International Journal of Structural Integrity

A review on structural integrity assessment procedures

Utkarsh Ajay Shah
Article information:
To cite this document:
Utkarsh Ajay Shah , (2014),"A review on structural integrity assessment procedures", International Journal
of Structural Integrity, Vol. 5 Iss 4 pp. 328 - 338
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 10:31 01 March 2016 (PT)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJSI-01-2014-0004
Downloaded on: 01 March 2016, At: 10:31 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 10 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 98 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Keiji Houjou, Koji Takahashi, Kotoji Ando, Hisanori Abe, (2014),"Effect of peening on the fatigue limit of
welded structural steel with surface crack, and rendering the crack harmless", International Journal of
Structural Integrity, Vol. 5 Iss 4 pp. 279-289 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJSI-12-2013-0048
M. Rahmani Kalestan, H. Moayeri Kashani, A. Pourkamali Anaraki, F. Ashena Ghasemi,
(2014),"Experimental and numerical investigation of fatigue crack growth in aluminum plates repaired
by FML composite patch", International Journal of Structural Integrity, Vol. 5 Iss 4 pp. 242-252 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJSI-08-2013-0019
M. Grujicic, R. Yavari, J.S. Snipes, S. Ramaswami, R.S. Barsoum, (2014),"All-atom molecular-level
computational analyses of polyurea/fused-silica interfacial decohesion caused by impinging tensile stress-
waves", International Journal of Structural Integrity, Vol. 5 Iss 4 pp. 339-367 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
IJSI-01-2014-0001

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:172900 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1757-9864.htm

IJSI
5,4
A review on structural integrity
assessment procedures
Utkarsh Ajay Shah
328 R&D Centre, Larsen & Toubro Hydrocarbon Engineering, Mumbai, India

Received 24 January 2014 Abstract

Revised 24 January 2014 Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to compare different existing assessment procedures for their
Accepted 2 March 2014
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 10:31 01 March 2016 (PT)

limitations and applicable areas.

Design/methodology/approach – Procedures have been studied in-depth along with their criterion
for applications.
Findings – The study shows applicability of different procedures along with their limitations and
future scope.
Originality/value – The paper provides starting point for performing damage assessment based on
relevant procedures.
Keywords Failure, Structural integrity, API RP 579, BS 7910:2005, FAD, Fracture
Paper type Literature review

I. Introduction
Structural integrity assessment procedures (SINTAPs) are a set of techniques used to
assess the fitness-for-service (FFS) of components and welded structures to transmit
loads. They are applicable to:
● design of new structures and components in order to guaranty their integrity
during their design life;
● assess the integrity of in-service structures and components for their remaining
life;
● assess the integrity of the structures and components after accidental damage
and/or severe abnormal operations of the components; and
● evaluate the reliability and operations of structures and components for their use
beyond their design life period.
FFS methods help to undertake run-repair-rerate decisions in operating equipments
and existing structures. These procedures are R5, R6, BS 7910:2005, API RP 579/ASME
FFS-1, 2007, SINTAP and FITNET. While R5 and R6 are restricted to nuclear industry,
the BS 7910:2005 and FITNET are meant to cater to be applicable over multiple
industries. API RP 579/ASME FFS 1 is focused on pressure vessels and piping for
petrochemical industry.

II. Considerations in structural integrity assessment

Structural integrity assessment is an evaluation and an investigation into the integrity
and worthiness of equipment or a structure for its safe and reliable operation over a given
International Journal of Structural period of time under known set of loading conditions, given the fact that there has been
Integrity
Vol. 5 No. 4, 2014
pp. 328-338 The author wishes to thank management of L&T Hydrocarbon IC as well as Dr Barun Chakrabarti
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1757-9864 and Shrikant Inje of L&T Hydrocarbon Engineering, R&D Centre for their support and efforts in
DOI 10.1108/IJSI-01-2014-0004 developing in-house capabilities in the areas of fitness-for-service and damage assessment.
 some form of damage or defects/flaws being detected. Any structural assessment method A review on
requires inputs in terms of material properties, flaw characteristics (in case of cracks,
corrosion, dents) or damage parameters/conditions (for creep or fire assessments) and
SINTAPs
load history including abnormal events. The assessment method is hierarchical and
divided into a number of levels. The lowest level in any assessment methodology is the
most basic check while the highest level is the most rigorous check for structural
integrity assessment. Many methodologies have various routes within each level to 329
undertake the assessment. The differences in the levels are made in terms of two factors:
degree of conservatism and amount of input data available. Hence the most sophisticated
and accurate levels demand accordingly high-quality of input data, whilst assessments
can yet be carried out with primary knowledge of basic parameters which is thus
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 10:31 01 March 2016 (PT)

