Barringer Corrosion With Gumbel Lower PDF

Corrosion Problems Quantified With Gumbel Lower Distribution
Abstract: Several case studies show how to separate general corrosion from accelerated corrosion and how to predict end of useful life of products.
Paul Barringer, P.E. Barringer & Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 3985 Humble, TX 77347-3985 Phone: 281-852-6810 FAX: 281-852-3749 Email: hpaul@barringer1.com Web: http://www.barringer1.com
Barringer & Associates, Inc. 2007
Gumbel Upper or Gumbel Lower?

The Gumbel upper distribution is used when you have BIG numbers. Its best know for flood data (you only record the deepest [largest] stream gage reading for a single year). The Gumbel lower distribution is used when you have LITTLE numbers. Its used where youve only recorded the thinnest [smallest] wall in a single corrosion area.
The Gumbel Smallest Extreme Value is considered a model for a system having n elements in a series and where the failure distributions of components are reasonably uniform and similar (See British Standard BS 5760).
The Weibull distribution straight line equation
ln ln
1 ln( t) ln( ) 1 F( t)
Both are also known as the double exponential
Whats The Math Difference?

The Gumbel largest extreme value
e
( t )
CDF is:
The Gumbel smallest extreme value

1e
e
t
CDF is:
F( t )
F( t )
( t ) ( t )
Rearanging the equations to read

e
Rearanging the equations to read

t t
Observations: Same Y-axis Weibull has log X-axis Gumbel has uniform X-axis
F( t )
1
e
( t )
Or
1 F( t )
1 F( t )
1
e
t
Or
1 1 F( t )
e
( t )
e
t
Taking the log of both sides you get: ln 1 e F( t)
Taking the log of both sides you get: ln 1 e 1 F( t)
Again, taking the log of both sides you get:
Again, taking the log of both sides you get:
ln ln
F( t)
1
( t )
ln ln
1 1 F( t)
Y = mX + b t
ln ln
1 F( t)
For Monte Carlo modeling: t ln( ln( a_random_n o) )
is a scale factor is a shape factor For Monte Carlo modeling: Small steep t + ln( ln( 1 a_random_n o) ) lines for G- & G+ Barringer & Associates, Inc. 2007 distributions
Y = mX + b t
+ ln ln
1 1 F( t)
Problem 1: Heat Exchanger Thin Tubes?

We have a shell & tube heat exchanger Process fluids are inside the tubes and the tubes are loosing wall thickness with use Outside the tubes are cooling water Periodic inspections have recorded the minimum wall thickness in each tube selected randomly. We have only one wall thickness for each tube inspected.
Whats The Issue? How To Resolve?

Heat exchanger is 17 years old460 tubes At turnaround, eddy current wall thickness inspection occurredWere worried! Did an IRIS inspection on 10% of tubesNow were more worriedwhat does the data say? Retube NOW at 17 years with T/A delays? Retube next turnaround in 3 years at 20 years? Retube at 2nd turnaround in 6 years at 23 years)?
Time Issues
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
Murphy says: Big Money Issues Will Prevail
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 of original wall thickness, i.e. when wall thickness has been reduced from 0.083 to 0.0415
This exchanger has environmental concerns

Eddy Current vs IRIS Inspection

Eddy current inspection is the usual quick and inexpensive inspection of each tube minimum wall is reported for each tube IRIS inspection is a more detailed and more expensive inspection with a rotating head ultrasonic toolminimum wall is reported for each tube and tube IDs must be very clean for an accurate IRIS inspection.
What Did IRIS Inspection Find?

The minimum wall thickness report shows:
Rule of thumb triggers Wall*qty 0.050*1 inspection at 0.050 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 for structural integrity.

Stacks Of DataUse Sherwins Inspection Option

(low) Probability Of Occurrence (high) Use top of stack for regression
Benign failure occurred here? Benign failure discovered here
l Fai
a ure
ges
Discovery Age/Thickness
Wall Thickness Discovered At Inspection We have stacks of data from the heat exchanger inspection because the IRIS data have been rounded to three significant digits.
10
Competing Models: Weibull? or Gumbel Distributions?

Weibull Distribution with rank regression & inspection option Data stacks from course measurements use inspection option for regression
Barringer & Associates, Inc. 2007 Small risk of wall thickness R= Coefficient of regression less than min allowed ccc= critical correlation coefficient
11
Competing Models: Weibull or Gumbel Distributions?

