RISK BASED INSPECTION FOR BOILER OPERATION IN

MARINE POWER PLANT SYSTEM

Muhammad Rizuwan Zakaria1*
1
School of Mechanical Engineering,
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,
81310 Skudai, Johor Bahru,
Malaysia

ABSTRACT

Boiler is used for production of steam where the product vastly used in industries either land
or marine industries. A boiler is very much dependent on the field’s total production capacity
to optimize profit with operation as well as maintenance cost. However, the structure’s
reliability and integrity will gradually be reduced due to a lot of degradation mechanism that
exist in that environment. A problem and challenge exist in trying to uphold the structure’s
reliability and integrity to an acceptable risk as its lifetime comes closer to its end. Risk Based
Inspection is a system used to evaluate the reliability and integrity of machinery. It adapts risk
assessment concept to evaluate the reliability and integrity of its subject. This project
implements and adapts the Risk Based Inspection system on a Boiler Operation. The project
suggests an Inspection Plan for the Boiler Operation in Marine Power Plant. By focusing on
boiler’s tubes which are higher risk while for lower risk tubes, inspection and maintenance
plans can be reduced to appropriate level. The objectives of evaluating the likelihood of failure
and its related consequence as well as its risk level has been addressed.

Keyword: RBI, Marine Boiler, Boiler Tube

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Majority of global power generation is derived from coal, natural gas and nuclear energy.
Since these energy sources use boiler-steam turbine system to convert its chemical potential energy
to electricity generation, many try to come out with the possible way of savings cost and increase
the efficiency of steam boiler even by just small probability. This also include the largest world
trading industries system, shipping. Boiler is designed to be operated in a complex situation like
high temperature, high pressure and hazardous environment. But, the longer duration of exposure
to those conditions lead to failure and reduction of strength of boiler. The failures sometime forced
the power plants shutdown, therefore we need a proper safety guideline and system to minimize
the risk of failure especially for components that are at greater risk of failure like boiler.
To minimize the risk of failure for boiler operation, the Risk-based inspection (RBI) is
applied. RBI is an approach which seeks to optimize inspection activities based on probability and
consequence of failure of components and systems to optimize the time-based inspection.
Nowadays the requirement of using RBI for managing risk is really popular in marine power plants
because RBI provides a methodology for determining the most cost effective inspection program.
RBI is carried out to reduce costs of inspection and maintenance while still maintaining an
acceptable amount of risk. By focusing on equipment which is higher risk, inspection and
maintenance plans can be developed focusing on the higher risk equipment while inspection and

* Corresponding author : along@fkm.utm.my

maintenance on lower risk equipment is reduced to appropriate level. Risk is defined as the potential
consequence based on a specific hazard or danger driven by its individual probability of occurrence.

2.0 METHODOLOGY

First and foremost, 5 types of tube had been taken into consideration in this study, they are
Rear Bank Tube; Screen Tube; Front Wall Tube; Rear Wall Tube and Side & Roof Wall Tube. In
each type, one tube was selected in order to conduct the RBI analysis. These tube will be called
Tube 1, Tube 2, Tube 3, Tube 4 and Tube 5. These tubes are located surrounding the boilers built
by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries LTD (MHI ltd) that used in steam turbine propulsion of Puteri
Delima Satu, an LNG ship of PETRONAS. This ship powered by two different kind of boiler which
is on port of the ship is Gas Firing and Oil Firing on starboard side.
Next, Risk assessment will identify the potential failure or degradation mechanism, and
their potential consequences. Analysis on the probability of failure and consequence of failure will
be done and conduct in qualitative analysis. The risk level identification is important to generate
risk ranking and risk matrix. The methods that will be use are auditing technique by questionnaire
given to experts and FMEA.
The result is the risk level of the pipes and the inspection plan and mitigation plan. In case
of the inspection plan can no longer to give the confident level of risk, mitigation plan need to be
done either with correction for temperature, pressure or corrosion allowance. Recommendation and
suggestions for improvements will be given if necessary to further optimize and enhance the
system.
Finally, after the risk analysis, result will be documented and discussion will be done for
this research project to help future researcher to have better understanding about this topic.

