1220 L Street, Northwest

Washington, DC 20005-4070
202-682-8000

REQUIRESACTIONBY:MONDAY,DECEMBER17,2001
ReturntoBenitaGoreat:gore@api.org

Date: July17,2017
Document: Publication581
BallotNumber: 5810701
Submittedby: RicardoValbuena(ricardo.valbuena@dnv.com);JimRiley(jrri@chevrontexaco.com)

TO: APIRiskBasedInspectionUserGroup

PROPOSAL: CREEPCRACKINGTECHNICALMODULE
(TypeanXintheappropriatebox.)
VOTE: YESW/COMMENTS

COMMENTS: Allcommentsmustbeaddressedinaccordancewithinstructionsonreverse.
*A negative ballot must be accompanied by comments (see Section III)

Hearl Mead 12-17-01

Name Date

Equilon Enterprises / Shell Corrosion and Materials / Inspection

Company Committee/Task Group

281-544-8711 hemead@equilontech.com
Telephone E-mail

Returnto: BenitaGore,AmericanPetroleumInstitute,1220LStreet,NWWashington,DC20005
202-682-8148 (Phone), 202-962-4797 (Fax); gore@api.org(E-mail)

c: OGC,LegalReview

See next page for information on ballot approval and handling of comments
1220 L Street, Northwest
Washington, DC 20005-4070
202-682-8000
I. Ballot Approval

In accordance with Section 7.5.6 of APIs Standards Procedures as approved by the American National Standards
Institute on March 8, 1996, for a proposed ballot action to be considered approved, all comments must be considered
(see below) and the following conditions shall be satisfied:

a. At least 51 percent of the members who are eligible to vote shall have voted affirmative
b. At least two-thirds of the combined valid affirmative and negative votes shall be affirmative.

II. Resolution of Ballot Comments

In accordance with Section 7.5.6 of APIs Standards Procedures as approved by the American National Standards
Institute on March 8, 1996, all comments submitted with ballots must be considered and resolved before a ballot can
be approved by the committee. Resolved does not mean that the comment must be accepted, however all comments
must be considered and task force chairmen must provide API with a response to each comment in accordance with
the options listed below.

7.5.7. Task Force Chairmen working with committee members must consider and resolve all comments
pertaining to technical, safety or environmental assertions and assertions of ambiguity, inaccuracy, or omission.
Comments must be resolved in one of the following ways:

a. Comments with affirmative ballots are persuasive and editorial. The proposed editorial changes are
incorporated into the document.
b. Comments with affirmative ballots are persuasive and substantive. The proposed substantive changes are
reballoted for approval by the appropriate committee prior to incorporation into the document.
c. Comments with affirmative ballots are not technically persuasive. Such comments are not considered
further.
d. Comments with negative ballots are persuasive and substantive. The proposed substantive changes are
reballoted for approval by the appropriate committee prior to incorporation into the document.
e. Comments with negative ballots are withdrawn by the commenter after consultation with the chair or the
designated subgroup. The negative vote is changed to either an abstention or an affirmative vote as
specified by the voter.
f. Comments with negative ballots are found to be technically not persuasive or are found to be unrelated to
the item being balloted. Such comments are not considered further.

III. Handling of Negative Votes

All negative votes accompanied by comments will be considered, an attempt made to resolve the issue(s)and the
results provided to the consensus body to provide them with the opportunity to respond, reaffirm or change their
vote. Negative votes without comments will be recorded as abstentions in accordance with Section 7.5.5 of APIs
Standards Procedures and will not be considered further.

If a negative vote is changed, it must be done in writing. API is required to maintain written records of any
information relating to the change of an original vote. To afford all voters an opportunity to respond, reaffirm or
change their vote, all voters will be advised of the resolution of comments that formed the basis of negative ballots,
including an explanation of the resolution decision.

IV. Appeals

Any person having a material interest in an API standards action shall have the right to bring a timely appeal.
Administrative procedures for conflict resolution in the standards development process, including consideration of
negative ballots must be exhausted before lodging any appeal. Appeals shall be considered by the committee(s)
responsible for the issue with the right of further appeal to the API Management Committee. For additional
information see Section 7.7, API Standards Procedures.

