Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 15 views

    15 March 2023 Update

    Uploaded by

    Jordan Yap
    1) The document discusses inspection planning and risk analysis for corrosion of pipe bundles. It provides examples of plotting inspection data on a Weibull chart to determine failure rates over time. 2) Key factors discussed include uncertainty adjustments based on inspection history, reducing uncertainty through effective inspections, and shifting failure rate curves based on actual measured thickness data. 3) The example shows how inspection history can increase the recommended inspection interval from 7.1 to 23.58 years by reducing uncertainty adjustments from 50% to 30% and accounting for the true measured condition of the bundle.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    15 March 2023 Update

    Uploaded by

    Jordan Yap
    15 views11 pages
    1) The document discusses inspection planning and risk analysis for corrosion of pipe bundles. It provides examples of plotting inspection data on a Weibull chart to determine failure rates over time. 2) Key factors discussed include uncertainty adjustments based on inspection history, reducing uncertainty through effective inspections, and shifting failure rate curves based on actual measured thickness data. 3) The example shows how inspection history can increase the recommended inspection interval from 7.1 to 23.58 years by reducing uncertainty adjustments from 50% to 30% and accounting for the true measured condition of the bundle.

    Original Title

    Untitled

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The document discusses inspection planning and risk analysis for corrosion of pipe bundles. It provides examples of plotting inspection data on a Weibull chart to determine failure rates over time. 2) Key factors discussed include uncertainty adjustments based on inspection history, reducing uncertainty through effective inspections, and shifting failure rate curves based on actual measured thickness data. 3) The example shows how inspection history can increase the recommended inspection interval from 7.1 to 23.58 years by reducing uncertainty adjustments from 50% to 30% and accounting for the true measured condition of the bundle.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    15 views11 pages

    15 March 2023 Update

    Uploaded by

    Jordan Yap
    1) The document discusses inspection planning and risk analysis for corrosion of pipe bundles. It provides examples of plotting inspection data on a Weibull chart to determine failure rates over time. 2) Key factors discussed include uncertainty adjustments based on inspection history, reducing uncertainty through effective inspections, and shifting failure rate curves based on actual measured thickness data. 3) The example shows how inspection history can increase the recommended inspection interval from 7.1 to 23.58 years by reducing uncertainty adjustments from 50% to 30% and accounting for the true measured condition of the bundle.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 11

    15th March 2023

    Update

    Jordan Yap Hong Yong ( 葉宏榮 )


    Department of Aeronautical Engineering - 10978141
    Advisor: Sidney Liu ( 劉昇祥 )
    Example plotting the chart
    1. 1/1992
     Installation date
     Original wall thickness:

    2. 6/2000 8.5 years


     Bundle had minor general corrosion
     Wall thickness: 0.11 (8.5% loss)
     Inspection effectiveness graded as “C”
    3.25 years
    3. 9/2003
     Bundle showed minor wall loss
     Wall thickness: 0.104 (13% loss)
     Inspection effectiveness graded as “C”

    The recommended first inspection would be 7.1 years after installation (Graph)
    Example plotting the chart
    1. Weibull Parameter from the reliability database
     9 Bundles = 5 complete failures + 4 suspensions
     Simple Linear Regression X on Y, RRX (Proved)
     Slope parameter, β = 2.568
     Scale parameter, η = 20.45 years

    2. Consequence of Failure

    3. Risk analysis

    Inspection planning without inspection history
    1. Uncertainty and Effect on risk
     Without a large sampling of inspection data  A 50% Additional Uncertainty (AU) is used
     Objective: To account for inaccuracies and bias
     The Weibull plot will move the lower boundaries to left (earlier time)
    Inspection planning without inspection history
    1. Uncertainty and Effect on risk
    Inspection planning with inspection history
    1. Effect of inspection on the probability of failure
     Adjustment:
     Reduction in uncertainty: Moving from 50% AU  20% AU
     The result, the failure rate curve shifted to the right or left

    2. Reduction in uncertainty due to inspection effectiveness


     If the bundle has been inspected, the uncertainty is reduced
     Concept of inspection effectiveness is introduced
     As inspection techniques are used, the amount of uncertainty decreases and the Weibull plot shifts to the
    right
    Inspection planning with inspection history
    3. Shift of POF curve due to knowledge of true bundle condition
     Predicted future failure date based on measured thickness data

     At this rate, the average wall thickness will reach 50% in 44.1 years or in 9/2047

    4. Adjustment to Failure rate curve based on actual condition of bundle

     Note that the β was kept the same as the original curves
    Inspection Planning
    Inspection planning with inspection history
    4. Adjustment to Failure rate curve based on actual condition of bundle

     β = 2.568
     In the example, since there are two adjustments were made. The uncertainty was reduced from 50% to 30%
     The recommended inspection interval at the maximum acceptable of failure = 50% for the bundle was
    increased from 7.1 years to:
     or 2/2009 (should be 23.58 years)
    Effect of Inspection Sketch

    Jan 1992: Installation


    1st Inspection
    8.5% wall loss
    0.12in  0.1098

    17.1 years Shutdown Jun 2000: 1st Inspection (Minor


    corrosion) – “C” Level

    4.83% wall loss


    With Inspection 0.1098  0.104
    History
    No Inspection Sep 2003: 2nd Inspection (Minor
    History 2nd Inspection loss) – “C” Level

    Installation

    8.5 3 𝟖 .𝟓 𝒚𝒓𝒔
    𝟐𝟎. 𝟐𝟓 𝒚𝒓𝒔
    Effect of Inspection

    • Higher percentage of UA
    has a bigger slope

    10% UA

    50% UA
    30% UA

    You might also like