8.1 Creep Rupture Life __________________________________________ 13
8.2 Creep-Fatigue Interaction _____________________________________ 14
8.3 Creep Crack Growth _________________________________________ 14
9. Remediation__________________________________________________ 18

Introduction to API 579, Section 10 Page 2 of 18

1. Introduction

API 579 Section 10 gives Fitness-For-Service (FFS) assessment procedures for

pressurized components operating in the creep regime. The temperature limits for
the creep regime are defined in Table 1 for different materials. The procedures in
the section can be used to qualify a component for continued operation or for re-
rating.
Table 1: Temperature limit to define the creep range

Material Temperature Brinell Carbon

Limit Hardness Content
Carbon Steel UTS ksi ≤ (60) 343°C (650°F) 95 ---
Carbon Steel UTS ksi > (60) 371°C (700°F) 100 ---
Carbon Steel – Graphitized 371°C (700°F) 100 ---
C-1/2Mo 399°C (750°F) 110 ---
1-1/4Cr-1/2Mo – Normalized &
Tempered 427°C (800°F) 130 ---
1-1/4Cr-1/2Mo – Annealed 427°C (800°F) 120 ---
2-1/4Cr-1Mo – Normalized &
Tempered 427°C (800°F) 140 ---
2-1/4Cr-1Mo – Annealed 427°C (800°F) 130 ---
2-1/4Cr-1Mo – Quenched &
Tempered 427°C (800°F) 150 ---
2-1/4Cr-1Mo – V 441°C (825°F) 180 ---
3Cr-1Mo-V 441°C (825°F) 180 ---
5Cr-1/2Mo 427°C (800°F) 130 ---
7Cr-1/2Mo 427°C (800°F) 130 ---
9Cr-1Mo 427°C (800°F) 140 ---
9Cr-1Mo – V 454°C (950°F) 180 ---
12 Cr 482°C (900°F) 180 ---
AISI Type 304 & 304H 510°C (950°F) --- 0.04
AISI Type 316 & 316H 538°C (1000°F) --- 0.04
AISI Type 321 538°C (1000°F) --- 0.04
AISI Type 321H 538°C (1000°F) --- 0.04
AISI Type 347 538°C (1000°F) --- 0.04
AISI Type 347H 538°C (1000°F) --- 0.04
Alloy 800 565°C (1050°F) --- 0.03
Alloy 800H 565°C (1050°F) --- 0.04
Alloy 800HT 565°C (1050°F) --- 0.05
HK-40 649°C (1200°F) --- 0.3

Introduction to API 579, Section 10 Page 3 of 18

The FFS assessment procedure for components operating in the creep regime
requires an estimate of remaining life. Assessment procedures for determining a
remaining life are provided for components with and without a crack-like flaw
subject to steady state and cyclic operating conditions. If the component contains a
crack-like flaw, and is not operating in the creep regime, then Section 9 of the API
579 can be used for the fitness-for-service assessment.

The assessment procedures in this section can be used to determine the remaining
life of a component operating in the creep regime. The use of these procedures is
not normally required for equipment design to a recognized code or standard that is
operating within the original design parameters. Conditions that may warrant a FFS
evaluation include:

o Operational upsets that result in a operating temperature and pressure, or

other loading conditions that may result in creep damage and were not
included in the original design.

o Metal loss in the component beyond that provided for in the original design;
metal loss in this category will result in component stress above those
originally accounted for in the design.

o Fire damage that can result in a short time heating event.

o The discovery of a crack-like flaw; both initial fabrication and service

induced crack-like flaws should be evaluated.

o The discovery of an LTA, pitting damage, weld misalignment, out-of-

roundness, bugle, dent, or dent gouge combination that can result in
localized creep stain accumulation and subsequent cracking; both initial
fabrication and service-induced flaws should be evaluated.

API 579 is organized in modular fashion based on type of material damage or flaw
to facilitate its use and updating. It incorporates a three-level assessment approach.
The level of conservatism decreases with increasing level of assessment, but detail
of analysis and data increase with increasing level of assessment.

