RP 581 Replacement of Table

ReplacementofRP581Table5.
11ThinningDamageFactorswithMathematicalModel
ProposaltoAPIRP581Committee March17,2011
ScorecardItem:5812011001
Title: ReplacementofRP581Table5.11ThinningDamageFactorswith
MathematicalModel
Date: March17,2011
Contact: Name:MikeConley&LynneKaley
Company:LloydsRegister&TrinityBridge
Phone:7203464990(Mike)7134580098(Lynne)
Email:MikeConley:mike.conley@lr.org
LynneKaley:lynnek@trinity-bridge.com
Purpose: Toaddressconcernsoverlimitationsofcurrentmethodologysurrounding
Table5.11(Arttable).
Source: 581Actionlist
Revision: 0
Impact: ReplaceArttablewiththereliabilitymodeloriginallydevelopedinthe
BRDprojectforthepurposeofcreatingthetable.Littleimpacton
softwarecurrentlyusingtheArtTable5.11inRP5812ndEdition.
ChangestotheThinningFactorarediscussedinthisproposal.
Rationale: ThemodeldescribedherewasdevelopedduringtheBaseResource
Documentdevelopmentinordertoproducethear/ttableintheBRD.
Thattablewasnotintendedtoreplacethemodel,althoughithasfor
reasonsthatdonotneedreiterationhere.Themodelhasbeeninusefor
about18yearsandisfullyreadyforimmediateinsertionintoanyRBI
softwarewithappropriatechangestoupdateittoreflectthechangesto
thegenericfailurefrequencies.Thecurrenttable5.11isarevisionof
thear/ttablethatisknowntoproduceinaccurateresults,andhasno
supportingdocumentationinAPI5812ndEdition.Thisproposal
addressestheseissues.
TableofContents
1. Summary......................................................................................................................3
2. Background..................................................................................................................3
3. StepbyStepSummaryCalculationoftheProbabilityofFailure...............................7
4. KnownIssuesRelatedtotheProposedReliabilityModel........................................10
4.1. Discontinuitiesunderconditionsofhighuncertainty........................................10
4.2. LimitationsofMeanValueFirstOrderReliabilityMethod(MVFORM).........11
5. ProposedThinningModelUseofBayesTheoremandReliabilityIndexMethod
IntegratedtoDetermineImpactofThinningandInspectionforThinningonPoF...........12
5.1. ReliabilityIndexMethodtoDetermineImpactofThinningonPoFofa
CylindricalShape...........................................................................................................12
5.2. UserInputs.........................................................................................................13
Mike Conley and Lynne Kaley Page 1 of 47

ReplacementofRP581Table5.11ThinningDamageFactorswithMathematicalModel
5.3. Outputs...............................................................................................................15
6. AppendixAExcelVBFunctionModuleCodeforThinningFactororPOF
Calculation(BayesianUpdating,Miscellaneous)..............................................................16
6.1. ExcelVBModuleCodetoCalculatePOF(Spherical)viaMVFORM.............19
6.2. ExcelVBModuleCodetoCalculatePOF(Cylinder)viaMVFORM..............20
6.3. ExcelVBModuleCodetoCalculatePOF(ASMEHead)viaMVFORM.......21
6.4. ExcelVBModuleCodetoCalculatePOF(Cladding)viaMVFORM.............22
7. AppendixBGuidanceonUseofTable3,Prior(toInspection)Probabilityof
PredictedDamageRate......................................................................................................23
7.1. DeterminetheConfidenceLevelintheDamageRate......................................23
8. AppendixCExampleofBayesTheoremforInspection........................................26
8.1. AnotherviewofBayesTheoremwithURLforMore.....................................28
9. AppendixDReferences............................................................................................29
10. AppendixEOnMovingPasttheArtTable5.11,byMichaelJ.Conley...............29
10.1. Introduction....................................................................................................29
10.2. BackgroundMaterial.....................................................................................30
10.3. WilltheDamageFactorsChange,andbyHowMuch?................................30
10.4. CalibrationoftheThinningModelACaution........................................31
10.5. IsThereAnyLogicAvailableToJustifyTheValuesUsedForVariances? 32
10.6. ReviewOfTheCalibrationResultsAndTheModelResultsInGeneral. .34
10.6.1. Model Results for Thick Wall Cylinder.....................................................34
10.6.2. ModelResultsforThinWallCylinder(1Sch40Pipe)...........................35
10.6.3. ModelResultsforAverageWallCylinder(ar/tBaseCase)......................37
10.6.4. ModelResultsforASMEHead..................................................................39
10.6.5. ModelResultsforHemisphericalHeadsandSpheres..............................40
10.6.6. ModelResultsforNEWCladdingModel..................................................41
10.7. OnSpecialUsesoftheArtTable5.11inRBI,e.g.CUI,&Thinningofthe
BaseMetalinLinedorCladEquipment.......................................................................43
10.8. FinalNoteonMovingPasttheArtTable5.11...............................................43
TableofTables
Table 1 Representing API RP 581 2nd Edition Table 5.11 Thinning Damage Factors
.............................................................................................................................................3
Table 2 Impact of Thinning on PoF of a Cylindrical Shape.........................................12
Table 3 Prior (to Inspection) Probability of Predicted Damage Rate..........................13
Table 4: Conditional Probability of Inspection (i.e. the Inspection Effectiveness
probabilities).....................................................................................................................13
TableofFigures
Figure 1 Discontinuities under conditions of high uncertainty..........................................9
Figure 2 Comparison of reliability indices calculated using FORM FORM and MVFORM,
MV.....................................................................................................................................10
Figure E.1 Model Results for Thick Wall Cylinder...........................................................34
Figure E.2 Model Results for Thin Wall Cylinder (1 Sch. 40 Pipe)................................36

Figure E.3 Model Results for Average Wall Cylinder (ar/t Base Case)............................37
Figure E.4 POF Model Results for Typical Wall Cylinder (ar/t Base Case)................38
Figure E.5 Model Results for ASME Head.......................................................................39
Figure E.6 Model Results for Hemispherical Heads and Spheres....................................40
Figure E.7 Model Results for NEW Cladding Model.......................................................42
1. Summary
ThissubmittaladdressesknownproblemswithArtTable(APIRBIRP5812ndEdition
Table5.11ThinningDamageFactors)byreplacingthetablewiththemathematical
modelthatwasoriginallyusedtogeneratethetable.Thetablewasgeneratedasa
simplifiedversionoftheoriginalmodelforuseasalookuptable.FormostRBI
approachesusingAPIRBIasabasisforriskcalculations,replacingthelookuptable
stepsofadamagefactorfromthetablewithexamplecodeinAppendixAcanbeused.
Thesechangesdonotnecessarilyrequireanychangestoworkpracticesfordata
gathering.
2. Background
Asdefinedintheoriginalprojectscopeofwork,aRiskbasedapproachforprioritization
ofequipmentforinspectionwasdevelopedintheearly1990s.Nosoftwareforthe
calculationofriskwasenvisionedatthebeginningoftheprojectdevelopment.TheArt
tablewasgeneratedasasimplifiedversionoftheoriginalreliabilitymodeltoprovidean
easylookuptableforuseinequipmentriskdetermination.Lateristheprojectitwas
determinedthatsoftwarewasdesiredtoefficientlyperformriskcalculationsandfacilitate
inspectionplanning.
Table1,representingTable5.11(APIRBIRP5812ndEdition),isusedtoevaluatethe
probabilityoffailureduetothinningmechanismssuchascorrosion,erosion,andCUI.
Artisafactorrelatedtothefractionofwallloss.Themodificationwasanattemptto
improvethetableresults.Thissubmittalwilldemonstratethatthesetypesofadjustments
donotaddressmorefundamentalissueswiththetable.Asmoreinspectionsare
performedandaccountingfortheeffectivenessoftheinspections(movingtotheright
acrossthetablefromtheArtvalue),thethinningfactor(whichisdirectlyproportionalto
theprobabilityoffailure)becomessmaller.NotethatatanArtofexactly0.25,the
numberatthefarrightbecomesexactly1.Thisfarrightcolumnindicatesanumberand
effectivenessofinspectionsthateffectivelyeliminatestheuncertaintyinthecorrosion
rate,oratleastmakesitverysmall.Thetablewascalibratedtoproducethisresultwith
theideathatadamagefactorof1wouldbecometheactionpointindicatingthatthe
minimumwallhadbeenreached,orthatduetouncertaintyinthecorrosionratewith
fewerinspections,theminimumwallmightbereached.
Thetablewasdevelopedasawaytovisualizeandreporttheimpactofinspectiononthe
probabilityoffailureasthevesselbecomingthinnerwithtime,asoriginallydevelopedas

partoftheBaseResourceDocument(BRD).Thetablewasdevelopedusingastructural
reliabilitymodelintegratedwithamethodbasedonBayesTheoremforincludingthe
impactofthenumberandtypeofinspectionsperformedontheprobabilityoffailureand
risk.ThemodelitselfisdescribedintheBRDandinAPIRP5811stEdition,in
sufficientdetailsothatpersonsexperiencedandskilledinstructuralreliabilitycouldsee
thebasisforthetable.
Table1RepresentingAPIRP5812ndEditionTable5.11ThinningDamage
Factors

