WO2020166156A1 - Système d'évaluation de risque de défaillance et procédé d'évaluation de risque de défaillance - Google Patents

Système d'évaluation de risque de défaillance et procédé d'évaluation de risque de défaillance Download PDF

Info

Publication number
WO2020166156A1
WO2020166156A1 PCT/JP2019/045076 JP2019045076W WO2020166156A1 WO 2020166156 A1 WO2020166156 A1 WO 2020166156A1 JP 2019045076 W JP2019045076 W JP 2019045076W WO 2020166156 A1 WO2020166156 A1 WO 2020166156A1
Authority
WO
WIPO (PCT)
Prior art keywords
failure risk
subsystem
failure
risk evaluation
maintenance
Prior art date
Application number
PCT/JP2019/045076
Other languages
English (en)
Japanese (ja)
Inventor
亜由美 渡部
嘉成 堀
健二 藤平
飯塚　秀宏
Original Assignee
株式会社日立製作所
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Application filed by 株式会社日立製作所 filed Critical 株式会社日立製作所
Publication of WO2020166156A1 publication Critical patent/WO2020166156A1/fr

Links

Images

Classifications

    • G—PHYSICS
    • G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
    • G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q10/00—Administration; Management

Definitions

  • the present invention relates to a failure risk evaluation system and a failure risk evaluation method.
  • the system is composed of multiple subsystems consisting of multiple equipment and parts. Therefore, in this specification, a system having a plurality of subsystems is defined as an entire system. For example, when the entire system is an electric motor, the subsystems are the constituent elements of the electric motor, such as the stator and the rotor.
  • the failure risk of the entire system is obtained, it is possible to determine whether to continue the operation of the entire system based on the value of the failure risk of the entire system. Further, it is also possible to determine the subsystem for which maintenance is to be performed, based on the value of the failure risk of each subsystem. When the failure risk of the subsystems that make up the entire system is calculated, the subsystem that requires maintenance is determined from the failure risk of each subsystem, and the failure risk of the entire system is calculated from the failure risk of the subsystems. You can also
  • Patent Document 1 As a method of calculating the failure risk of the entire system from each subsystem, for example, the power supply risk evaluation system of the power supply facility described in Patent Document 1 is disclosed.
  • a power supply system having a connection configuration for each scenario according to an operation mode, a maintenance work mode, etc. is created, and the power supply risk of the created power supply system for each scenario is evaluated.
  • Patent Document 1 With the method disclosed in Patent Document 1 described above, it is necessary to calculate all the failure risks of the subsystems that make up the entire system, and then calculate the failure risk of the entire system from the failure risks of each subsystem.
  • the failure risk of the entire system can be calculated, the failure risk of each subsystem may be unknown. If the failure risk of each subsystem is unknown, the subsystem with a high failure risk cannot be identified. For this reason, the entire system must be frequently maintained, which increases the cost required for maintenance.
  • the present invention has been made in view of such a situation, and an object thereof is to calculate a failure risk of a subsystem having no failure history.
  • a failure risk evaluation system a history acquisition unit that acquires a failure history of the entire system including a plurality of subsystems, and a maintenance history of at least one subsystem selected from the plurality of subsystems, Based on the failure history of the entire system and the maintenance history of at least one subsystem, calculate a failure risk evaluation model to evaluate the failure risk of other subsystems that do not have maintenance history, and calculate the failure risk of other subsystems. And a failure risk evaluation model calculation unit to be obtained.
  • the failure risk evaluation model calculated based on the failure history of the entire system and the maintenance history of at least one subsystem is used to obtain the failure risk of another subsystem having no maintenance history. Will be able to do it properly. Problems, configurations, and effects other than those described above will be clarified by the following description of the embodiments.
  • FIG. 1 is an overall configuration diagram showing a relationship between a failure risk evaluation system 10 and a failure/maintenance management system 4.
  • the entire system 1 is composed of a plurality of subsystems A, B, C,... N.
  • all subsystems 1 and subsystems A to N are in a relationship in which all the subsystems are inoperable.
  • subsystems when the subsystems A to N are not distinguished, they are called "subsystems".
  • the failure/maintenance management system 4 manages failure history data of the entire system 1 (an example of failure history) and maintenance history data of each subsystem A, B, C,... N (an example of maintenance history).
  • the failure history data of the overall system 1 is stored in the overall system failure DB (Data Base) 2.
  • the maintenance history data of the subsystem A is stored in the subsystem A maintenance DB 3A
  • the maintenance history data of the subsystem C is stored in the subsystem C maintenance DB 3C.
  • the maintenance history data of each subsystem up to the subsystem N is stored in the maintenance DB corresponding to each subsystem.
  • the subsystem B maintenance DB 3B for storing the maintenance history data of the subsystem B may not be provided, so the subsystem B maintenance DB 3B is indicated by a broken line.
  • the failure risk evaluation system 10 calculates the failure risk of the overall system 1 or subsystem currently operating or in the future based on various data managed by the existing overall system 1.
  • the probability of failure of the entire system 1 is calculated as the failure risk of the entire system from the year after the introduction of the entire system 1 to 10 years later, and the probability of the subsystem failure is the subsystem. It is calculated as the failure risk of.
  • the failure risk evaluation system 10 recognizes a subsystem having a high risk based on the failure risk of the entire system 1 and the failure risk of the subsystem, and enables effective maintenance for this subsystem.