2. Applicability and Limitation of the procedure

The Level 1 assessment procedures in this section apply only if all of the following
conditions are satisfied:

a) The original design criteria were in accordance with the following codes

o ASME B&PV Code, Section VIII, Division 1

o ASME B&PV Code, Section VIII, Division 2
o ASME B&PV Code, Section I
o ASME B31.3 Piping Code
o ASME B31.1 Piping Code
o API 650

Introduction to API 579, Section 10 Page 4 of 18

 o API 620

b) The component has not been subject to operational upsets that were not
considered in the original design.

c) The metal loss on the component is less than that provided for in the original
design.

d) The component has not been subject to fire damage, or the component has been
subject to fire damage and the assessment procedures of Section 11 have been
satisfied.

e) The component does not contain:

o An LTA or groove-like flaw

o Pitting damage
o Weld misalignment, out-of-roundness, or bulge that exceed the
original design code tolerances
o A dent or dent-gouge combination
o A crack-like flaw

The Level 2 assessment procedures in this section apply only if all of the following
conditions are satisfied.

a) The original design criteria were in accordance with codes listed above

b) A history of the component can be provided covering both past and future
operating conditions.

c) The component has been subject to less than 100 cycles of operation including
startup and shutdown conditions.

d) The component does not contain any of the flaws listed above.

e) Material properties for the creep regime are available to determine a remaining
life.

A Level 3 Assessment should be performed when the Level 1 and 2 methods cannot
be applied or when these assessments produce overly conservative results.

Conditions that typically require a Level 3 Assessment include the following.

o Advanced stress analysis techniques are required to define the state of stress
because of complicated geometry and/or loading conditions.

o The component is subject to cyclic operation.

o The component contains a flaw listed earlier. 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.

Introduction to API 579, Section 10 Page 5 of 18

3. Data Requirement

The Level 1 Assessment is a screening criteria based on the original design of the
component, the past and future operating conditions, and flaw characterization. This
assessment can be performed based on the following information.

o Original Equipment Design Data

o Maintenance and Operating History

Significant input data are required to perform a Level 2 or Level 3 Assessment.

Details regarding the required data are discussed in paragraphs later. The accuracy
of these data and stress conditions will determine the accuracy of the assessment by
the procedures in this section.

A stress analysis is required for a Level 2 or Level 3 Assessment.

a) Level 2 Assessment – An elastic stress analysis is required. Handbook solutions

may be used if these solutions accurately represent the component geometry and
loading condition. Otherwise, numerical analysis techniques such as the finite
element method may have to be utilized to determine the stress field at the crack
location.

b) Level 3 Assessment – a stress analysis using a numerical analysis technique such

as the finite element method is required to determine the stress state at major
structural discontinuities where creep damage or creep crack growth is normally
manifested. In these cases, it is highly recommended that this analysis include the
effects of plasticity and creep to account for the redistribution of stresses that occurs
in the creep regime. This is particularly important because the stresses at major
structural discontinues relax to magnitudes that are significantly less that those
computed using an elastic stress calculation. Since the stress results are used
directly in the assessment procedure and the remaining life from this procedure is
sensitive to the magnitude of stress, the results from an elastic analysis will
typically over estimate the creep damage and result in a conservative estimate of
remaining life.

The material properties required for analysis are presented in Appendix F of the API
579. The material data presented in Appendix F is from the MPC Project Omega
data that is based on a strain-rate approach, and the creep rupture life data from API
RP 530. Both types of data can be used in the Level 2 or Level 3 Assessment
procedures to determine a remaining life. However, if the component has a crack-
like flaw, then the Level 3 Assessment procedures require the use of the MPC
Project Omega data. The Project Omega data is also required in a Level 3 creep
buckling analysis. The creep rupture data is given in the form of minimum and
average properties in terms of the Larson-Miller parameter,

If the component contains a crack-like flaw, parameters for the creep-crack growth
equation are required. Recommendations are provided in Appendix F. In addition,
the fracture toughness is also required because an evaluation of the flaw using the
FAD based assessment procedures of Section 9 is required. It should be noted that

Introduction to API 579, Section 10 Page 6 of 18

although brittle fracture is unlikely at elevated temperature, it might be a possibility
during the start-up or shutdown phase of the cycle. In addition, the FAD assessment
is required to place a limit on the plastic collapse of a component containing a
crack-like flaw.