penalized by a higher degree of conservatism. Thus a lower level indicates more degree of
conservatism while the available input data are minimal. As such, a higher level, say
Level 3 assessments requires most stringent and accurate data. Each level is less
conservative than the one before, such that “penalties” and “rewards” accrue from the use
of poor- and high-quality data, respectively. This structure means that an unacceptable
result at any level can become acceptable at a higher level. Consequently, one needs to
perform the work necessary to reach an acceptable result and need not invest in
unnecessarily complicated tests or analysis.
This means that in many cases, equipment or a structure may not be
acceptable as per a Level 1 assessment but would become acceptable under a
Level 2 or Level 3 assessments and hence any FFS approach will be focusing
on following deliverables:
● indicating whether a given equipment or structure, while having undergone
some form(s) of damage, is capable of safe and reliable operation for a given
period of time under a set of known loading conditions;
● any alterations or modifications to the equipment or structure which will then
allow it to be used safely for a given period of time under a set of known loading
conditions; and
● decisions to rerate the equipment or structure for a lower loading which may then
allow safe and reliable operation for a given time frame under a set of known
loading conditions.
FFS methodologies use different types of acceptance criteria/approach depending on
the type of flaw or damage mechanism that is being addressed. The most commonly
used criteria are:
● remaining strength factor (RSF);
● failure assessment diagram (FAD);
● crack driving orce (CDFD); and
● leak before break (LBB) for pressurized components.

A. RSF
In the RSF approach, the load carrying capacity of a damaged component is compared
to the load carrying capacity of the undamaged component to calculate a reduction in
strength. Acceptance criteria can be established using the RSF in combination with
traditional code formulas, elastic stress analysis, limit load theory or elastic-plastic
 IJSI analysis, depending on complexity of the assessment:
5,4 Collapse load of damaged component
RSF ¼ (1)
Collapse load of undamaged component
The RSF (API, 2007) is the value calculated by many of the assessment procedures
330 presented in Part 5 of API 579 such as local metal loss (API, 2007), pitting
corrosion (Part 6 of API 579; API, 2007), hydrogen blisters and HIC/SOHIC (Part 7 of API
579; API, 2007), weld misalignment and shell distortions (Part 8 of API 579; American
Petroleum Institute, 2007) and dents and gouges (Part 12 of API 579; American Petroleum
Institute, 2007). The RSF can be used to calculate either the failure pressure or the
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 10:31 01 March 2016 (PT)

maximum allowable working pressure (MAWP) of damaged pressure components.

B. FAD and CDFD

FAD and CDFD (or CDF) are two widely used approaches for assessing the integrity of
cracked structures and components. Fracture of components can be considered as
belonging to one of these three limit states: brittle fracture; elasto-plastic fracture; and
plastic collapse.
The basis of both approaches is that failure is avoided so long as the structure is not
loaded beyond its maximum load bearing capacity defined using both fracture
mechanics criteria and plastic limit analysis. The fracture mechanics analysis involves
comparison of the loading on the crack tip (often called the crack tip driving force) with
the ability of the material to resist cracking (defined by the material’s fracture
toughness or fracture resistance). The crack tip loading must be, in most cases,
evaluated using elastic-plastic concepts and is dependent on the structure, the crack
size and shape, the material’s tensile properties and the loading. In the FAD approach,
both the comparison of the crack tip driving force with the material’s fracture
toughness and the applied load with the plastic load limit are performed at the same
time. In the CDF approach the crack driving force is plotted and compared directly with
the material’s fracture toughness. Separate analysis is carried out for the plastic limit
analysis. Both the FAD and CDF approaches are based on elastic-plastic concepts.
Both the FAD (Figures 1 and 2) andthe CDF (Figures 3 and 4) are expressed in terms of
the parameter Lr. Lr is the ratio of the applied load to the load to cause plastic yielding of
the cracked structure. However, in the calculation of the FADs and CDFs, Lr reduces to the
ratio of equivalent applied stress to the material’s yield or proof strength. The function f(Lr)
depends on the choice of analysis level followed for the assessment.
The FAD, is a plot of the failure envelope of the cracked structure, defined in terms
of two parameters, Kr and Lr. These parameters can be defined as follows:
(1) Kr: the ratio of the applied linear elastic stress intensity factor, KI, to the
materials fracture toughness, Kmat; and
(2) Lr: the ratio of the total applied load giving rise to the primary stresses to
plastic limit load of the flawed.
The failure envelope called the failure assessment line is defined through the equation:

K r ¼ f ðLr Þ (2)

To use the FAD approach, it is necessary to plot an assessment point, or a set of

assessment points, of coordinates (Lr, Kr), calculated under the loading conditions
 A review on
Failure
Assessment C SINTAPs
1.0 B
Line

A= Acceptable Condition
B= Limiting Condition
C= Unacceptable Condition
Kr 331
A
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 10:31 01 March 2016 (PT)

0 1.0 Figure 1.
Lr= F/Fy Lrmax FAD analysis-fracture
initiation
Source: www.eurofitnet.org

C
Locus A-A1= Acceptable Condition
B
Locus B-B1= Limiting Condition
Failure Locus C-C1= Unacceptable Condition
Assessment
1.0
Line A

C1
B1
Kr

A1

Figure 2.
0 1.0
Lr= F/Fy Lrmax FAD analysis-ductile
tearing
Sources: Anderson (2005) and www.eurofitnet.org

applicable (given by loads, crack size and material properties), and these are then
compared with the failure assessment line. Used this way, the failure assessment line
defines the envelope for achievement of a limiting condition for the loading of the
cracked structure, and assessment points lying on or within this envelope indicates that
the structure, as assessed, is acceptable against this limiting condition.
The CDFD (www.eurofitnet.org) approach requires calculation of the crack driving
force on the cracked structure as a function of Lr. The equations that can be used to
define the lines are as follows:

J ¼ J e ½ f ðLr Þ2 (3)

 IJSI CDF
A= Acceptable Condition
5,4 B= Limiting Condition
C
C= Unacceptable Condition

CDF (J) or CDF (δ)

332
Fracture Toughness Jmat or δmat B
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 10:31 01 March 2016 (PT)

A
Figure 3. Lr (A) Lr (B) Lr (C)
CDF analysis- 0 Lr= F/Fy Lrmax
fracture initiation
Source: www.eurofitnet.org

A= Acceptable Condition
B= Limiting Condition
C= Unacceptable Condition
CDF (J) or CDF (δ)

J or δmat
Resistance
Curve
C

A
B

Figure 4.
CDF analysis-ductile 0 Lr= F/Fy
tearing
Source: www.eurofitnet.org

or:

d ¼ de ½ f ðLr Þ2 (4)

where:
0
J e ¼ K e 2 =E (5)
Ke is the elastic stress intensity factor; E’ the E, Young’s modulus for plain stress and
E ' ¼ E=ð1u2 Þ for plain strain; Je the elastic value of J:
0
de ¼ K I 2 =ðE Re Þ (6)
KI: the Mode I stress intensity factor; Re the material’s yield strength or proof strength;
de the elastic value of d.
 C. LBB assessment A review on
In certain cases of pressure vessels, tanks and piping it may be possible to show that a
flaw can grow through the wall of the component without causing a catastrophic
SINTAPs
failure. In such cases, considering the contained fluid and type of insulation if any,
a leak can be detected and remedial action initiated to avoid a component failure.
This type of examination is called a LBB (API, 2007, www.eurofitnet.org) analysis.
The LBB methodology may be useful to determine an upper bound for a part through 333
flaw for an unknown growth rate, though remaining life cannot be determined.
The detection of leak serves as an early warning. However, LBB methodology suffers
from few limitations such as:
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 10:31 01 March 2016 (PT)

(1) the leak must be readily detectable;

(2) the LBB methodology may not always be suitable for flaws near stress
concentrations or regions of high-residual stress; and
(3) the possible adverse consequences of a leak must be considered when the
contained fluid is hazardous in nature, owing to toxicity or its boiling point
or auto-ignition temperature. Pressurized components containing gas at
high-pressure may experience dynamic loading due to leaks which makes
LBB impractical.