  • the total system 1 including a plurality of subsystems A to N is set as a failure risk calculation target, and the total value of the failure risks of each subsystem can be equal to or approximate to the failure risk of the entire system 1.
  • the failure risk of each subsystem is assumed to be a low value within the range where the following formula (1) is satisfied.
  • Subsystem maintenance is performed by replacing the old subsystem with a new subsystem. Therefore, it is assumed that all the maintained subsystems are new and the failure risk of the subsystems immediately after the maintenance is zero.
  • failure risk refers to cumulative failure rate, cumulative hazard rate (for example, the ratio of cumulative value of hazards that occurred in a predetermined period), deterioration degree of system (including entire system and subsystems), system health such as system health.
  • deterioration degree of system including entire system and subsystems
  • system health such as system health.
  • the year after introduction indicates the period from the introduction of the entire system 1 to an arbitrary year (for example, every year) in which the failure risk is calculated.
  • the operating year or the operating period of the entire system 1 may be used instead of the elapsed years after the introduction.
  • the year of introduction of the entire system 1 may be the year in which the entire system 1 is delivered or the year in which the entire system 1 is manufactured.
  • the failure history records the year when the whole system 1 was introduced, and the year when the whole system 1 was stopped or the stop occurred.
  • the stop of the entire system 1 it is preferable to separately describe an abnormal stop in which the entire system 1 cannot operate due to a failure and a stop of the entire system 1 due to other factors other than the failure.
  • the failure history the year when some subsystems are introduced, the year when this subsystem is stopped, etc. may be recorded.
  • the failure history data of the whole system 1 represents, for example, the number of whole systems 1 that have failed in a predetermined period after the introduction of the whole system 1 and the history of the number of failures.
  • the maintenance history is a record of the year that the subsystem was installed and the year that the subsystem was maintained. That is, the maintenance history data of the subsystem is, for example, a history of maintenance performed in a predetermined period after the introduction of the subsystem. Note that the maintenance of the entire system 1 is performed by replacing all subsystems constituting the entire system 1 with new ones.
  • FIG. 2 is a block diagram showing a configuration example of the failure risk evaluation system 10 according to the first embodiment.
  • the failure risk evaluation system 10 includes a history acquisition unit 11, a failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12, and an evaluation result output unit 13.
  • the failure risk evaluation system 10 makes it possible to determine the failure risk of another subsystem based on the failure history data of the entire system 1 and the maintenance history data of at least one subsystem.
  • the overall system 1 is composed of two subsystems, subsystem A (an example of the first subsystem) and subsystem B (an example of the second subsystem).
  • the maintenance history data of the subsystem A exists, but the maintenance history data of the subsystem B does not exist.
  • the history acquisition unit 11 acquires failure history data of the entire system 1 including a plurality of subsystems and maintenance history data of at least one subsystem selected from the plurality of subsystems.
  • the history acquisition unit 11 acquires the maintenance history data from at least one subsystem having the maintenance history data.
  • the history acquisition unit 11 acquires the failure history data of the entire system 1 from the entire system failure DB 2 and the maintenance history data of the subsystem A from the subsystem A maintenance DB 3A.
  • the history acquisition unit 11 acquires the maintenance history data from the subsystem A maintenance DB 3A, but in another embodiment, the history acquisition unit 11 acquires the maintenance history data from the maintenance DB other than the subsystem A. It is also possible to obtain
  • the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 is a failure risk for evaluating a failure risk of another subsystem having no maintenance history data based on the failure history data of the entire system 1 and the maintenance history data of at least one subsystem. Calculate an evaluation model. Then, the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 obtains the failure risk of other subsystems. Therefore, the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 calculates the failure risk evaluation model of the entire system 1 and the subsystems with the years after introduction as an explanatory variable and the failure risk as an objective variable. In the first embodiment, the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 calculates the failure risk evaluation model of the overall system 1, and further calculates the failure risk evaluation model of the subsystem A.
  • the evaluation result output unit 13 displays the failure risk evaluation result of the subsystem evaluated by the failure risk evaluation model calculated by the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 on the operation screen of the display device 25 (see FIG. 3 described later). 80 (see FIG. 12, which will be described later) so that it can be displayed.
  • FIG. 3 is a block diagram showing a hardware configuration example of the computer 20.
  • the computer 20 is hardware used as a so-called computer.
  • the computer 20 includes a CPU (Central Processing Unit) 21, a ROM (Read Only Memory) 22, and a RAM (Random Access Memory) 23 that are respectively connected to a bus 24.
  • the computer 20 includes a display device 25, an input device 26, a non-volatile storage 27, and a network interface 28.
  • CPU21 reads the program code of the software which implement
  • the history acquisition unit 11, the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12, and the evaluation result output unit 13 according to the present embodiment function as the CPU 21, the ROM 22, and the RAM 23 cooperate with each other.
  • the display device 25 is, for example, a liquid crystal display monitor, and displays the result of processing performed by the computer 20 to the worker.
  • a keyboard, a mouse, or the like is used as the input device 26, for example, and an operator can input a predetermined operation and give an instruction.
  • non-volatile storage 27 for example, HDD (Hard Disk Drive), SSD (Solid State Drive), flexible disk, optical disk, magneto-optical disk, CD-ROM, CD-R, magnetic tape, non-volatile memory, etc. are used.
