Inspectioneering
Inspectioneering Journal

FFS Forum: Proximity Issues in API 579 Assessments (aka, When One Thing is Too Close to the Other Thing)

By Greg Garic, P.E., Senior Staff Consultant at Stress Engineering Services, Inc. This article appears in the September/October 2024 issue of Inspectioneering Journal.
3 Likes

Introduction

In fitness-for-service (FFS) assessments under the API 579 International Standard (API 579), there are many instances when it is necessary to evaluate if a flaw or defect is too close to another flaw or defect or some “feature” of the structure. In such cases, the assessment may not be allowed, or special consideration may be required. I’ll collectively call these “proximity limits.” 

Over many years of teaching my API 579 short course, I’ve noticed that there can be a good bit of confusion regarding when and how to apply these proximity limits. There are proximity limits in most Parts of API 579. Many are identical in several Parts, while others vary slightly. I think it will be useful to collect all of these criteria in one place and to look for the common threads and logic as to why these requirements are important. This is intended to be something of a “quick reference” to remind you which Parts use which proximity limits. A summary table is also provided at the end for easy reference.

Types of Proximity Issues

There are essentially four types of proximity limits:

  1. MSD - Too close to a major structural discontinuity (MSD).
  2. Weld - Too close to a weld.
  3. Same type defect - Too close to another flaw or defect like itself (e.g., a crack near another crack or a local thin area (LTA) near another LTA).
  4. Different type defect – Too close to a different type of defect (e.g., a crack near an LTA).

The fourth type, interaction with different types of defects, is the most problematic. I wrote an in-depth article on this topic in the July/August 2020 issue of Inspectioneering Journal, entitled “FFS Forum: Dealing with Multiple Damage Mechanisms in an FFS Assessment.” I won’t be recapping that article here, but I strongly recommend you read it to get a better understanding of this fourth type of proximity limit.

In the following sections, I’ll briefly discuss the first three proximity limits for each Part of API 579 and provide a summary table for your reference (see Table 1).

This content is free for registered users

Register today to read this article for free.

Create your free account and you'll also get access to:

  • Unlock one premium article of your choosing per month
  • Exclusive online content, videos, and downloads
  • Insightful and actionable webinars
GET STARTED
Interested in unlimited access? VIEW OUR SUBSCRIPTION OPTIONS

Current subscribers and registered users can log in now.


Comments and Discussion

There are no comments yet.

Add a Comment

Please log in or register to participate in comments and discussions.


Inspectioneering Journal

Explore over 20 years of articles written by our team of subject matter experts.

Company Directory

Find relevant products, services, and technologies.

Training Solutions

Improve your skills in key mechanical integrity subjects.

Case Studies

Learn from the experience of others in the industry.

Integripedia

Inspectioneering's index of mechanical integrity topics – built by you.

Industry News

Stay up-to-date with the latest inspection and asset integrity management news.

Blog

Read short articles and insights authored by industry experts.

Expert Interviews

Inspectioneering's archive of interviews with industry subject matter experts.

Event Calendar

Find upcoming conferences, training sessions, online events, and more.

Downloads

Downloadable eBooks, Asset Intelligence Reports, checklists, white papers, and more.

Videos & Webinars

Watch educational and informative videos directly related to your profession.

Acronyms

Commonly used asset integrity management and inspection acronyms.