JP2013088828A - Facility periodic inspection support system using risk assessment - Google Patents

Abstract

PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED: To apply a risk assessment method using a risk matrix available for any type of facility, to a facility management system to compute an inspection period as a quantitative value for a periodic inspection plan (preventive maintenance plan) from risk assessment results.SOLUTION: When an inspection period is computed during planning of periodic inspection by a facility maintenance system which has a database storing periodic inspection results and maintenance history results of a facility therein and supports the planning of periodic inspection for facility maintenance, a risk matrix is used which utilizes risk assessment using degrees of influence and frequencies and determines a preventive maintenance object facility, and risks of facilities are successively compared with each block of the risk matrix to compute an inspection period as a quantitative value.

Description

  The present invention relates to a facility management system that manages facilities that require periodic inspection, such as power generation / transmission / distribution-related facilities of an electric power company, and more particularly to a system that supports periodic inspection.

  In recent years, in the field of facilities that require periodic inspections, such as power generation facilities of electric power companies, an equipment management system has been introduced, and information such as the operating status and malfunction history of the tens of thousands of equipment that make up the power plant is registered in the database. , Refer to those information and analyze the accumulated information. In addition, by linking the business data of the planning, construction, operation, and maintenance work related to the equipment with the equipment data, a more efficient work plan can be realized with equipment management work that takes into account the balance between each equipment and each work. It is being sought after.

  In the departments that perform maintenance work, TBM (Time Based Maintenance), which is the concept of preventive maintenance based on the time to perform inspections at regular intervals, and the status of equipment are monitored, and failures are likely to occur. We have been performing maintenance work on equipment using CBM (Condition Based Maintenance), which is the concept of preventive maintenance that replaces equipment in a state. In these methods, the cost required for periodic inspections and reviews to minimize the power plant operation rate due to equipment stoppage at the time of inspections are carried out. Considering the impact on the environment and the environment, it had to be done by empirical rules. Therefore, to assess the risk and impact of these risks, Risk is necessary to minimize the cost required for periodic inspection of the power generation equipment and the reduction in the operating rate of the power plant due to equipment shutdown during the periodic inspection period. Periodic inspection cycle that minimizes inspection costs, frequency of occurrence of defects, reduction in operating rate, etc., using equipment management risk assessment methods such as -Based Inspection / Maintenance (hereinafter abbreviated as RBI / RBM) It is considered to derive

RBI / RBM, which is one of the plant equipment risk assessment methods, is a risk assessment using the following method. First, for each piece of equipment, the frequency of equipment failures and failures is calculated. In addition, the degree of influence is calculated from the repair cost and damage, the degree of human risk, the impact on the environment, etc. when a malfunction or failure occurs in the equipment. Next, each facility is plotted with the occurrence frequency and the degree of influence calculated in the matrix in which the occurrence frequency is set on the vertical axis and the degree of influence is set on the horizontal axis. The matrix is divided at regular intervals on both the vertical axis and the horizontal axis, and the magnitude of risk is set for each divided block, thereby indicating the risk of each facility and the risk distribution of the entire facility. From the result, review the inspection content and inspection cycle so that the equipment in the block with high risk is moved to the block with low risk. For example, equipment with a very high occurrence frequency needs to have a shorter inspection cycle than the present, and equipment with a higher influence needs to be preferentially inspected. Considering the overall balance of equipment inspection using the above method and examining the inspection contents and inspection cycle, the inspection cycle is calculated by risk assessment using the risk matrix in RBI / RBM. Patent Document 1 discloses an equipment maintenance system that quantitatively determines maintenance locations / methods.

JP 2002-123314 A

  However, the technique of Patent Document 1 is used only to determine whether a risk matrix corresponds to a block with high risk and whether a preventive maintenance plan such as a periodic inspection is to be implemented at a maintenance site, is individually determined. The periodic inspection cycle could not be calculated. Therefore, in order to calculate the inspection period, necessary data must be collected by another means and calculated by another technique. In other words, the process of calculating the inspection cycle is divided in business and technology, and cannot be performed in a continuous processing flow.

  The equipment management system generally registers and manages equipment basic information and maintenance information in a database. The person in charge made the next inspection plan by referring to the data and judging by humans. The data registration was to post-register data such as inspection results, equipment replacement, and maintenance.