Table5.11ThinningDamageFactors
InspectionEffectiveness
Art 1Inspection 2Inspections 3Inspections
E
D C B A D C B A D C B A
0.02 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0.04 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0.06 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0.08 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0.10 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0.12 6 5 3 2 1 4 2 1 1 3 1 1 1
0.14 20 17 10 6 1 13 6 1 1 10 3 1 1
0.16 90 70 50 20 3 50 20 4 1 40 10 1 1
0.18 250 200 130 70 7 170 70 10 1 130 35 3 1
0.20 400 300 210 110 15 290 120 20 1 260 60 5 1
0.25 520 450 290 150 20 350 170 30 2 240 80 6 1
0.30 650 550 400 200 30 400 200 40 4 320 110 9 2
0.35 750 650 550 300 80 600 300 80 10 540 150 20 5
0.40 900 800 700 400 130 700 400 120 30 600 200 50 10
0.45 1050 900 810 500 200 800 500 160 40 700 270 60 20
0.50 1200 1100 970 600 270 1000 600 200 60 900 360 80 40
0.55 1350 1200 1130 700 350 1100 750 300 100 1000 500 130 90
0.60 1500 1400 1250 850 500 1300 900 400 230 1200 620 250 210
0.65 1900 1700 1400 1000 700 1600 1105 670 530 1300 880 550 500
InspectionEffectiveness
Art E
4Inspections 5Inspections 6Inspections
D C B A D C B A D C B A
0.02 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0.04 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0.06 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0.08 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0.10 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0.12 6 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0.14 20 7 2 1 1 5 1 1 1 4 1 1 1
0.16 90 30 5 1 1 20 2 1 1 14 1 1 1
0.18 250 100 15 1 1 70 7 1 1 50 3 1 1
0.20 400 180 20 2 1 120 10 1 1 100 6 1 1
0.25 520 200 30 2 1 150 15 2 1 120 7 1 1
0.30 650 240 50 4 2 180 25 3 2 150 10 2 2
0.35 750 440 90 10 4 350 70 6 4 280 40 5 4
0.40 900 500 140 20 8 400 110 10 8 350 90 9 8
0.45 1050 600 200 30 15 500 160 20 15 400 130 20 15
0.50 1200 800 270 50 40 700 210 40 40 600 180 40 40
0.55 1350 900 350 100 90 800 260 90 90 700 240 90 90
0.60 1500 1000 450 220 210 900 360 210 210 800 300 210 210
0.65 1900 1200 700 530 500 1100 640 500 500 1000 600 500 500

SinceTable5.11isatwodimensionaltable,alimitednumberofvariablescanbe
represented.Itwouldrequiremultipletablestoapproximatewhatcanbecalculatedin
themodelusedtoproducethenumbersinthetable.
Allvariablesnotinthetablemusthavefixedvalues,meaningtheuserhasno
abilitytoenteractualvaluesorchangeassumptions.Byusingthemodel,theuser
hascompletecontroloverallofthis.Byusingactualdataforphysical
dimensions,materialsproperties,andoperatingconditions,themeaningfulnessof
theresultwillobviouslybegreatlyenhanced.MoreimportantlyforRBI,the
discriminationbetweenequipmentitemsbasedontheiractualdatawillbe
enhancedhugely.Thesecurrentlyfixedvariablesandassumptionsare:
1. Cylindricalshape
2. Corrosionratecouldbeexactlytwotimesorfourtimestheenteredrate
3. Diameter=60inches
4. Thickness=0.5inches
5. CorrosionAllowance=0.125inches(25%ofthickness)
6. Pressure=187.5psig
7. TensileStrength=60ksi
8. YieldStrength=35ksi
9. Variancesonstochasticvariables(pressure,strengths,thinning)
10. CategoriesandvaluesofPriorprobabilities(Table3)*
11. ValuesbutnotcategoriesofInspectionEffectivenessprobabilities
(Table4)*
Unlesstheequipmentisequaltoorclosetotheabove,thetableisnottechnically
applicable(degreeofapplicabilityisnotknown)
Heads,spheres,pipes,highpressure,littleornoCA,largeCA,etc.arenot
handledatall
*ThewholetopicofTables3and4inSection5.2UserInputsispartof
BayesTheoremandisworthyofaseparatesessionoftheAPIRP581committee
fortrainingintheactualmethod,followedbypeerreviewoftheprobabilities
usedyetunexaminedsince1993.Thisisbeyondthescopeofthisproposal,since
nochangestothemethodsoriginallydevelopedareconsideredhere.Itisnot
proposedthatanyofthevaluesofTables3or4shouldactuallybeuserinputsat
thistime.ThecategoriesofTables3and4canbeselectedbytheuserinthis
proposal.SeeAppendixB.
TheTable5.11wasbasedontheequipmentdimensionsandpropertiesaboveandapplied
togeneralplantequipment.Itwasconsideredsufficientlyapplicableforotherequipment
geometries,dimensions,andmaterialsforthepurposesofequipmentinspection
prioritization.
Notealsothatthedamagefactorsrepresentedinthetablearebasedonanoriginalgeneric
failurefrequencyofapressurevessel.ThePOFcalculatedbythemodelcouldbe
determinedsimplybymultiplyingthedamagefactorbythegenericfailurefrequencyof

1.56X10 .Sincecreationofthetable,thegenericfrequencieshavebeenmodified
4
basedonactualplantfailurefrequencyexperience.
UseofthemodelallowstheusertoenteranyGFF,ornotuseoneatall.IfaGFFof1.0
isentered,themodelsimplyreturnsthecalculatedPOF.IfaGFFisenteredthathasbeen
obtainedfromanysourceordata,thefunctionreturnstheThinningFactor.Individual
applicatorsofthemodelcandecideiftheywanttousethePOFitself(byenteringaGFF
of1.0),orconvertittoaThinningFactorsimplybyenteringtheGFFtheychoosetouse.

3. StepbyStepSummaryCalculationoftheProbabilityofFailure
The following procedure may be used to determine the probability of failure for a
cylinderduetothinning.
a) STEP1Determinethenumberofinspections, I N andthecorrespondinginspection
effectivenesscategoryforallpastinspections.Combinationoftheinspectionstoan
equivalentnumberinoneeffectivenesscategoryisnotnecessaryintheproposed
model
b) STEP2Determinethetimeinservice, age ,associatedwithenteredcorrosionrate.
The thickness entered should correspond to the nominal, measured (minimum
measured)orestimatedtotalinitialthicknessatstartofAge(forexampleifRate
changessignificantlyduringtheequipmentlifetime,Agestartsoveratthetimethe
newrateisentered.)
c) STEP 3 Determine the corrosion rate for the base metal, Cr ,bm , based on the
materialofconstructionandprocessenvironment.
d) STEP4DeterminePriorProbabilitiesusingdamageratereliabilityofdatainTable
3.
e) STEP5DetermineConditionalProbabilitiesusingTable4forInspectionHistory
credit.
f) STEP6DeterminePosteriorProbabilitiesusingthefollowingequations:
Posterior1 ( Prior1 Conditional1 ) I N / ( Prior1 Conditional1 ) I N ( Prior2 Conditional2 ) I N
( Prior3 Conditional3 ) I N

g) STEP7DetermineLossThinningStatesusingthefollowingequations:
LossState1 Age Rate
LossState 2 Age Rate Factor1
LossState3 Age Rate Factor2
h) STEP8DeterminetheFlowStressusingthefollowingequation:
FlowStress ((YieldStrength TensileStrength ) / 2

i) STEP9DeterminetheStandardDeviationsforPressure,FlowStressandThinning
usingthefollowingequations:
PressureSD = Pressure PressureVariance
FlowStressSD FlowStress FlowStressVariance
Thinning SD Thinning ThinningVariance
Where
PressureVariance 0.05
FlowStressVariance 0.170
ThinningVariance 0.170
j) STEP10(Equationsshownareforcylindricalshapesonly.)DetermineDerivative
ValuesforPressure,FlowStressandThinningusingthefollowingequations:
dg_Pressure_by_dPressure Diameter / (2 Thickness )
dg _ by _ dFlowStress (1 (Thinning / Thickness )
dg _ by _ dThinning FlowStress / Thickness
k) STEP11(Equationsshownareforcylindricalshapesonly.)DetermineStandard
DeviationoftheLimitStateFunctionforthreedamagestatesusingthefollowing
equation:
((Pressure SD dg_by_dPressure/ 1000) 2
StdDev _ g ( FlowStressSD dg _ by _ dFlowStress )2
(Thinning SD dg _ by _ dThinning ) 2 ))
l) STEP12(Equationsshownareforcylindricalshapesonly.)DeterminetheLimit
StateFunctionforthreedamagestatesusingthefollowingequation:
g ( FlowStress ((1 Thinning ) / Thickness )) ( Pressure /1000 Diameter / (2 Thickness ))
m) STEP13DetermineBetaforthreedamagestatesusingthefollowingequation:
Beta g / StdDev _ g

n) STEP14DeterminetheProbabilityofFailureofthreedamagestatesforThinning
inaCylinderusingthefollowingequation:
APICylinderThinningPOF ApplicationNormSDist ( Beta )
o) STEP15DeterminetheProbabilityofFailureusingthefollowingequation:
POF ( POF1 Posterior1 ) ( POF2 Posterior2 ) ( POF3 Posterior3 )
p) STEP16Ifdesired,theThinningDamageFactorcanbedeterminedbyusingthe
followingequation(notethatifGenericPOFis1.0,theoverallPOFisreturned):
Thinning Factor ( POF1 / GenericPOF Posterior1 ) ( POF2 / GenericPOF Posterior2 )
( POF3 / GenericPOF Posterior3 )

