YOUR LOGO

Part 5
Assessment of Local Metal Loss
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 2007

Quest Integrity
October 2015

1
General YOUR LOGO

• The assessment procedures of Section 5 are for

the analysis of local metal loss or Local Thin
Areas (LTA) whereas the procedures of Section 4
are for general metal loss

• The assessment procedures for local metal loss in

this section can only be established using
thickness profiles

• Damage associated with pitting and blisters can

also be evaluated using the assessment
procedures in this section in conjunction with the
assessment procedures of Sections 6 and 7,
respectively

2
Local metal loss - definitions YOUR LOGO

• Local thin area (LTA) - local metal loss on the surface of a component, where
the length and width of the metal loss are of the same order of magnitude

• Groove-like flaw - the length of the metal loss region is large relative to the
width

– Groove - local elongated thin spot caused by directional erosion or corrosion

– Gouge - elongated mechanical removal and/or relocation of material from the

surface of a component. For example, denting or gouging of a section of pipe by
mechanical equipment during the excavation of a pipeline. Gouges are handled in
Part 12

3
Data requirements YOUR LOGO

• Original equipment design data - summary provided in Section 2,

paragraph 2.3.1

• Maintenance and operational history - summary provided in Section 2,

paragraph 2.3.2

• Required data/measurements for a FFS assessment

– Thickness readings are required to determine the extent of damage
• Critical Thickness Profiles (CTP) required for Level 1 unless the extent of
the LTA can be established with alternative means
• Critical Thickness Profiles always required for Level 2

– Characterisation of damage and required measurements are defined on the

following slides

4
Data requirements (cont.) YOUR LOGO

• Critical thickness profile typically

required for an LTA; established in
accordance with Section 4

• The LTA is characterised by the

length in the longitudinal direction, s,
and the length in the circumferential
direction, c

• It is recommended to MT or PT all
weld seams within 2s x 2c, and if the
thickness is less than tmin perform
RT or UT

5
Data requirement recordings YOUR LOGO

6
Applicability and limitations YOUR LOGO
Level 1 and 2 procedures

• The original design criteria were in accordance with a recognised code or

standard
• The material has sufficient toughness to avoid brittle fracture due to local
thinning. This can be checked with the Part 3 assessment
• The component is not in cyclic service
• Level 1 assessment:
– Type A components

– Internal pressure with negligible supplemental loads

• Level 2 assessment:
– Type A and B components

– Internal pressure and supplemental loads

7
Inspection Data YOUR LOGO
Thickness grid method is used in Part 5

8
Resolution of thickness grid YOUR LOGO


Ls  min 0.36 Dtmin ,2t rd 
9
Calculate the spacing for the thickness grid YOUR LOGO

• D = 1000 mm

• tmin calculated as 9.5 mm

• trd determined as 11.2 mm

What spacing should be used?

10
Inspection data YOUR LOGO
Critical thickness profile

11
Longitudinal and circumferential CTP YOUR LOGO

12
Groove-like flaw orientation YOUR LOGO

Grooves are assessed by the same

procedure as LTAs, except for an additional
check on groove radius

13
Corroded Thickness, tc YOUR LOGO

Corroded thickness calculated using either 5.3 or 5.4 as applicable

• tnom is the nominal or furnished thickness adjusted for mill under-tolerance

• trd is the uniform thickness away from the local metal loss, as determined by
measurements at the time of the assessment

• LOSS is the prior uniform metal loss away from the local metal loss

• FCA is the future corrosion allowance (to next inspection)

14
Remaining Strength Factor (RSF) YOUR LOGO

• The RSF is defined as the ratio of the strength of the damaged component
to that of the unflawed component

• The damage is considered acceptable if the RSF is greater than or equal to

the allowable RSF

• The recommended allowable RSF = 0.9 for most applications

• The RSF concept is used in most assessments

Damaged
PBurst
RSF  Undamaged
PBurst

15
Rerating using the RSF YOUR LOGO

• If RSF < RSFa, the component can be rerated as follows:

 RSF 
MAWPr  MAWP   for RSF  RSFa
 RSFa 

– MAWPr = Rerated maximum allowable working pressure

– MAWP = Original MAWP

16
Level 1 assessment YOUR LOGO

• Step 1 - Determine the critical thickness profile(s)