Gumbel- Distribution with rank regression
Bigger than for Weibull distribution use Gumble-
Barringer & Associates, Inc. 2007 R2= (Coefficient of regression)2 Higher risk of wall thickness less than 2= (critical correlation coefficient)2 (ccc) min allowed more conservative
12
PDF Curves
~2*x x
Note the Gumbel- distribution says to expect more occurrences with thinner walls
13
PDF Details
(0.050459, 3.933565)
4
( t )
1 e
100
1 e
t t0
Gumbel Lower PDF

t t0
t t 1 e 0
50
t t 1 e 0

0 0.04 t 0.06
0.04 t
0.05
Weibull PDF
14
Why Gumbel Lower Distribution?

The SMALLEST value is recorded for each tube thickness which motivates use of the Gumbel smallest distribution. Just as for flood data (the largest yearly value) motivates the use of the Gumbel largest distribution. The Gumbel smallest distribution is a better curve fit and shows greater % potential failure than Weibull, thus more conservative.
15
Heres Where We Are At Year 17. Can We Make Year 20?

99 95 80 Consider retube if less than 0.0415 60 Occurrences CDF % 40 30 20 10 5 70 Structural minimum is 0.036 50 Inspect if less than 0.055 90
Heat Exchanger IRIS Inspection Data

G-/rr/insp1 Year 17
Area is 1% high by 0.01 wide
=0.06427
Xi Del r^2 n/s 0.06427 0.00316 0.989 46/0
Parameters: Location Slope/Shape
Area is 1% high 1 by 0.01 wide note the .03 magnification!
.04
.05
.06
.07
.08
.09
.1
.11
Tube Wall Thickness (inches)

Small Large
steep line slope flat line slope. 16
General Corrosion
This becomes a critical value!
t=? t=9
t=6
t=3yrs
Start = datum
Probability of Occurrence
General Deterioration Note Parallel Lines
63.2%
Dont exceed this probability of thin wall
Low probability of thin wall below minimum!
Wall Thickness min

17
General Corrosion Trend Line

Characteristic Wall Thickness ,
Critical Value, , For Wall Thickness
Time
End of life! An easy decision.
18
Accelerated Corrosion
99.9% Probability of Occurrence t=9 t=6 t=3 General Deterioration
start
Dont exceed this probability of thin wall You must know when to accept the risk of failure and when to accept the risk of failure! $Risk = pof*$Consequence
Accelerated Deterioration Breaks The Min Wall Limits! Wall Thickness
min
19
Accelerated Corrosion Trend Line

Wall Thickness At A Specified Risksay 0.1%
Wall loss from general corrosion Wall loss from both general + accelerated corrosion Wall loss from accelerated corrosion
Minimum Wall Thickness At . Acceptable Risk Level End of life! Time Difficult decision.
20
10
You Must Know Wall Thickness At Time Zero

99.9 95 80 Occurrence CDF % 60 40 20 10 5 2 1 .5 .2 .1 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07 .08 .09 .1 .11 Tube Wall Thickness (inches)
Heat Exchanger IRIS Inspection Data

Year 17
99 90 70 50 30
G-/rr/insp1
Year ?? Min Allowed Wall = 0.036
Assumes new tube with tmin = 0.083 and tmax = 0.101 for ~6* = 99.8%
Year 0
Note the flatter slope with larger means more wall thk. scatter!
= Xi = Del r^2 n/s 0.06427 0.0031573 0.989 46/0 0.09706 0.0020362
Typical Corrosion rate = (0.09706-0.06427)/17 = ~0.002/yr

21
Wall Thickness @ 99.9%

0.101 @ 0 years
0.07034 @ 17 years 0.06496 @ 20 years 0.05956 @ 23 years
Data needed for construction of trendlines on next page with as new slopes.
22
11
99.9 95 80 Occurrence CDF % 60 40 20
Heat Exchanger Construction Lines

99 90 70 50 30 Min Allowed Wall = 0.036 Year 17 As New Slope Year 0 10 G-/rr/insp1 0.06496 0.07037 General Corrosion Year 20 0.101
5 2 1 .5 .2
Accelerated Corrosion Effects
Year 23
.1 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07 .08 .09 Tube Wall Thickness (inches) 0.083 0.05237
.1
.11
0.03531 0.04246
23
Year 20 Forecasted Line: = 0.05848, = 0.0033541 with 0.1228% occurrence at 0.036 wall.
Wall Thickness at 0.1% Risk vs Time

0.083
0.05237 Y=0.083-0.0018017t
0.04246
Y=0.083-0.0023847t 0.03531 @ 20 years 0.02815 @ 23 years