III. SINTAPs
A. British Standard (BS) 7910:2005
This BS guide on assessing flaws in metallic structure was first published in 1999
and superseded BS PD 6493:1991. This standard has focused on fracture, fatigue and
creep modes of failure while suggesting guidelines for assessing flaws in the vicinity of
corroded areas, flaws due environmental-assisted cracking and stress corrosion
cracking. The levels of fracture assessment followed in this guide have been defined as
follows: Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3.
Level 1 has two assessment methods: Level 1A and 1B. Level 1A involves the use of
default FAD (Figure 5) while Level 1B is a non-FAD approach. Level 2 has two methods:
2A and 2B, both of which employ FAD following (2) for assessment. Level 3 is a ductile
tearing analysis and as such is specifically used for materials showing ductile behavior
before imminent failure. It has three methods 3A, 3B and 3C. Each method uses a different
assessment line and applies ductile tearing analysis (Figure 6). The result of the analysis is
a plot either of a single assessment point or a locus of assessment points.
This standard also allows computation of limiting flaw size which is a part of its
fatigue module. The limiting flaw size analysis indicates the acceptable flaw
dimensions for a given set of material properties and loading conditions on the
structure or component under investigation.
BS 7910 also addresses creep related damage assessment. BS 7910 has given a LBB
methodology for pressurized components in Annex F, while it has not provided specific
assessment methods for components that have undergone thickness reduction or being
damaged in fire.

B. API RP 579/ASME FFS-1

API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 2007 (API, 2007) FFS is a recommended practice that is focused
on pressure vessels and piping for petroleum refineries and other petrochemical
industries. The guidelines are primarily for those components designed as per ASME
 IJSI 1.0
5,4 Assessment
point
Unacceptable
0.8
0.707

334 Kr 0.6

or Assessment
0.4 line
√r Acceptable
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 10:31 01 March 2016 (PT)

0.2

Figure 5. 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Level 1A FAD as
Sr
per BS 7910
Source: BS (2007)

1.6

1.4

1.2

Locus of assessment
K r 1.0 points

or 0.8
Unacceptable
√ r 0.6
Acceptable
0.4

0.2 Assessment
line

Figure 6. 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 L rmax 1.4 1.6
Level 3 ductile tearing Lr
analysis as per BS7910
Source: BS (2007)

codes, however, with appropriate modifications and units the guidelines may be used
for components designed as per other codes. API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 2007 has been
divided into separate parts, each part addressing a different damage mechanism.
API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 2007 has three levels of assessment for flaws or damage
mechanisms. However, the assessment levels designated in API 579-1/ASME FFS-1
2007 are different from the levels of analysis specified in BS 7910:2005.
Level 1 assessment of crack like flaws (Part 9 of API 579; API, 2007) does not involve
an FAD based approach. Level 1 assessments are limited to crack-like flaws in
pressurized cylinders, spheres or flat plates away from all structural discontinuities.
Level 2 assessments can be used for general shell structures including crack-like flaws
 located at structural discontinuities. In Level 2 assessments, detailed information on A review on
material properties and loading conditions is required, and a stress analysis is required
to determine the state of stress at the location of the flaw. The stress analysis at this
SINTAPs
level may be based on code equations, closed form solutions or a numerical analysis.
Level 3 assessments are also required for flaws that may grow in service because of
loading or environmental conditions. Level 3 assessments employ numerical methods
or finite element analysis or closed form solutions. 335
When the affected area in a component is found to have not only crack like flaws but
also some other form of damage, then the API 579 guideline clearly states that that the
damage assessment can only be performed as Level 3 assessment. Hence in many
cases, Level 3 assessments though accurate may become time consuming.
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 10:31 01 March 2016 (PT)

API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 2007 has also given detailed assessment methods for
corrosion, dents, gouges, fire and laminations for pressure vessels and piping components.

