See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/348166634

Failure Analysis of Heat Exchanger Using Internal Rotary Inspection System

(IRIS)

Article  in  Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention · April 2021

DOI: 10.1007/s11668-020-01093-4

CITATIONS READS

3 143

3 authors:

Mohamed Fayas Saffiudeen Abdullah Syed

Royal Commission for Jubail and Yanbu Royal Commission for Jubail and Yanbu
4 PUBLICATIONS   10 CITATIONS    5 PUBLICATIONS   16 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Fasil T Mohammed
Royal Commission for Jubail and Yanbu
6 PUBLICATIONS   10 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Heat exchanger failure analysis View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohamed Fayas Saffiudeen on 12 October 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Failure Analysis of Heat Exchanger Using
Internal Rotary Inspection System (IRIS)

Mohamed Fayas Saffiudeen, Abdullah

Syed & Fasil T. Mohammed

Journal of Failure Analysis and

Prevention

ISSN 1547-7029
Volume 21
Number 2

J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2021)

21:494-498
DOI 10.1007/s11668-020-01093-4

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by ASM
International. This e-offprint is for personal
use only and shall not be self-archived in
electronic repositories. If you wish to self-
archive your article, please use the accepted
manuscript version for posting on your own
website. You may further deposit the accepted
manuscript version in any repository,
provided it is only made publicly available 12
months after official publication or later and
provided acknowledgement is given to the
original source of publication and a link is
inserted to the published article on Springer's
website. The link must be accompanied by
the following text: "The final publication is
available at link.springer.com”.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2021) 21:494–498
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11668-020-01093-4
TECHNICAL ARTICLE—PEER-REVIEWED
Failure Analysis of Heat Exchanger Using Internal Rotary
Inspection System (IRIS)
Mohamed Fayas Saffiudeen . Abdullah Syed . Fasil T. Mohammed
Submitted: 15 November 2020 / Accepted: 19 November 2020 / Published online: 1 January 2021
 ASM International 2021
Abstract Retubing of a heat exchanger always plays a
critical role in oil and gas plants. Normally, many end-
users prefer to do full retubing rather than partial retubing
during maintenance or shutdown in order to achieve more
efficiency. But in case of alloy steel tube-based heat
exchanger, partial retubing is preferred because cost of
alloy steel tubes is ten times higher than that of the carbon
steel tubes. In this research, low-efficiency heat exchanger
was selected since it requires full retubing (maintenance)
due to severe in-service tube thickness loss and low effi-
ciency as per end-user. Tube material was Inconel SB 163-
800H, and the quantity of tubes was 286. Among numerous
advanced NDT strategies used to minimize downtime
arising from catastrophic failures induced by erosion/cor-
rosion or mechanical loss sustained during the operating
period, internal rotating inspection was chosen. This
approach identifies a lack of wall thickness reduction
arising from deterioration, wear, pitting (ID & OD) and
corrosion. After IRIS inspection method was carried out, it
was easy to categorize how many tubes are exactly
defective and exchanger requires partial retubing or full
retubing which finds huge savings and reduction in main-
tenance cost and time. IRIS inspection method also
provides the distribution of tubes by wall thickness loss of
total 286 tubes in the heat exchanger and retubing of heat
M. F. Saffiudeen (&)
A. Syed
F. T. Mohammed
Department of Mechanical Skills, Jubail Technical Institute,
Royal Commission Jubail-Education Sector, Jubail, Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia
e-mail: saffiudeen_m@jti.edu.sa
A. Syed
e-mail: abdullah_s@jti.edu.sa
F. T. Mohammed
e-mail: mohammed_f@jti.edu.sa
123
exchanger will be further continued to achieve more
efficiency.
Keywords Heat exchanger
Retubing
Maintenance