4. Assessment Levels

The three assessment levels used to evaluate creep damage are based on the data
and details required for the analysis, whether the component contains a crack-like
flaw, the degree of complexity required for a given situation, and the perceived risk.

Level 1 Assessments are based on a comparison of operating conditions to a lower

bound creep regime cut-off temperature. 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 general shell structures where the stress
components can be readily computed using elasticity theory, either from closed
from solutions (i.e. cylindrical shell or fired heater tuber) or from a finite element
analysis.

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 or creep crack growth at a major structural
discontinuity.

5. Level 1 Assessment

The Level 1 acceptance criterion is based on the original design conditions of the
component.

a) If the component operating temperature is below the value in Table 1, then the
Level 1 Assessment criterion is satisfied.

b) If the component was originally designed for temperatures that are greater than
the values in Table 1, the Level 1 Assessment criterion is satisfied if:

o For components made from carbon steel and low alloy materials, the
hardness is greater than the values listed in Table 1.

o For components made from austenitic stainless steels and high alloy steels,
the carbon content is greater than the values listed in Table 1.

If the component does not meet the Level 1 Assessment requirements, then the
following, or combinations thereof, can be considered:

o Re-rate, repair, replace, or retire the component.

o Conduct a Level 2 or a Level 3 Assessment.

Introduction to API 579, Section 10 Page 7 of 18

6. 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.

Figure 1: Definition of multiple cycles in a load histogram

STEP 2 – For the current operating cycle k, determine the total cycle time, t k, and
divide the cycle into a number of time increments, tn as shown in Figure 2-3. Define
N as the total number of time increments in operating cycle k.

Introduction to API 579, Section 10 Page 8 of 18

Figure 2: Actual parameter variation

Figure 3: Idealized Parameter Variation Using Average Values Of Parameters

1) The time increments used to model the operating cycle should be small enough to
capture all significant variations in the operating cycle. Smaller is the time
increment, the more accurate the remaining life predication.
2) If the component is subject to corrosion or erosion, the time increments should be
set small enough to capture changes in the wall thickness.

Introduction to API 579, Section 10 Page 9 of 18

STEP 3 – Determine the temperature, Tn, and compute the primary stresses
( σ 1 , σ 2 , σ 3 ) for the time increment tn. These can be calculated using finite element
calculations. Solution of principal stresses in terms of temperature for spheres and
cylinders are given in the code.

STEP 4 – Compute the effective stress using the following equation:

STEP 5 – Check that the value of the effective stress, σ en , is less then the value of
the yield strength, σ ys , evaluated at temperature Tn at time increment tn . If
σ ne ≥ σ ys then go to STEP11; otherwise proceed to STEP 6.

STEP 6 - Determine a remaining life at the stress level σ en and temperature Tn for
time increment tn by utilizing creep rupture data for the material, and designate this
value as Ln .

Section 10 gives two methods to make this estimation. One is based on MPC
Project Omega data and the other is based on Larson-Miller parameter. The
procedure of estimation using Larson-Miller parameter is presented here. The value
of the LMP ( σ ) function for different materials is given in Appendix F of the code.

Where

STEP 7 - Repeat Steps 3 through 6 for each time increment tn in the kth operating
cycle to determine the rupture time, Ln.

STEP 8 - Compute the accumulated creep damage for all points in the kth cycle
using the equation shown below. In the following equation, tn is defined as the time
increment where the component is subject to a stress level σ en at a corresponding
operating temperature Tn, and Ln is the permissible remaining life at this
temperature based on material data.

Introduction to API 579, Section 10 Page 10 of 18

STEP 9 - Repeat Steps 2 through 8 for each of the operating cycles defined in STEP
1.

STEP 10 – Compute the total creep damage for all cycles of operation.

STEP 11 – The creep damage prediction is complete for this location in the
component. The allowable creep damage, Dcallow , is usually taken as 1.0 unless an
alternative value can be justified.

o If σ ne ≥ σ ys for any point in the operating history, then the component is not
acceptable for continued operation and the component should be repaired or
retired.

o If the total creep damage, Dctotal , is less than the allowable creep damage,
Dcallow , then the component is acceptable for continued operation. The
remaining life for operation can be determined by analyzing additional load
cycles and determining the time at which Dctotal = Dcallow .

o If the total creep damage, Dctotal , is greater than the allowable creep damage,
Dcallow , then the life of the component is limited to the time corresponding to
Dctotal = Dcallow . If this time is less than the current operating time, the
component should be repaired or retired.