• Step 2 - Determine the thickness to be used in the assessment, tc

• Step 3 - Determine the minimum measured thickness, tmm, and the

dimension s for the CTP

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9
Minimum Thickness
M5 Readings in the
M4 Longitudinal Direction

M3
M2
M1

Minimum Thickness
Readings in the
Circumferential Direction

17
Level 1 assessment (cont.) YOUR LOGO

• Step 4 - Determine the remaining thickness ratio, Rt, and the shell
parameter, l

Dimensionless flaw
length parameter
Which is used to
determine the folias factor

18
Level 1 assessment (cont.) YOUR LOGO

• Step 5 - Check the limiting flaw size criteria. If the following requirements
are satisfied, proceed to Step 5; otherwise the flaw is not acceptable per the
Level 1 procedure

distance to the nearest

major structural
discontinuity

19
Level 1 assessment (cont.) YOUR LOGO

• Step 6 – If the region of local metal loss is classified as an LTA, proceed to Step 7.
If the metal loss is classified as a groove, check the radius against the criterion
below. If the groove satisfies this equation, proceed to Step 7. Otherwise,
evaluate the groove as a crack-like flaw using the procedures in Part 9

• Step 7 – Compute the MAWP for the component using the thickness from Step 2

• Step 8 – Plot the point (l, Rt) on Fig. 5.6 (cylindrical shells) or 5.7 (spherical heads
and shells). If the point falls above the curve, the metal loss is acceptable.
Otherwise, compute the RSF. Determine a new MAWP by multiplying the MAWP
computed in Step 7 by (RSF/RSFa)

20
Level 1 assessment (cont.) YOUR LOGO
Figure 5.6 – based on RSFa = 0.90
Thickness
ratio

21
Mt factors for cylindrical and YOUR LOGO
spherical shells

22
Rerating using the RSF YOUR LOGO

• If RSF < RSFa, the component can be rerated as follows:

 RSF 
MAWPr  MAWP   for RSF  RSFa
 RSFa 
– MAWPr = Rerated maximum allowable working pressure
– MAWP = Original MAWP

23
Level 1 assessment (cont.) YOUR LOGO

• Step 9 - For cylindrical and conical shells, as well as elbows, evaluate the
circumferential extent of the flaw
– Step 9.1 – Determine the circumferential flaw length parameter

– Step 9.2 – If all of the following conditions are satisfied, proceed to Step 9.3.
Otherwise, the flaw is not acceptable per the Level 1 procedure

Really hard to satisfy

for high pressure
piping !!! Suggest to
consider using
BS7910:2005 LTA
procedures

24
Level 1 assessment (cont.) YOUR LOGO

– Step 9.3 – Determine the tensile stress factor

– Step 9.4 – Determine the screening curve in Figure 5.8 based on TSF.
Enter Figure 5.8 with the calculated values of lc and Rt

– If the point defined by the intersection of these values is on or above the

screening curve, then the circumferential extent of the flaw is acceptable
per Level 1

25
Level 1 assessment (cont.)
YOUR LOGO

26
If level 1 assessment fails YOUR LOGO

• If the component does not meet the Level 1 Assessment requirements,

then the following or combinations thereof, shall be considered:

a) Rerate, repair, replace, or retire the component

b) Adjust the FCA by applying remediation techniques

c) Adjust the weld joint efficiency factor by conducting additional

examination and repeat the assessment

d) Conduct a Level 2 or Level 3 Assessment

27
Pipeline corrosion example YOUR LOGO

• Pipeline carrying diesel

• API 5L Grade X42 Carbon Steel

• SMYS: 290 MPa

• Maximum operating pressure: 5.11 MPa

• Nominal outer diameter: 219 mm

• Nominal wall thickness: 6.35 mm

• Allowable stress: 209 MPa

• Uniform metal loss: 0.254 mm

• FCA = 0 mm

28
Invista thickness data YOUR LOGO

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8

0 5.805424 11.610848 17.416272 23.221696 29.02712 34.832544 40.637968

M1 0 6.096 6.096 6.096 6.096 6.096 6.096 6.096 6.096
M2 6.35 6.096 6.098 6.151 6.118 6.204 5.138 6.019 6.096
M3 12.7 6.096 6.036 5.669 5.057 6.013 5.570 6.083 6.096
M4 19.05 6.096 5.763 4.404 3.411 4.805 6.198 6.020 6.096
M5 25.4 6.096 5.939 5.372 4.443 5.396 4.778 5.767 6.096
M6 31.75 6.096 6.108 6.339 5.475 6.089 4.492 5.922 6.096
M7 38.1 6.096 6.096 6.096 6.096 6.096 6.096 6.096 6.096