17 General + Accelerate Corrosion Rate
24
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 $risk = (prob. of failure)*$Consequence, $risk exposure = 0.1228%*$750,000 = $921 take the risk for running 3 more years Do not retube now. Run to TA at yr 20.
25
Tube Exchanger Summary

Avoided the recently discovered and recently expected turnaround delay for accelerated delivery of heat exchanger ($750,000 expenditure avoided) based on use of one day analysis of data. Pressing on toward the next turnaround three years into the future At year 20, install a new tube bundle. Whats the risk for continuing to year 23? 0.91%*$750,000 = $6,825if risk adverse, reject. If risk acceptingmaybe, but very doubtful.
26
13
Problem 2: Column Corrosion

A column is rapidly loosing wall thickness. Fluids/gasses within the column are violent. Frequent Inspectionsdata 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?
27
Developed Outer Surface Of Tower

Circumference Inspection Grid Over Bad Spots Height Data collection on the grid will contain both good walls and bad walls!
28
14
Raw Data UT Inspections
Rapid Deterioration In Wall Thickness
Thick ignore! Thin worry!
Remaining Wall Thickness (Mils/10)

29
Truncated DataThin Data Only
Remaining Wall Thickness (Mils/10)

30
15
End Points For Corrosion Curve

UT Wall Thickness Construction Lines
General Corros. @ 0.1% Days Thickness 0 49 906 31.09 966 25.17 1105 25.56 1127 25.17 Gen + Accel Cor. @ 0.1% Days Thickness 0 49 906 25.56 966 23.61 1105 19.26 1127 19.53
51
33.09 32.3
25.17 31.09 25.56 25.17

Gen + Accel Cor. @ 99.9% Days Thickness 0 51 906 33.09 966 32.3 1105 27.56 1127 27.17
49
31
End Of Life Clearly Shown

Y=49.065-0.02128*X General Corrosion General + Accelerated Corrosion 1178 1460
End Of Life
949
1176
32
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!
33
Now, For Grins

Consider the Gumbel larger distribution Houston flood Aircraft gust loads Space shuttle rocket motor O-ring burns
Discussions about the Gumbel lower distribution always raise questions about the Gumbel upper distribution
34
17
It Rained A Little On June 9, 200123 Inches!
Cars are submerged on US 59 highway!
35
99.9
Peak Annual Stream Flows-Gage Height (feet) USGS 08074000 Buffalo Bayou at Houston, Texas
G+/rr
99
Occurrence CDF (%)
90 80 60 70 50 40 30 20 10 5 21 .2.5.1 0 10 20 30
Forecasted One Hundred Year Flood Gage Height
95
June 9, 2001
Depth for 100 yr flood comes from the return period, RP = 1/(1-p). When RP = 100 years, then p = 99%
Xi Del r^2 n/s 17.2 5.99 0.978 67/0 60 70 80
40
44.76 50
Peak Gage Height (feet) The flood was bad but not the worst recorded near downtown Houston!
36
18
Assumed Houston Flood Cost In June 2001

5
Assumed Flood Cost US ($ Billion)
Flood Cost Estimates In June 2002

4
2
June 9, 2001
0 10 20 30 40 50
Gage Height (feet)

100 year flood will be a 2X $ problem
37
Aircraft Positive Gust Loads
38
19
Space Shuttle Burned O-Rings

3
STS 51-C
Field Joint
Failures Only Data 53*3 57*1 58*1 63*1 70*2 75*2
Number of Incidents
2
41B
61C
41C
61A
Failures And Successes Data 53*3 57*1 58*1 63*1 -66*1 -67*3 -68*1 -69*1 70*2 -70*2 -72*1 -73*1 75*2 -76*2 -78*1 -79*1 -80*1 -81*1
41D STS-2
45o
50o
55o 60o 65o 70o Calculated Joint Temperature, oF
75o
80o
STS 51-C
Field Joint
Number of Incidents
2
41B Flights with no incidents 41D STS-2

41C
61A
61C
45o
50o
55o 60o 65o 70o Calculated Joint Temperature, oF
80 75 o o
Source: Engineering Ethics, Gail D. Baura, Barringer & Associates, Inc. 2007 Elsevier, ISBN 13:978-0-088531-2, 2006, Page 73. Data from the Rogers Commission 1986
39
Good Practice AdviceWatch Out!