If the component does not meet the Level 2 Assessment requirements, then the
following, or combinations thereof, can be considered:

o Re-rate, repair, replace, or retire the component.

o Adjust the future corrosion allowance; note that this does not apply if
Dctotal ≥ Dcallow based on the current operating time.
o Conduct a Level 3 Assessment.

7. Level 3 Assessment

The Level 3 assessment procedures provide a means to evaluate the remaining life
of a component using advanced stress analysis techniques. These procedures can be
used to evaluate a component containing one or more of the flaws listed in
paragraph 2.e. If the flaw is volumetric (i.e. LTA, pitting damage, weld
misalignment, out-of-roundness, bugle, dent, or dent-gouge combination), then the

Introduction to API 579, Section 10 Page 11 of 18

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.

8. Remaining Life Assessment

A remaining life calculation is required for all components operating in the creep
regime. The assessment procedures in Level 1 and Level 2 for components subject
to loading conditions where the stress states can be computed using linear elastic
analysis and significant stress redistribution does not occur. In addition, these
assessment procedures are limited to components that are not subject to cyclic
operation and/or components that do not contain a crack-like flaw.

The assessment procedures described here provides the best estimate of the
structural integrity of a component operating at elevated temperature. Five
assessment procedures are provided in the API 579.

Creep Rupture Life: This assessment procedure is used for components that are
subject to steady state operation in the creep regime which do not have crack-like
flaws. A nonlinear stress analysis where creep material behavior is modeled is
recommended for this assessment. If a linear stress analysis is used, the
methodology provided in following codes is recommended.

o ASME Code, Section III, Subsection NH

o Nuclear Electric R-5
o BS 7910
o EPRI Remaining-Life of Boiler Pressure Parts–Crack Growth Studies
o WRC 440 A Synthesis of the Fracture Assessment methods Proposed in the
French RCC-MR Code for High Temperature.

Creep-Fatigue Interaction: This assessment procedure is used for components that

are subject to cyclic operation in the creep regime which do not have crack-like
flaws. A nonlinear stress analysis where creep material behavior is modeled is
recommended for this assessment.

Creep Crack Growth: This assessment procedure is used for components that are
subject to either steady state or cyclic operation in the creep regime which contain
crack-like flaws. A nonlinear stress analysis where creep material behavior is
modeled is recommended for this assessment.

Introduction to API 579, Section 10 Page 12 of 18

Creep Buckling: This assessment procedure can be used to determine the time at
which a component in the creep regime may be subject to structural instability due
to a compressive stress field. The procedure can be used for a component both with
and without a crack-like flaw.

Creep-Fatigue Assessment Of Dissimilar-Weld Joints: This assessment procedure

can be used to determine the suitability of a dissimilar-weld joint in a component
operating in the creep regime.

8.1 Creep Rupture Life

The following analysis procedure can be utilized to evaluate a component operating

in the creep regime using the results from a stress analysis. The evaluation can be
made based on the stresses and strains at a point in the component, and the
associated operating time and temperature. If a nonlinear stress analysis is used in
the assessment, a material model is required to estimate the creep strains in the
component as a function of stress, temperature, and accumulated creep strain (strain
hardening model) or time (time hardening model). A strength check is included in
the procedure if the computed stresses are determined using an elastic analysis. This
strength check is not required if a nonlinear stress analysis incorporating the effects
of plasticity and creep is used to determine the stresses for the assessment.

The assessment procedure in this paragraph provides a systematic approach for

evaluating the creep damage for each operating cycle that is applied to the
component. The total creep damage is computed as the sum of the creep damages
calculated for each cycle.

The creep damage based upon the results of a stress analysis can be computed using
the assessment procedure shown below. This procedure is similar to the procedure
in Level 2 except for Steps 5 and 11.