  • OS Operating System
  • various parameters, and a program for operating the computer 20 are recorded.
  • the ROM 22 and the non-volatile storage 27 permanently record programs and data necessary for the CPU 21 to operate, and are computer-readable non-transitory recording media that store programs executed by the computer 20. It is used as an example.
  • a NIC Network Interface Card
  • various data can be transmitted and received between the devices via a LAN (Local Area Network) connected to a terminal of the NIC, a dedicated line, or the like. It is possible.
  • LAN Local Area Network
  • the failure risk evaluation system 10 targets the entire system 1 composed of two subsystems A and B for failure risk evaluation. Assuming that the subsystem A has a shorter time to failure than the subsystem B and is frequently maintained, the details of specific processing of the failure risk evaluation system 10 will be described below.
  • FIG. 4 is a time chart showing the maintenance history of the plurality of subsystems A.
  • FIG. 4 is a time chart showing the maintenance history of the plurality of subsystems A.
  • overall systems there are a plurality of overall systems 1, there are also a plurality of subsystems A that make up the overall system 1. Therefore, in order to identify the subsystem A, reference numerals such as subsystems A(1) to A(3) are given. For convenience of explanation, it is assumed that each entire system 1 is composed of subsystems A to N. Further, in order to express different overall systems 1, reference numerals are given as in the overall systems (1) to (3).
  • the time chart shows that the operation of the entire system 1 is started (that is, the operation of the subsystems A(1) to A(3) is started), or the subsystems A(1) to A(3) are maintained and introduced into the entire system 1.
  • the subsystem A(1) is operating except when the maintenance shown in the drawing is performed or when the maintenance is stopped. In this case, the maintenance of the subsystem A(1) is carried out, and the year stopped other than the maintenance is recorded in the subsystem A maintenance DB 3A of the subsystem A(1) as the maintenance history data of the subsystem A(1).
  • the subsystem A (2) starts operating, the subsystem A (2) is maintained, and the stopped year is recorded in the subsystem A maintenance DB 3A of the subsystem A (2). Further, after the subsystem A(3) starts operating, the subsystem A(3) is maintained, and the stopped year is recorded in the subsystem A maintenance DB 3A of the subsystem A(3).
  • the history acquisition unit 11 creates a data group in which maintenance history data of subsystems that are configured in common for the plurality of overall systems 1 are collected for each predetermined period.
  • the history acquisition unit 11 is recorded in the subsystem A maintenance DB 3A provided in each of the subsystems A(1) to A(3) after the subsystem A starts operating.
  • a maintenance A execution data group 5 of the subsystem A is prepared for each year when the subsystem A is maintained or stopped.
  • the predetermined period during which the history acquisition unit 11 creates the maintenance A execution data group 5 is arbitrary. Instead of once a year as shown in FIG. 4, an arbitrary predetermined period may be set, such as every six months or every month.
  • the history acquisition unit 11 A record of the maintenance A performed by the subsystems A(1) and A(3) is created as a maintenance A execution data group 5 for the first year. Further, when the maintenance A is performed in the subsystems A(1) and A(2) in the second year after the operation of the subsystem A is started, and when the maintenance A is stopped except the maintenance A, the history acquisition unit 11 causes the subsystem A( Records of maintenance A and stop performed in 1) and A(2) are created as a maintenance A execution data group 5 in the second year. In the third year, maintenance A is not performed in the subsystems A(1) to A(3), so empty data is stored in the maintenance A execution data group 5 in the third year. However, the maintenance A execution data group 5 for the third year may not be created.
  • FIG. 5 is an explanatory diagram showing a data processing flow of the failure risk evaluation system 10 according to the first exemplary embodiment. This data processing flow explains the failure risk evaluation method performed by the failure risk evaluation system 10.
  • FIG. 6 is an explanatory diagram showing a data flow in the failure risk evaluation system 10.
  • the failure risk evaluation system 10 if the failure history of the entire system 1 and one of the two subsystems, for example, the maintenance A execution year when the maintenance of the subsystem A is performed are known. , A failure risk evaluation model of subsystems A and B is calculated. Therefore, assuming the condition that the maintenance history data of the subsystem A exists, the flow of calculating the failure risk of the subsystem in the failure risk evaluation system 10 will be described with reference to FIGS. 3 to 6.
  • the year in which the subsystem A is maintained is the maintenance year of the subsystem A
  • the year in which the subsystem A is maintained after the introduction of the subsystem A is referred to as “maintenance A implementation year”.
  • the period from the year of carrying out maintenance A to the shutdown of the entire system 1 is referred to as "the number of years after maintenance A”.
  • the failure risk of the subsystems A and B and the overall system 1 can be expressed by the following approximate expression (2).
  • Ftotal FA(t ⁇ a)+FB(t ⁇ b) (2)
  • FB Failure risk of subsystems A and B t: Years since installation a
  • b Years after installation when subsystems A and B were last maintained
  • FA(ta) in equation (2) is a function indicating that the risk of failure of subsystem A increases as the years elapsed after the introduction of subsystem A increases.
  • FB(tb) in the equation (2) is also a function indicating that the failure risk of the subsystem B increases as the elapsed years after the introduction of the subsystem B increase. Since the failure risk Ftotal of the entire system 1 is expressed by adding the failure risks of the subsystems A and B, it increases according to the years after the introduction of the subsystems A and B.