C. SINTAP
The SINTAP project (www.eurofitnet.org, Zerbst et al., 2007) (April 1996-April 1999)
involved a consortium of seventeen organizations from nine European countries, the
aim of project being to derive a unified structural integrity evaluation method for use in
European industry. SINTAP is concerned with those aspects that relate areas of
fracture and plastic collapse and the interaction between two for a structural integrity
assessment. Like other assessment procedures, SINTAP offers a range of assessment
routes which reflect the quality of input data and the adopted conservatism. While
some information is standard, some of the novel information arising out of SINTAP
developments can be summarized as:
(1) assessments have been made of tensile data so that in absence of data,
estimates of material properties can be made from the limited information;
(2) the flaw characterization rules in SINTAP are essentially the same as that of
BS 7910:2005 standard, however, SINTAP also provides guidance on the
reliability of non-destructive evaluation techniques; and
(3) a statistical treatment of the fracture toughness data had performed taking into
account the number of specimens regardless of failure mode.
The SINTAP procedure redressed the situation in the fracture area, unifying criteria
and resolving the traditional dichotomy between the use of FAD and crack drive force
diagrams (CDFD), attesting full equivalence between the two approaches. There are
three standardized levels and three advanced levels, including the special case of a LLB
analysis for pressurized systems. The different standardized levels produce different
equations for f(Lr) which defines the FAD or CDF used in the analysis. Table I shows a
summary of the levels and their inputs and application areas.
The SINTAP procedure allows a fracture assessment analysis to be performed
provided that the following are known: loading conditions, the corresponding applied
KI or J values, material’s toughness, whether this knowledge is direct, or is obtained
through the Charpy tests and a definition of failure lines in the case of the FAD. These
lines must be in hierarchy depending on the application of more accurate knowledge of
the mechanical behavior of the material of the component. FITNET has incorporated
SINTAP and as such SINTAP is now rarely applied owing to the development of
FITNET which has addressed wider areas of damage assessment.
 IJSI Level Input data When to use
5,4
Default level Yield or proof strength When no other data is available
Standard Level-1: basic Yield or proof strength, For quickest result, mismatch in
ultimate tensile strength properties less than 10 per cent
Standard Level-2: mismatch Yield or proof strength, Allows for mismatch in yield strengths
336 ultimate tensile strength, of weld and base material, mismatch is
mismatch limit loads greater than 10 per cent of yield or proof
strength
Standard Level-3: Full stress strain curves More accurate and less conservative than
stress-strain defined (SS) Level 1 and Level 2
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 10:31 01 March 2016 (PT)

Advanced Level-4: Estimate of fracture Allows for loss of constraint in thin

constraint allowance toughness for crack tip sections or predominantly tensile loadings
constraint conditions
relevant to cracked
structure
Advanced Level-5: J-integral Needs numerical cracked
analysis body analysis like finite
element solution
Table I. Special case-6: leak before Material specimen, For piping and pressure vessel
SINTAP levels for break (LLB) sxperimental test rig components only
fracture assessment Sources: www.eurofitnet.org and Zerbst et al. (2007)

D. FITNET
Under the V Framework Programme (February 2002-May 2006), the European fitness
for service network devised the FITNET FFS (www.eurofitnet.org) (Zerbst et al., 2007)
procedure, a document which covers the analysis of components and structures under
the four main failure mechanisms: plastic fracture-collapse, fatigue, creep and
corrosion. This procedure has been submitted to the European Committee for
Standardization (CEN) for its adoption as a European standard for structural integrity.
FITNET like SINTAP is a hierarchical procedure in which the analysis can be
refined as more and more information on mechanical properties is made available.
FITNET has its fracture assessment procedure based of SINTAP and incorporates the
advances made since the latter was published. FITNET is designed for application
during the design, manufacture, in-service assessment of components and failure
analysis. FITNET has incorporated bi-parametric fracture mechanics and has given
solutions for various geometries in its Annex K.
The fatigue module of FITNET procedure provides a focused guideline for carrying
out various types of existing fatigue analyses according to the varying knowledge of
the state of defects. The procedure has five distinct routes where the first selection
criterion is whether the component has to be analyzed in presence of an established
crack. If negative, then routes 1-3 (fatigue damage assessment) are followed. If positive,
routes 4 (fatigue crack growth assessment) and 5 (non-planar flaw assessment) are
followed depending on whether the flaw is in planar or not.
The creep module of FITNET is based on the procedure outlines by R5 of British
energy and proposes the assessment of cracked components at high temperature.
The procedure also describes new assessment methodologies for components
subjected to creep which have appeared in recent years, such as time dependent
FAD. The corrosion module of FITNET is of two sections: first part analyses
the environmental assisted cracking (EAC) and corrosion fatigue processes while the
 second part at the assessment of the component sections which have undergone loss A review on
of thickness.
FITNET has also focused on LLB assessment methodologies (like SINTAP).
SINTAPs
FITNET has also addressed crack arrests (based on R6) and mixed mode (based on R6).
It has also described the master curve procedure for non-homogenous materials and
notch type component assessment using the FAD methodology.
337
IV. Comparison of structural assessment procedures
The structural integrity assessment methods have a focus on certain application areas/
industries. As a result many of the methods have not addressed all forms of failure
mechanisms. A comparative chart (Table II) shows the types of assessments addressed
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 10:31 01 March 2016 (PT)

by the various assessment procedures.