STEP 5 – If an assessment is based on the results of an elastic stress analysis, then

check that the value of the effective stress, σ en , is less then the value of the yield
strength, σ ys , evaluated at temperature Tn at time increment tn . If σ ne ≥ σ ys , then go
to STEP 11; otherwise proceed to STEP 6.

STEP 11 – The creep damage prediction is complete for this location in the
component. Determine the acceptability for continued operation using the criteria

o If σ ne ≥ σ ys for any point in the operating history, then the component is not
acceptable for continued operation and the component should be repaired or
retired.

o If the total creep damage, Dctotal , is less than the allowable creep damage,
Dcallow , then the component is acceptable for continued operation. The

Introduction to API 579, Section 10 Page 13 of 18

 remaining life for operation can be determined by analyzing additional load
cycles and determining the time at which Dctotal = Dcallow .

o If the total creep damage, Dctotal , is greater than the allowable creep damage,
Dcallow , then the life of the component is limited to the time corresponding to
Dctotal = Dcallow . If this time is less than the current operating time, the
component should be repaired or retired.

Note that in this criterion, the strength check based on the effective stress does not
need to be made if the stresses in the assessment are computed using a nonlinear
stress analysis that includes the effects of plasticity and creep.

8.2 Creep-Fatigue Interaction

If there are significant cyclic operations during the operating period, then the effects
of combined creep and fatigue damage must be evaluated. The assessment
procedure given by Level 3, creep rupture life can be used to evaluate the creep part
of the damage, and the assessment procedure in Appendix B of the API code, can be
used to evaluate the fatigue part of the damage.

The combination of creep and fatigue damage is then evaluated using the equation
shown below. The permissible creep-fatigue damage fraction, Dcfallow , is usually
taken as 1.0 unless an alternative value can be justified.

In addition to satisfying the damage criterion of equation above, a limit on the total
accumulated inelastic strains should be set to a value that will not limit the
operability of the component.

8.3 Creep Crack Growth

The following analysis procedure can be utilized to evaluate a component operating

in the creep regime using nonlinear stress analysis methods. The evaluation can be
made based on the stresses and strains at a point in the component, and the
associated operating time and temperature. In the nonlinear stress analysis, a
material model is required to estimate the creep strains in the component as a
function of stress, temperature, and accumulated creep strain (strain hardening

Introduction to API 579, Section 10 Page 14 of 18

model) or time (time hardening model). If the computed stresses exceed the yield
stress of the material at temperature, plasticity should also be included in the
material model.

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.

STEP 2 – Determine the material properties; yield stress, tensile strength, fracture
toughness and creep properties.

STEP 3 – Determine the damage in the material ahead of the crack prior to
cracking, Dbc. If the component is not in cyclic operation, then the damage prior to
cracking is the creep damage computed using the procedure in paragraph 8.1. The
creep damage is computed using the equation shown below where Kbc is the total
number of operating cycles prior to cracking.

If the component is subject to cyclic operation, then the damage prior to cracking is
the creep fatigue damage computed using the procedure in paragraph 8.2. The
creep-fatigue damage is computed using the equation shown below where Kbc is the
total number of operating cycles prior to cracking.

STEP 4 – Determine the initial crack-like flaw dimensions from inspection data, ao
and co. The flaw should be categorized using the procedure in API Section 9.
Initialize the initial flaw dimension sizes and the staring time for the cycle:

STEP 5 – For the current operating cycle k, determine the total cyclic time, tk, and
compute the stresses, σ ij , through the section containing the crack-like flaw for each
point n in the cycle.

STEP 6 – Determine the reference stress, σ ref , at time ti using Appendix D based on
the crack-like flaw dimensions ai and ci and the corresponding stress distribution.

Introduction to API 579, Section 10 Page 15 of 18

STEP 7 – Perform a FAD assessment at time ti using the procedures in Section 9 of
API based on the crack like flaw dimensions ai and ci, and the corresponding stress
and temperature distribution. When using this procedure, the load ratio (x-axis of
the FAD) shall be computed using the equation shown below. If the resulting FAD
point is outside of the FAD failure envelope, go to STEP 18; otherwise, go to STEP
6.

In this equation, σ ys is the yield strength at the temperature being evaluated and
σ cFAD is the stress to cause 2% creep strain in 100,000 hours at the temperature being
evaluated.

