24th March 2023

Update

Jordan Yap Hong Yong ( 葉宏榮 )

Department of Aeronautical Engineering - 10978141
Advisor: Sidney Liu ( 劉昇祥 )
Heat Exchanger
• A system used to transfer heat between a source and a working fluid. Without mixing them
• Cooling and heating processes.
• In a shell-and-tube heat exchanger, two fluids at different temperatures flow through the heat
exchanger.

Intersection
How heat exchanger tube failed
• Thinning • Vibration Damage • Local defects
• Holes • Mechanical Failure • Corrosion
• Pitting • Cracking • Lining

Pitting
API RP 581 Risk-Based Inspection Technology
(Heat Exchanger Tube Bundles)

• Main purpose:
 To optimize the heat exchanger bundle inspection and replacement cycles
 To minimize the heat exchanger bundle’s annual operating and maintenance cost*
*including: production, environmental, bundle and maintenance costs
API RP 581 Risk-Based Inspection Technology
(Heat Exchanger Tube Bundles)

There are total 9 Failure Data, where

• 5 Complete data
• 4 Suspension data
Weibull Theory
• Linear Regression on X(Y), RRX
 β = 2.568
 η = 20.45

• Confidence bounds
 A 90% Confidence interval is created
by using Fisher Matrix Bounds
Risk Based Inspection
• A risk assessment and management methodology that uses risk as a basis for prioritizing
and managing an inspection program.
• A RBI involves the quantitative assessment of the probability of failure (POF) and the
consequence of failure (COF).

𝑅𝑖𝑠𝑘𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒
𝑓 = 𝑃 𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒
𝑓 𝑥 𝐶 𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒
𝑓
Consequence of Failure
• Is defined for all consequences in safety, economy, and environment that are
evaluated as the outcomes of a failure.
• The money that we loss due to the failure

• : The total cost that we lost because of the failure, so the HX cant do the production
• : The cost that we must to consider because of pollution, local people protest, etc.

• : The cost for bundle replacement

• : The cost for maintenance associated with bundle replacement
Consequence of Failure calculation
: The total cost that we lost because of the failure, so we cant do the production

• : Amount of money that lost because the HX cant do the production

• : Production impact (Bypass) with rate reduction

• : The shutdown days to repair
Example

Corporate Financial Risk Target = 75,000 (maximum risk can be tolerate)

Risk Analysis:

𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒 𝑅𝑖𝑠𝑘𝑡𝑔𝑡 75,000

𝑃 𝑓 ,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = = = 0.5
𝐶 𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑒
𝑓
150,000
Inspection planning w/o inspection history
• Without a large sampling of
inspection data, there’s a degree of
uncertainty associated. Where, AU
= 50%
• At POF = 50%, the time of failure
is shown at 7.1 years
• This means the 1st Inspection
should be start 7.1 years after the
installation date,
Effect of Inspection Sketch

Expected 1st Inspection where:

January 1992
No Inspection
History
(Installation) + 7.1
years = Feb 1999

Installation

7
Predicted future failure date based on measured thickness data
During the 1st inspection, the result of wall thickness inspection= 0.11
 = 0.12
 = 0.11
 Actual Failure Rate
Effect of Inspection Sketch

Expected 1st Inspection

No Inspection
History

Actual 1st Inspection (8.5%)

Installation

7
Predicted future failure date based on measured
thickness data
Since we have the additional inspection failure data, we can define the

Create the graph with & AU 30% (since we already have inspection history, the uncertainty is reduced to
30%)

 Jan 2009
Effect of Inspection Sketch

Expected 1st Inspection Actual Inspection

No Inspection
History

Actual 1st Inspection (8.5%)

Installation

7
Inspection Planning

• They are using Fisher Matrix

calculation to find out the graph,
which the method is different
with ours.
• Assume the graph is created, then
with a POF threshold = 50%, we
can define the second inspection
time.
Inspection Planning

• The graph shifted to the left,

which mean the CI Lower Bound
of will be smaller than CI Lower
Bound of .
Inspection Planning

• The uncertainty was reduced from

50% to 30% since there is a
inspection data recorded
• At POF = 50%, the time of failure
is shown at 9 years
• This means the 2nd Inspection
should be start 9 years after the
installation date, where:
 January 1992 (Installation) + 9
years = January 2001
Predicted future failure date based on measured
thickness data
Since we have the additional inspection failure data, we can define the
Effect of Inspection Sketch

Expected 1st Inspection

Actual Inspection

No Inspection
History

Actual 2nd Inspection (13%)

Actual 1st Inspection (8.5%)

Installation

7
Effect of Inspection Sketch

Expected 1st Inspection

No Inspection
History

Actual 1st Inspection (8.5%)

Installation