Revised: 9/4/97
 API Publication 581 Risk-Based Inspection Base Resource Document
Appendix R Creep Cracking
Ballot 581-07-01

APPENDIX R CREEP CRACKING TECHNICAL MODULE

R.1 DESCRIPTION OF DAMAGE

One of the most critical factors determining the integrity of high-temperature components is their
resistance to creep damage. At high temperatures and under constant loads, metal components
slowly and continuously deform. After a period of exposure to elevated temperatures and stress
(well below the materials yield strength) these deformations may eventually lead to failure. The
time dependent, thermally assisted deformation of stressed components is known as creep.
While the rate of creep deformation is a function of both the load and temperature; however,
deformations rates are usually most sensitive to the temperature. Creep cracking typically occurs
where high metal temperatures and stress concentrations occur together, such as at tee-joints or
in weld defects in high-temperature process lines. Creep cracking, once initiated, progresses
rapidly.

Creep deformations can cause unacceptable dimensional changes and distortions as well as
fracture of the component. Depending on the component, the failure may be limited by
deformation or fracture. The purpose of this technical module is to provide guidelines for
calculating damage factors for creep to be used in an RBI approach.

R.2 BASIC DATA

The data listed in Table R-1 are the minimum required to calculate the technical module
subfactor for creep cracking.

Page 1 of 11
 API Publication 581 Risk-Based Inspection Base Resource Document
Appendix R Creep Cracking
Table R-1 Basic Data Required for Analysis of Creep Cracking
Basic Data
Grade and specification of base metals
in equipment?
Metal temperature during operation?
Life fraction consumed (LF) to date.
Stress Raisers Present?
Dissimilar Metal Welds Present?
Are there any past creep failures? (Y/N)
If so, what was the age of the
component when it failed?
Location of Failures?
Years since last inspected?
What type of inspection or condition
assessment was performed?
Ballot 581-07-01
Comments
See screening question in R.4, Step 1.
See screening question in R.4, Step 1.
Life fraction consumed (LF) is the ratio of the age of the component
to its estimated minimum creep life of the component. The life
fraction is calculated or estimated for different conditions:
a. LF is the estimate of life fraction based on current knowledge
b. LFA is the life fraction adjusted for stress raisers
c. LFID is the life fraction consumed at the date of the next planned
inspection.
d. LFIA is the life fraction consumed adjusting for the result of a
future inspection.
A stress raiser is any significant change in cross sectional thickness,
and may include branches, tees, other fitting, or supports. Because
stress raisers may result from weld defects that may not be visible, it
should be assumed that stress raisers are present unless extraordinary
means are taken to avoid them.
Differences in temperature dependency of elastic properties, strength,
and thermal expansion could act as stress raisers at the joint, such as
welds between ferritic and austenitic steels.
Indicate if past failures have occurred.
Past failures are used as an indicator of probable component life.
Determine the location of the occurrence of failure:
a. Stress raisers.
b. Dissimilar metal welds.
c. Dissimilar metal welds and stress raisers.
d. No dissimilar metal welds or stress raisers.
Determined by the date of the last inspection for creep cracking.
Inspection / condition assessment activities include:
a. Field metallography and replication (FMR).
b. Stress analysis and/or temperature survey used to estimate
remaining life.
c. Sample removal for metallographic examination or physical
testing.
Page 2 of 11
 API Publication 581 Risk-Based Inspection Base Resource Document
Appendix R Creep Cracking
Ballot 581-07-01

R.3 BASIS OF TECHNICAL MODULE SUBFACTORS

Figure R-1 shows several time-depth trajectories for creep cracks in a high temperature alloy for
metal temperatures that range over a 50C interval. The results in Figure R-1 were obtained
using a typical method for high-temperature creep cracking (C*). These and similar results show
that for the majority of time, that creep cracking damage occurs slowly, until it reaches some
critical depth where rapid crack growth initiates and failure occurs. The period of time that
cracks in a component are sub-critical depend on several factors including:

a. Temperature as an example, in Figure R-1 an increase of about 20F or 12C halves the
life, for this alloy. The life of high temperature components becomes nearly infinite at
temperatures below the threshold limit (Table R- 2), where even at high stresses near the
crack tip, creep damage is slow and crack growth arrests.

b. Stress stress is needed to initiate cracks and to drive them. Typical locations for creep
damage are near major structural discontinues such as pipe tee-joints, nozzles, or welds.
The sudden change in material properties at welds between dissimilar metals can also act
as a stress raiser that is sometimes further complicated by an increased uncertainty of the
components mechanical properties at the weld.

Creep life models seem to predict that the initiation period is the critical factor in the probability
of the failure. The sensitivity of creep-life models to stress, temperature and material properties
make accurate prediction of these initiation times very uncertain. For these two reasons, the
following failure likelihood model uses a quasi-statistical method applied to past experience on
particular equipment or similar equipment.

THE Y AXIS SHOULD BE DEPTH NOT AREA TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE TEXT.