IRIS inspection
Repair
Introduction
Oil and gas industry mainly depends on various shell and
tube heat exchangers, Fin fan coolers and boilers for effi-
cient process operation. Due to continuous in-service
operation, many tubes were found with corrosion, erosion,
wear, pitting, cracking. Heat exchanger repair during the
turnaround helps to reduce the down time loss (repair) of
heat exchanger and will ensure the integrity for smooth
running of plant [1]. It was very tough to examine tube
internals visually or with ordinary NDT like penetrant
testing or magnetic particle testing or ultrasonic or radio-
graphic thickness measuring techniques. Inspection and
maintenance team need to improve the efficiency of heat
exchanger by retubing. As a result, the local petrochemical
industry is now implementing and using field-portable in-
spection systems to monitor small-bore tubing thoroughly.
The functionality of these field-portable devices is given by
four NDT techniques, namely remote field eddy current
checking (RFT), eddy current checking (ET), magnetic flux
leakage (MFL) and ultrasonic internal rotary inspection
device (IRIS). They all operate on a single hardware- and
software-powered computer. These systems enable one
technique to be rapidly screened (about 400 tubes a day)
with the ability to change a probe head and reliably vali-
date defective areas with a more thorough process [2]. IRIS
is a technique that can be extended to both ferrous and
 Author's personal copy
J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2021) 21:494–498
nonferrous structures as well as to plastics such as non-
conductive structures. With IRIS, the residual tube wall
thickness may be determined correctly. IRIS is more
accurate than other methods of tube inspection and has the
advantages of presenting defect geometry information. It is
possible to accurately measure local defects and wall loss
on both sides of the tube. Defects under support plates may
be assessed without any restrictions, and IRIS enables a
wide variety of tube diameters (ID 14.5–76 mm) and wall
thicknesses (1.25–8.0 mm) to identify corrosion and to thin
based on the OD tube [5].
Literature Review
As a measurement instrument for checking RFT signs and
measurement tube wall thickness and assessing pitting scale,
Fathi E. Al-Qadeeb suggested IRIS. This is only used on tubes
which have been previously established by RFT. IRIS was
also found to be a measurement instrument to validate MFL,
RFT and ET signs and to assess the thickness of the tube wall
and to evaluate the pitting distance. This is only used on the
tubes that the above scanning methods have already estab-
lished [2]. The experiment was conducted by Anmol Birring
and proposed that ferromagnetic products, such as carbon
steel, may be inspected by IRIS or RFECT. Where small pits
can be required, IRIS should be used. Then, IRIS or RFECT
should be used if the destruction does not contain small pits
and is mainly general wall failure. IRIS can be more precise,
however sluggish and will need substantial cleaning. IRIS
may be the favored strategy in the case of carbon steel tubes
and aluminum fins [3]. K.S. Vivekanand et al. stated that IRIS
was the only tool that gives specific tube wall thickness and
provides details on the fault profile and position, i.e., on the
tube ID or OD along with real-time C-scan capability, pits as
small as 1 mm in diameter can be easily identified during data
collection [4]. To perform ultrasonic IRIS, an oriented
ultrasonic probe and a rotating mirror creating a helical scan
are required. All the information is taken from a water-packed
tube. Ultrasound is reflected from the tube ID and OD, and the
time gap is utilized to measure the thickness. The inspection
pace usually is 2–4 in./s. IRIS requires the tubes to be cor-
rectly cleaned for ultrasonic matching. This knowledge was
gathered from a paper released by the Materials Technology
Institute of Chemical Industries, MTI Project 123, St. Louis,
1999 [5].
IRIS Working Principle
The operating theory of the system is based upon the
ultrasonic pulse echo Immersion technique. IRIS requires a
couplant and in this case, water was a couplant. Therefore,
495
the tubes under evaluation must first be flooded in order to
utilize this method. To produce an ultrasonic pulse parallel
to the axis of the tube being examined, IRIS relies on a
transducer. It also depends on a rotating mirror directing
the ultrasonic wave into the wall of the tube. A tiny turbine
is driven by the friction of water pumped through the tube
commands the mirror. Refer to Fig. 1 for IRIS working
principle
The inner diameter (ID) wall represents half of the ultra-
sonic pulse, while the remainder is expressed by the tube’s
outer diameter (OD) wall. Since the ultrasonic velocity of the