  • the history acquisition unit 11 acquires failure history data of the overall system 1 from the overall system failure DB 2 (S1).
  • the history acquisition unit 11 inputs the failure history data for the years after introduction from the overall system failure DB 2 to the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12.
  • FIG. 6 the description of the history acquisition unit 11 is omitted.
  • the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 calculates the failure risk evaluation model 31 (see FIG. 6) of the overall system 1 based on the failure history data of the overall system 1 (S2). If the whole system 1 is one system, a failure risk evaluation model of the whole system 1 can be obtained from the failure history data of the whole system 1.
  • the horizontal axis of the graph shown in the figure is the years after introduction (denoted as "t” in the figure), and the vertical axis is the failure risk of the overall system 1 (denoted as "F” in the figure).
  • the failure risk Ftotal for the years elapsed after the introduction of the overall system 1 can be obtained by the failure risk evaluation model 31.
  • the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 formulates the failure risk with the elapsed years after introduction as a variable.
  • the formulation is performed by, for example, performing fitting using a Weibull formula, an exponential formula, or the like, and calculating various parameters necessary for the formulation.
  • the history acquisition unit 11 acquires the maintenance history data of the subsystem A from the subsystem A maintenance DB 3A (S3). As described above, since it is assumed that the subsystem A is maintained more frequently than the subsystem B, the subsystem A is maintained multiple times before the subsystem B is maintained once. It
  • the history acquisition unit 11 creates, as the maintenance A implementation data group 5 of the same year, maintenance history data in which the number of years elapsed since the maintenance A is performed on the subsystem A collected from the subsystem A maintenance DB 3A is the same. (S4).
  • the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 is based on the implementation data group of the subsystem A in which the maintenance A was performed in the same year acquired by the history acquisition unit 11 from the subsystem A maintenance DBs 3A(1) to 3A(3). Then, the failure risk evaluation model 32 is calculated for each maintenance A execution data group 5.
  • the maintenance history data of the subsystem A(1) shown in FIG. 4 is stored in the subsystem A maintenance DB 3A(1).
  • the maintenance history data of subsystem A(2) is stored in subsystem A maintenance DB3A(2)
  • the maintenance history data of subsystem A(3) is stored in subsystem A maintenance DB3A(3).
  • FIG. 6 shows an example of the failure risk evaluation model 32 created for each maintenance A execution data group 5.
  • the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 uses the maintenance history data of the subsystem A in which the maintenance history data exists and the failure history data of the entire system 1 to create an evaluation model for calculating the failure risk of the subsystem A. create.
  • the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 calculates a plurality of failure risk evaluation models 32 of the subsystem A (an example of the sub failure risk evaluation model) from the maintenance A execution data group 5, and calculates the entire system 1 from the failure history data of the entire system 1.
  • the failure risk evaluation model 31 of 1 (one example of the overall failure risk evaluation model) is calculated.
  • the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 determines the failure risk of the subsystem A in which the same maintenance A is performed based on the failure risk evaluation model 32 of the subsystem A and the failure risk evaluation model 31 of the entire system 1.
  • the failure risk evaluation model 34 for evaluating is calculated (corresponding to S7).
  • the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 calculates the failure risk FA for each maintenance A implementation data group 5 (see FIG. 4) created for each same year, and the failure risk evaluation model 32 (see FIG. 6). ) Is created (S5).
  • a post-installation elapsed year t1 represented by a vertical dashed line represents a year (for example, the first year after installation) in which the maintenance A is performed on the subsystem A.
  • the post-installation year t2 represents another year in which the maintenance A was performed on the subsystem A (for example, the second year from the installation)
  • the post-installation year t3 represents the subsystem A with respect to the subsystem A. Represents another year in which Maintenance A was performed (eg, 3rd year after installation).
  • the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 can use an index such as a cumulative failure rate, a cumulative hazard rate, or a degree of deterioration. Therefore, in order to calculate the time transition of each failure risk, the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 formulates the value of the failure risk with the elapsed years after introduction as a variable. Similar to the formulation in the overall system 1, the formulation in the subsystem is performed by performing fitting using, for example, a Weibull formula, an exponential function formula, etc., and calculating various parameters necessary for the formulation.
  • the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 calculates the failure risk when the maintenance A execution year is substituted for the variable year after introduction in the failure risk evaluation model created for each maintenance A execution data group 5 of the same year. Calculate the value.
  • the fact that the elapsed year after introduction is equal to the maintenance A execution year means that, when the maintenance A is performed, the subsystem A is replaced with a new one, and thus the elapsed years after the maintenance A corresponds to 0 years. Since it is possible to assume that the failure risk of the subsystem A becomes "0" when the maintenance A is performed in this manner, the value of the failure risk when the elapsed year after the maintenance A is "0" is derived from the subsystem B. ..
  • the failure risks FA(1), FA(2), and FA(3) represented by the failure risk evaluation model gradually increase as the years after introduction, t1, t2, and t3, change. Therefore, the failure risk in the elapsed year 0 after maintenance A derived from the maintenance A execution data group 5 in which the same maintenance A is performed is the subordinate in the maintenance A execution data group 5 in the maintenance A execution data group 5 in which the same maintenance A is performed. It can be said that it is equal to the failure risk FB of the system B.
  • the failure risks FA(1), FA(2), FA(3) may be represented by curves having similar slopes.