Page 3 of 11
 API Publication 581 Risk-Based Inspection Base Resource Document
Appendix R Creep Cracking
Ballot 581-07-01

1.2

1.0
0.8 600C
Area (in.2)

0.6 612C
625C
0.4
650C
0.2
0.0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Time (hrs)

Figure R-1 Typical Creep Crack Growth Chart Showing Rapid Failure

This module models the failure likelihood as increasing over the time, where the increase rate is
a function of the following factors:

a. Age of the component.

b. Estimated minimum lifetime of component at nominal stress and operating
temperature.
c. Welds between dissimilar metals.
d. Geometric stress raisers.
e. Past experience, including past creep failures.

The parameter used to quantify the condition of a component or equipment item is its life
fraction consumed, LF. Qualitatively, it was assessed that the probability of failure for
equipment items that had consumed less than 25% of its nominal creep life would not be
significantly affected by this failure mechanism. Where the items age ranges between 25% and
80% of its nominal creep life the probability of failure should be significantly higher than for a
industrial average or generic probability. Items with a LF>80% should be carefully assessed to
determine remaining life.

R.4 DETERMINATION OF TECHNICAL MODULE SUBFACTOR

The following assessment pertains to all components in high-temperature service except for
heater tubes. If the component is a heater tube, it should be assessed using the furnace module
(Appendix J). The technical module subfactor is determined in the following steps.

Page 4 of 11
 API Publication 581 Risk-Based Inspection Base Resource Document
Appendix R Creep Cracking
Ballot 581-07-01

Step 1. Table R-2 lists threshold temperatures for creep damage. For any given material, if the
metal temperature is above the given value, then creep and creep cracking should be considered.

Table R-3 Threshold Temperatures for Creep Cracking

Threshold Threshold
Material Material
Temperature Temperature
Carbon Steel 750 F 5Cr-1/2Mo 800 F
C-1/2 Mo 800 F 9Cr-1Mo 900 F
1 1/4Cr-1/2Mo 800 F SS304H 1050 F
2 1/4Cr-1Mo 800 F SS347H 1050 F

Page 5 of 11
 API Publication 581 Risk-Based Inspection Base Resource Document
Appendix R Creep Cracking
Ballot 581-07-01

Step 2. Determine the life fraction consumed, LF, using one the following methods, depending
on the information given. The methods are listed in order of decreasing conservatism and
increasing complexity. The most conservative least analytical methods are listed first, the most
complex and least conservative are listed last.

a. If no information is available assume that the minimum component life is 100,000 hours
(approximately 12 years). Here, LF is simply the ratio of the age of the component to 12
years. One hundred thousand hours is the typical design life of components. While this
assumption should result in conservative results in the majority of cases, the analyst should
be aware that that universally adopting a 100,000-hour creep life for a range of equipment
greatly increases the uncertainty and could in some cases result in a non-conservative result.
An example of this would be when unanticipated high stresses are present.

b. If only the design (design should be underlined to emphasize the distinction from method C
below) stress and temperature are known, then estimate the components life using the
minimum creep properties given in API Std. 530 or in Appendix F, API RP 579. With the
design stress and temperature, calculate the LMP (for API Std. 530) or 0 and (for API RP
579). Use these material parameters, to estimate minimum creep life, L. For example:

1000 LMP
log 10 L C
T 460

1
L
0

Then calculate the life fraction, LF as A/L where A is the age of the component.

c. If the actual (actual should be underlined to emphasize the distinction from method B above)
or nominal stress and the representative, historical operating temperature are known, use
these values to estimate the components life using the minimum creep properties given in
API Std. 530 or in API RP 579, Appendix F. First, estimate or calculate the membrane stress
in the case of shells or heads, or average cross-sectional stress in the case of hangers and
supports. With this stress and operating temperature, calculate the LMP (for API Std. 530) or
0 and (for API RP 579). Use these material parameters, to estimate minimum creep life,
L. For example, the formula tabulated above could be used with stresses and temperatures
determined from the historical record. Then calculate the life fraction, LF as A/L where A is
the age of the component.

d. If in the past the component has failed and been replaced in kind or repaired, then assume the
expected life, L, is the age of the component when it failed. In this case, the life fraction, LF
is the ratio of the age of the current component to the observed life A/L.