4. KnownIssuesRelatedtotheProposedReliabilityModel
4.1. Discontinuitiesunderconditionsofhighuncertainty
Figure1Discontinuitiesunderconditionsofhighuncertainty
Figure1illustratesaknownissuewiththeBRDmodel,whichusesthreediscretestates
ofnaturetohypothesizethepossibleexistenceofcorrosionrateshigherthanexpected,
asisknowntosometimesoccur,andhasleadtodisastrousfailures.InTable5.11,these
threestatesare:1)theworstcorrosionrateisequaltoorlessthantheexpectedor
measuredrate,2)theworstcorrosionrateisasmuchastwotimesgreaterthanthe
expectedormeasuredrate,and3)theworstcorrosionrateisasmuchasfourtimes
greaterthantheexpectedormeasuredrate.NOTE:Thesearethestatedefinitionsused
forTable5.11.Iftheactualmodelisused,thenofcoursethesecanbechangedbythe
usertobettersuitaparticularsituation.TheresultofusingdiscretestatesisaPOFcurve
withhumpsinitforthecaseoflittleornoinspection.Forthecaseofmany
inspections,hencelittleuncertaintyinthecorrosionrate,asmoothcurveresults.Since
thediscontinuitiesonlyoccurinwhatisaninherentlyahighuncertaintysituation,thisis
not,inpracticalapplicationofthemodel,anissueorevennoticeable.Incorporationof
continuousinsteadofdiscretestatespresentsdauntingstatisticalandmathematical
challenges*,butasolutionmaybefoundinafuturegenerationofRP581.
*Useofcontinuousstatesinvolvesdevelopmentofacumulativeprobabilitydistribution
functionfortheunderlyingstatisticaldistribution(e.g.normal,lognormal,weibull,etc.)
thatbestdescribesthedistributionofcorrosionratesforeachenvironmentplusall

variablesthataffectthatrate(material,temperature,velocity,etc.),foreachpieceof
equipmentconsidered.Suchanapproachisarguablymoreaccurate,ifthefunctionuses
thecorrectmean,varianceandunderlyingdistributionineachcase.Thismaybebeyond
thereachofcurrentRBIapplications.
4.2. LimitationsofMeanValueFirstOrderReliabilityMethod(MVFORM)
(Reference:Madsen,H.O.,Lind,N.C.andKrenk,S.,MethodsofStructuralSafety,
PrenticeHall,EngelwoodCliffs,N.J.(1986))
MVFORMisknowntobelessaccurateatestimatingthePOFatverysmallvalues(high
reliabilityindex,),comparedtootherestimatingmethods(e.g.FORM,SORM,etc.),
especiallyforhighlynonlinearlimitstateequations.Thisissuewasraisedbyreliability
engineersatanearlystageintheBRDdevelopment,andwasaddressedbythefollowing
excerptfromapaper.
Figure2comparesthereliabilityindicescalculatedbyMVFORMwiththemoreaccurate
FORMforthethinninglimitstateequation,whichislinear.ComparisonofMVFORM
vs.FORMforother,nonlinearlimitstateequationshasnotbeenevaluated.Three
differentdistributiontypeswereinvestigated:normal,weibull,andlognormalovera
rangeofmeanandvariancevalues.Theresultsshowthatforreliabilityindiceslessthan
about=4(POF=3105)theresultsarecomparable.Atlargers(lowerPOF)the
resultsdiverge.SincetheprimarygoalofthePOFcalculationistoidentifyitemsthat
failatahigherratethanthegeneric,thedivergenceofestimatesatlargervaluesis
notveryimportant.
8.0
Normal
Lognormal
6.0
Weibull
4.0
2.0
0.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
FORM
Figure2ComparisonofreliabilityindicescalculatedusingFORMFORMandMVFORM,
MV.

InFigure2,threedifferentcaseswereinvestigated,inputisallnormalvariables,inputis
alllognormalvariablesandinputisallweibullrandomvariables.Afairlywiderangeof
variancesandmeanvalueswascalculated.Theplotaboveshowsthatforreliability
indicesbelow4(POF=3105)thereisverylittledifferenceintheestimated.

5. ProposedThinningModelUseofBayesTheoremandReliability
Index Method Integrated to Determine Impact of Thinning and
InspectionforThinningonPoF
5.1. Reliability Index Method to Determine Impact of Thinning on PoF of a

CylindricalShape
Table2ImpactofThinningonPoFofaCylindricalShape
Variable Description Variable Description
sf Flowstress=(sy+st)/2 p Pressure
D Diameter t Originalwallthickness
t Thinning
Expression Description
t pD Limitstatefunction.UseofpD/2t
g2 = s f 1 - - 1
t 2t requiresthatD>>t.Thusitwould
notbeapplicableinthecaseof
extremelyhighpressurepiping(e.g.
asfoundinHDPEprocesses)where
thepiperesemblesathicksteelbar
withasmallholeinthemiddle.
dg 2 t Derivativeoflimitstatefunction
= 1- 2
d sf t withrespecttoflowstress.
dg 2 sf Derivativeoflimitstatefunction
=- 3
dt t withrespecttothinning.
dg 2 D Derivativeoflimitstatefunction
= - 4
dp 2t withrespecttointernalpressure.
pD Firstorderapproximationtothe
g = sf 1 - t - 5 meanofthelimitstatefunction.
t 2t
dg
2
dg
2 2 Firstorderapproximationtothe
dg 6
2
g = p + sf + t varianceofthelimitstatefunction.
dp ds f dt

g Reliabilityindexandprobabilityof
= P f = - (- ) 7
g failure. ()isthecumulative
probabilityfunctionofanormal
randomvariablewithameanof0
andstandarddeviationof1.Thisis
thestandardmethodtoconverta
reliabilityindex(regardlessofits
source)toanominalprobabilityof
failureandisnotuniquetothis
method.
5.2. UserInputs
Prior(toInspection)State:Userselectsfromoneofthechoicesbelow.See
AppendixBforguidance.
Table3Prior(toInspection)ProbabilityofPredictedDamageRate
Actual Low Confidence Moderate High Confidence
DamageRate Data ConfidenceData Data
Range
Predicted 0.5 0.7 0.8
"rate"orless
"rate" to two
times"rate"
Two to four 0.2 0.1 0.05
timespredicted
"rate"
Table4:ConditionalProbabilityofInspection(i.e.theInspection
Effectivenessprobabilities)
Conditional ENone D C B A
Probability or Poorly Fairly Usually Highly
of Ineffective Effective Effective Effective Effective
Inspection
Predicted
0.33 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.9
"rate"orless
Predicted
"rate"totwo 0.33 0.33 0.3 0.2 0.09
times"rate"
Twotofour 0.33 0.27 0.2 0.1 0.01

times
predicted
"rate"
Shape,Thegeometryoftheequipmentorcomponentbeingevaluated.
Currentlylimitedto:
o Cylinder
o ASME(Head)
o Spherical(Sphereorhemisphericalhead)
o Clad
Thickness(inches),Nominal,measured(minimummeasured)or
estimatedtotalinitialthicknesscorrespondingtostartofAge(forexample
ifRatechangessignificantlyduringtheequipmentlifetime,Agestarts
overatthetimethenewrateisentered..)
Pressure(psig),ShouldbetheMAXIMUManticipatedoperating
pressure.OftenthePRDsetpressureunlessmaximumanticipated
pressureisnotthathigh.
Diameter(inches),Shouldbeoutsidediameter.
Age(years),Ageassociatedwithenteredrate.Thethicknessentered
shouldcorrespondtothenominal,measured(minimummeasured)or
estimatedtotalinitialthicknessatstartofAge(forexampleifRate
changessignificantlyduringtheequipmentlifetime,Agestartsoveratthe
timethenewrateisentered.)
Tensile(ksi),Thespecifiedminimumtensilestrength.Defaultsto60ksi
if0ornotentered.
Yield(ksi),Thespecifiedminimumyieldstrength.Defaultsto35ksiif0
ornotentered.
Rate(inches/year),Measured,estimated,orcalculatedthinningrate
associatedwithtimeperiodofAge.Maydifferoverequipmentlifetime,
(forexampleifRatechangessignificantlyduringtheequipmentlifetime.)
Priors(0to3),Prior(totesting)probabilitiesofeachstate,
o 1=LowConfidenceinrate
o 2=ModerateConfidenceinrate
o 3=HighConfidenceinrate
o Defaultsto1ifzeroorblank.
NumberInspHighlyEffective[A](Number),EnterallfourNumberInsp
values(valueforeacheffectiveness)as1X4array.
NumberInspUsuallyEffective[B](Number),EnterallfourNumberInsp
NumberInspFairlyEffective[C](Number),EnterallfourNumberInsp

NumberInspPoorlyEffective[D](Number),EnterallfourNumberInsp
GenericPOF(Failure/year)Enterchosengenericfailurefrequency,OR
Enter1toreturncalculatedPOF.
Factor1MultipliertimescorrosionrateforState2.Defaultsto2if0or
notentered.
o State1alwayshasamultiplierof1.0(corrosionrate=entered
rate)andneednotbeentered.
o State2haspostulatedcorrosionrateofFactor1timesenteredrate.
Factor2MultipliertimescorrosionrateforState3.Defaultsto4if0or
notentered.
o State1alwayshasamultiplierof1.0(corrosionrate=entered
rate)andneednotbeentered.
5.3. Outputs
ThinningFactororCalculatedPOF(Output).EnteringGFFvalue
returnsThinningFactor,Entering1forGFFreturnscalculatedPOF.

