Corrosion Problems Quantified With Gumbel Lower Distribution
Corrosion Problems Quantified With Gumbel Lower Distribution
Corrosion Problems Quantified With Gumbel Lower Distribution
Phone: 281-852-6810
FAX: 281-852-3749
Email: [email protected]
Web: http://www.barringer1.com
1
The Weibull distribution straight line equation
ln⎜⎛ ln⎛⎜ ⎞⎞
⎟ ⎟ β ⋅ ln( t) − β ⋅ ln( η )
1
⎝ ⎝ 1 − F( t) ⎠ ⎠
ln⎛⎜
1 ⎞
ln⎛⎜ ⎞ e
δ 1 δ
⎟ e ⎟ Gumbel has
⎝ F( t) ⎠ ⎝ 1 − F( t) ⎠ uniform
Again, taking the log of both sides you get: Again, taking the log of both sides you get: X-axis
−( t − ξ) −t ξ t−ξ ξ
ln⎜⎛ ln⎛⎜ ⎞⎞ ln⎛⎜ ln⎛⎜ ⎞⎞
1 1 t
⎟⎟ + ⎟⎟ −
⎝ ⎝ F( t) ⎠ ⎠ δ δ δ ⎝ ⎝ 1 − F( t) ⎠ ⎠ δ δ δ
Y = mX + b Y = mX + b
ξ is a scale factor
ξ − δ⋅ ln⎜⎛ ln⎛⎜
1 ⎞⎞
ξ + δ⋅ ln⎛⎜ ln⎛⎜ ⎞⎞
1
t ⎟⎟ t ⎟⎟
δ is a shape factor
⎝ ⎝ F( t) ⎠ ⎠ ⎝ ⎝ 1 − F( t) ⎠ ⎠
For Monte Carlo modeling: For Monte Carlo modeling: Small δ steep
t ξ − δ⋅ ln( −ln( a_random_n o) ) t ξ + δ⋅ ln( −ln( 1 − a_random_n o) )lines for G- & G+
© Barringer & Associates, Inc. 2007 3
distributions
2
What’s The Issue? How To Resolve?
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. when wall thickness
has been reduced from 0.083” to 0.0415”
• This exchanger has environmental concerns
© Barringer & Associates, Inc. 2007 7
4
What Did IRIS Inspection Find?
• The minimum wall thickness report shows:
Rule of thumb triggers Wall*qty
inspection at 0.050” 0.050*1 0.063*9
0.055*1 0.064*9
Wall thickness
0.056*2 0.065*4
measured
0.058*2 0.066*5
in inches
0.059*1 0.067*2
0.061*6 0.069*4
• Minimum allowed wall thickness is 0.036”
for structural integrity.
© Barringer & Associates, Inc. 2007 9
a
ure
Occurrence (high)
Use top l
Fai
of stack for
regression
Discovery
Benign failure Age/Thickness
occurred here?
Benign failure
discovered here
5
Competing Models:
Weibull? or Gumbel Distributions?
Weibull Distribution
with rank regression
& inspection option
Competing Models:
Weibull or Gumbel Distributions?
Gumbel- Distribution
with rank regression
6
PDF Curves
PDF Details
(0.050459”, 3.933565)
( t − ξ) 100 t− ξ
⎛ t− ξ ⎞ δ ⎛ t− ξ ⎞ δ
⎛ 1 ⎞ ⋅ e⎜⎝ δ
⎟ −e
⎠ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⋅ e⎜⎝ δ
⎟ −e
⎠
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ Gumbel Lower PDF
⎝ δ⎠ ⎝ δ⎠
2
β β
⎛ t− t0 ⎞ 50 ⎛ t− t0 ⎞
−⎜ ⎟ −⎜ ⎟
⎡⎛ β ⎞ ⋅ t − t β − 1⎤ ⋅ e ⎝
⎡⎛ β ⎞ ⋅ t − t β − 1⎤ ⋅ e ⎝
⎢⎜ β ⎟ (
0 ⎥ ) η ⎠
⎢⎜ β ⎟ (
0 ⎥ ) η ⎠
⎣⎝ η ⎠ ⎦ ⎣⎝ η ⎠ ⎦
0 0
0.04 0.06 0.04 0.05
t t
Weibull PDF
7
Why Gumbel Lower Distribution?
50
Occurrences CDF %
40
30
20
10 Parameters:
ξ =0.06427 Location
5 Slope/Shape
8
General Corrosion
This becomes a t=? t=9 t=6 t=3yrs Start = datum
critical value!
Low probability
of thin wall below
Wall Thickness
minimum! © Barringer & Associates, Inc. 2007 17
min
Critical Value, ξ,
For Wall Thickness
9
Accelerated Corrosion
t=9 t=6 t=3 start
99.9%
General Deterioration
Probability of
Occurrence
Accelerated
Deterioration
Breaks The
! Min Wall
Don’t exceed this Limits!
probability of thin wall
10
You Must Know Wall Thickness At Time Zero
Heat Exchanger IRIS Inspection Data
99.9
99
G-/rr/insp1
95 Year 17 Assumes new tube
90
80 with tmin = 0.083”
70
60 and tmax = 0.101”
50
Occurrence CDF %
40 Year ?? for ~6*σ = 99.8%
30
20
0.07034 @ 17 years
0.06496 @ 20 years
0.05956 @ 23 years
11
Heat Exchanger Construction Lines
99.9
99
G-/rr/insp1 0.06496 0.07037 0.101
95
90
80 General Corrosion
70
60
50
Occurrence CDF %
40 Year 20
30
20
2
1 Accelerated
Corrosion
.5 Effects
.2
.1
Year 23
.03 .04 .05 .06 .07 .08 .09 .1 .11
Tube Wall Thickness (inches)
0.03531 0.05237 0.083
0.04246
© Barringer & Associates, Inc. 2007 23
Year 20 Forecasted Line: ξ = 0.05848, δ = 0.0033541 with 0.1228% occurrence at 0.036” wall.