If the component has been assessed based on an inspection, physical testing, and a detailed
engineering analysis with measured historical operating data, the result of this assessment should

Page 6 of 11
 API Publication 581 Risk-Based Inspection Base Resource Document
Appendix R Creep Cracking
Ballot 581-07-01

be used to determine the consumed life fraction. Only assessments made within the five-year
period preceding the date of the LF calculation was made should be used. If it has been more
than five years since the last inspection or assessment, a detailed review of the assumptions used
and the results obtained from the assessment should be performed. No remaining life estimate
obtained prior to any significant change in operating conditions should be used without a review
of the results, assumptions and methods used to obtain it. A new LF calculation is to be
performed after any significant change in the operation (e.g., stress, temperature, corrosion rates,
etc.). The LF calculation made on the basis of an inspection or sample removal is taken at face
value, regardless of the methods employed to arrive at the answer. However, for inspection
planning (planning should be underlined to emphasize the difference from the current risk
TMSF) purposes, two general assessment types are identified:

WE ALSO HIGHLY RECOMMEND THAT THE INSPECTION PLANNING WOULD BE

LESS CONFUSING IF IT WERE WRITTEN AS A SEPARATE SECTION, ALTHOUGH
MANY OF THE TABLES, FIGURES AND MUCH OF THE TEXT WOULD BE THE SAME.

This should be methods E & F

e. A surface inspection (field metallography and replication, FMR, and magnetic particle,
MP) combined with a remaining life assessment, where available historical temperature
records and calculated stresses are used to determine the remaining life and the LF.

f. Sample removal and physical testing either creep rupture or creep strain testing (-
testing) are combined with historical temperatures and calculated stresses to determine the
LF.

Step 3. Determine if any of the following conditions apply:

a. Welds joining dissimilar materials (e.g., ferritic to austenitic welds).

b. Radical changes in stiffness or component details that have sharp transitions, tight
radii, notches or grooves.

If either of these conditions are present, adjust the estimated life fraction, LF A,according to
Table R-4. If they are not present, set the adjusted life fraction to the estimated life fraction
(LFA = LF) and go to Step 4.

THE METHODS IN TABLE R-3 SHOULD BE LISTED IN ORDER OF A TO F.

Page 7 of 11
 API Publication 581 Risk-Based Inspection Base Resource Document
Appendix R Creep Cracking
Ballot 581-07-01

Table R-5 Adjustment to Life Fraction Based on Calculation Method

Method of Calculating LF Adjusted LF, LFA

(Method A) Default lifetime of 100,000 hours. 2.5 RECOMMEND 3.0 TO
SHOW HIGHER RISK THAN
METHOD B LF
(Method B) Calculated based on design stress and temperature. 2.5 LF
(Method C) Calculated based on a calculated average THE 1.5 LF
WORD AVERAGE IS DIFFERENT FROM TEXTcomponent
stress and operating temperature.
(Method D) Calculated based on the observed life of the 1.25 LF
component, where failure occurred as a stressed point.
(Method F) Calculated based on the combination of detailed 1 LF
stress analysis, mechanical testing. (WITH SAMPLE
REMOVAL)
(Method E) Calculated based on the combination of detailed If calculated LF 0.8, use 1 LF.
stress analysis or other advanced technique WITH NO SAMPLE If calculated LF > 0.8, use LF = 1
REMOVAL.

Step 4. Table R-6 relates the adjusted life fraction, LFA, and the technical module subfactor,
TMSF. The following table is a subjective assessment of the failure probability given the
components estimated LFA. It was determined by assuming that a component is most likely to
fail when its estimated adjusted life fraction, LF A is 1 and that the probability of failure is 3% for
a component with an estimated adjusted life fraction, LF A of less than 0.5. These probabilities
levels were set based on engineering judgement and expert opinion. It was felt that a component
is most likely to fail when it reaches its estimated life and that there is a very small probability
(3% or less) that a component fails before it reaches one half of its estimated life. <<< THIS
SENTENCE IS REDUNDANT. For simplicity, a function similar in form to Weibull
distribution was used to develop the tabulated TMSFs.

Table R-7 TMSF as a Function of the Adjusted Life Fraction Consumed

(LFa) or the Life Fraction Adjusted for Inspection (LFIA)

FOR TABLE R-4, RECOMMEND DELETING LF IA AND INCLUDING THIS IN A

SEPARATE TABLE IN A SEPARATE SECTION FOR INSPECTION PLANNING.

Page 8 of 11
 API Publication 581 Risk-Based Inspection Base Resource Document
Appendix R Creep Cracking
Ballot 581-07-01

LFA LFA
TMSF TMSF
LFIA LFIA
0.05 1 0.55 295
0.10 1 0.60 431
0.15 1 0.65 609
0.20 3 0.70 833
0.25 9 0.75 1109
0.30 20 0.80 1438
0.35 39 0.85 1818
0.40 72 0.90 2246
0.45 121 0.95 2713
0.50 193 1.00 3205

R.5 INSPECTION PLANNING AND EFFECTIVENESS

When future inspections are being planned, the effect on the TMSF must be determined in order
to assess, whether the planned inspection or remaining life assessment has the potential to reduce
the risk enough to make the planned inspection economical. In Step 3 SHOULD THIS BE
STEP 4??, past inspections and remaining life assessments results are used to set the LF used to
enter Table R-8. However, because the value of the LF that results from a future inspection
and/or assessment is not available until it is performed, Table R-9 contains recommended values
FOR LFIA that can be used for inspection and assessment planning purposes.