  The risk evaluation system generally sets various parameters necessary for a risk evaluation method adopted by the system for each facility, and indicates the risk of the facility and an optimal inspection cycle. For this reason, in periodic maintenance inspections for equipment maintenance operations, the equipment management system confirms the equipment and history to be inspected, calculates the inspection cycle based on risk assessment using the risk assessment system as necessary, and creates a periodic inspection plan. I had to plan.

  The reason is as follows. There are risk assessment methods for various types of equipment, and there are a plurality of types for some types of equipment. For this reason, it is very difficult to apply a consistent concept of risk assessment to various types of equipment, and the equipment management system and the risk assessment system have not been integrated.

  Even in Patent Document 1, although it is an optimization system for equipment maintenance, risk evaluation, calculation of inspection cycle, registration of inspection results, etc. are individual systems, and a series of flows performed by these individual systems is an optimization system. It is called. Actually, no detailed processing is described, and a specific table configuration or the like is not shown.

  The present invention applies a risk evaluation method based on a risk matrix that can be used for any equipment to the equipment management system, and sets the inspection cycle as a quantitative value for the periodic inspection plan (preventive maintenance plan) from the risk evaluation result. The purpose is to calculate. Furthermore, it is also possible to provide a continuous processing flow for displaying the next maintenance plan from the calculated inspection cycle.

  In the present invention, the frequency of failure occurrence in the facility is calculated, the risk is calculated from the frequency and the degree of influence when the failure occurs in the facility, and the risk is compared with the allowable risk of the predetermined facility. To calculate the frequency of equipment inspection.

  In the present invention, the inspection cycle can be calculated as a quantitative value for the periodic inspection plan by using the risk evaluation method based on the risk matrix of the equipment maintenance system. As a result, values used for risk assessment registered for each facility in the database can also be automatically updated, and those that can lengthen the inspection cycle can be appropriately lengthened to improve cost performance.

  In addition, the department that performs maintenance work can use the inspection cycle calculated in the risk assessment when determining the location of the periodic inspection plan. Therefore, it is possible to automatically create a periodic inspection plan without separately calculating the inspection cycle based on human awareness when the periodic inspection plan is formulated.

It is an example of the hardware block diagram of a present Example. It is an example of a structure of the equipment table used by a present Example. It is a structural example of the inspection result table used in a present Example. It is an example of a structure of the influence degree table used by a present Example. It is an example of a structure of the malfunction occurrence frequency table used in a present Example. It is a structural example of the risk table used in a present Example. It is a flowchart explaining the process of inspection period calculation. It is a schematic diagram of the risk matrix used in a present Example. It is a schematic diagram of the periodic inspection plan output in a present Example.

  Hereinafter, embodiments of the present invention will be described with reference to the drawings.

  FIG. 1 is a hardware configuration diagram of this embodiment. The equipment periodic inspection support system using the risk assessment includes an application server (10), a database server (20), and an operation terminal (30). These are connected via a network.

  The application server (10) includes a processing unit including an arithmetic device such as a CPU, a storage unit including a storage device such as a hard disk, and a communication unit for connecting to other devices. This processing unit functions as an inspection result registration unit (110), an evaluation parameter registration unit (120), an inspection cycle calculation unit (130), a periodic inspection plan calculation unit (140), and a periodic inspection plan display unit (150). The database server (20) includes an equipment table (210), an inspection result table (220), an impact degree table (230), a failure occurrence frequency table (240), and a risk table (250).

  The outline of each of the application servers (20) is as follows. The inspection plan registration unit (110) registers the periodic inspection results input by the person in charge and the maintenance history results due to sudden failures in the inspection result table. The evaluation parameter registration unit (120) registers in the influence degree table (230) and the defect occurrence frequency table (240) which are evaluation parameters of the risk matrix used for calculating the inspection cycle input by the person in charge. The inspection cycle calculation unit (130) calculates an inspection cycle using risk assessment based on a risk matrix for each piece of equipment from the data recorded in each table, and registers it in the inspection cycle of the equipment table (210). The periodic inspection plan calculation unit (140) calculates a periodic inspection plan from the calculated inspection period and the data recorded in the equipment table (210) and the inspection result table (220). The periodic inspection plan display unit (150) displays the calculated periodic inspection plan from the operation terminal (30).