Figure 2.1 Principal Part of the Boiler (MHI ltd, 1999)

3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This RBI analysis requires an adequate amount of data even for qualitative analysis. It is
assumed that the available information includes for process systems and for structural systems.
These data are basically based on operating manual of the boilers. The probability analysis begins
with determination of damage factor (DF), total generic frequency (GFF), and a management factor
(FMS) as defined by API RP581 (2016).
Table 3.1 POF as function of time for each tube

Tube FMS 𝐷𝑓𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛 𝐷𝑓𝑆𝐶𝐶 𝐷𝑓−𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑔𝑓𝑓𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 Pf (t)

1 0.1 0.1450 16.7418 16.887 3.06E-05 5.16737E-05(t)

2 0,1 0.0959 167.4185 167.514 3.06E-05 5.12594E-04(t)

3 0.1 0.0959 167.4185 167.514 3.06E-05 5.12594E-04(t)

4 0.1 0.0959 167.4185 167.514 3.06E-05 5.12594E-04(t)
5 0.1 0.0862 167.4185 167.505 3.06E-05 5.12564E-04(t)

RBI defined two level of COF methodology as level 1 and level 2, the study done using
level 1 COF for qualitative analysis. The COF analysis conducted to be used with the POF to
provide a risk ranking and inspection plan for the tubes subject to process condition. There are two
scope of COF, area-based (CA) and financial-based (FC) analysis.

Table 3.2 CA data for all Tubes

Tube Psn (KPa) 𝐶𝐴𝐶𝑂𝑁𝑇

𝑖𝑛𝑗,𝑛 𝐶𝐴𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑘
𝑖𝑛𝑗,𝑛 𝐶𝐴𝑛𝑓𝑛𝑡 2
𝑖𝑛𝑗 (m )
103.4 315.353 315.353
1 206.8 216.810 216.810 665.82
413.7 195.483 195.483
103.4 467.559 467.559
2 206.8 255.863 255.863 860.14
413.7 216.593 216.593
103.4 467.559 467.559
3 206.8 255.863 255.863 860.14
413.7 216.593 216.593
103.4 467.559 467.559
4 206.8 255.863 255.863 860.14
413.7 216.593 216.593
103.4 536.616 536.616
5 206.8 270.707 270.707 943.75
413.7 224.064 224.064
 Table 3.3 Total FC for each Tube
Tube 𝐹𝐶𝑐𝑚𝑑 ($) 𝐹𝐶𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑 ($) 𝐹𝐶𝑖𝑛𝑗 ($) FC ($)
1 6.274509804 2.124183007 665820.6 665820.57
2 7.973856209 3.823529412 860144.3 860144.30
3 7.973856209 3.823529412 860144.3 860144.30
4 7.973856209 3.823529412 860144.3 860144.30
5 7.973856209 3.823529412 943753.7 943753.74

Table 3.4 Total Risk for Area-based in each Tube

POF (t) Df COF RISK (t)
Tube
𝑃𝑓 (t) Category 𝐷𝑓−𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 Category CA (m2) Category R(t)
1 5.167E-05 2 16.887 3 665.82 C 3.44E-02
2 5.126E-04 3 167.514 4 860.14 C 4.41E-01
3 5.126E-04 3 167.514 4 860.14 C 4.41E-01
4 5.126E-04 3 167.514 4 860.14 C 4.41E-01
5 5.126E-04 3 167.505 4 943.75 D 4.84E-01

Table 3.5 Total Risk for Financial-based in each Tube

POF (t) Df COF RISK (t)
Tube
𝑃𝑓 (t) Category 𝐷𝑓−𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 Category FC ($) Category R(t)
1 5.167E-05 2 16.887 3 665,820.57 C 3.44E+01
2 5.126E-04 3 167.514 4 860,144.30 C 4.41E+02
3 5.126E-04 3 167.514 4 860,144.30 C 4.41E+02
4 5.126E-04 3 167.514 4 860,144.30 C 4.41E+02
5 5.126E-04 3 167.505 4 943,753.74 C 4.84E+02
 Figure 3.1 Risk Matrix for Area-based Analysis

Based on Figure 4.3, it is clear that the Tube that has the highest risk is Tube 5 because it
is the only one in medium-high area, this also show that the risk faced by Tube 5 is COF driven
compared to other Tubes. Tube 2,3 and 4 located in medium region which is typical, whereas Tube
1 has the lowest area-based risk compared to others. The required risk limit set by the owner of the
boilers is POF=3 and COF=3. This mean that Tube 1,2,3 and 4 fall within expected risk but Tube
5 need different approach of mitigation and inspection plan. Tube 1 also need rearrangement of
inspection and mitigation since it has lower expected risk than requirement.

Figure 3.2 Risk Matrix for Financial-based Analysis

Based on Figure 3.2, Tube 1 has the lowest financial-based risk and the other Tubes; Tube
2,3,4 and 5 has medium risk for financial. This may be resulted from the cost of repair and
production lost are low, but the result just for a sample tube taken from different location
surrounding the boilers. If all the thousands amount of tube included, the risk can increase
significantly and cost higher than expected. Since the limit of risk set by the owner of the boiler is
POF=3 and COF=3, all Tube are able to satisfied the requirement, but the approach for Tube 1 can
be changed since the risk faced by it is lower. This improvement can help to reduce cost spend for
unneeded inspection.
 The inspection planning is focus on Area-based risk analysis, since all risk in Financial-
based fall within range. The reassessment of mitigation and inspection plan are necessary to achieve
maximum effectiveness of a mechanism. Tube 5 need to have shorter time inspection interval and
Tube 1 can have longer time interval based on area analysis. For Financial, only Tube 1 need
rearrangement of inspection planning since the normal procedure waste cost on unnecessary
inspection. Table 3.6 show the present and suggested inspection for the Tubes.

Normal Time Propose Time

Tube
Inspection interval Inspection interval
i. Maintain the Normal
i. 40% manual
inspection
ultrasonic scanning
Or
ii. 40% radiographic 12
1 ii. 75% Ultrasonic Scanning 18 month
testing month
manual or automated
iii. 20% visual
Inspection
iii. 25% radiographic testing.
i. Maintain the Normal
i. 40% manual
inspection.
ultrasonic scanning
Or
ii. 40% radiographic 12
2 ii. 75% Ultrasonic Scanning 12 month
testing month
manual or automated.
iii. 20% visual
Inspection
iii. 25% radiographic testing.
i. Maintain the Normal
i. 40% manual
inspection.
ultrasonic scanning
Or
ii. 40% radiographic 12
3 ii. 75% Ultrasonic Scanning 12 month
testing month
manual or automated
iii. 20% visual
Inspection
iii. 25% radiographic testing
i. 40% manual i. Maintain the Normal
ultrasonic scanning inspection.
ii. 40% radiographic 12 Or
4 12 month
testing month ii. 75% Ultrasonic Scanning
iii. 20% visual manual or automated.
Inspection iii. 25% radiographic testing
i. 40% manual
ultrasonic scanning i. 75% Ultrasonic Scanning
ii. 40% radiographic 12 manual or automated.
5 6 month
testing month
iii. 20% visual ii. 25% radiographic testing
Inspection
4.0 CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the main objective which is to conduct Risk Based Inspection for boiler
operation in marine power plant has been fulfilled. This analysis is majorly conducted following
the API 581 (2016) with 5 type of water tubes. All the information for tubes had been collected and
carefully studied to ensure compatibility and effectiveness in implementing RBI to a boiler’s piping.
This analysis produced a qualitative risk assessment and comes out with risk ranking. It shows
which pipes, specifically tubes in high risk or lower risk region. After a risk ranking had been, done,
an inspection plan will be suggested in order to help maintaining and monitoring the tubes to ensure
its stay in acceptable risk ranking. The mitigation plan needs to be done if the inspection plan cannot
maintain the tubes’ risk in allowable level.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to extend my deepest gratitude towards my dedicated supervisor, Prof. Ir.
Dr. Ab Saman Abd Kader for his guidance and supervision in helping me completing this
project successfully. Besides, I would also like to give my warmest appreciation towards Mr.
Akmal Zin, Mr. Desiran Sembiring and Mr. Djoko Setyo Widodo for their useful advice on
my project.
Not forgetting my friends and course mates for keeping my motivation at the highest possible
level all the time.
Last but not least, my beloved family for their believed and faith on me all this while and
keeping an optimistic perception on my development. For all of your care and love, I humbly
cannot thank you enough.

REFERENCES

API RP581. (2016). Risk-Based Inspection Methodology. Document. API Publication 581 .
Washington: API Publication.
API RP571. (2011). Damage Mechanisms Affecting Fixed Equipment in the Refining Industry.
Document. API Publication 587 . Washington: API Publication.
API RP581. (2016). Risk-Based Inspection Methodology. Document. API Publication 581 .
Washington: API Publication.
ZAHARI, M. Z. (2011). RISK BASED INSPECTION FOR OFFSHORE PIPING. Skudai, Johor:
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA.
BhanuPrakash. (2013). Boiler Tube Failures. Pegadapalli, Telangana: Steag O&M Company.
Dabic, M. (2014, August 22). Helpful tips for reducing risk of boiler accidents. Retrieved from
ABEX: https://www.abexinsurance.com/tag/boiler-hazards/
Furamera, E. (2015). BOILER TUBE FAILURE ANALYSIS. Zimbabwe: University of
Zimbabwe.
Meng Zhang, W. L. (2017). Application of Risk-Based Inspection method for gas. 12th
International Conference on Damage Assessment of Structures (pp. 1-5). Kitakyushu, Japan:
IOP Publishing.
S.W. Liu, W. W. (2017). Failure analysis of the boiler water-wall tube. Case Studies in Engineering
Failure Analysis, 35-39.