substance of the tube is known, the thickness of the wall can
be measured by measuring the gap in flight times between the
two diameters. The rotating action of the mirror results in a
helical scan direction as the probe is pulled.
Ensuring that the mirror is in the middle of the tube is a
crucial feature of IRIS. Because of the numerous ID and
OD wall sound routes, an off-center ultrasonic pulse yields
a blurred scan picture. That is why our IRIS kits are fitted
with centering systems on holding the machine balanced
for operators.
Components IRIS System
The IRIS system used as per this procedure shall be
computerized multi-scan MS 5800 of RD Tech, Canada.
Refer to Fig. 2. The system shall be consisting of following
functional elements
• Water supply unit
• Process equipment (heat exchanger)
• Laptop with IRIS software, i.e., Multi view Software.
• IRIS Accessories
The transducer used for the examination must be quick
enough to bounce back on both the inner wall and the outer
wall (frequency).
IRIS system requires a 110–240 V, 50–60 Hz AC sup-
ply at work location. The main requirement of the IRIS is
the provision of a clean, relatively high-pressure water
supply. The IRIS turbine requires a drive pressure of
maximum 40–45 psi to operate system at the recom-
mended 1800 rpm.
Fig. 1 IRIS principle
123
 Author's personal copy
496
Fig. 2 Computerized multi-scan MS 5800
Requirements of the IRIS System
• Safety All personnel are responsible for ensuring that
they, as well as their fellow employees, perform their
job in a safe and professional manner, while adhering to
the safety guidelines laid out in safety manual. In
addition, also adhere to any statutory and local safety
requirements along with any client/project-specific
safety requirements.
• Personnel Qualification The personnel who operate the
IRIS test equipment with the exception of the probe
positioner/puller technician shall be a minimum Level-
II in ultrasonic testing method. Certification of the
personnel shall be according to written practice. The
evaluation of the result of the IRIS must be conducted
by personnel qualified to at least Level II or Level III in
UT.
• Surface Preparation All tubes inner surface shall be
adequately cleaned to remove any dust, loose foreign
particles, internal deposits or contaminants by a suit-
able process such as pressurized water jet cleaning. It is
also recommended to clean the outer surface of tube if
possible. A successful examination may be undermined
by the inability of the client to clean the tubing
adequately. Data measurements can be impacted by
bonded weights, loose particles and wax or sticky
layers. Washing is performed by very high-intensity
water blast, scraping or chemicals. Dirty/low-pressure
water and electrical disturbances may also impact
outcomes [6].
• Tube Identification The grid coordinates of rows and
columns have been used in order to identify and locate
each tube and thus generate full traceability. The tube
identification with respective row and column has been
done in compliance with tube sheet layout provided by
end user. Inspection has been carried out from south
side of the exchanger (floating head Tube sheet—inlet).
(a) Rows are calculated as of top to bottom.
(b) Columns are calculated as of left to right.
123
J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2021) 21:494–498
Fig. 3 Tube layout
Equipment Details
Exchanger was floating head type. Total number of tube
was 286, refer to Fig. 3. Exchanger tube to tube sheet was
strength welding with light expansion.
• Equipment name: Hot feed Reactor effluent exchanger
• Tube material: SB-163-800H
• Tube diameter: 19.05 mm
• Wall thickness: 2.11 mm
• Tube length: 5000 mm
• Total no. of tubes/to inspect: 286/286 tubes
IRIS Inspection Procedure
• IRIS Calibration Block The IRIS system shall be cali-
brated on the standard calibration sample as per
standard operating procedure. Calibration standards
shall be manufactured from a tubing of the same
material specification, same heat treatment and same
nominal size. Calibration tube standard of similar
material with artificial defects as per ASTM E-470
standard was used to establish and verify the system
response. This constitute guide for data analysis. Refer
to Fig. 4 for calibration block with some defects.
A. ID Groove.
B. Through hole.
C, D, E & F. FBH—flat bottom hole
G & H. OD Groove
• Inspection head should be connected to the water
supply kit as shown in Fig. 5. The inspection head with
centering device should be installed within the tube.
Furthermore, it would be best if you released the water
valve. Both water hoses and electrical links must be
 Author's personal copy
J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2021) 21:494–498 497

