24 Jan 2002 ... we're more worried—what does the data say? • Retube now? Retube next
turnaround in 3 years (age 20 years)? Retube at second turnaround ...
Heat Exchanger IRIS Wall Thickness And Gumbel Smallest Distribution Paul Barringer, P.E. Barringer & Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 3985 Humble, TX 77347-3985 Phone: 281-852-6810 FAX: 281-852-3749 Email:
[email protected] Web: http://www.barringer1.com
January 24,2002
© Barringer & Associates, Inc. 2002
1
What’s The Issue? How To Resolve? • Heat exchanger is 17 years old—460 tubes • At turnaround eddy current wall thickness inspection occurred—we’re worried • Did an IRIS inspection on 10% of tubes—now we’re more worried—what does the data say? • Retube now? Retube next turnaround in 3 years (age 20 years)? Retube at second turnaround in 6 years (age 23 years)? © Barringer & Associates, Inc. 2002
Time Issues
2
1
What Are Cost Consequences? • Failure is dependent on outside temperatures: – – – –
Summer failure = $750,000 lost margins & retube Fall failure = $500,000 lost margins & retube Winter failure = $100,000 lost margins & retube Spring failure = $250,000 lost margins & retube
• Another key issue is environmental impact along with the cost issues if failure occurs Money Issues © Barringer & Associates, Inc. 2002
3
Why Did They Inspect? • Rule of thumb for this facility– Inspect tubes if wall thickness has been reduced by 1/3, i.e. from 0.083” to 0.055” – Consider retubing heat exchangers when tube wall thickness has been reduced to ½ of original wall thickness, i.e. from 0.083” to 0.0415”
• This exchanger has environmental concerns © Barringer & Associates, Inc. 2002
4
2
Eddy Current vs IRIS Inspection • Eddy current inspection is a quick and inexpensive inspection of each tube—min wall is reported for each tube • IRIS inspection is a more detailed and more expensive inspection with a rotating head ultrasonic tool—min wall is reported for each tube and tube ID’s must be very clean © Barringer & Associates, Inc. 2002
5
What Did IRIS Inspection Find? • The minimum wall thickness report shows: Wall*qty 0.050*1 0.055*1 0.056*2 0.058*2 0.059*1 0.061*6
0.063*9 0.064*9 0.065*4 0.066*5 0.067*2 0.069*4
Wall thickness measured in inches
• Minimum allowed wall thickness is 0.036” © Barringer & Associates, Inc. 2002
6
3
Competing Models: Weibull or Gumbel Distributions? Weibull Distribution with rank regression & inspection option Data stacks from course measurements ∴use inspection option for regression
Small risk of wall thickness R= Coefficient © Barringer & Associates, Inc. 2002 of regression less than min allowed ccc= critical correlation coefficient
7
Competing Models: Weibull or Gumbel Distributions? Gumbel- Distribution with rank regression
Bigger than for Weibull distribution ∴ use Gumble-
R= Coefficient Higher risk of wall thickness less than & Associates, © Barringer Inc. 2002 of regression ccc= critical correlation coefficient min allowed ∴more conservative
8
4
PDF Curves
Note the Gumbel- distribution says to expect more occurrences with thinner walls
© Barringer & Associates, Inc. 2002
9
Why Gumbel Lower Distribution?
F( x) := 1 − e
F( x) := e
−e
−e
results in the smaller sizes ( x− Ψ ) Emphasizes Use for minimum wall thicknesses, etc. Extreme Value δ
Gumbel Smallest or Lower Extreme Cumulative Distribution Function
− ( x− Ψ ) δ
Emphasizes results in the larger sizes Use for gust loads and floods, etc.
Extreme Value Gumbel Largest Extreme Cumulative Distribution Function
© Barringer & Associates, Inc. 2002
10
5
The Gumbel smallest extreme value CDF is given by: ( t− ψ )
F( t)
1−e
δ
−e
Rearanging the equations to read ( t− ψ )
1 − F( t)
e
−e
( t− ψ )
δ
1
Or
( t− ψ )
e
1 1 − F( t)
e
e
δ
δ
e
Taking the log of both sides you get: ( t −ψ )
e 1 − F( t)
ln
1
δ
Again, taking the log of both sides you get: ln ln
1 1 − F( t)
(t − ψ )
t
δ
δ
+
ψ δ
Gumbel- Distribution has uniform X-axis
This has the equation form of y = mx+b for a straight line where the Y-axis is the same as for the Weibull distribution which has the following form for a straight line equation
Same Y-axis
ln ln
1 1 − F( t)
β ⋅ ln( t) − β ⋅ ln( η )
Weibull Distribution has logarithmic X-axis
So you could get from the Gumbel smallest plot to the Weibull plot with some math complications.