6. AppendixAExcelVBFunctionModuleCodeforThinningFactor
orPOFCalculation(BayesianUpdating,Miscellaneous)
FunctionAPI581ThinningFactor(Shape,Thickness,Pressure,Diameter,Age,Tensile,_
Yield,Rate,Priors,NumberInsp,GenericPOF,_
Factor1,Factor2)AsDouble
'1.WrittenBy:
'2.DateStarted:
'3.DateLastModified:
'4.DescriptionoftheFunctionorSubroutine:ThefirstsectionistheBayesian_
updating.Theprior(totesting)probabilitiesofthreedamagestatesissetbasedonthe_
variable"Priors".Theseprobabilitiesareupdatedbasedonthenumberof_
inspectionsinfourinspectioncategories.InspectionCategory#1is"Highly"_
effective.InspectionCategory#2is"Usually"effective.InspectionCategory_
#3is"Fairly"effective.InspectionCategory#4is"Poorly"effective.Next_
theProbabilityofFailureforeachofthethreedamagestatesarecalculated_
bycallingFunctionAPI[Shape]ThinningPOF.Then_
theupdatedprobabilitiesareusedwiththeprobabilitiesoffailuretodetermine_
anoverallThinningFactororPOF,whichisreturned.
'5.ExampleandUsage:CalculationoftheThinningTechnicalModuleFactor._
ThisisusedbyRBItomodifythe"generic"failurefrequency(QuantitativeRBI)_
ortosetthelikelihoodcategory(SemiQuantitativeRBI).Shape=Cylinder,
'Thickness=0.5,Pressure=187.5,Diameter=60,Age=25,CorrosionRate=
0.005,Noinspections,Defaultsforothers;Factor=652.5754
'6.MeasurementUnitsInvolved:
'Thickness:inches(startingthicknessoftheequipment,defaultisoriginalminimum
shellthickness)
'Pressure:psig(evaluationpressure,defaultisoperatingpressure)
'Diameter:inches(preferablyoutsidediameter,althoughthisisnotimportant.
Shouldcorrespondtotheshellthickness.)
'Age:years(thetimeperiodfortheevaluation,defaultisequipmentage.)
'Tensile:ksi(tensilestrength,defaultis60ksi)
'Yield:ksi(yieldstrength,defaultis35ksi)
'Rate:inches/year(corrosionrate)
'Priors:1,2,or3(defaultis1,usedtoindicatetheprior(totesting)probabilities,
i.e.theconfidenceinthe"source"ofinformation.)
'NumberInsp:integerarray(thenumberofinspectionsinCategory1to4)
'GenericPOF:events/yr(thegenericprobabilityfortheequipment,defaultis
0.000156/yr).Entering1.0causesthefunctiontoreturnthecalculatedPOF.
'Factor1:integer(theincreaseofdamagestate2overdamagestate1,defaultis2,
i.e.thecorrosionrateis2timestheestimate)

'Factor2:integer(theincreaseofdamagestate3overdamagestate1,defaultis4,
i.e.thecorrosionrateis4timestheestimate)
'7.Version:Version1.0
'8.ModificationLogs:
DimPrior1,Prior2,Prior3AsDouble'Priorprobabilities
DimConditional1,Conditional2,Conditional3AsDouble'Conditionalprobabilities
(InspectionEffectiveness)
DimPosterior1,Posterior2,Posterior3AsDouble'Updatedprobabilitiesafter
(posteriorto)inspecction
DimLoss1,Loss2,Loss3AsDouble'Walllosscorrespondingtothreestates
DimPOF1,POF2,POF3AsDouble'Probabilityoffailureduetowalllossstate
DimInspCatAsInteger
'SetPriorProbabilities(SeeTable3Prior(toInspection)ProbabilityofPredicted
DamageRate)
SelectCasePriors
Case1,0'Defaultstolowest
Prior1=0.5
Prior2=0.3
Prior3=0.2
Case2
Prior1=0.7
Prior2=0.2
Prior3=0.1
Case3
Prior1=0.8
Prior2=0.15
Prior3=0.05
EndSelect
ForInspCat=1To4'PerformBayesianupdating
SelectCaseInspCat'SetConditionalprobabilities(InspectionEffectiveness)
Case1HighlyEffective
Conditional1=0.9
Conditional2=0.09
Conditional3=0.01
Case2UsuallyEffective
Conditional1=0.7
Conditional2=0.2
Conditional3=0.1
Case3FairlyEffective
Conditional1=0.5
Conditional2=0.3
Conditional3=0.2

Case4PoorlyEffective
Conditional1=0.4
Conditional2=0.33
Conditional3=0.27
EndSelect
'CalculatePosteriorProbabilities
Posterior1=Prior1*Conditional1^NumberInsp(InspCat)/(Prior1*Conditional1
^NumberInsp(InspCat)+Prior2*Conditional2^NumberInsp(InspCat)+Prior3*
Conditional3^NumberInsp(InspCat))
Prior1=Posterior1
Prior2=Posterior2
Prior3=Posterior3
NextInspCat
'Calculatethreethinningstates
IfFactor1=0ThenFactor1=2'defaultvalue
IfFactor2=0ThenFactor2=4'defaultvalue
Loss1=Age*Rate'State1
Loss2=Age*Rate*Factor1'State2
Loss3=Age*Rate*Factor2'State3
'Calculateprobabilityoffailure
IfShape="Spherical"Then
POF1=APISphericalThinningPOF(Thinning:=Loss1,Thickness:=Thickness,
Pressure:=Pressure,Diameter:=Diameter,Tensile:=Tensile,Yield:=Yield)
EndIf
IfShape="Cylinder"Then
POF1=APICylinderThinningPOF(Thinning:=Loss1,Thickness:=Thickness,
EndIf
IfShape="ASME"Then

POF1=APIASMEThinningPOF(Thinning:=Loss1,Thickness:=Thickness,
EndIf
IfShape="Clad"Then
POF1=APICladThinningPOF(Thinning:=Loss1,Thickness:=Thickness)
EndIf
'Calculatedamagefactor
IfGenericPOF=0ThenGenericPOF=0.0000306'defaulttoRP5812ndEdition
API581ThinningFactor=((POF1/GenericPOF)*Posterior1)+((POF2/
GenericPOF)*Posterior2)+((POF3/GenericPOF)*Posterior3)
EndFunction
6.1. ExcelVBModuleCodetoCalculatePOF(Spherical)viaMVFORM
FunctionAPISphericalThinningPOF(Thinning,Thickness,Pressure,Diameter,Tensile,
Yield)AsDouble
'1.WrittenBy:
'2.DateStarted:
'4.DescriptionoftheFunctionorSubroutine:Thisfunctionworkswiththe
API581ThinningFactorfunction.Thisfunction
'calculatestheprobabilityoffailureduetothinninginspheresandhemispherical
headsbyevaluationofalimitstateequationviameanvalueFORM.
'5.ExampleandUsage:
'Thinning:inches(theamountofthinningtobeevaluated)
shellthickness)
'

DimPressureVar,FlowStressVar,ThinningVarAsDouble'%Variationusedtocalc
Std.Dev.
DimPressureSD,FlowStressSD,ThinningSDAsDouble'Std.Deviations
Dimdg_dPressure,dg_dFlowStress,dg_dThinningAsDouble'Derivativesoflimit
stateg
DimFlowStress,StdDev_g,g,BetaAsDouble'Intermediatevalues
'Initialcalcs
PressureVar=0.050
FlowStressVar=0.170
ThinningVar=0.170
IfYield=0ThenYield=35#'default
IfTensile=0ThenTensile=60#'default
FlowStress=((Yield+Tensile)/2)
'StandardDeviations
PressureSD=Pressure*PressureVar
FlowStressSD=FlowStress*FlowStressVar
ThinningSD=Thinning*ThinningVar
'Derivativevalues
dg_dPressure=Diameter/(4*Thickness)
dg_dFlowStress=(1(Thinning/Thickness))
dg_dThinning=FlowStress/Thickness
'Calculations
StdDev_g=((PressureSD*dg_dPressure/1000)^2+(FlowStressSD*
dg_dFlowStress)^2+(ThinningSD*dg_dThinning)^2)^0.5
g=(FlowStress*(1Thinning/Thickness))(Pressure/1000*Diameter/(4*
Thickness))
Beta=g/StdDev_g
APISphericalThinningPOF=Application.NormSDist(Beta)
EndFunction
6.2. ExcelVBModuleCodetoCalculatePOF(Cylinder)viaMVFORM
FunctionAPICylinderThinningPOF(Thinning,Thickness,Pressure,Diameter,Tensile,
Yield)AsDouble
'1.WrittenBy:
'2.DateStarted:
'calculatestheprobabilityoffailureduetothinningincylindersbyevaluationofa
limitstateequationviameanvalueFORM.
'5.ExampleandUsage:

shellthickness)
'
Std.Dev.
stateg
'Initialcalcs
PressureVar=0.050
FlowStressVar=0.170
ThinningVar=0.170
'StandardDeviations
'Derivativevalues
dg_dPressure=Diameter/(2*Thickness)
'Calculations
g=(FlowStress*(1Thinning/Thickness))(Pressure/1000*Diameter/(2*
Thickness))
Beta=g/StdDev_g
APICylinderThinningPOF=Application.NormSDist(Beta)
EndFunction

6.3. ExcelVBModuleCodetoCalculatePOF(ASMEHead)viaMVFORM
FunctionAPIASMEThinningPOF(Thinning,Thickness,Pressure,Diameter,Tensile,
Yield)AsDouble
'1.WrittenBy:
'2.DateStarted:
'calculatestheprobabilityoffailureduetothinninginASMEheadsbyevaluationof
alimitstateequationviameanvalueFORM.
'5.ExampleandUsage:
shellthickness)
'
Std.Dev.
stateg
'Initialcalcs
PressureVar=0.050
FlowStressVar=0.170
ThinningVar=0.170
'StandardDeviations
'Derivativevalues
dg_dPressure=Diameter/(1.13*Thickness)

'Calculations
g=(FlowStress*(1Thinning/Thickness))(Pressure/1000*Diameter/(1.13*
Thickness))
Beta=g/StdDev_g
APIASMEThinningPOF=Application.NormSDist(Beta)
EndFunction
6.4. ExcelVBModuleCodetoCalculatePOF(Cladding)viaMVFORM
FunctionAPICladThinningPOF(Thinning,Thickness)AsDouble
'1.WrittenBy:
'2.DateStarted:
'calculatestheprobabilityoffailureduetothinningofacladdingmaterial(notthe
shell)byevaluationofalimitstateequationviameanvalueFORM.
'5.ExampleandUsage:
'Thickness:inches(startingthicknessofthecladding)
'
'DimThinningVarAsDouble'%VariationusedtocalcStd.Dev.
DimThinningSDAsDouble'Std.Deviations
Dimdg_dThinningAsDouble'Derivativesoflimitstateg
DimStdDev_g,g,BetaAsDouble'Intermediatevalues
'Initialcalcs
ThinningVar=0.17
'StandardDeviations
'Derivativevalues
dg_dThinning=1
'Calculations
StdDev_g=((ThinningSD*dg_dThinning)^2)^0.5
g=ThicknessThinning
Beta=g/StdDev_g