Table 1 Inspection report

Parameters
S. no. Wall loss (%) No of tubes Tube inspected (%)

1 No defect 178 62.20

2 1–20% 8 2.80
Fig. 4 IRIS calibration block
3 21–40% 26 9.10
4 41–60% 53 18.50
5 61–80% 21 7.30
6 81–100% 0 0.00
7 Plugged 0 0.00
8 Obstructed 0 0.00

Fig. 5 Water supply kit
Fig. 6 IRIS inspection
tested by the operator and that the computer units are
safe from spray.
• The inspection is performed at the far end of the tube
with the probes and turbine assembly positioned. By
feeding the hose through the endplate of the adaptor,
the assembly is pushed to the end of the tube. 12 mm
turbine-transducer-15 MHz.
• To start the inspection, the assembly is gradually pulled
along the tube toward the operator which is shown in
Fig. 6. The rate at which the inspection head assembly
is moved along the tube governs the degree of coverage
of the tube; if flooding is there, water supply should be
turned off. The inspection head assembly can then be
withdrawn from the tube.
• The above procedure can be repeated for as many tubes
are to be inspected during the operating session. The
equipment dismantle procedures are to be inspected
during the operating session. The equipment dismantle
procedures are the reverse of those carried out during
the setup of the inspection.
• The pulling speed of the probe shall be kept constant
during the inspection. The pulling speed shall be at 30–
50 mm/s depending on the rotating speed of the turbine.
• All indications shall be evaluated based on the client’s
acceptance criteria. All indications shall be evaluated
and reported in the form of wall thickness loss. The
acceptance criteria or rejection of tubes based on wall
loss are at the discretion of the end-user.
• Report shall be prepared with the information gathered
using the computer data files.
• Report all tubes wall with a wall loss reading and all
reports issued to the clients shall be signed by the
person performing the inspection and endorsed by the
Sr. Inspector.
• The test reports contain the subsequent information
(a) Customer’s/Enduser’s name and address.
(b) Information of equipment tested.
(c) Information of test instruments used.
(d) Information on instruments settings.
(e) Date and place of inspection.
(f) Test system calibration.
(g) Inspection summary.
(h) Job reference number.
(i) Comments.
(j) Signature of testing officer and Sr. Inspector.
Result and Discussions
After the IRIS inspection, result will be prepared as per
data stored in computer and software will generate standard
report and consolidated report which includes tube-by-tube
wall loss also. Standard report is prepared and shown in
Table 1 for the Inspection main report results, and distri-
bution of tubes by wall loss is shown in Fig. 7.
As per above data, 108 defective tubes were identified
out of 286 and marked for retubing which is shown in
Fig. 8. Inspection was carried out from south side of the
exchanger, and marking was done from south side of tube

123
 Author's personal copy
498
Fig. 7 Distribution of tubes by wall loss
Fig. 8 Heat exchanger defective tube marking
sheet. All 108 defective tubes are marked as colored as
shown in Fig. 8 irrelevant to whatever wall thickness loss it
must be replaced with. Seven tubes are having corrosion
(2.4%), and 101 tubes are having pitting (35%) of con-
solidated 108 defective tubes. Therefore, 178 tubes are
identified with no defects which means no retubing is
required. In terms of costing analysis
Per tube cost of SB 163 specification = 199 USD.
If it is full retubing, total tube material cost = 56,914
USD.
After IRIS, required tube material cost = 21,492 USD.
If it is full retubing, total retubing cost = 75,218 USD.
After IRIS, required total retubing cost = 28,404 USD.
Cost of IRIS inspection per shift = 550 USD
Total cost of IRIS inspection = 1100 USD.
123
View publication stats
J Fail. Anal. and Preven. (2021) 21:494–498
Total retubing cost includes tube pulling, regrooving,
tube insertion, tube to tube sheet strength welding, NDT,
pneumatic test, light expansion and hydro tests (shell side
and tube side)
Since 178 tubes were identified with good condition,
tube material cost reduced to 21,492 USD. Also, retubing
cost saved was approximately 46,814 USD due to partial
retubing and time duration for repair was decreased
drastically.
Figure 8 shows identification of defective tubes, and
these 108 tubes will be marked. After marking as per IRIS
inspection report, retubing will be carried out.
Conclusion
IRIS inspection was carried out on full retubing required
for heat exchanger and because of inspection report partial
retubing is enough to increase the efficiency and saves the
huge cost on this alloy steel heat exchanger. 62.23% tubes
were identified with no defects, and 37.76% defective tubes
were needed to proceed with retubing. Approximately
62.23% tubes with good condition required no retubing;
this means that saved approximately 68,306 USD which
included tube material and retubing cost. As per IRIS
inspection data, it will be concluded that partial retubing
has to be performed instead of full retubing which saves lot
of money, time duration to repair and leads to earlier
production output along with efficiency.
References
1. M.F. Saffiudeen, F.T. Mohammed, A. Syed, A case study on
procedure standardization of heat exchanger retubing in KSA oil
and gas industries. J Fail. Anal. Preven. 20, 1451–1455 (2020).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11668-020-00965-z.
2. F.E. Al-Qadeeb, Tubing inspection using multiple NDT tech-
niques, in 3rd MENDT—Middle East Nondestructive Testing
Conference & Exhibition—27–30 Nov 2005 Bahrain, Manama
3. Anmol Birring, Eddy Current Testing vs. Ultrasonic IRIS for
Inspection of Heat Exchanger Tubing
4. K.S. Vivekanand, K.S. Venkataraman, NDE Techniques for
reliable inspection of carbon steel tubes, in Proceedings of the
National Seminar on
5. K. Krzywosz, L. Cagle, Flaw Detection and Characterization in
Heat Exchanger Tubing. MTI Project 123, Material Technology
Institute of the Chemical Industries, St. Louis (1999)
6. M. Birchall, N. Sevciuc, C. Madureira, Internal Ultrasonic Pipe &
Tube Inspection—IRIS
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.