  The outline of each database server (20) is as follows. 2 to 6 show schematic diagrams of tables used in this embodiment.

    FIG. 2 is an example of the equipment table (210). The equipment table (210) records equipment information, and is composed of equipment ID, equipment name, inspection content, impact, failure occurrence frequency, longest inspection cycle, and inspection cycle. “Equipment ID” is set so as not to overlap. “Equipment ID” and “Equipment Name” have a one-to-one relationship, but there are those with similar equipment names, so they are identified by “Equipment ID”. These are registered at the time of new installation. “Inspection contents” are regularly revised due to changes in laws and regulations. In addition, different equipment may be the same, and depending on the equipment, it may be better to treat it as a plurality of inspection items. In the embodiment of the present invention, there is one inspection content and it is described as an item in the equipment table. However, when handling a plurality of inspection items for equipment, normalize the inspection content to another table. Is also possible. In many cases, the “impact” is the cost of the calculated amount of damage, taking into account factors such as the degree of human risk and damage due to failure, the impact on the surrounding environment, and the impact on power generation itself. To the value determined. The “influence” is determined and set when a new facility is introduced. The “defect occurrence frequency” is calculated from the year and the inspection result in the inspection result table when the inspection period is calculated, and a value is set by the inspection period calculation unit (130). The “longest inspection cycle” is determined by the inspection cycle that has been studied based on maintenance requirements in accordance with laws and regulations, and is set when new equipment is introduced, and is reviewed and corrected when changes are made to laws and regulations. The “inspection period” is set to a value calculated by the inspection period calculation of this embodiment. As the allowable risk, a value that can be allowed by the facility is set for the risk calculated by the product of the frequency of occurrence of failure and the degree of influence. Judgment and setting based on laws and influences when new equipment is introduced. This table is registered in the system in advance, but is updated to the latest data by the processing of FIG.

    FIG. 3 is an example of the inspection result table (220). The inspection result table (220) stores the inspection results input by the person in charge into the inspection record table and the maintenance history for sudden failures. The inspection result table includes “equipment ID”, “year”, and “inspection result”. The “equipment ID” is the same as the “equipment ID” in FIG. 2 and has no overlap. Note that when the inspection content is changed from the equipment table to another table such as the inspection content table as described in the equipment table, it is not the “facility ID” but the ID of the inspection content table. The “year” and “inspection result” are input by the operator at each inspection. These two constitute the horizontal axis of the list of FIG.

  In this example, the inspection result is defined as ◎: Good ▲: Defect ○: Plan. The term “plan” refers to a periodical inspection plan that is planned using the inspection cycle calculated in this embodiment. This table is input by the inspector after periodic inspection and maintenance history.

  Information necessary for generating the risk matrix schematic diagram of FIG. 8 will be described with reference to FIGS. 4, 5, and 6.

  FIG. 4 is an example of the influence degree table. In the influence degree table (230), position information on the horizontal axis (X axis) of the risk matrix used when calculating the inspection period and the degree of influence are recorded. This consists of “X” and “Influence”. “X” is the same as “X axis” in the “risk matrix outline diagram” of FIG. “12” means between the memories “1” and “2” in FIG. 8, and the numerical value is “1,000” as shown in FIG.

  This numerical value is a quantitative value calculated in consideration of the human risk due to failure, the impact on the environment, the impact on power generation, damage, and the like. In this embodiment, the damage amount generally used is shown as a unit of 1,000 yen.

  This table is registered in advance in the system for each target facility.

  FIG. 5 is an example of a failure occurrence frequency table. The defect occurrence frequency table (240) records position information on the vertical axis (Y axis) of the risk table and the defect occurrence frequency. This is composed of “Y” and “defect occurrence frequency”. “Y” is the same as “Y axis” in the “risk matrix outline diagram” in FIG. “AB” means between the memories “A” and “B” in FIG. 8, and numerical values are “2.0” as shown in FIG. 8, and the unit is “times / year”. In other words, it means the number of inspections per year.

  This table is registered in advance in the system for each target facility.

