通过工业案例研究定量风险分析的可靠性

IF 1.8 Q3 ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering Pub Date : 2021-11-30 DOI:10.1108/jqme-03-2021-0022
Mohamed Attia, J. Sinha
{"title":"通过工业案例研究定量风险分析的可靠性","authors":"Mohamed Attia, J. Sinha","doi":"10.1108/jqme-03-2021-0022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to analyze the reliability of the quantitative risk model used for planning inspection and maintenance activities. The objective is to critically discuss the factors that contribute to the probability and consequence of failure calculations.Design/methodology/approachThe case study conducted using one of the most widely deployed risk models in the oil and gas industry where a full assessment was performed on an offshore gas producing platform.FindingsThe generic failure frequencies used as the basis for calculating the probability of failure are set at a value representative of the refining and petrochemical industry's failure data. This failure database does not cover offshore. The critical discussion indicated the lack of basis of the coefficient of variances, prior probabilities and conditional probabilities. Moreover, the risk model does not address the distribution of thickness measurements, corrosion rates and inspection effectiveness, whereas only overall deterministic values are used; this requires judgment to determine these values. Probabilities of ignition, probabilities of delayed ignition and other probabilities in Level 1 event tree are found selected based on expert judgment for each of the reference fluids and release types (i.e. continuous or instantaneous). These probabilities are constant and independent of the release rate or mass and lack of constructed model. Defining the release type is critical in the consequence of the failure methodology, whereas the calculated consequences differ greatly depending on the type of release, i.e. continuous or instantaneous. The assessment results show that both criteria of defining the type of release, i.e. continuous or instantaneous, do not affect the calculations of flammable consequences when the auto-ignition likely is zero at the storage temperature. While, the difference in the resulted toxic consequence was more than 31 times between the two criteria of defining the type of release.Research limitations/implicationsThere is a need to revamp this quantitative risk model to minimize the subjectivity in the risk calculation and to address the unique design features of offshore platforms.Originality/valueThis case study critically discuss the risk model being widely applied in the O&G industry and demonstrates to the end-users the subjectivity in the risk results. Hence, be vigilant when establishing the risk tolerance/target for the purpose of inspection and maintenance planning.","PeriodicalId":16938,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reliability of quantitative risk analysis through an industrial case study\",\"authors\":\"Mohamed Attia, J. Sinha\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/jqme-03-2021-0022\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to analyze the reliability of the quantitative risk model used for planning inspection and maintenance activities. The objective is to critically discuss the factors that contribute to the probability and consequence of failure calculations.Design/methodology/approachThe case study conducted using one of the most widely deployed risk models in the oil and gas industry where a full assessment was performed on an offshore gas producing platform.FindingsThe generic failure frequencies used as the basis for calculating the probability of failure are set at a value representative of the refining and petrochemical industry's failure data. This failure database does not cover offshore. The critical discussion indicated the lack of basis of the coefficient of variances, prior probabilities and conditional probabilities. Moreover, the risk model does not address the distribution of thickness measurements, corrosion rates and inspection effectiveness, whereas only overall deterministic values are used; this requires judgment to determine these values. Probabilities of ignition, probabilities of delayed ignition and other probabilities in Level 1 event tree are found selected based on expert judgment for each of the reference fluids and release types (i.e. continuous or instantaneous). These probabilities are constant and independent of the release rate or mass and lack of constructed model. Defining the release type is critical in the consequence of the failure methodology, whereas the calculated consequences differ greatly depending on the type of release, i.e. continuous or instantaneous. The assessment results show that both criteria of defining the type of release, i.e. continuous or instantaneous, do not affect the calculations of flammable consequences when the auto-ignition likely is zero at the storage temperature. While, the difference in the resulted toxic consequence was more than 31 times between the two criteria of defining the type of release.Research limitations/implicationsThere is a need to revamp this quantitative risk model to minimize the subjectivity in the risk calculation and to address the unique design features of offshore platforms.Originality/valueThis case study critically discuss the risk model being widely applied in the O&G industry and demonstrates to the end-users the subjectivity in the risk results. Hence, be vigilant when establishing the risk tolerance/target for the purpose of inspection and maintenance planning.\",\"PeriodicalId\":16938,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/jqme-03-2021-0022\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jqme-03-2021-0022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