STEP 8 – Determine the damage in the material ahead of the crack growth, Dac, at
time ti based on the crack-like flaw dimensions ai and ci, and the corresponding
stress and temperature distribution.

The calculation of Liac is based on a set of equations which is given in the code.

STEP 9 – Determine the reference strain rate, εref , at time ti based on the crack-like
flaw dimensions, ai and ci , and the corresponding stress and temperature
distribution. The detailed set of equations is given in the code.

STEP 10 – Determine the stress intensity factor at the deepest point, K I90 ( ai , ci ) , at
time ti and surface point, K I0 ( ai , ci ) , of the flaw based on the crack-like flaw
dimensions ai and ci, and the corresponding stress and temperature distribution
using Appendix C.

STEP 11 – Determine the crack driving force at the deepest point, Ct90 ( ai , ci ) , and
surface point, Ct0 ( ai , ci ) , of the flaw at time ti based on the crack-like flaw
dimensions ai and ci , and the corresponding stress and temperature distribution.
This is calculated as a function of C* integral, KI, σ ref and εref .

STEP 12 – Compute the crack growth rates at time ti using the equations shown
below.

Introduction to API 579, Section 10 Page 16 of 18

Equations to determine Cc and µ are given in the code.

STEP 13 – Compute the time step for integration at time ti using the equation shown
below. An explicit time integration algorithm is used in this procedure. A value for
the explicit time integration parameter that has been used is Cintg = 0.005. A
sensitivity analysis should be used to qualify this value because it is a function of
the creep strain rate and crack driving force.

STEP 14 – Update the flaw dimensions ai and ci, and the accumulated at time in the
cycle, ti.

STEP 15 – If the current time in the cycle is less than the total time of the cycle, ti <
tk, then go to STEP 6 to continue to grow the crack. Otherwise, proceed to STEP 16.

STEP 16 – If the component is subject to cyclic loading, then the increment the
crack size to account for crack growth from fatigue using the equations shown
below. Otherwise, proceed to STEP 18.

STEP 17 – If this is the last cycle in the histogram, go to STEP 18. Otherwise, set ti
= 0.0 and go to STEP 5 to continue to grow the crack based on the next cycle of
operation.

STEP 18 – The crack growth prediction is complete for a location in the component.
If another location is to be evaluated, go to STEP 3. If this is the last location in the
component, evaluate the crack growth results.

If the points on the FAD predicted during crack growth are all within the FAD
failure envelope, then the component with the crack-like flaw is acceptable for
future operation.

The remaining life for operation can be determined by analyzing additional load
cycles and determining the time at which the FAD assessment point lies on the FAD
envelope.

Introduction to API 579, Section 10 Page 17 of 18

If a point on the FAD predicted predicated during crack growth lies on the FAD
failure envelope, then the life of the component is limited to the time corresponding
to this point. If this time is less than the current operating time, the component
should be repaired or retired.

9. Remediation

For components that do not contain a crack-like flaw, if the component does not
satisfy the creep damage creation within the required service life, or if the
sensitivity analysis indicates unacceptable results, then remedial action is required.
One of the following may be considered.

Change In Service Parameters – a change in service parameters (load, temperature,

desired service life) may be made and the assessment repeated either to demonstrate
acceptance or to estimate at what time replacement will be necessary.

Use Of Thermal Linings – conversion of existing hot-wall pressure vessel and

piping systems to cold wall design that utilize a Thermal lining (i.e. refractory) have
been performed. In these cases, the thermal lining is designed to reduce the metal
temperature to a value below the creep regime thereby preventing future creep
damage.

For components containing a crack-like flaw, if failure by excessive crack growth is

indicated within the required service life, or if the sensitivity analysis indicates
unacceptable results, then remedial action is required, such as repair of the
component or removal of the flaw. Alternatively, a change in service parameters
(load, temperature, desired service life) may be made and the assessment repeated
either to demonstrate acceptance or to estimate at what time repair will be
necessary. Finally, it may be possible to obtain data on the material actually used in
the component to remove pessimisms in the assessment resulting from the use of
bounding data.

Introduction to API 579, Section 10 Page 18 of 18