APICladThinningPOF=Application.NormSDist(Beta)
EndFunction
7. Appendix B Guidance on Use of Table 3, Prior (to Inspection)

ProbabilityofPredictedDamageRate
(Reference:APICommitteeonRefineryEquipmentBRDonRiskBasedInspection
February1999Revision04Page8.26)
7.1. DeterminetheConfidenceLevelintheDamageRate
Thedamagerateinprocessequipmentisoftennotknownwithcertainty.Theabilityto
state the rate of damage precisely is limited by equipment complexity, process and
metallurgicalvariations,inaccessibilityforinspection,andlimitationsofinspectionand
testmethods.
Theuncertaintyintheexpecteddamageratecanbedeterminedfromhistoricaldataon
thefrequencywithwhichvariousdamageratesoccur.Arealisticunderstandingofthe
uncertaintyinexpecteddamagerateswillincludeconsiderationofcasehistoriesfroma
variety of similar processes and equipment. The best information will come from
operatingexperienceswheretheconditionsthatledtotheobserveddamageratecould
realisticallybeexpectedtooccurintheequipmentunderconsideration.Othersourcesof
informationcouldincludedatabasesofplantexperienceorrelianceonexpertopinion.
Thelattermethodisusedmostoften,sinceplantdatabases,wheretheyexist,usuallydo
notcontainsufficientlydetailedinformation.
Example:Economicalequipmentdesignoftenrequiresinternalcorrosionratesofless
thanfivemilsperyear.However,higherratesaresometimesobserved.Itisnotvery
unusualtoobservecorrosionrates twicewhatwasexpected or previously observed.
Usuallythesehigherratesaredetectedduringinspections,butsometimestheoccurrence
of higherthanexpected corrosion rates is not detected until failure of the pressure
boundaryoftheprocessoccurs.
Observedlessfrequentlyarecorrosionratesasmuchasfourtimestheexpectedrate.
Rarelyarecorrosionratesforuniformcorrosionmorethanfourtimestherateexpected.
(Althoughcorrosionratesasmuchastemtimestheexpectedratehavebeenobserved
and have lead to serious equipment failure.) The default values provided here are
expectedtoapplytomanyplantprocesses.Noticethattheuncertaintyinthecorrosion
ratevaries,dependingonthesourceandqualityofthecorrosionratedata.
Forgeneralinternalcorrosion,thereliabilityoftheinformationsourcesusedtoestablish
acorrosionratecanbeputintothefollowingthreecategories:
A. LowConfidenceInformationSourcesforCorrosionRates

Publisheddata
Corrosionratetables
"Default"values
Althoughtheyareoftenusedfordesigndecisions,theactualcorrosionratethatwillbe
observedinagivenprocesssituationmaysignificantlydifferfromthedesignvalue.
B. ModerateConfidenceInformationSourcesforCorrosionRates
Laboratorytestingwithsimulatedprocessconditions
Limitedinsitucorrosioncoupontesting
Corrosionratedatadevelopedfromsourcesthatsimulatetheactualprocessconditions
usuallyprovideahigherlevelofconfidenceinthepredictedcorrosionrate.
C. HighConfidenceInformationSourcesforCorrosionRates
Extensivefielddatafromthoroughinspections
Coupondata, reflecting fiveormore years ofexperience withtheprocess
equipment(assumingnochangeinprocessconditionshasoccurred)
Ifenoughdataareavailablefromactualprocessexperience,thereislittlelikelihoodthat
theactualcorrosionratewillgreatlyexceedtheexpectedvalueundernormaloperating
conditions.
TableB.2(SeeSection4.2)expressesthedegreeofconfidencethatthetruedamagerate
fallsintothelisteddamagerateranges,basedontheconfidenceofthedamageratedata.
TableB.2 ConfidenceinPredictedDamageRate
Actual Low Confidence Moderate High Confidence

DamageRate Data ConfidenceData Data
Range

"rate"orless
"rate" to two
times"rate"
Two to four 0.2 0.1 0.05
timespredicted
"rate"

8. AppendixCExampleofBayesTheoremforInspection
(Reference:Benjamin,J.R.andCornell,A,Probability,StatisticsandDecisionforCivil
Engineers,McGrawHill,NewYork(1970))
Useofanacceptedandsystematicapproachtodeterminingtheimpactofinspection
onPOFisextremelyvaluableinmakingrational,justifiabledecisionsinthefaceof
uncertaintyandtolendcredibilitytotheentireRBIprocess.Awidelyrecognized
methodforjustsuchproblemsiscalledBayes'RuleorBayes'Theorem.Thisruleis
usedinmanycivilengineeringproblemswhereuncertaintyisinherentinthedata
thatmustbeused.Theruleisespeciallyapplicabletocaseswhereaninspectoror
engineerhasanexistingunderstandingofthelikelystatesofastructureora
material,andwantstoperformatesttohelpconfirmhisexpectations.Inthe
deterministicapproach,thetestresultsareconsideredtobeperfect,thatis,the
resultsconfirmwith100%accuracythestateofthematerial.Whilethismaybethe
casewithcertainveryaccuratetestsperformedundercontrolledconditions,inmost
"real"cases,thetestcanonlyindicateatendencytowardsonestateoranother.
Obviously,limitedtestsandinspectionsperformedinthefieldonlargestructures
wouldfallintotheuncertainresultscategory.Asimpleexampleoftheapplication
oftheBayesianmethodis:
Anengineerisassignedtosurveyanexistingreinforcedconcretebuildingto
determineitsadequacyforfutureuse.Hehasstudiedtheconstructionrecordsand
examinedtheappearanceoftheconcrete.Basedonexperienceandpreviousstudies,
hedecidesthattheconcretequalitycanbeclassifiedas2000,3000,or4000psi.
Also,hedecidesthattheconcreteismostlikely3000psiclass,itmaybe2000psi
classbuthesuspectsthatitisstrongerthanthat,andhedoubtsthatitis4000psi
classalthoughitispossible.Heassignsthefollowingrelativelikelihoods(theprior
probabilities)tothesestates:
Class Expected(experiencebased)
likelihoodofbeinginclass
2000psiclass 0.3
3000psiclass 0.6
4000psiclass 0.1
1.0(total)
Concretequalityclassificationisdeterminedbythe"28daycylinder"strengthtest.
Theengineerdecidestocutsomeconcretecoresandtestthemtohelpdeterminethe
truestate.Heknowsthatthetestisreasonablyreliable,butnotconclusive.Forone
thing,coresfromfullycuredconcretewillbestrongerthana28daycylinder,sothe

resultstendtooverestimatetheclass.(Fromtherulesforconcretedesign,theclass
isbasedonlyonthe28daystrength,notthefinalstrength.)Aresultof3500tends
toindicatethe3000psiclass,butsometimeshigherandlowerclasseswillgivethe
sameresult.Previousstudiesofthetestmethod(performedonconcreteofknown
strength)haveestablishedsometestreliabilitydata(theinspectioneffectiveness
probabilities):
Coresampletestresults 28daycylinderclass
2000psi 3000psi 4000psi
2500(favors2000psi 0.7 0.2 0.0
class)
3500(favors3000psi 0.3 0.6 0.3
class)
4500(favors4000psi 0.0 0.2 0.7
class)
1.0 1.0 1.0
Inthecontrolledexperimentsonthetesttechnique,withconcreteoftrue3000psi
class,thetestonlyindicatedthisclass60%ofthetime.The40%marginforerror
wasequallydividedbetweenthehigherandthelowerclasses.
Finally,thetestisperformedonacoresample,andtheresultwas2500psi,tending
tofavoratrueclassof2000psi.Howdoestheengineernowupdatehisexpectation
ofthebuilding'sconcretestrengthclass?Bayes'Rulestates:
Theprobabilitythatthetruestateisknown,giventheresultsofatestequals:
{(theprobabilityorexpectationthatthetestresultwouldoccur,ifthetruestateis
known)times(thepriorprobabilityofthestate))dividedby(thesumoverallstates
of(theprobabilityorexpectationthatthetestresultwouldoccur,ifthetruestateis
known)times(thepriorprobabilityofthestate))}.Inmathematicalterms:
P[A | B j ]xP[ B j ]
P[ B j | A] =
i P[A | Bi ]xP[ Bi ]
Inlightofthetest'slimitations,theengineerdecidestotakeanothertest.Thesecond
testresultis3500psi(favorstrueclassof3000psi).Theresultsaresummarized
below(theposteriororconditional(onthetestresult)probabilities):
Trueclass Likelihoodof Likelihoodof Likelihoodof

class(notests) class(1test, class(2tests,results=
result=2500 2500&3500psi)
psi)

2000psi 0.3 0.6 0.47
3000psi 0.6 0.4 0.53
4000psi 0.1 0.0 0.0
1.0 1.0 1.0
Itdoesn'tmatterwhichresultcomesfirst.Themethodextendstoanynumberof
tests,andcanincludenewinformation,forexample,theengineerfindslabtest
resultsfromtestcylinderscastatthetimeofconstruction.
Thisexampleisverysimilartomanyofthepracticalproblemsfacedbyengineers
assessingthesafetyofprocessvesselsviaRBI.
8.1. AnotherviewofBayesTheoremwithURLforMore
(Referencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes'_theorem)
FromaboveURL,IntheBayesianinterpretation,probabilitiesarerationally
coherentdegreesofbelief,oradegreeofbeliefinapropositiongivenabodyof
wellspecifiedinformation.[5]Bayes'theoremcanthenbeunderstoodasspecifying
howanideallyrationalpersonrespondstoevidence.[6]
Putinanotherway,relevanttoRBI,theTheoremcanbeexpressedas:Ifyouare
uncertainaboutthephysicalstate,(e.g.thethickness,thepresenceofcracksorother
damage)of,e.g.apressurevessel,youmayperformoneormoreteststolearnmore.
However,theresultsofsuchtestsmaybeinthemselvesuncertain(e.g.damageis
notdetected).Givenanuncertainstatebeforethetest(thepriorprobabilityofthe
state)whatcanbelogicallyconcludedafteranuncertaintestresultisobtained(the
posteriorprobabilityofthestate)?BayesTheoremprovidesascientificallyand
mathematicallyacceptedmethodofansweringsuchaquestion.Theuncertainty
involvedinthetestresultsiscalledinRBItheinspectioneffectiveness.