0.083
0.05237
Y=0.083-0.0018017t
0.04246
Y=0.083-0.0023847t
0.03531 @ 20 years
17
12
Retube Or Not Retube Now?
• At year 20 (next turnaround) the minimum
wall thickness will decline to just under 0.036”
• The risk for falling below 0.036” min wall is
0.1228% Time & Money Issues Converge
13
Problem 2: Column Corrosion
• A column is rapidly loosing wall thickness.
• Fluids/gasses within the column are violent.
• Frequent Inspections—data is all over the map!
• Loss of containment will impact personnel and
environment issues with big $’s
• What should we do:
--Run?—if so, for how long?
--Shut down?—if so, how to persuade the
management team?
© Barringer & Associates, Inc. 2007 27
Inspection
Grid
Over “Bad”
Spots
Height
Data collection
on the grid
will contain both
good walls and
bad walls!
14
Raw Data UT Inspections
Thick —
Rapid ignore!
Deterioration
In Wall
Thickness Thin —
worry!
15
End Points For Corrosion Curve
UT Wall Thickness Construction Lines 51
General Corros. 33.09
@ 0.1%
Days Thickness 32.3
0 49
906 31.09
966 25.17
1105 25.56
1127 25.17
Gen + Accel Cor.
Gen + Accel Cor. @ 99.9%
@ 0.1% Days Thickness
Days Thickness 0 51
0 49 906 33.09
906 25.56 966 32.3
966 23.61 25.17 1105 27.56
1105 19.26 1127 27.17
1127 19.53 31.09
25.56 49
25.17
© Barringer & Associates, Inc. 2007 31
1178
1460
16
Summary
• ASME minimum wall was violated at 949 days
• API fitness for service will be violated at 1176 days
and we are 1127 days into service
• Plan an immediate orderly shutdown for replacement
• Outage + planned replacement =$10,000,000
• Emergency outage + emergency replacement =
$20,000,000 because of safety hazards
• Risk is too high! 0.1%*$10,000,000 = $10,000 and
climbing toward $20,000,000. Take action now!
© Barringer & Associates, Inc. 2007 33
17
It Rained A Little
On June 9, 2001—23 Inches!
Cars are
submerged
on US 59 © Barringer & Associates, Inc. 2007 35
highway!
then p = 99%
95
Forecasted One Hundred
Year Flood Gage Height
June 9, 2001
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10 Xi Del r^2 n/s
5
21 17.2 5.99 0.978 67/0
.2.5.1
44.76
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Peak Gage Height (feet)
The flood was bad but not the worst © Barringer & Associates, Inc. 2007
recorded near downtown Houston! 36
18
Assumed Houston Flood Cost In June 2001
5
will be a 2X
$ problem
June 9, 2001
1
0
10 20 30 40 50
19
Space Shuttle Burned O-Rings
Failures
STS 51-C Field Joint Only
3 ●
Failures
Data
And
61A 53*3
● Successes
Number of
2
57*1
Incidents
58*1 Data
41B
●●
41C
● ●41D
63*1 53*3
1 ●STS-2
61C
70*2 57*1
75*2 58*1
0 63*1
45o 50o 55o 60o 65o 70o 75o 80o
Calculated Joint Temperature, oF -66*1
STS 51-C Field Joint -67*3
3 ● -68*1
-69*1
●
61A
70*2
Number of
2
Incidents
-70*2
41B
-72*1
1 ●●
41C
● ●41D
●STS-2 -73*1
Flights 61C
with no
incidents
75*2
-76*2
0
45o 50o 55o 60o 65o
●●
●●●●
● 70o
●●
● ●● 75●
o
●●80
●●o -78*1
Calculated Joint Temperature, oF -79*1
Source: Engineering Ethics, Gail D. Baura, -80*1
© Barringer & Associates, Inc. 2007 39
Elsevier, ISBN 13:978-0-088531-2, 2006, Page 73. -81*1
Data from the Rogers Commission 1986
20
Which Plot?
Suspended data
shown on plot as >
© Barringer & Associates, Inc. 2007 If you fail to turn on “-” is a suspension 42
Better but not good curve fit you will conclude this is a good fit!!
21
Gumbel Upper Summary
• Works well when you have the largest
recorded data such as flood data, fatigue
data, etc.
• Watch for traps with suspensions when used
without good practices can result in bad
conclusions.
• If Weibull, Lognormal, etc. don’t work then
don’t expect automatic success with all data
by use of the Gumbel upper distribution.
© Barringer & Associates, Inc. 2007 43
22