  • the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 calculates the failure risk FB of the subsystem B in a plurality of maintenance A execution years based on the maintenance A execution data group 55 in which a plurality of the same maintenance A is executed. Is possible.
  • the failure risk FB of the subsystem B is represented by, for example, a curve connecting failure risks when the year A of each maintenance A of the subsystem A becomes “0”.
  • the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 formulates the failure risk of the subsystem B in the year of implementation of maintenance A. That is, the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 can calculate the failure risk evaluation model 33 of the subsystem B shown in FIG. 6 based on the failure risks FA(1) to FA(3) (S6).
  • the failure risk FA of the subsystem A can be calculated as the difference in each years after introduction.
  • the difference FA between the evaluation model of the failure risk Ftotal of the overall system 1 and the evaluation model of the failure risk FB of the subsystem B corresponds to the failure risk FA of the subsystem A, and the failure risk of the subsystem A.
  • An example of the evaluation model 34 is shown.
  • the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 formulates the failure risk of the subsystem A with the year elapsed after introduction as a variable, and obtains the failure risk evaluation model 34 of the subsystem A (see FIG. 6) (S7).
  • the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 calculates the failure risk evaluation model 34 of the subsystem A by subtracting the failure risk of the subsystem B from the failure risk of the entire system 1.
  • the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 performs fitting by using, for example, a Weibull equation, an exponential function equation, and the like, as in the case of the overall system 1 and the subsystem B. It is done by calculating.
  • the failure risk evaluation system 10 the failure risk calculated using the failure history data of the entire system 1 including the subsystems A and B and the maintenance history data of the subsystem A.
  • the failure risk of subsystem A can be obtained by the evaluation model.
  • the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 can evaluate the failure risk of the subsystem A even if there is the subsystem B without maintenance history data, and therefore only the subsystem having a high failure risk needs to be maintained. Therefore, a maintenance plan can be drafted, maintenance personnel and maintenance parts can be appropriately arranged, and the cost for maintenance can be reduced.
  • FIG. 7 is an explanatory diagram showing a data flow in the failure risk evaluation system 10A according to the second embodiment.
  • the process of the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 calculating the failure risk of the entire system 1 based on the failure history data acquired by the history acquisition unit 11 from the entire system failure DB 2 is the same as that of the first embodiment. ..
  • the failure risk of each subsystem and the overall system 1 can be expressed by the following approximate expression (3).
  • Ftotal FA(t ⁇ a)+FB(t ⁇ b)+...+FN(t ⁇ n) (3)
  • the history acquisition unit 11 acquires, for each subsystem, maintenance history data whose maintenance years are the same from the subsystem A maintenance DB 3A, subsystem B maintenance DB 3B,..., Subsystem N maintenance DB 3N. Then, the history acquisition unit 11 creates a maintenance execution data group in which the maintenance history data of subsystems that are configured in common to the plurality of overall systems 1 are collected for each predetermined period.
  • subsystem B maintenance DBs 3B(1) to 3B(3) each having maintenance history data of the existing subsystem B, and maintenance of the subsystem N is performed.
  • the history acquisition unit 11 determines the elapsed years after maintenance ((ta), (tb),..., (tn)) of each subsystem acquired from the maintenance DBs 3A to 3N of each subsystem. Based on this, the same year maintenance implementation data group 35 is created for each combination of the years after maintenance of each maintenance. The same year maintenance implementation data group of each year included in the same year maintenance implementation data group 35 is created up to the same year maintenance implementation data group 35N, such as the same year maintenance implementation data group 35A and the same year maintenance implementation data group 35B.
  • the same-year maintenance execution data group 35A is a data group in which the maintenance history data in which the maintenance A is performed on the subsystem A is collected for each same year
  • the same-year maintenance execution data group 35B includes the maintenance B on the subsystem B. It is a data group in which the maintenance history data that has been performed is collected for each same year.
  • the same year maintenance implementation data group 35N is a data group in which maintenance history data of maintenance N performed on the subsystem N is collected for each same year.
  • the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 calculates a failure risk evaluation model based on the data group selected in ascending order of the post-maintenance elapsed period. Therefore, the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 has the shortest elapsed years after maintenance ((t ⁇ a), (t ⁇ b),..., (t ⁇ n)) for the same year maintenance implementation data groups 35A to 35N. Identify subsystems.
  • the subsystem with the shortest elapsed years after maintenance is referred to as “subsystem A′”.
  • the shortest elapsed year after maintenance means, for example, the first year after the start of the operation of the entire system 1 or the maintenance of the subsystem. That is, the subsystem A′ may be obtained from the same year maintenance implementation data group 35A of the subsystem A, or may be obtained from any of the same year maintenance implementation data groups 35B to 35N other than the subsystem A. ..
  • the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 obtains, for the identified subsystem A′, maintenance history data in which the maintenance timings of the subsystems having the shortest post-maintenance years are the same as in the first embodiment.
  • the same year maintenance A′ execution data group is acquired from the same year maintenance execution data group 35 created by the history acquisition unit 11. Note that the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 excludes maintenance history data indicating that maintenance is performed on another subsystem before maintenance is performed on the subsystem A′.
  • the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 creates a failure risk evaluation model 36 of the same maintenance A'implementation data group with the year elapsed after introduction as an explanatory variable and the failure risk as an objective variable.
  • the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 calculates a failure risk value in the case where the year elapsed since the introduction of the evaluation model matches the maintenance A′ implementation year.