9. AppendixDReferences
1. Benjamin, J.R. and Cornell, A, Probability, Statistics and Decision for Civil
Engineers,McGrawHill,NewYork(1970)
2. Madsen,H.O.,Lind,N.C.andKrenk,S., MethodsofStructuralSafety,Prentice
Hall,EngelwoodCliffs,N.J.(1986)
3. API Committee on Refinery Equipment BRD on Risk Based Inspection
February1999Revision04
4. APIRecommendedPractice581,SecondEdition,September2008
5. Jaynes, Edwin T. (2003). Probability theory: the logic of science. Cambridge
UniversityPress.ISBN9780521592710.
6. Howson, Colin; Peter Urbach (1993). Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian
Approach.OpenCourt.ISBN9780812692341.
10. Appendix E On Moving Past the A rt Table 5.11, by Michael J.

Conley
10.1. Introduction
Thisistheonlypartofthisproposalthatbearstheauthorsname.Thesole
reasonforthisisthatthisAppendixnecessitatesthattheinclusionofmaterialthat
theauthorissolelyresponsiblefor,andsomematerialthatcanonlybeconsidered
tobetheauthorsopinionsorrequirementsimposedbytheattempttominimize
theimpactofachangeinmethods.Thevalidityofsuchopinionsisleftopenfor
peerreview.Onesuchopinionisthatthemodelpresentedhereinisrendered
necessarybycompetingandsometimesconflictingrequirementsofRBI:
1. Itmustprovideanapproachtopredictthefutureconditionoflarge
numbersofequipment(100sor1,000s)forthepurposeof
recommendinginspectionbasedonvaryingamountsofhistoricaldata
available.
2. Itmustbesimpleenoughtocomprehend,inapplication,ifnotentirely
withrespecttosomeofthemathematicalmethodsemployed.
3. Itmustalsobesimpleenoughindatarequirements,computationaltime,
andneededsupporttobeeconomicaltouse,whetheritisbyindustry
usingoneormoreofthemethodsdescribedinAPIRP581internally,ora
serviceproviderofsoftwareandtechnicalassistanceinimplementation.
4. Tostrive,totheattemptpossible,tomakethemethodsbothtechnically
defensibletoregulatorsandpeers,andaccuratetothedegreetowhich
probabilityoffailurecaneverbeconsideredaccurate.
Acknowledgements:Thefollowingaregratefullyacknowledged:
LynneKaley,TrinityBridge,whowroteandclarifiedmuchofthis
proposal.Withouther,thisproposalmightnothaveeverbeensubmitted.

Dr.AndrewTallin,whowastheauthorsmentorinallmattersrelatingto
BayesTheoremandStructuralReliabilitymethods.Theauthorclaimsno
greatdegreeofknowledgewithregardstoeithersubject.
TheoriginalsponsorsoftheBaseResourceDocument(BRD)andthe
continuedeffortsbyRP581committeemembersonbehalfofthe
technologyandapplicationofRiskBasedInspection,stillinitsinfancyin
theauthorsopinioncomparedtotheholisticmanagementtoolitcould
become.
Thepeoplewhorevised,reorganizedandbasicallyrewrotetheBRDinRP
581,2ndEdition.Asasignificantcontributortothewritingoftheoriginal
BRD,thisauthorknowsthattheresultingdocumentbasicallywroteitself
asnewconceptsweredevelopedandmodified,andasnewinsightscame.
Theresultingdocumentthushadthefeelofwhatitwaswrittenby
committee,anddesperatelyneedtheoverhaul.
Finally,thisproposalhasbeenmadewithsincereefforttopromoteonlythe
continuedimprovementofRBITechnologyinsuchawaythatnoindividualor
companycanreceiveanycompetitiveadvantagebasedonthecontentsofthis
proposalinandofitself.Ofcourse,RBIasawholeoffersmanyopportunitiesfor
advantageforanyindustryorcompanyapplyingorprovidingit,butonlytothe
extentthatthetechnologyisappliedcleverlyandefficientlybyexperiencedand
welltrainedpeople.APIRP580,RiskBasedInspectionprovidesnecessaryand
ampleguidanceintherequirementsforsuccessfulapplicationofanyRBIsystem.
10.2. BackgroundMaterial
Themodelpresentedhereinwasoriginallydevelopedbythenecessityofproducingthe
originalar/ttableintheBRD.Ithaschangedinsignificantlyovertheensuingperiod,
exceptforsomechangesintroducedinthewritingofthisproposal.Thebiggestchangeis
theintroductionofnewGenericFailureFrequencies(GFF)inRP581,2ndEdition.The
originalmodelwascalibratedtoproduceaThinningFactorofapproximately1.0when
theapproximatelycalculatedcorrosionallowance(CA)hasbeenconsumed.Thiswas
donebyadjustingthevariancesonstochasticvariables(pressure,flowstrength,and
thinning)toyieldacalculatedPOFofroughly1.56X104atthisamountofwallloss.In
anefforttomaintainthisgroundingintheproposedmodel,itwasrecalibratedtoproduce
approximatelythesameresultsusingthenewerGFFof3.06X105.Thiswillassurethat
theThinningFactor(TF)willremaininthesamegeneralrange,inthecaseofwell
inspectedequipmentthatismaintainedwithintheusualCodelimitswithrespectto
thinning.TheTFmayvaryconsiderablyforcasesofhighuncertainty,butthisvariation
willbeinproportiontothedamagethatmightbepresentweightedbytheactualshape,
dimensions,materialsproperties,operatingconditions,etc.foreachcase.Butthatisthe
wholepointofRBI.

10.3. WilltheDamageFactorsChange,andbyHowMuch?
Thisquestionissurelyonthemindsofanyonewhohasalreadydevelopedinspection
plansbasedontheoldmethods(SeealsoSection10.6).Theanswercannotbegivenfor
allpossiblecombinationsofrealdatathatcanbeusedinplaceoftheassumeddata
behindtheArtTable5.11.ThisassumeddataispresentedinSection2andrepeated
here:
1. Cylindricalshape
2. Corrosionratecouldbeexactlytwotimesorfourtimestheenteredrate
3. Diameter=60inches
4. Thickness=0.5inches
5. CorrosionAllowance=0.125inches(25%ofthickness)
6. Pressure=187.5psig
7. TensileStrength=60ksi
8. YieldStrength=35ksi
9. Variancesonstochasticvariables(pressure,flowstrength,andthinning)
Allofthesevariablescanbeenteredusingactualdatafortheequipmentbeingevaluated.
TheExcelVisualBasicCodeofferedinAppendixA(Section6)ofthisproposalprovides
fordefaultsfordatanumbers2,7,8,and9(moreon#9later).Theindividualapplicatorof
thismodelcanacceptthedefaults,orprovideforuserentryofthese.Thusitisnot
absolutelynecessaryforanysoftwareuserinterfacetochange,butitmaybedesirableto
doso,especiallyfordatanumbers2,7and8.Theadvantagesofusingactualdatavs.the
aboveitishopedisreadilyapparentinincreasingthemeaningfulnessoftheresults,the
discriminationbetweenequipmentitemsthatvarylargelyfromtheassumedvalues,and
intheoverallcredibilityanddefensibilityoftheThinningFactortechnique.
Asmentioned,theexpectedPOForTFcannotbegivenforallpossiblecombinationsof
realdatathatcanbeused.However,themaximumpossiblePOFandTFareknown.
ThemaximumThinningFactor(TF)obtainablebytheproposedmodelcanbereadily
determinedbytheequation:
POFcalculated
ThinningFactor
GFF
SincethemaximumPOFis1.0bydefinition,themaximumTFusingtheoldGFFof1.56
X104is:
1
ThinningFactor 6, 410
1.56 E 04
ThemaximumTFusingthenewGFFofis:
1
ThinningFactor 32,680
3.06 E 05

