Epistemic Uncertainties in Minimum Thickness Estimates Based on Extreme Value Analysis
Source abstract
Abstract
Ultrasonic Thickness (UT) measurement is typically used at sample locations in piping system inspection to monitor wall thickness loss. Statistical methods based on Extreme Value Theory (EVT) extrapolate from the measured part of the thickness distribution into the unmeasured lower tail to estimate minimum thickness bounded by a confidence interval. This paper assesses how two sources of epistemic uncertainty affect estimates based on Extreme Value Analysis: measurement uncertainty and uncertainty surrounding the threshold in the sample distribution separating samples taken from corroded and non-corroded locations. Data from an in-service piping system inspection is analyzed to demonstrate that quantification of these additional uncertainties provides useful information when assessing asset integrity. When only sample uncertainty is considered, the lower confidence bound on the expected minimum thickness is 3.7 mm, well above the minimum required thickness of 2.8 mm. However, it is found that when the additional two uncertainties are considered, the lower confidence limit on the lower interval bound of the expected minimum thickness drops to 2.7 mm. A further useful finding is that the minimum thickness estimate does not decrease monotonically with the number of block minima values from the lower distribution tail fitted to the extreme value distribution model.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Non-Destructive Testing Techniques · Ultrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation · Flow Measurement and Analysis
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
University of Liverpool
TÜV Rheinland
Funding
TÜV Rheinland · ABB Limited
References (27)
Show source-provided references
1. API 510 American Petroleum Institute 2022.
2. API 570 American Petroleum Institute 2016.
3. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2017.01.00810.1016/j.ndteint.2017.01.008 ↗
4. 10.1007/0-387-34471-310.1007/0-387-34471-3 ↗
5. 10.1007/978-1-4471-3675-010.1007/978-1-4471-3675-0 ↗
6. M. Stone HOIS / ESR Technology Limited 2013.
7. 10.1016/j.ymssp.2021.10821010.1016/j.ymssp.2021.108210 ↗
8. 10.18637/jss.v109.i0610.18637/jss.v109.i06 ↗
9. D. Benstock PhD Thesis Imperial College. [Online]. 2016. https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/research-centres-and-groups/non-destructive-evaluation/Benstock-D-2016-PhD-Thesis.pdf. (accessed Feb. 12 2025).
10. P. Conder and M. Stone HOIS Guidance for more Effective Pipework inspection HOIS-G-010 issue 1 HOIS / ESR Technology Limited [Online]. 2018. https://www.bindt.org/shopbindt/hois-documents/HOIS-Guidance-for-More-Effective-Pipework-Inspection-HOIS-G-010-Issue-1.html
11. 10.1137/14100067110.1137/141000671 ↗
12. 10.5281/ZENODO.479240110.5281/ZENODO.4792401 ↗
13. 10.5281/ZENODO.264745810.5281/ZENODO.2647458 ↗
14. 10.5281/ZENODO.472531710.5281/ZENODO.4725317 ↗
15. 10.1080/00401706.1985.1048804910.1080/00401706.1985.10488049 ↗
16. ASME B31.3 2024.
17. API 580 2016.
18. M. Stone et al. HOIS Recommended practice for non-Intrusive inspection of pressure Vessels HOIS-RP-103 HOIS / ESR Technology Limited [Online] 2020 https://www.bindt.org/shopbindt/hois-documents/HOIS-Recommended-Practice-for-Non-Intrusive-Inspection-of-Pressure-Vessels-HOIS-RP-103.html
19. 10.1115/PVP2024-12423610.1115/PVP2024-124236 ↗
20. API 574 2025.
21. D. W. Wang Extreme value analysis - part 1: fundamentals for mechanical integrity applications Inspectioneering Journal (March/April) [Online]. 2026. https://inspectioneering.com/journal/2026-04-30/12011/extreme-value-analysis-fundamentals-for-mechanical-integrity-applications (accessed 14 June 2026).
22. 10.3133/tm4A310.3133/tm4A3 ↗
23. V. M. R. Muggeo, R. J. 8 (1), 20–25 (2008).
24. ISO 16809 2019.
25. 10.1016/j.ijar.2023.02.00710.1016/j.ijar.2023.02.007 ↗
26. J. C. Drury, Insight: Non-Destr. Test. Condition Monit. 39 (1), 17–23 (1997).
27. 10.1023/A:100990522264410.1023/A:1009905222644 ↗