  • the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 calculates the failure risk evaluation model and uses the same maintenance year A′ execution data group to calculate the failure risk evaluation model. Calculate the risk FA'. Therefore, the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 formulates the difference of the failure risk FA′exc other than the subsystem A′ with respect to the failure risk Ftotal of the entire system 1 as the failure risk FA′ of the subsystem A′.
  • the failure risk evaluation model 37 of the subsystem A' is shown.
  • the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 calls the subsystem having the shortest maintenance interval next to the subsystem A′ as “subsystem B′”, and similarly to the subsystem A′, the failure risk assessment of the subsystem B′.
  • the model 38 is derived. That the maintenance interval is shortest after the subsystem A'represents, for example, the second year after the start of operation of the overall system 1.
  • the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 excludes maintenance history data indicating that maintenance has been performed on subsystems other than the subsystem A′. In the figure, an example of the failure risk evaluation model 38 of the subsystem B'is shown.
  • the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 formulates the failure risk FB' of the subsystem B'.
  • the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 calculates the difference between the failure risk Ftotal of the entire system 1 and the failure risk FB′exc other than the subsystem B′ and the failure risk FA′ calculated previously.
  • the failure risk FB' of subsystem B' is assumed.
  • the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 calculates the failure risk (FA′(ta′)) of the subsystem A′ based on the years after maintenance of the subsystem A′, and the subsystem is calculated from the difference. Subtract the failure risk of A'.
  • the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 determines the failure risk FB′ based on the failure risk of the entire system 1 and the difference in the maintenance B′ execution year calculated from the failure risk evaluation model of the same maintenance B′ execution data group. calculate.
  • the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 derives a failure risk evaluation model of the subsystem C′ having the shortest maintenance interval next to the subsystem B′ by a similar method. In this way, the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 finally derives the failure risk evaluation models of all subsystems by repeating the process of deriving the failure risk evaluation model for each subsystem.
  • the failure risk of each subsystem is calculated if the failure risk of the entire system 1 and the years after maintenance of each subsystem are known. You can Further, the failure risk evaluation system 10A can calculate the failure risk of each subsystem even if some subsystems are not equivalent to new products when the entire system 1 is introduced.
  • the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 creates the above equation (3) including the years after maintenance of each subsystem for each identical maintenance implementation data group, and creates the failure risk assessment model for each subsystem. To do. Then, the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 may calculate the failure risk evaluation model of each subsystem by deriving the parameters of the failure risk evaluation model by optimization or the like.
  • FIG. 8 is an explanatory diagram showing a data flow in the failure risk evaluation system 10B according to the third embodiment. Here, the flow of data for calculating the failure risk evaluation model of subsystem B will be described.
  • the entire system 1 including subsystems A and B will be described as an example.
  • the failure risk evaluation model 32 for each maintenance A execution data group 5 for evaluating the failure risk FA for the years after the introduction of the subsystem A has already been derived.
  • the failure risk evaluation system 10B includes a failure risk evaluation model DB 8 (an example of failure risk evaluation model storage unit) that stores a failure risk evaluation model for evaluating a failure risk in a predetermined period after the introduction of at least one subsystem. ) Is provided.
  • the failure risk evaluation model DB 8 stores, for example, a failure risk evaluation model 32 that represents the failure risk FA for the years elapsed since the introduction of the subsystem A. Then, the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 can acquire the failure risk evaluation model 32 of the subsystem A from the failure risk evaluation model DB 8.
  • the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 calculates the failure risk evaluation model 31 that formulates the failure risk for the years elapsed after the introduction of the overall system 1 based on the failure history data acquired from the overall system failure DB 2. To do. Further, the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 determines whether the subsystem B in the predetermined period has a failure history data of the entire system 1 and the failure risk evaluation model 32 acquired from the failure risk evaluation model DB 8 by the history acquisition unit 11. Calculate the failure risk evaluation model 34
  • the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 determines the overall system 1 and the subsystem A in an arbitrary year after introduction. Calculate the failure risk of. After that, the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 calculates the difference between the failure risks of the entire system 1 and the subsystem A in the years after introduction as the failure risk FB of the subsystem B. Then, the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 repeats this process a plurality of times to calculate the failure risk FB of the subsystem B in the years elapsed after each introduction, and creates the failure risk evaluation model 34 of the subsystem B.
  • the failure risk evaluation system 10B according to the third embodiment described above is different from the first embodiment in that a known failure risk evaluation model for one subsystem is used instead of the maintenance history of the subsystem. This is different from the failure risk evaluation system 10.
  • the failure risk evaluation system 10B according to the present embodiment even if the maintenance history data of the subsystem does not exist, the failure risk evaluation model of the other subsystem can be calculated if the failure risk evaluation model has already been calculated. However, it is a condition that the failure risk of the same subsystem included in the whole system 1 having another different configuration for one subsystem or the subsystem alone over the years has been clarified as an evaluation model.
  • the details of the processing have been described for the entire system 1 including the two subsystems A and B.
  • the failure risk evaluation system 10B according to the present embodiment may be applied to the entire system 1 including N subsystems A, B,..., N. In this case, (N-1) If the failure risk evaluation model of the subsystem is known, the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 can derive the failure risk evaluation model of the subsystem whose failure risk is unknown.