AS STATED EARLIER, THIS SECTION WOULD BE EASIER TO FOLLOW IF ITS

TABLES, ETC. WERE SEPARATE FROM THE PREVIOUS SECTION, INSTEAD OF
TRYING TO ELIMINATE DUPLICATE TABLES.

The method described below depends on the life fraction at the time when the inspection is
planned, LFID. Because an inspection performed early in the life of a component is unlikely to
observe any damage, the calculation of the future TMSF used for planning, ignores any
inspection planned before 15% of the creep life has been consumed. To conservatively account
for possible replacement of aging components, the default values for LF ID resulting from a late in
life inspection assumeING that the planned inspection does not result in a significant
improvement in the estimated remaining life.

The values determined from the Table R-10 can be used in Table R-11, in the following way:

THESE PARAGRAPHS SHOULD DESCRIBE THE STEP BY STEP PROCESS

SUMMARIZED IN FIGURE 3.

a. AGAIN THIS IS CONFUSING AND NEEDS TO BE RE-WRITTEN.Calculate the

adjusted life fraction at the planned inspection date, LF ID (Steps 1 4). LFID is calculated
using the age of the component at time of the proposed inspection or assessment, while
ignoring any expected future inspection result. The results from past inspection(s) should
be considered. For example, a 15 year old item is considered for an inspection five years

Page 9 of 11
 API Publication 581 Risk-Based Inspection Base Resource Document
Appendix R Creep Cracking
Ballot 581-07-01

into the future. On the inspection date, the equipment will be 20 years old. Steps 1 4
result in an estimated life, L = 30 years. At the time of inspection the LF ID = 20/30 =
0.67.
b. Enter Table R-12 with LFID to determine the value of the inspection adjusted life
fraction LFIA to be used in Table 13, which gives the TMSF. There are two possible
values WHEN THE LFID < OR = 0.80: 1) the recommended default LFIA; or 2) the value
of LF, which the analyst believes will result from the combination of the inspection
and/or further assessment.

Table R-14 Adjustments to be made for Inspection

Pre-assessment FMR / MPI and Detailed Sample Removal and Detailed

Estimate Of Life Remaining Life Assessment Remaining Life Assessment
Fraction, LFID (Method E) (Method F)
0.25 0.80 LFIA = Estimated LF or LFIA = Estimated LF or
Max (2LFID / 3, 0.25)* Max (LFID / 2, 0.15)*
0.80 1.00 LFIA = 0.75 LFIA = 0.60

* designates default value.

Notes:

a. Estimated LF = the analysts best estimate (guess) for the life fraction that will be calculated, if the
proposed inspection/assessment is performed.
b. Improving the calculation of LF and LFA on the bases of Methods B, C, and D can be implemented without
any need to inspect.

Page 10 of 11
 API Publication 581 Risk-Based Inspection Base Resource Document
Appendix R Creep Cracking
Ballot 581-07-01

START

Screening questions on
Not in creep done
material grade and
range
temperature

Estimate LF using
methods A-E

Are stress Yes Adjust LF using

raisers present ? Table R-3

No

Calculate TMSF using

Table R-4

Is action Yes Do it
required
immediately

No

Start
inspection/assessment
planning

Figure R-2 Assessment of Creep Cracking

SECOND RECTANGLE SHOULD STATE METHODS A-F, NOT A-E

LAST RECTANGLE SHOULD REFER TO FIGURE R-3.

Page 11 of 11
 API Publication 581 Risk-Based Inspection Base Resource Document
Appendix R Creep Cracking
Ballot 581-07-01

START

Calculate LF at inspection date,

denote this as LFID

Yes No inspection /
Is LFID < 0.25? assessment type is
effective

No

Improve estimate based on

available information

Yes
Can estimate of LFID be
improved by using
Methods A, B, C, or D?

No

Estimate improvement to LF based on Methods E

or F inspection using Table R-5

Change proposed
inspection / assessment Estimate TMSF for inspection date using Table
type or date OR R-4
Plan repair/replacement

Does inspection modified

No TMSF or corresponding
risk meet inspection
criteria?

Yes

Done

Figure 3 Flow Diagram of Inspection Planning

Page 12 of 11