...
首页> 外文期刊>Process safety progress >Analysis of Pressure Relief Valve Proof Test Data
【24h】

Analysis of Pressure Relief Valve Proof Test Data

机译:泄压阀验证测试数据分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

This article reports on our statistical analysis of pressure relief valve (PRV) proof test data for the failure mode, fail-to-open, i.e., the PRV remains closed when actual pressure reaches or exceeds 150% of set pressure. Three data sets, from two Fortune 500 operating companies, which met the intent of the quality assurance of proof test data as documented by the Center for Chemical Process Safety Process Equipment Reliability Database (CCPS PERD) initiative, were analyzed. Although the original intent of our analysis focused solely on estimating the failure rate during the "useful life"2 of the equipment, it became apparent that the probability of failure on initial installation or reinstallation after proof test, and the need to address what constituted end of useful life were very significant. This article provides three important findings that are summarized as follows:rn1. The statistical analysis of each data set predicted a 1-1.6% probability of initial failure where initialrnfailure is understood to be at the time of initial installation or reinstallation after a proof test. This implies that most of the failures found during the useful life via proof test are pre-existing failures from the time of installation or reinstallation rather than failures that occurred randomly after installation or reinstallation of the PRV.rn2. Our calculations, based on the three independent data sets, led to consistent estimates of PRV useful-life failure rates between 10~(-8) and 10~(-7) failures/h. Additionally, we compared our estimates from data analysis to the prediction of useful-life failure rate for a particular PRV model using the Failure Modes Effects and Diagnostics Analysis (FMEDA) method. The prediction was consistent with the data estimates.rn3. The data further indicated that the low useful-life failure rate was not supported beyond a 4-5 yearrnproof test interval as the threshold of wear-out seemed to be approached.rnThe importance of these finding cannot be overestimated. When taking credit for a PRV in a risk assessment and in calculating the probability of failure on demand, both the initial probability of failing to open, as well as the probability of PRV failure due to the useful-life failure rate, must be taken into account (the article discusses how to do this). Even then, the results are only defensible when it can be demonstrated that the proof test occurs before wear-out (i.e., end of useful life) begins.
机译:本文报告了我们对泄压阀(PRV)验证测试数据的统计分析,该数据针对故障模式,无法打开即在实际压力达到或超过设定压力的150%时PRV保持关闭状态。分析了来自两家财富500强运营公司的三个数据集,这些数据集符合化学过程安全过程设备可靠性数据库中心(CCPS PERD)计划记录的证明测试数据质量保证的意图。尽管我们分析的初衷仅在于估计设备“使用寿命” 2期间的故障率,但很明显,在初次安装或经过验证测试后重新安装时出现故障的可能性以及解决最终原因的需求使用寿命非常重要。本文提供了三个重要的发现,总结如下:每个数据集的统计分析预测初始失败的可能性为1-1.6%,其中初始失败被理解为在验证测试后的初始安装或重新安装时。这意味着在使用寿命内通过证明测试发现的大多数故障是从安装或重新安装时开始的既有故障,而不是在PRV.rn2安装或重新安装后随机发生的故障。基于三个独立的数据集,我们的计算得出了PRV使用寿命失效率的连续估计值,介于10〜(-8)和10〜(-7)次/小时之间。此外,我们使用故障模式效应和诊断分析(FMEDA)方法,将数据分析的估计与特定PRV模型的使用寿命失效率的预测进行了比较。该预测与数据估计值一致。数据进一步表明,由于似乎已接近磨损阈值,因此在4-5年的耐久测试间隔后仍无法支持较低的使用寿命失效率。不能高估这些发现的重要性。当在风险评估中考虑PRV并计算按需失效的可能性时,必须考虑初始失效失败的可能性以及由于使用寿命失效率引起的PRV失效的可能性帐户(本文讨论了如何执行此操作)。即使这样,也只有在可以证明在磨损(即使用寿命终止)之前就进行了证明测试时,该结果才是有根据的。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号