  FIG. 6 is an example of a risk table. The risk table (250) records risks for each risk block of the risk matrix. This consists of “XY” and “Risk”. “XY” indicates a grid where the vertical axis and the horizontal axis of the “risk matrix outline diagram” in FIG. 8 intersect. The risk is defined as “large”, “medium”, and “small” for each square.

  The risk is obtained by dividing a numerical value calculated quantitatively by the product of the influence level and the defect occurrence frequency within a certain range, and is defined as large, medium, and small in this embodiment. In this embodiment, it is defined as large, medium, and small, but it is also possible to define it by subdividing it into a maximum, large, medium, small, minimum, etc. This table is registered in advance in the system for each target facility.

    FIG. 8 is a schematic diagram of the risk matrix created using FIGS. 5 to 7. The horizontal axis (X axis) is the degree of influence of the equipment. The influence degree of this embodiment is a value calculated quantitatively as a cost considering the influence on the power generation amount and the influence on the environment when a failure occurs in the equipment among a plurality of influence degree determination methods. Is used. The vertical axis (Y axis) represents the frequency of occurrence of problems. The number of risk blocks in the risk matrix is not necessarily the number shown in FIG. 8, and can be defined in the same way as risks. In that case, values may be registered in the defect occurrence frequency table and the risk table. In other words, the risk matrix composed of the impact table, defect occurrence frequency table, and risk table is not fixed, and the more detailed the risk block, the more detailed the inspection cycle calculated in this embodiment. Become. For each facility, which influence level block (X axis) is located in the risk matrix is determined from FIG. 7 (details of FIG. 7 will be described later).

  FIG. 9 is an example of a schematic diagram of a periodic point plan. This plan is output by this system. FIG. 9 is a list composed of “equipment name”, “inspection content”, “inspection cycle”, and inspection results in each inspection year. In a control device or the like that is a power plant facility, the parts and parts to be inspected are divided into about 100 parts, and there are a plurality of inspection contents depending on the parts and parts. Moreover, the power plant is composed of a plurality of units such as Unit 1 and Unit 2, and tens of thousands of inspection contents are carried out over several months for each unit. Therefore, when the inspection results for each facility as shown in Fig. 9 are displayed in chronological order and a periodic inspection plan table representing the next inspection plan is created, data input by humans and inspection cycles reviewed by humans are performed. There are limits to updating the table.

  Therefore, it is great to display the next inspection plan based on the inspection cycle considering the risk by automatically updating each data with the minimum input using the process and table configuration as in this embodiment. The effect can be expected.

<Overview of operation>
The present embodiment operates by using input means, calculation processing means, and storage means in the following form.

The person in charge of the department performing the maintenance work inputs in advance the failure frequency (vertical axis) and the influence degree (horizontal axis), which are evaluation parameters of the risk matrix, from the operation terminal (30). The input value is registered by the evaluation parameter registration unit (120) in the influence degree table (230) and the defect occurrence frequency table (240). In addition, the inspection cycle specified by law is entered for each facility. The inspection cycle is registered in the longest inspection cycle of the equipment table (210) by the evaluation parameter registration unit (120).
When regular maintenance is performed or when maintenance due to a sudden failure occurs, the regular inspection results and maintenance history results are registered from the operation terminal (30). Data is input from the operation terminal (30), and the inspection result registration unit (110) performs the inspection year and inspection result or the maintenance execution year and maintenance result for the corresponding equipment in the inspection result table (220). Is registered.

  The above is the input to be performed in advance from the time of the regular inspection plan and the input to be performed daily.

  At the time of regular inspection plan planning, the person in charge outputs the periodic inspection plan from the operation terminal (30). When the periodic inspection plan output is instructed from the operation terminal (30), the inspection cycle calculation process shown in FIG. 7 is performed by the inspection cycle calculation unit (130).

  The flow of the inspection cycle calculation will be described with reference to FIG.

  In step S01, the failure occurrence frequency for each facility is calculated from the inspection result table (220) as follows. In the calculation of the defect occurrence frequency in this embodiment, the inspection period is calculated from the most recent inspection result and the latest inspection result for each facility as shown in Equation 1, and the number of defects that occurred during the inspection period is calculated as the inspection period. Find by dividing.

  A facility ID that matches the target facility ID in the inspection result table (220) is searched from the facility table (210). Next, the failure occurrence frequency calculated from Equation 1 is registered in the “defect occurrence frequency” of the equipment table (210). By this process, the frequency of malfunctions in the equipment is updated.

  After calculation of the defect occurrence frequency, it is determined as follows in which block of the risk matrix each facility is located based on its influence degree and defect occurrence frequency.

  In step S02, the impact level, defect occurrence frequency, longest inspection cycle, and allowable risk are acquired for each facility from the facility table (210).

In step S03, risk matrix data is acquired from the impact level table (230), failure occurrence frequency table (240), and risk table (250).
In step S04, it is determined for each facility which block of influence (X axis) is located in the risk matrix (FIG. 8) from the degree of influence. The degree of influence is not influenced by the inspection result data stored in the database of the present embodiment, but is the influence on the power generation or the environment that the equipment has from the beginning. Although it depends on what value is used for the influence degree, it is basically difficult to change the block of the influence degree in the risk evaluation using the risk matrix. For example, even if the inspection cycle is shortened and the inspection content is changed, the influence on power generation and the influence on the environment when a failure occurs as in the present embodiment are not improved. Therefore, the X axis is determined at this point.

  By the steps from S05 to S12, it is determined which fault occurrence frequency (Y axis) is optimally located in the block. The frequency of occurrence of defects is different from the degree of influence and is unique to each individual, such as failure and deterioration, and is reduced by inspecting and performing preventive maintenance before a failure occurs. In the present embodiment, each value is compared to determine the optimal block in order to obtain an optimal risk block while considering the current failure occurrence frequency calculated in Equation 1 and the allowable risk and the degree of influence. By calculating the inspection cycle from the determined risk block, the optimum inspection cycle at the present time of the facility is obtained.

In S05, the maximum and minimum values of the failure occurrence frequency table (240) that defines the Y axis of the risk matrix are compared with the failure occurrence frequency of the equipment to determine in which range A to E the failure occurrence frequency is. To do. If it is within the range, the process proceeds to step S06, and the corresponding failure occurrence frequency block (Y axis) is determined. If it is out of range, proceed to S07 or S08. When the failure occurrence frequency table (240) is below the minimum value and out of the range, the block corresponding to the equipment is set as the minimum failure occurrence frequency block defined in the risk matrix in step S07. In this example, the block is E. If the failure occurrence frequency table (240) exceeds the maximum value and is out of the range, the block corresponding to the equipment is set as the maximum failure occurrence frequency block defined in the risk matrix in step S08. In this example, the block is A. S07 and S08 proceed to step S13 after the end of the step.
The equipment that has determined the failure frequency block in step S06 is the risk of the equipment determined by the risk block in step S09 (hereinafter referred to as “risk block risk”) and the allowable risk in the equipment table (210). Compare.

  If the allowable risk is equal to the risk block risk, the process proceeds to S13.

  If the tolerable risk is greater than the risk block risk, the facility will still be able to tolerate the risk and compare it to the larger risk in the risk matrix. Therefore, in step S10, one risk block to be compared with the equipment is raised in the Y-axis direction.

  If the tolerable risk is less than the risk block risk, the equipment exceeds the tolerable risk and is compared to the smaller risk in the risk matrix. Therefore, in step S11, the risk block to be compared with the equipment is lowered by one in the Y-axis direction.

  The equipment that has moved the block to be compared in steps S10 and S11 determines whether the risk block after movement is the maximum value or the minimum value in the risk matrix in step S12. In the case of the maximum value and the minimum value, the process proceeds to step S13. If it is not the maximum value or minimum value, proceed to step S09 and repeat steps S09 to S12 to determine the position where the equipment is the optimal risk, that is, the risk block where the risk of the allowable risk is equal to the risk of the risk block To do.

  After the risk block corresponding to the facility is determined, in step S13, the inspection cycle calculated from the risk block corresponding to the facility is compared with the “longest inspection cycle” (equipment table) of the facility. In this embodiment, the inspection cycle is obtained from the frequency of occurrence of defects, which is the Y axis of the risk block. The inspection period is obtained by calculating the reciprocal of the upper limit value on the Y axis of the risk block. Since the reciprocal of the defect occurrence frequency is an average period until the defect occurs, the period is defined as an optimal “inspection period” considering the risk.

  If the "longest inspection period" of the equipment table (210) of the equipment is larger than the optimal inspection period calculated from the risk block, the equipment can still increase the inspection period, so in step S14, The inspection cycle of the equipment table (210) is updated with the calculated inspection cycle of the risk block.

  If the longest inspection cycle of equipment is less than or equal to the risk block inspection cycle, the inspection cycle exceeds the legal inspection cycle, so in step S15, the equipment table (210) with the inspection cycle of the longest inspection cycle. Update the inspection cycle.

  After calculating a new inspection cycle by the above processing, the periodic inspection plan calculation unit (140) calculates the periodic inspection plan (Fig. 9) from the equipment table (210) and inspection result table (220), and the periodic inspection output unit (150 ) To the operation terminal (30).

  In addition, since each data is updated by the above-described inspection cycle calculation process, it is possible to display a risk matrix based on the latest data on the operation terminal by adding a risk matrix display unit to the application server. Even when the inspection cycle needs to be reviewed by a person, it is also possible to determine the inspection cycle by referring to the risk distribution in the displayed risk matrix. When such processing is added, it is also realized as a risk evaluation system using a risk matrix.

DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS 10 Application server 20 Database server 30 Operation terminal 110 Inspection result registration part 120 Evaluation parameter registration part 130 Inspection period calculation part 140 Periodic inspection plan calculation part 150 Periodic inspection plan output part 210 Equipment table 220 Inspection result table 230 Influence degree table 240 Trouble occurs Frequency table 250 Risk table

Claims (6)

An inspection cycle determination method for determining a periodic inspection cycle of equipment,
A trouble occurrence frequency calculating step for calculating a trouble occurrence frequency for the equipment from the number of troubles related to the equipment that has occurred in a predetermined period in the past;
A risk calculating step of calculating a risk of the equipment from the calculated trouble occurrence frequency and an influence degree indicating an influence that occurs when a trouble occurs in the equipment;
An inspection cycle calculating step for calculating an inspection cycle of the facility by comparing the calculated risk of the facility with an allowable risk indicating a risk permitted by the facility;
An inspection cycle determining step for determining an inspection cycle based on the calculated inspection cycle and a predetermined longest inspection cycle;
An inspection cycle determination method comprising: In the inspection cycle determination method according to claim 1,
In the inspection cycle calculation step, when the calculated risk is equal to the allowable risk, the reciprocal of the defect occurrence frequency is calculated as an inspection cycle. In the inspection cycle determination method according to claim 1 or 2,
In the inspection cycle calculation step, when the calculated risk and the allowable risk are different, the failure occurrence frequency is increased or decreased, and the reciprocal of the increased or decreased failure occurrence frequency is calculated as the inspection cycle. Method. An inspection cycle determination device for determining a periodic inspection cycle of equipment,
Calculate the frequency of malfunction occurrence for the equipment from the number of malfunctions related to the equipment that occurred in a predetermined period in the past, and the impact of the calculated malfunction occurrence frequency and the impact that occurs when the malfunction occurs in the equipment The inspection cycle for calculating the inspection cycle of the equipment by calculating the risk of the equipment from the degree, and comparing the calculated risk of the equipment with the allowable risk indicating the risk allowed by the equipment A calculation unit;
An inspection cycle determining unit for determining an inspection cycle based on the calculated inspection cycle and a predetermined longest inspection cycle;
An inspection plan output unit for displaying the determined inspection cycle;
An inspection cycle determination device comprising: In the inspection cycle determination device according to claim 4,
The inspection cycle calculation device, wherein the inspection cycle calculation unit calculates the reciprocal of the failure occurrence frequency as the inspection cycle when the calculated risk is equal to the allowable risk. In the inspection cycle determination device according to claim 4 or 5,
The inspection cycle calculation unit increases or decreases the defect occurrence frequency when the calculated risk and the allowable risk are different, and calculates the reciprocal of the increased or decreased defect occurrence frequency as an inspection cycle. Decision device.

Images