  • FIG. 9 is an explanatory diagram showing a data flow in the failure risk evaluation system 10C according to the fourth embodiment.
  • the failure risk evaluation system 10C includes a quantitative relationship input unit (terminal 7) and a quantitative relationship calculation unit 14.
  • the quantitative relationship input unit inputs a ratio representing a quantitative relationship of mutual failure risks of a plurality of subsystems.
  • the terminal 7 operated by the worker is connected to the quantitative relationship calculation unit 14. The operator can use the terminal 7 to input the quantitative relationship of the failure risk of each subsystem. Therefore, the terminal 7 is used as an example of the quantitative relationship input unit.
  • the quantitative relationship calculation unit 14 calculates the quantitative relationship of the failure risk of each subsystem with respect to the failure risk of the overall system 1 based on the ratio input from the quantitative relationship input unit.
  • the failure risk evaluation system 10C is different from the failure risk evaluation system according to the other embodiments in that the failure risk evaluation system includes the quantitative relationship input unit and the quantitative relationship calculation unit 14.
  • the failure risk of each subsystem A, B, C has a quantitative relationship of 1:2:3. It is assumed that this quantitative relationship is a value found by the product specifications of each subsystem A, B, C, for example.
  • the total value of the failure risks of each subsystem can be equal to or approximate to the failure risk of the entire system 1. Therefore, the ratio of the failure risk of each subsystem to the failure risk of the entire system is input from the terminal 7 as a quantitative relationship.
  • the quantitative relationship calculation unit 14 divides the failure risk of the entire system 1 into the values input from the terminal 7. For example, it is assumed that the quantitative relationship of the failure risks of the subsystems A, B, and C input from the terminal 7 is 1:2:3. For example, when the failure risk of the entire system 1 is 60%, the quantitative relationship calculation unit 14 calculates the failure risks of the subsystems A, B, and C as 10%, 20%, and 30%, respectively, according to the quantitative relationship. To do. After that, the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 evaluates the failure risk of each subsystem based on the failure risk Ftotal of the overall system 1 and the failure risk quantitative relationship calculated for each subsystem by the quantitative relationship calculation unit 14. The model 32 is calculated.
  • the failure risk evaluation system 10C according to the fourth embodiment described above can estimate the failure risk evaluation model of each subsystem by using the quantitative relationship of the failure risk of each subsystem. Therefore, even when the failure risk of each subsystem or the maintenance history of the subsystem associated with the overall system 1 is unknown, it is possible to reliably estimate the failure risk evaluation model of each subsystem.
  • the failure of each subsystem is calculated. It is possible to calculate a risk assessment model.
  • the failure risk evaluation system according to the fifth embodiment also targets the entire system 1 including N subsystems. However, among a plurality of subsystems, the failure risk does not change over time, or the failure risk is "0" or significantly lower than the other subsystems (the failure risk can be approximated to "0") ( Hereinafter, it is assumed that there is a "special subsystem"). The fact that the failure risk does not change with time means that the failure risk remains at a low value and does not change.
  • FIG. 10 is an explanatory diagram showing a data flow in the failure risk evaluation system 10D according to the fifth embodiment.
  • the failure risk evaluation system 10D includes a special subsystem selection unit (terminal 7) that selects a special subsystem and a failure risk setting unit 15 that sets the failure risk of the special subsystem. Therefore, the failure risk evaluation system 10D is different from the failure risk evaluation system according to the other embodiments in that the special subsystem selection unit and the failure risk setting unit 15 are provided.
  • the terminal 7 operated by the worker is connected to the failure risk setting unit 15.
  • the worker can use the terminal 7 to input a special subsystem whose failure risk does not change over time, or a special subsystem having a significantly lower failure risk than other subsystems. Therefore, the terminal 7 is used as an example of the special subsystem selection unit.
  • a special subsystem selection screen 70 is displayed on the terminal 7. On the special subsystem selection screen 70, a subsystem name 71, a special subsystem selection field 72 that does not change over time, and a special subsystem selection field 73 that has a low risk of failure are displayed.
  • the special subsystem selection field 72 displays special subsystems that can be selected by the operator.
  • the subsystems A and C whose check marks are displayed in the special subsystem selection field 72 are shown to be special subsystems.
  • the subsystem B in which the bar "-" is displayed in the special subsystem selection field 72 is not a special subsystem and cannot be selected as a special subsystem.
  • a special subsystem having a significantly low risk of failure is displayed.
  • the subsystem C having a low failure risk and a check mark displayed in the special subsystem selection field 73 has a significantly low failure risk, and thus is indicated as a subsystem that can approximate the failure risk to “0”.
  • the subsystem C having a bar "-" displayed in the special subsystem selection field 73 having a low failure risk cannot approximate the failure risk to "0”.
  • the special subsystem selection field 73 with a low failure risk is grayed out.
  • the failure risk setting unit 15 sets the failure risk to “0” regardless of the years elapsed since the introduction of the selected special subsystem.
  • the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 calculates the failure risk evaluation excluding the failure risk of the special subsystem. At this time, the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 calculates the failure risk evaluation model 31 of the overall system 1 obtained from the failure history data of the overall system 1.
  • the subsystem C is selected as a special subsystem that does not change over time, and is also selected as a special subsystem having a low failure risk, and the failure risk of the subsystem C is set to “0”. .. Further, since the subsystem A is selected as a special subsystem that does not change with time, the failure risk is set to a constant value. Then, the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 calculates a failure risk evaluation model 41 for calculating the failure risk of the subsystem B from the difference between the failure risks of the subsystems A and C with respect to the failure risk of the overall system 1.