Though API 579 addresses highest number of damage assessments it must be noted
that API 579 is specifically meant for pressure vessels and piping. The above table
shows that SINTAP had addressed only fracture assessment procedures while
FITNET was able to address other major forms of damage assessment and as
such FITNET has superseded SINTAP. It now remains to be seen when FITNET
achieves a European standard (CEN) for its potential is far reaching than most other
damage assessment or FFS procedures of today.
V. Applications and future scope
The SINTAPs have over the years been developed keeping in mind various industries and
engineering applications. Table III shows the areas of application (indicative) for the most
widely known procedures in the area of structural integrity and damage assessment.
The structural integrity procedures are also being used to determine the limiting
/acceptable flaw size in welded joints. A point in this case is the design and installation of

Procedures/standard
Type of failure mode/damage assessment API 579 BS 7910 FITNET SINTAP

Fracture ● ● ● ●

Fatigue ● ● ●

Creep ● ● ●

Corrosion ● ● ●

Loss of thickness ● ●

Fire ●

Dents, gouges ●

Laminations ●

Notes:The presence of “●” signifies that the assessment can be carried out using a particular
procedure; the absence of “●” in the table cell indicates that a particular damage assessment cannot be Table II.
carried out using that particular procedure Comparative chart

Procedure Areas of application

API RP 579/ASME FFS-1 Pressure vessels and piping

BS 7910:2005 Generalized guide – Annex B (BS, 2007) (for tubular offshore Table III.
structures), Annex C (BS, 2007) (for pressure vessels and piping) Areas of application
FITNET Hip implants (Cicero et al., 2007), forklifts (Zerbst et al., 2007) (indicative)
 IJSI submarine pipelines as per DNV-OS-F 101 (2012) and DNV-RP-F 108 (2006). All the
submarine pipelines hence have to follow allowable defect sizing criteria as per BS 7910:2005.
5,4 There have been cases where the allowable defect sizing criteria has also been used to
eliminate the need for post weld heat Treatment on the welded offshore tubular joints. BS
7910 has been able to increase the confidence of engineers and designers in the fatigue life
predictions of crack growth and the structures in which such cracks have been found.
338 FITNET has huge potential and once it achieves CEN status we can expect far wider
number of industries applying FITNET methodology for damage and structural
integrity assessments.
Though the damage assessment and SINTAPs have been developed a much ground
still needs to be covered considering, the type of complexity involved in modern
Downloaded by LULEA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 10:31 01 March 2016 (PT)

engineering structures, components and applications. The deterministic approach has

been the most straight-forward route taken in developing the above mentioned
procedures. The probabilistic approaches have been developed in these procedures
as one of the higher level assessment routes. As mankind keeps on innovating and
developing advanced engineering marvels, the procedures to assess such structures
need to be continuously revamped and modified in coming decades.

References
American Petroleum Institute, (API), (2007), Fitness-For-Service, June, API 579-1/ASME FFS-1,
American Petroleum Institute, New York, NY.
Anderson, T.L. (2005), Fracture Mechanics: Fundamentals and Applications, CRC Press,
Boca Raton, Florida.
British Standard, (BS) (2007), BS7910:2005 – Guide to Methods For Assessing the Acceptability of
Flaws in Metallic Structures, British standard, London.
Cicero, S., Gutiérrez-Solana, F., Álvarez, J.A. and Sánchez, L. (2007), “Failure analysis of a hip
implant by using the FITNET fitness for service procedure”, Engineering Fracture
Mechanics, Vol. 74 No. 5, pp. 688-702.
DNV-OS-F 101 (2012), Submarine Pipeline Systems, August, DNV-OS-F 101, Hovik, Norway
DNV-RP-F 108 (2006), Fracture Control for Pipeline Installation Methods Introducing Cyclic Plastic
Strain, January, DNV-RF-F 108, Hovik, Norway.
Zerbst, U., Schodel, M., Webster, S. and Ainsworth, R. (2007), Fitness-for-Service Fracture
Assessment of Structures Containing Cracks, Elsevier, AP.

Web reference
Available at: www.eurofitnet.org

Further reading
Adam Bannister, S.W. (2000), “Structural integrity assessment procedure for europe-of the SINTAP
programme overview”, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 67 No. 6, pp. 481-514.
Gutiérrez-Solana, F. and Cicero, S. (2009), “FITNET FFS procedure: a unified European procedure
for structural integrity assessment”, Engineering Failure Analysis, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 559-557.

Corresponding author
Utkarsh Ajay Shah can be contacted at: Utkarsh_Shah@lntenc.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints