Date post: | 14-Apr-2017 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | sean-chen-pmp-mba |
View: | 211 times |
Download: | 1 times |
Enlightening Lives. Empowering Progress.
TUBE LEAK ANALYSISDECEMBER 09, 2015
CONTENT
• TUBE LEAK OVERVIEW • SIGN OF IMPROVEMENT• WHAT WE DO DIFFERENTLY• ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS• IMMEDIATE ACTION SUMMARY• MAJOR LONG TERM ACTION PLAN • EXPECTATIONS
TUBE FAILURE OVERVIEW
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 20150
5
10
15
20
25
1 25
6
1922
Total Tube Leak Incident for GBPC
No. o
f Inc
iden
ts
* including collateral damage
59%5%
37%
Failure Mode 2014 & 2015
Furnace Tube leak collateral damage due to Furnace Tube leakother boiler areas
• > 60% incidents are furnace tube or related collateral damage• From 2014 to 2015, tube leak incident shoot up• Such trend maintains up to 3rd Quarter 2015
TUBE FAILURE OVERVIEW
• 80% of total downtime is caused by furnace tube and roof tube leak (at top of furnace)
*50% by furnace related and 30% by roof tube
2014 2015 2014 2015 2014 2015 2014 2015 2014 2015CEDC1 CEDC2 CEDC3 PEDC1 PEDC2
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
CEDC/PEDC Downtime (HRs) vs Failure Mode
Economizer Floor tube Finishing SH Vertical SHRoof tube Kick off tube+Front wall Evaporator Others
Kick off Tube & Furnace wall straight tube
Furnace Roof Tube
SIGN OF IMPROVEMENT
Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-150
1
2
3
4
52015 Tube leak Incidents
CEDC 1 CEDC 2 CEDC 3 PEDC 1 PEDC 2 Series6
* Note: represents last front wall and kick out tube leak
SIGN OF IMPROVEMENT
0
1
2
3
4
5
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Total Tube Failure Downtime 2015Total Downtime Total Incident
WHAT WE DO DIFFERENTLY – MAJOROPERATING PARAMETER• Maintaining FHI’s recommended operating parameter – bed pressure, furnace
temperature, air flow, etc.
SAND QUALITY & QUANTITY• Secured sufficient supply and controlled sand quality
MAINTENANCE APPROACH• Ruled out tube build up solution• Being proactive than active (more thorough boiler tube Inspection at any outage)• Replace sub-standard tube following unified quality criteria
BED MATERIAL• Maintain ideal bed material size distribution• Recycling bottom ash to replenish bed material
WHAT WE DO DIFFERENTLY – MAJOR
5/1/2
015 3:00
5/4/2
015 11:00
5/7/2
015 19:00
5/11/2015 3:00
5/14/2015 11:00
5/17/2
015 19:00
5/21/2
015 3:00
5/24/2
015 11:00
5/27/2
015 19:00
5/31/2
015 3:00
6/3/2
015 11:00
6/6/2
015 19:00
6/10/2
015 3:00
6/13/2
015 11:00
6/16/2
015 19:00
6/20/2
015 3:00
6/23/2
015 11:00
6/26/2
015 19:00
6/30/2015 3:00
7/3/2
015 11:00
7/6/2
015 19:00
7/10/2
015 3:00
7/13/2
015 11:00
7/16/2
015 19:00
7/20/2
015 3:00
7/23/2
015 11:00
7/26/2015 19:00
7/30/2015 3:00
8/2/2
015 10:00
8/5/2
015 18:00
8/9/2
015 2:00
8/12/2
015 10:00
8/15/2
015 18:00
8/19/2
015 2:00
8/22/2015 10:00
8/25/2
015 18:00
8/29/2015 2:00
9/1/2
015 10:00
9/4/2
015 18:00
9/10/2
015 22:00
9/23/2
015 23:00
10/3/2
015 2:00
10/6/2015 10:00
10/9/2015 18:00
10/13/2
015 2:00
10/16/2
015 10:00
10/19/2
015 18:00
10/23/2
015 2:00
10/26/2
015 10:000
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
PEDC 1 Stable Bed Pressure Trend
Grate Diff. Press. Ksc DPT10081.PV Overall Diff. Press. Ksc DPT10084.PV
Ideal Range recommended by FHI, daily monitoring
WHAT WE DO DIFFERENTLY – MAJOR
Out of Range - Bed Material Size Distribution (2ndquarter)
Improving now
Ideal Range Recommended by FHI, daily monitoring
WHAT WE DO DIFFERENTLY - MAJOR
* Note: 1 unit represents 10cm tube
ROOT CAUSE – TWO MAJOR CYCLES
More Frequent Tube Leaks in 2014/2015
Tube Leaks in 2014/2015
Theoretically Accelerated Tube Erosion
Higher Gas Velocity in Furnace
Unstable & Low Furnace Bed Pressure
More Aggressive Sand Required to Maintain Bed Pressure
Shift from Semirara to Kalimandan Coal from 2013
Sand Quantity &Quality
Grid Nozzle Wear
Vortex Finder Defects
Inconsistent Workmanship
Excessive Tube Build UpConstruction/
Design Imperfection
ROOT CAUSE – THEORITICAL CYCLE
Indonesian Coal – Kalimandan
Design Coal – Semirara
The ash deviation requires much more sand to be injected to maintain acceptable boiler operating condition recommended by FHI
ROOT CAUSE – THEORETICAL CYCLE
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 20150.00
1000.00
2000.00
3000.00
4000.00
5000.00
6000.00
7000.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
Ash Content vs Sand Consumption vs Bed Pressure
ROOT CAUSE – PRACTICAL CYCLECEDC 3 TUBE NO 48/49 – FRONT WALL (EROSIVE AREA)
2010~2014 August
No problem
Sept 2014 First Build up on
49 (layer 4/5)
Jan 2015 Second Build up48/49 (Layer 2~20)
Feb 2015 Third Build up 48 (Layer 5~7)
Ruptured on March 23 (layer 5)
48 49
OTHER NOTICEABLE CAUSES CONSTRUCTION IMPERFECTIONS• Rough membrane • Tube misalignment • Field welding imperfections
REPAIR WORKERMANSHIP• Repetitive localized tube failure
DESIGN IMPERFECTION• Floor tube interfered by bottom ash discharge port• Erosion shield are not designed at certain sensitive area (first super
heater/economizer/hanger tube)
IMMEDIATE ACTIONSCOAL/BED MATERIAL• Continuously sourcing coal supply complying design base (New Russian Coal is
tested positive, 20% sand consumption reduction per unit per actual test)• Secure sand quality and quantity• Recycle less aggressive bottom ash to replenish bed material
MAINTENANCE APPROACH• Ruled out Tube Build up solution• Aligned GBP inspection and Quality Criteria/Full boiler inspection at forced outage• Covering applicable sensitive area with refractory protection and thermal Spray• New hire of QA/QC personnel
OPERATING PARAMETER• Corporate Office daily monitoring• FHI consultant daily operating report
MAJOR LONG TERM ACTION PLANS
FORSTER WHEELER ENGAGED FOR FURTHER ADVISE
STRATEGIZE CONDUCT OF REGULAR PMS/MOH
FURTHER OPTIMIZE BOILER TUBE INSPECTION PROCEDURE AND MANUALIZED OUTAGE WORK FLOW
CONTINUE HONING SKILL SET OF QUALITY CONTROL TEAM AND ACQUIRE NECESSARY CREDENTIALS
ENHANCE PLANNING SKILLS OF MANAGEMENT AND IN-HOUSE PLANNING TEAMS
MAINTAIN KNOWLEDGE SHARING PRACTICE ACROSS SITES AND ESTABLISH REGULAR TECHNICAL SEMINAR
EXPECTATIONS
BY END OF 2ND QUARTER 2016, THE FOLLOWING ARE ANTICIPATED:
LESS DOWNTIME
HIGHER BOILER RELIABILITY
IMPROVED FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE
ENHANCED IN-HOUSE TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE
Enlightening Lives. Empowering Progress.
WHAT WE DO DIFFERENTLY – MAJOR
2015-01 2015-02 2015-03 2015-04 2015-05 2015-06 2015-070
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
HISTORICAL BUILD UP VS REPLACEMENT - 2015Build Up Replacement
* Note: 1 unit represents 10cm tube
WHAT WE DO DIFFERENTLY – MAJOR
2013 20140
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
473
1,632
608
2,032
HISTORICAL BUILD UP VS REPLACEMENT 2013 - 2014
Build Up Replacement
* Note: 1 unit represents 10cm tube
ROOT CAUSE – PRACTICAL CYCLECEDC 1 TUBE NO 11/12 – FRONT WALL ABOVE COAL CHUTE (MOST EROSIVE AREA)
2010~2013 MarchNO PROBLEM
April 2013 First Build up Dec 2013 Build up
June 2014 Total Replacement Dec 2014 Build up March 2015 Build
up
2015 May Outage No Finding after
inspection
2015 June 18 Ruptured
ROOT CAUSE – PRACTICAL CYCLECEDC 1 TUBE NO 208 – REAR WALL (LESS EROSIVE AREA)
2010~2014 AprilNO PROBLEM
May 2014 First Build up (layer
2/3)
March 2015 Second Buildup
(layer 1~8)
2015 Outage No Finding
After inspection
2015 June 18 Ruptured
(layer 5~6)
ROOT CAUSE – PRACTICAL CYCLECEDC 2 TUBE NO 65/66 – FRONT WALL ABOVE COAL CHUTE (MOST EROSIVE AREA)
2010~2012 August
NO PROBLEM
September 2012 First Build up
July 2013 Build up
March 2014 Third Buildup
July 2014 Total Replacement
Mid March 2015 Build up
2015 April 12 Tube Leak
65 66
ROOT CAUSE – PRACTICAL CYCLECEDC 3 TUBE NO 90/91 – FRONT WALL (EROSIVE AREA)
2010~2012 October
NO PROBLEM
November 2012 PMS Total
Replacement
September 2014 First Build up on
91 (layer 3/8)
Nov 2014 Second Build up on 91
(layer 3/8)
Jan 2015 First Build up on 90
(layer 4-5)
Feb 2015 Third Build up on 91
(layer 3~5)
March 2015 Again build up
90/91 (layer 4~6)
May 2015 Replacement 90
90/91 Ruptured on July 21 Layer 5
90 91
Enlightening Lives. Empowering Progress.
FORCED OUTAGE ANALYSISDECEMBER 09, 2015
CEDC FORCED OUTAGE OVERVIEW
Tube leak external Electrical Human Error other mechanical control failure0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.0
100.0
200.0
300.0
400.0
500.0
600.0
700.0
800.0
900.0
CEDC 1 OUTAGE NATURE Vs INCIDENT OCCURENCE VS OUTAGE TIME IMPACT
Series 1 – Outage Time ImpactSeries 2 – Outage Occurrence
CEDC FORCED OUTAGE OVERVIEW
Series 1 – Outage Time ImpactSeries 2 – Outage Occurrence
Tube leak external Electrical Human Error other mechanical control failure0
1
2
3
4
5
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
400.0
CEDC 2 OUTAGE NATURE Vs INCIDENT OCCURENCE VS OUTAGE TIME IMPACT
CEDC FORCED OUTAGE OVERVIEW
Series 1 – Outage Time ImpactSeries 2 – Outage Occurrence
Tube leak external Electrical Human Error other mechanical control failure0.0
100.0
200.0
300.0
400.0
500.0
600.0
700.0
800.0
900.0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
CEDC 3 OUTAGE NATURE Vs INCIDENT OCCURENCE VS OUTAGE TIME IMPACT
CEDC FORCED OUTAGE OVERVIEW
Tube leak external Electrical Human Error other mechanical control failure0.0
500.0
1,000.0
1,500.0
2,000.0
2,500.0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
CEDC FORCED OUTAGE NATURE Vs INCIDENT OCCURENCE VS OUTAGE TIME IMPACT
Hours Incident
CEDC FORCED OUTAGE OVERVIEW
Tube leak external Electrical Human Error other mechanical control failure0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
CEDC OUTAGE NATURE CONTRIBUTING TO IMPACT HOURS