29
Level 1 and 2 comparison YOUR LOGO

Level 2

tc
tmm

Level 1

30
Level 2 assessment of supplemental loads YOUR LOGO

• For cylindrical and conical shells

subject to supplemental loads, a
Level 2 assessment is required to
evaluate the circumferential extent of
an LTA

• This analysis applies beam

equations to a circular cross section
modified by the LTA

• An allowable tensile stress criterion

is applied to LTAs above the neutral
bending axis

• A buckling check is performed on

LTAs in compression

31
Level 3 assessment YOUR LOGO

• Perform elastic-plastic stress analysis of component with metal loss

• Thickness data, as well as component geometry, material properties and

loading conditions are required for the assessment

• If cyclic loading is present, a fatigue analysis should be performed as part of

the assessment

• If the region of metal loss is close to a structural discontinuity (e.g. nozzle or

piping branch connection), details of the geometry, material properties and
imposed supplemental loads are required for the assessment

32
LTA near a nozzle YOUR LOGO

33
Validation of LTA assessment rules YOUR LOGO

• A database of over 1000 burst tests and finite element analyses was
assembled

• 24 assessment methods were used to estimate the burst pressure of

the tests and FEA

• The acceptance criteria of these 24 methods were applied to determine

the ratio of burst pressure to MAWP

• The best methods are those where the scatter band of actual/predicted
burst pressure is smallest

34
LTA assessment methods YOUR LOGO

1. API 579 Section 5, Level 1 Analysis - rectangular area

2. API 579 Section 5, Level 2 Analysis - effective area
3. API 579 Section 5, Level 2 Analysis - exact area
4. Modified B31G Method - 0.85dl area
5. Modified B31G Method (RSTRENG) - effective area
6. Modified B31G Method - exact area
7. Original B31G Method - parabolic area
8. Thickness Averaging - API 510, 8th Edition
9. Thickness Averaging - API 653, 2nd Edition
10. British Gas Single Defect Method - exact area
11. British Gas Complex Defect Method - exact area
12. Chell Method - exact area

35
LTA assessment methods (cont.) YOUR LOGO

13. Osage Method - exact area

14. API 579 Level 2 Hybrid 1 Analysis - effective area
15. API 579 Level 1 Hybrid 2 Analysis - rectangular area
16. API 579 Level 1 Hybrid 2 Analysis - rectangular area
17. API 579 Level 2 Hybrid 2 Analysis - effective area
18. API 579 Level 1 Hybrid 3 Analysis - rectangular area
19. API 579 Level 2 Hybrid 3 Analysis - effective area
20. Batelle Method - rectangular area
21. BS 7910 Appendix G, Isolated Defect - rectangular area
22. BS 7910 App. G, Grouped Defects - rectangular area
23. API 579 Section 4 Level 1
24. API 579 Section 4 Level 2

36
Prediction of burst pressure YOUR LOGO

Part 4, Level 2
Failure / Predicted Failure

3
Part 5, Level 1 Part 4, Level 1

Part 5, Level 2
2

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Method Number

37
Safety margins on LTA methods YOUR LOGO

Part 4, Level 2
8

7
Part 5, Level 1 Part 4, Level 1
Failure / MAWP

6
Part 5, Level 2
5

1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Method Number

38
Determining the “best” assessment YOUR LOGO
methods

• The ratio of actual/predicted burst pressure contains scatter from two

sources:
– Material variability
– Modeling error

• Since the material scatter effect is the same for all assessment methods,
the method with the least overall scatter has the least modeling error

• The assessment method with the least modeling error is best from the
standpoint of accuracy, but the relative complexity of the analysis is also
a consideration

• Assessment methods based on thickness averaging give poor

predictions of burst pressure and have a high level of scatter due to
modeling error

39
Example YOUR LOGO

Corrosion of the wall of a horizontal vessel has been found during an

inspection:

• Design code: ASME VIII

• Design condition: 1.7 MPa at 230°C

• ID: 3048mm and nominal wall thickness: 31.8 mm

• Uniform metal loss: 0 mm

• Future corrosion allowance: 3.18 mm

• Material: SA 516 Gr 70

• JE: 0.85

Is it fit for service?

40