ThetwodifferbytheratioofoldtonewGFFs,oralmostexactly5.1(thenewGFFis5.1
timeslessfrequentthantheoldGFF.)
10.4. CalibrationoftheThinningModelACaution
AsexplainedinSection10.2above,anattempthasbeenmadetocalibratethemodelto
roughlyyieldaDFof1.0(calculatedPOFof3.06X105).Thisresultcannotbe
reproducedexactlyusingthesamevaluesinthePOFcalculationsforallshapesand
corrosionallowancesexpressedasapercentageofwall.Itwouldmakelittlesensetotry
toseparatelymodifythePOFcalculationforahead,sinceitlikelyhassimilarvariances
asthecylindricalshelltowhichitisattached.
AtthelastAPIRP581committeemeetinginNashville,November2010,thisauthorgave
apresentationonthebackgroundoftheoriginalar/ttable,whichpointedoutsome
problemsofperceptionthatresultedfromtheattemptatcalibrationbasedonTmin.
Thesepointsareraisedagainhere,sothatthemistakesofthepastarenotrepeated.
Especiallyimportantispoint#5,whichstatesthattheThinningFactororcalculatedPOF
cannotbeusedtodetermineiftheequipmentunderstudyactuallymeetstherequirements
ofthedeterministicdesignCode.Thismustbedoneseparately,bywhatevermeanshave
beenusedinthepastforthispurpose,orsometimesasacalculationincludedinRBI
software.Inthefuture,processequipmentdesignCodesmaymovetoareliabilitybasis,
whichcouldresultinaunificationofRBIwiththoseCodes.Thecalibrationeffort:
1. Assured that calculated POF was at least in the same range as observed failure
frequencies.
2. BUT, has in some cases given the misperception that POF is somehow related to
Code required Tmin.
3. It must be recognized that the limit state is based on the physical description of
failure (laws of physics), while Tmin is in a sense, a political decision (laws of
man, changeable by man).
4. POF vs. thickness curve is smooth and continuous as the Tmin is passed (Tmin
does not impact POF)
5. Therefore, Tmin calculations (deterministic) must be made separately from the
determination of POF (probabilistic)
10.5. IsThereAnyLogicAvailableToJustifyTheValuesUsedForVariances?
Therearebasicallytwochoicesavailable:
1. Trytodeterminethetruevariancesofpressure,flowstrength,andthinningfor
eachandeverysetofprocessvariables,materialspecifications,andthinning
mechanism(s)evaluated.Thisisadubiousundertaking(inthisauthorsopinion)
iffornootherreasonthanitviolatesthesimplicityandeconomicalRBI
requirements#3inSection10.1above.Also,thecalculatedPOFisquite
sensitivetothevariancesused,andiftruevariancesareusedforeachcase,
therelikelywillbelittleapparentharmonyintheThinningFactorsorPOFs
calculatedfromcasetocase,withfewornowaystopracticallyresolvewhatthe
differencesmean.

2. Applyvariancesthatcanbejustifiedwithinthelimitsofthemodelasoriginally
conceived,someoftheselimitsbeingthesameregardlessofwhetherthemodelor
thear/ttableisused.Theselimitsareimpliedforeachvariancebylookingat
theinputrequirementsofSection5.2inthisproposal(See):
InputPressure(psig):ShouldbetheMAXIMUM.OftenthePRDset
pressureunlessmaximumanticipatedpressureisnotthathigh.
ImpliedPressureVariance:Themaximumanticipatedoperating
pressureisusedbecauseifthehigherratesofthinningarepresentto
anyextent,theywillbethereallthetimeasthepressuremayvary.
Thusthevarianceinmaximumpressureislowcomparedtothe
(sometimes)highlyvariableactualoperatingpressure.
(Thinning)equalsAgetimesThinningRate:
InputAge(years),Ageassociatedwiththeenteredrate.Thethickness
enteredshouldcorrespondtothenominal,measured(minimummeasured)
orestimatedtotalinitialthicknessatstartofAge(forexampleifRate
changessignificantlyduringtheequipmentlifetime,Agestartsoveratthe
timethenewrateisentered.)
InputThinningRate(inches/year),Measured,estimated,orcalculated
thinningrateassociatedwithtimeperiodofAge.Maydifferover
equipmentlifetime,(forexampleifRatechangessignificantlyduringthe
equipmentlifetime.)
BackgroundtoThinningVariance:
TheThinningmodelisbasedonusingBayesTheoremtohandle
ThinningRatesthataresometimesobservedtobemuchhigherin
localizedareasthatmaynotbefoundwithlittleornoinspection.The
defaultrangesfortheThinningRatesare2to4timestheexpectedor
measuredrate.Manycasehistoriesindicatelocalizedratesasmuchas8
to10timesthemeasuredrate.ThustheThinningVarianceconsideredby
themodelasawholemaybeasmuchas400%to1000%(conceivably
muchmoreinrarecases.)Oneofthefirstobviouswaystohandlethis
wastousehighvaluesofvariance,andreduceitbysomeamountas
moreinspectionsareperformed.Thisquicklyranintotwoproblems:the
POFmethodsusedbreakdownifthestandarddeviationexceedsthemean,
asshowninSection4,Step9:
Thinning SD Thinning ThinningVariance

Secondly,thereseemstonowaytologicallydecidewhatismeantby
reduceit[thevariance]bysomeamountasmoreinspectionsare
performed.BayesTheoremisdesignedtohandlejustthistypeof
problemsinawaythathasbeencalledideallyrational.Justhow
BayesTheoremdoesthis,bywhatiscalledinRBItheInspection
Effectiveness(actuallyatableofprobabilities)isbeyondthescopeof
thisproposal,sincenochangestothemethodsoriginallydeveloped

areconsideredhere.Thewholetopicisworthyofaseparatesession
oftheAPIRP581committeefortrainingintheactualmethod,
followedbypeerreviewoftheprobabilitiesusedyetunexamined
since1993.
EffectofThinningVariance:
Thethinningvarianceusedintheoriginalmodel,andmodified
somewhatinthecalibrationproceduretoproducethisproposal,is
theresidualvarianceinthecorrosionrateafterinspectionshaveall
buteliminatedthepossibilityofhigherthinningrates,andtherateused
atthispointistheuserenteredmeasuredrate(orcalculated,or
estimatedbyothermeansinpractice).Inotherwords,thinning
mechanismsresultininherentlyunevensurfacesandnomatterhow
muchinspectionisperformed,thisunevennesscannotbefully
quantified.Thisisofenormouspracticalimportanceinthecaseof
relativelythinwalledpipe,wherethecorrosionallowancemaybea
smallpercentageofthetotalwallthickness(indeedvanishinglysoif
onlyhoopstressesareconsidered.Thus,theThinningVariance
createsabuiltinprotectionthatwillnotallowpipestoreacha
dangerouslythinlevelwithoutthemodelgeneratinganincreasingly
largerThinningFactororPOF.Thisiswhythear/ttabledoesnot
workwellforsmallCApercentagesofwall,andcannotdoso.The
tablealsodoesnothandlelargepercentagesofwallverywelleither,
butaswillbeseen,themodeldoesareasonablejobofboth.
InputFlowStrength,actuallyinputyieldandtensilestrengths,the
averageofwhichistheflowstrength.Thisstrengthisoftenconsideredin
structuralengineeringtobethepointatwhichductileyieldingbecomesso
severethatthestructurecannotbereliedupontoperformitsintended
duties.
ImpliedFlowStrengthVariance:
Admittedly,thereislittleinthewayofalogicalassignmentofthis
value,exceptthatinthefaceofgoodreasonsforsettingtheothertwo
variances,thisoneissimplysettowhatithastobeinorderto
achievethedesiredcontroloverthemodeloutputs.Ifthereare
suggestedvaluesthatareinsomewaytypicaloraverageforbroad
classesofmaterials,othervaluescanbeused,althoughperhapsata
costofrecalibratingordoingawaywithcalibrationaltogether.
10.6. ReviewOfTheCalibrationResultsAndTheModelResultsInGeneral
(NOTE:ThisSection10.6canbeconsideredtobeoptionalreading.ThisSectionisto
completethedocumentationregardingtheoutcomesofcertaintechnicalchangestothe
originalmodelforcalibrationpurposes.SkiptoSection10.7unlessthisinformationis
pertinenttoyourneeds.)

10.6.1. Model Results for Thick Wall Cylinder
Basis:PhysicalData:
YS, TS, Tmin,approximate, Thickness, MaximumOperating Diameter,OD,

GeometricShape
ksi ksi inches inches Pressure,psig inches
Cylinder 35 60 3.800 4.0 1900 60
CAas%
CA
ofWall
0.200 5%
Basis:TechnicalInputs
ThinningVariance
0.170
PressureVariance
0.050
FlowStressVariance
0.170
GFF
3.06E05
CalibrationResultsChart
FigureE.1showsthatforathickwallcylinderwiththeaboveinputs,the
calibrationcameoutverywell.Atexactly5%wallloss(equaltotheCA
%ofwall),theThinningFactoris1.03with10HighlyEffective
Inspections.

FigureE.1ModelResultsforThickWallCylinder
10.6.2. ModelResultsforThinWallCylinder(1Sch40Pipe)
Basis:PhysicalData:
Maximum
Tmin,
Geometric Thickness, Operating Diameter,
YS,ksi TS,ksi approximate,
Shape inches Pressure, OD,inches
inches
psig
Cylinder 35 60 0.005 0.133 120 1.315
CA CAas%ofWall(HoopStressBasis)
0.128 96.0%
ThinningVariance
0.170
PressureVariance

0.050
FlowStressVariance
0.170
GFF
3.06E05
Ascanbeseenabove,theCAas%ofwallforthispipeis96%.Itis
unreasonabletoexpectanythinningmechanismtoremove96%ofthe
wallwithoutpenetration,duetotheinherentlyunevennatureofeven
generalcorrosion,andduetothepresenceofexternalloadsinpiping
systems.Themodelhasbuiltinprotectionagainstthis,duetothe
ThinningVariance(SeeSection10.4underEffectofThinning
Varianceformorediscussion.)Sinceitisnotpossibletoknowforany
givenpipejustwhatCAthepipingdesignermayhaveusedinthePipe
Specification,acommonlyusedruleofthumbintheabsenceoforiginal
PipeSpecificationsistoassumethat50%ofthewallisasafeminimum
(atleastforcarbonsteelpipe).Thusthecalibrationforpipingis
targetedat50%ofwallremovaltoyieldaThinningFactorof1.0.
FigureE.2showsthatforathinwallcylinder(Sch.40Pipe)withthe
aboveinputs,thecalibrationcameoutverywell.At51.1%wallloss,the
ThinningFactoris1.22with10HighlyEffectiveInspections.