目的本文的目的是分析用于规划检查和维护活动的定量风险模型的可靠性。目的是批判性地讨论影响失效计算概率和后果的因素。设计/方法/方法使用石油和天然气行业中部署最广泛的风险模型之一进行的案例研究,其中对海上天然气生产平台进行了全面评估。发现用作计算故障概率基础的通用故障频率设置为炼油和石化行业故障数据的代表值。此故障数据库不包括海上故障。批判性的讨论表明方差系数、先验概率和条件概率缺乏依据。此外,风险模型没有涉及厚度测量值、腐蚀率和检查有效性的分布,而只使用总体确定性值;这需要判断来确定这些值。1级事件树中的点火概率、延迟点火概率和其他概率是根据每种参考流体和释放类型(即连续或瞬时)的专家判断选择的。这些概率是恒定的,与释放速率或质量无关,并且缺乏构建的模型。在失效方法的后果中,定义释放类型至关重要,而计算的后果因释放类型(即连续或瞬时)而异。评估结果表明,当储存温度下自燃可能为零时,定义释放类型的两个标准,即连续或瞬时,都不会影响易燃后果的计算。然而,在定义释放类型的两个标准之间,所产生的毒性后果的差异超过31倍。研究局限性/含义需要改进这种定量风险模型,以最大限度地减少风险计算中的主观性,并解决海上平台的独特设计特征。独创性/价值本案例研究批判性地讨论了在油气行业广泛应用的风险模型,并向最终用户展示了风险结果的主观性。因此,在为检查和维护规划目的建立风险容忍度/目标时要保持警惕。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Reliability of quantitative risk analysis through an industrial case study
PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to analyze the reliability of the quantitative risk model used for planning inspection and maintenance activities. The objective is to critically discuss the factors that contribute to the probability and consequence of failure calculations.Design/methodology/approachThe case study conducted using one of the most widely deployed risk models in the oil and gas industry where a full assessment was performed on an offshore gas producing platform.FindingsThe generic failure frequencies used as the basis for calculating the probability of failure are set at a value representative of the refining and petrochemical industry's failure data. This failure database does not cover offshore. The critical discussion indicated the lack of basis of the coefficient of variances, prior probabilities and conditional probabilities. Moreover, the risk model does not address the distribution of thickness measurements, corrosion rates and inspection effectiveness, whereas only overall deterministic values are used; this requires judgment to determine these values. Probabilities of ignition, probabilities of delayed ignition and other probabilities in Level 1 event tree are found selected based on expert judgment for each of the reference fluids and release types (i.e. continuous or instantaneous). These probabilities are constant and independent of the release rate or mass and lack of constructed model. Defining the release type is critical in the consequence of the failure methodology, whereas the calculated consequences differ greatly depending on the type of release, i.e. continuous or instantaneous. The assessment results show that both criteria of defining the type of release, i.e. continuous or instantaneous, do not affect the calculations of flammable consequences when the auto-ignition likely is zero at the storage temperature. While, the difference in the resulted toxic consequence was more than 31 times between the two criteria of defining the type of release.Research limitations/implicationsThere is a need to revamp this quantitative risk model to minimize the subjectivity in the risk calculation and to address the unique design features of offshore platforms.Originality/valueThis case study critically discuss the risk model being widely applied in the O&G industry and demonstrates to the end-users the subjectivity in the risk results. Hence, be vigilant when establishing the risk tolerance/target for the purpose of inspection and maintenance planning.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering
Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering Engineering-Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
13.30%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: This exciting journal looks at maintenance engineering from a positive standpoint, and clarifies its recently elevatedstatus as a highly technical, scientific, and complex field. Typical areas examined include: ■Budget and control ■Equipment management ■Maintenance information systems ■Process capability and maintenance ■Process monitoring techniques ■Reliability-based maintenance ■Replacement and life cycle costs ■TQM and maintenance
期刊最新文献
Performability analysis for the SPVC line system of leaf spring production plant using probabilistic approach A systematic reliability-centred maintenance framework with fuzzy computational integration – a case study of manufacturing process machinery Analysis of asset management difficulties observed in Brazilian firms: a study based on expert survey and fuzzy TOPSIS Air leaks fault detection in maintenance using machine learning An ontology-driven model for hospital equipment maintenance management: a case study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1