Gumbel upper & lower distributions allow the use of negative numbers on the X-axis When using suspensions (as a sign) make sure you turn on display of the suspensions (under magnifying glass) so you can view they are in the correct locations AND (under the Method icon) make sure to turn the negative sign to indicate suspension! Else, youll get misleading results.
40
20
Which Plot?
Suspended data shown on plot as >
Poor curve fit

41
Gumble Upper Slightly Better-But Not Every Data Fits A Plot!

Failures were resolved by rocket joint/O-ring redesign Failures demonstrated to exist
Better but not good curve fit
If you fail to turn on - is a suspension 42 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. dont work then dont expect automatic success with all data by use of the Gumbel upper distribution.
43
Want More Details?

Got to http://www.barringer1.com/problem.htm Look at WinSMITH Weibull software (which also includes Gumbel large and small distributions) See biographies at http://www.barringer1.com of Dr. Weibull and Dr. Abernethy who is the worlds leading expert in Weibull analysis Dr. Weibull got many of his ideas on extreme values while working at Bofors Steel in Swedenyou can see Bofors antiaircraft guns at the Museum of the Pacific in Fredricksburg, TX. See Gumbel, E. J., Statistics of Extremes, Columbia University Press, New York, 1958 See Statistical Theory of Extreme Values And Some Practical Applications, A Series of Lectures, PB 175818, 12 Feb 1954 by Emil J. Gumbel, National Bureau of Standards, U.S. Dept of Commerce, NTIS See A New Method Of Analyzing Extreme-Value Data, NACA TN 3053, Jan 1954, U.S. Dept of Commerce, NTIS, by Julius Lieblein National Bureau of Standards
44
22

Barringer Corrosion With Gumbel Lower PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Barringer Corrosion With Gumbel Lower PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corrosion Problems Quantified With Gumbel Lower Distribution

Gumbel Upper or Gumbel Lower?

The Weibull distribution straight line equation

Both are also known as the double exponential

Whats The Math Difference?

The Gumbel smallest extreme value

Rearanging the equations to read

Rearanging the equations to read

Taking the log of both sides you get: ln 1 e F( t)

Taking the log of both sides you get: ln 1 e 1 F( t)

Again, taking the log of both sides you get:

Again, taking the log of both sides you get:

For Monte Carlo modeling: t ln( ln( a_random_n o) )

Problem 1: Heat Exchanger Thin Tubes?

Whats The Issue? How To Resolve?

What Are Cost Consequences?

Why Did They Inspect?

This exchanger has environmental concerns

Eddy Current vs IRIS Inspection

What Did IRIS Inspection Find?

Wall thickness measured in inches

Minimum allowed wall thickness is 0.036 for structural integrity.

Stacks Of DataUse Sherwins Inspection Option

Competing Models: Weibull? or Gumbel Distributions?

Competing Models: Weibull or Gumbel Distributions?

Bigger than for Weibull distribution use Gumble-

Barringer & Associates, Inc. 2007

Gumbel Lower PDF

Barringer & Associates, Inc. 2007

Why Gumbel Lower Distribution?

Heres Where We Are At Year 17. Can We Make Year 20?

Heat Exchanger IRIS Inspection Data

Area is 1% high by 0.01 wide

Parameters: Location Slope/Shape

Area is 1% high 1 by 0.01 wide note the .03 magnification!

Tube Wall Thickness (inches)

steep line slope flat line slope. 16

General Deterioration Note Parallel Lines

Dont exceed this probability of thin wall

Low probability of thin wall below minimum!

Wall Thickness min

General Corrosion Trend Line

Critical Value, , For Wall Thickness

End of life! An easy decision.

Accelerated Deterioration Breaks The Min Wall Limits! Wall Thickness

Barringer & Associates, Inc. 2007

Accelerated Corrosion Trend Line

You Must Know Wall Thickness At Time Zero

Heat Exchanger IRIS Inspection Data

Year ?? Min Allowed Wall = 0.036

Typical Corrosion rate = (0.09706-0.06427)/17 = ~0.002/yr

Wall Thickness @ 99.9%

0.07034 @ 17 years 0.06496 @ 20 years 0.05956 @ 23 years

Barringer & Associates, Inc. 2007

99.9 95 80 Occurrence CDF % 60 40 20

Heat Exchanger Construction Lines

Accelerated Corrosion Effects

Wall Thickness at 0.1% Risk vs Time

Y=0.083-0.0023847t 0.03531 @ 20 years 0.02815 @ 23 years

17 General + Accelerate Corrosion Rate

Retube Or Not Retube Now?

Tube Exchanger Summary

Problem 2: Column Corrosion

Failures Only Data 533 571 581 631 702 752