FigureE.2ModelResultsforThinWallCylinder(1Sch.40Pipe)
10.6.3. ModelResultsforAverageWallCylinder(ar/tBaseCase)
Basis:PhysicalData:
Tmin, Maximum
Geometric Thickness, Diameter,
YS,ksi TS,ksi approximate, OperatingPressure,
Shape inches OD,inches
inches psig
Cylinder 35 60 0.375 0.5 187.5 60
CA CAas%ofWall
0.125 25.0%
ThinningVariance
0.170
PressureVariance
0.050

FlowStressVariance
0.170
GFF
3.06E05
FigureE.3showsthatforatypicalwallcylinder(ar/tBaseCase)
withtheaboveinputs,thecalibrationcameoutfairlywell.At25%wall
loss,theThinningFactoris2.33,meaningthatthemodelcalibrationled
toslightlyconservativeresultsinthiscase.At20%wallloss,the
ThinningFactoris1.02with10HighlyEffectiveInspections.
FigureE.3ModelResultsforAverageWallCylinder(ar/tBaseCase)
FigureE.4showsthesamedata,butexpressedasPOF(GFF=1.0)instead
ofTFforfullrangeofcalculatedPOF.Thesametwopointsare
highlightedasinFigureE.3,butshowingcorrespondingPOFvalues.

FigureE.4POFModelResultsforTypicalWallCylinder(ar/tBase
Case)
10.6.4. ModelResultsforASMEHead
Basis:PhysicalData:
YS, TS, Tmin,approximate, Thickness, MaximumOperating Diameter,OD,

GeometricShape
ksi ksi inches inches Pressure,psig inches
ASME 35 60 0.664 0.789 187.50 60.00
CAas%
CA
ofWall
0.125 16%
ThinningVariance
0.170
PressureVariance
0.050
FlowStressVariance
0.170
GFF
3.06E05

FigureE.5showsthatforanASMEheadwiththeaboveinputs,the
calibrationcameoutslightlynonconservative.At22%wallloss,the
ThinningFactoris1.22.TheactualCAexpressedas%ofwallis16%
inthiscasewith10HighlyEffectiveInspections.
FigureE.5ModelResultsforASMEHead
10.6.5. ModelResultsforHemisphericalHeadsandSpheres
Basis:PhysicalData:
Tmin, Maximum
Geometric TS, Thickness, Diameter,
YS,ksi approximate, Operating
Shape ksi inches OD,inches
inches Pressure,psig
Spherical 35 60 2.063 2.188 187.50 660.00
CAas%of
CA
Wall
0.125 6%
ThinningVariance

0.170
PressureVariance
0.050
FlowStressVariance
0.170
GFF
3.06E05
FigureE.6showsthatforanhemisphericalheadsandspheres,withthe
aboveinputs,thecalibrationcameoutverywell.At6%wallloss,the
ThinningFactoris1.05.TheactualCAexpressedas%ofwallis6%in
thiscasewith10HighlyEffectiveInspections.
FigureE.6ModelResultsforHemisphericalHeadsandSpheres
10.6.6. ModelResultsforNEWCladdingModel
Basis:LimitStateFunction

Thecladdingmodelisbasedontheassumptionthatthecladdingitself
playsnostructuralrole.Sincethecladdingiswellbondedtothebase
metal,itseessomeofthesamestressesasthestructuralshellbeneath.
However,sinceitcannotmoveorfailseparatelyfromtheshell,allitcan
dotofailisbepenetratedbythinning.TheLimitStateFunctionisthen
verysimple:
g Thickness Thinning
dg
1
dThinning
AswithallLimitStatefunctions,failureresultswheng<0.
Basis:PhysicalData:
Notethatforthismodule,thedefaultsof2to4(200%to400%)timesthe
measuredcorrosionratearealmostcertainlytoohigh.Factorsof25%and
50%higherthanthemeasuredratewerechosenforthisexample.
Geometric CladThickness, DamageState2 DamageState3

Shape inches Factor Factor
Clad 0.125 1.25 1.50
NotethattherearenovariablesforFlowStressorPressureintheLimit
State,sotheonlyvarianceontheonlystochasticvariableisThinning.
NotealsothereisnoGFF,thusnoThinningFactor,onlyPOF.
ThinningVariance
0.170
FigureE.7showsacladding1/8thick,At100%wallloss,theThinning
POFis0.709.Thismayseemabitcounterintuitive,butitiscorrectfor
theLimitStateequationshown.FigureE.7istheonlygraphinthis
Appendixbasedonnoinspections.Ifmanyhighlyeffectiveinspections
wereperformed,thenat100%claddingloss,thelimitstategwouldbe0,
sois0,andPOF=NORMSDIST(0)=0.50

FigureE.7ModelResultsforNEWCladdingModel
10.7. OnSpecialUsesoftheA rtTable5.11inRBI,e.g.CUI,&Thinningofthe

BaseMetalinLinedorCladEquipment
This proposal substitutes a mathematical model to replace the Art Table 5.11 in
API RP581. Thus the model described herein may be substituted for lookup of
factors from that table, where ever it may occur. Issues related to such special
uses of the Thinning Model are beyond the scope of this proposal, except for the
actual determination of the Thinning Factor (calculated herein, lookup from the
Table in current applications). There are at least two cases in RBI where the Art
Table 5.11 is used for special applications which may arise in practical situations.
These two are:
1. For determining a Thinning Factor due to corrosion under insulation or
other external corrosion with or without internal thinning at the same time.
How this is handled with respect to combining Thinning Factors for cases
in which the internal or external corrosion may be localized is beyond the
scope of this proposal.
2. For determining a Thinning Factor for such equipment which may be lined
or clad upon failure of the lining or cladding, thus exposing the base metal
to a thinning mechanism.
10.8. FinalNoteonMovingPasttheArtTable5.11
AtleastonedeveloperofRBIsoftwareintendstoinstallthismodel(ifitis
approved)inparallelwiththeexistingArtTable5.11method.Sincetherewillbe
somechangesintheresults,thiswillprovideawayoftrackingandmanagingthe
changesinthebestwaypossible:usingrealdatabaseswithrealdataandmany

thousandsofitemstobeplanned.Itisanticipatedthatagradualtransitionwill
takeplace,sothatimpendingplansthatarealreadybudgetedwillnotbe
impacted.

RP 581 Replacement of Table

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

RP 581 Replacement of Table

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

ReplacementofRP581Table5.

Mike Conley and Lynne Kaley Page 1 of 47

Mike Conley and Lynne Kaley Page 2 of 47

Mike Conley and Lynne Kaley Page 3 of 47

Mike Conley and Lynne Kaley Page 4 of 47

Mike Conley and Lynne Kaley Page 5 of 47

Mike Conley and Lynne Kaley Page 6 of 47

Mike Conley and Lynne Kaley Page 7 of 47

Posterior2 ( Prior2 Conditional2 ) I N / ( Prior1 Conditional1 ) I N ( Prior2 Conditional2 ) I N

Mike Conley and Lynne Kaley Page 8 of 47

dg _ by _ dFlowStress (1 (Thinning / Thickness )

dg _ by _ dThinning FlowStress / Thickness

Mike Conley and Lynne Kaley Page 9 of 47

Mike Conley and Lynne Kaley Page 10 of 47

Mike Conley and Lynne Kaley Page 11 of 47

Mike Conley and Lynne Kaley Page 12 of 47

Mike Conley and Lynne Kaley Page 13 of 47

5.1. Reliability Index Method to Determine Impact of Thinning on PoF of a

Mike Conley and Lynne Kaley Page 14 of 47

Mike Conley and Lynne Kaley Page 15 of 47

Mike Conley and Lynne Kaley Page 16 of 47

Mike Conley and Lynne Kaley Page 17 of 47

Mike Conley and Lynne Kaley Page 18 of 47

Mike Conley and Lynne Kaley Page 19 of 47

Mike Conley and Lynne Kaley Page 20 of 47

Mike Conley and Lynne Kaley Page 21 of 47

Mike Conley and Lynne Kaley Page 22 of 47

Mike Conley and Lynne Kaley Page 23 of 47

Mike Conley and Lynne Kaley Page 24 of 47

Mike Conley and Lynne Kaley Page 25 of 47

7. Appendix B Guidance on Use of Table 3, Prior (to Inspection)

Mike Conley and Lynne Kaley Page 26 of 47

Actual Low Confidence Moderate High Confidence

Predicted 0.5 0.7 0.8

Mike Conley and Lynne Kaley Page 27 of 47

Mike Conley and Lynne Kaley Page 28 of 47

Trueclass Likelihoodof Likelihoodof Likelihoodof

Mike Conley and Lynne Kaley Page 29 of 47

Mike Conley and Lynne Kaley Page 30 of 47

10. Appendix E On Moving Past the A rt Table 5.11, by Michael J.

Mike Conley and Lynne Kaley Page 31 of 47

Mike Conley and Lynne Kaley Page 32 of 47

Mike Conley and Lynne Kaley Page 33 of 47

Mike Conley and Lynne Kaley Page 34 of 47

Thinning SD Thinning ThinningVariance

Mike Conley and Lynne Kaley Page 35 of 47

Mike Conley and Lynne Kaley Page 36 of 47

YS, TS, Tmin,approximate, Thickness, MaximumOperating Diameter,OD,

Cylinder 35 60 3.800 4.0 1900 60

Mike Conley and Lynne Kaley Page 37 of 47

Mike Conley and Lynne Kaley Page 38 of 47

Mike Conley and Lynne Kaley Page 39 of 47

Mike Conley and Lynne Kaley Page 40 of 47

Mike Conley and Lynne Kaley Page 41 of 47

YS, TS, Tmin,approximate, Thickness, MaximumOperating Diameter,OD,

ASME 35 60 0.664 0.789 187.50 60.00

Mike Conley and Lynne Kaley Page 42 of 47

Mike Conley and Lynne Kaley Page 43 of 47

Mike Conley and Lynne Kaley Page 44 of 47

Geometric CladThickness, DamageState2 DamageState3

Mike Conley and Lynne Kaley Page 45 of 47

10.7. OnSpecialUsesoftheA rtTable5.11inRBI,e.g.CUI,&Thinningofthe

Mike Conley and Lynne Kaley Page 46 of 47