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