© Barringer & Associates, Inc. 2002
Heat Exchanger IRIS Inspection Data
99 95
90
G-/rr/insp1
Occurrences CDF %
70 50
40 30 20 10
Ψ =0.06427
5
δ
2
Area is 1% hi by 0.01” wide
Area is 1% hi by 0.01” wide
Year 17
80 60
11
Xi Del r^2 n/s 0.06427 0.00316 0.989 46/0
1 .03
.04
.05
.06
.07
.08
.09
.1
.11
Tube Wall Thickness (inches) © Barringer & Associates, Inc. 2002
12
6
95
Occurrence CDF %
80
Heat Exchanger IRIS Inspection Data 99
G-/rr/insp1 Year 17
90
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5 2 1 .5
Assumes new tube with tmin = 0.083” and tmax = 0.101” for ~6*σ = 99.8%
Year ?? Min Allowed Wall = 0.036”
99.9
Year 0
Note ~parallel slopes ∴ general corrosion Xi Del r^2 n/s 0.06427 0.0031573 0.989 46/0 0.09706 0.0020362
.2 .1 .03
.04
.05
.06
.07
.08
.09
.1
.11
Tube Wall Thickness (inches) © Barringer Associates, Inc. 2002 Corrosion rate = & (0.09706-0.06427)/17 = 0.00193”/yr
13
Retube Or Not Retube Now? • At year 20 (next turnaround) the characteristic wall thickness will decline to 0.05848” • The risk for falling below 0.036” min wall is 8.075E-04 • The $risk exposure = 8.075E-04*$750,000 = $606 Time & Money Issues Converge • ∴ take the risk for running 3 more years —do not retube now and run to TA at yr 20. © Barringer & Associates, Inc. 2002
14
7
Retube Or Not Retube To Reach Yr 23? • At year 23 (2nd turnaround) the characteristic wall thickness will decline to 0.0527” • The risk for falling below 0.036” min wall is 5.036E-03 Time & Money Issues Converge • The $risk exposure = 5.036E-03*$750,000 = $3,777 which is OK for business risk but maybe not OK for environmental risk • ∴ retube at year 20 if risk adverse, run to year 23 if the organization is a risk taker © Barringer & Associates, Inc. 2002
15
Now, For Grins • Consider a case of the Gumbel larger distribution for Houston
© Barringer & Associates, Inc. 2002
16
8
Remember June 9, 2001?
© Barringer & Associates, Inc. 2002
Peak Annual Stream Flows-Gage Height (feet) USGS 08074000 Buffalo Bayou at Houston, Texas
99.9
G+/rr
Note: Gage Datum: -1.36 feet above sea level
Altitude for 100 yr flood comes from the return period = 1/(1-p). When RP = 100, then p = 99%
Forecasted One Hundred Year Flood Gage Height
95 June 9, 2001
Occurrence CDF (%)
99
90 80 60
17
70
50 40 30 20 10 5 21 .2.5.1
Xi Del r^2 n/s 17.2 5.99 0.978 67/0 0
10
20
30
40
44.76 50
60
70
80
Peak Gage Height (feet) © Barringer & Associates, Inc. 2002
18
9
Assumed Houston Flood Cost
4
2
1
100 year flood will be a 2X $ problem
3
June 9, 2001
Assumed Flood Cost US ($ Billion)
5
0 10
20
30
40
50
Gage Height (feet) © Barringer & Associates, Inc. 2002
19
Want More Details? • Got to http://www.barringer1.com • Look at Problems of the Month • For software to make the calculations, look at WinSMITH Weibull (which also includes Gumbel large and small distributions) • Also look at the biography of Dr. Weibull and Dr. Abernethy (the world’s leading expert in Weibull analysis—formerly with Pratt & Whitney Engines) • Dr. Weibull got many of his ideas on extreme values while working at Bofors Steel in Sweden—you can see Bofors antiaircraft guns at the Museum of the Pacific in Fredricksburg, TX. © Barringer & Associates, Inc. 2002
20
10