  • the special subsystem is selected through the terminal 7 used as the special subsystem selection unit.
  • the failure risk setting unit 15 sets the failure risk of the selected special subsystem to a constant value or “0”. Therefore, the failure risk evaluation model calculation unit 12 can reduce the calculation load when calculating the failure risk evaluation model of a subsystem other than the special subsystem.
  • failure risk evaluation system 10D there are a plurality of subsystems that do not have maintenance history of subsystems associated with the overall system 1, failure risk evaluation model of subsystems, and data of quantitative relationship of failure risk of each subsystem. Even if it does, the failure risk of each subsystem can be calculated.
  • the failure risk evaluation system according to the sixth embodiment determines whether or not the failure risk evaluation system according to the first to fifth embodiments described above can be applied to a subsystem that is an object of failure risk evaluation. It is possible.
  • FIG. 11 is an explanatory diagram showing a data flow in the failure risk evaluation system 10E according to the sixth embodiment.
  • the failure risk evaluation system 10E includes an applicability determination unit 16 that determines which of the failure risk evaluation systems 10 to 10D according to the first to fifth embodiments is applicable to the subsystems subject to failure risk evaluation.
  • Prepare The applicability determination unit 16 is realized by the CPU 21 illustrated in FIG. 3 loading the program read from the ROM 22 into the RAM 23 and executing the program.
  • the applicability determination unit 16 determines a process that can be applied to evaluate the failure risk of the subsystem among the processes of evaluating the failure risk (the processes of the first to fifth embodiments).
  • N Total number of subsystems
  • m Number of subsystems selected by the special subsystem selection unit according to the fifth embodiment
  • x Number of subsystems for which failure risk evaluation model is known
  • y Failure risk evaluation model
  • the number of subsystems of y satisfies the relation of N-mx ⁇ 2.
  • the applicability determination unit 16 determines whether either the failure history data of the entire system or the failure risk evaluation model is available as data (S11).
  • the applicability determination unit 16 determines failure history data of the entire system for (N-1) or more subsystems among the N subsystems. It is determined whether the associated maintenance history data is available (S12).
  • the applicability determination unit 16 determines that the maintenance history data associated with the failure history data of the entire system is available (YES in S12), the failure history data of the entire system and the available maintenance history data. It is determined whether or not the number of points satisfies the number required for the processing of the failure risk evaluation system 10 (S13).
  • the failure risk evaluation system 10, 10A shown in the first embodiment or the second embodiment is applied to the failure risk evaluation model of the subsystem. Can be derived (S14). Therefore, the applicability determination unit 16 determines “applicable”, and the evaluation result output unit 13 outputs “applicable” on the screen (S21). When it is determined that “applicable”, the evaluation result output unit 13 outputs the failure risk evaluation model of the subsystem derived by the failure risk evaluation system 10 or 10A on the screen. After that, the processing by the failure risk evaluation system 10 or 10A according to the first embodiment or the second embodiment, which is determined to be “applicable”, is executed (S22), and this processing ends.
  • the applicability determination unit 16 determines that the maintenance history data associated with the failure history data of the entire system is not available in step S12 (NO in S12), or the score of the maintenance history data is determined in step S13.
  • the following process is performed. That is, the applicability determination unit 16 determines (N ⁇ 1) ⁇ x from the number of subsystems (x) for which the failure risk evaluation model is known and the total number (N) of subsystems forming the entire system. It is determined whether or not (S15).
  • the failure risk evaluation system 10B is applied as in the third embodiment.
  • the failure risk evaluation model of the subsystem can be derived (S16). Therefore, the applicability determining unit 16 determines that “Applicable”, and the evaluation result output unit 13 outputs “Applicable” on the screen (S21). When it is determined as “applicable”, the evaluation result output unit 13 outputs the failure risk evaluation model of the subsystem derived by the failure risk evaluation system 10B to the screen.
  • the processing by the failure risk evaluation system 10B according to the third embodiment, which is determined to be “applicable”, is executed (S22), and this processing ends.
  • step S15 when the number (x) of subsystems whose failure risk evaluation model is known is less than (N ⁇ 1) (NO in S15), the applicability determination unit 16 determines Considering the number of subsystems selected by the subsystem selecting unit, it is determined whether N ⁇ m+x+1 is satisfied (S17).
  • the total of the subsystems for which the failure risk evaluation model is known and the subsystems selected as the special subsystems is (N ⁇ 1) or N. Become.
  • the number of subsystems in which the failure risk is unknown is one or less, and the failure risk evaluation model of the subsystem can be derived by applying the failure risk evaluation system 10D as in the fifth embodiment (S18). ). Therefore, the applicability determining unit 16 determines that “Applicable”, and the evaluation result output unit 13 outputs “Applicable” on the screen (S21).
  • the failure risk evaluation model of the subsystem derived by the failure risk evaluation system 10D is output to the screen by the evaluation result output unit 13.
  • the processing by the failure risk evaluation system 10D according to the fifth embodiment, which is determined to be “applicable”, is performed (S22), and this processing ends.
  • the applicability determination unit 16 includes a plurality of subsystems (described as “subsystem y” in the figure) that are not selected by the special subsystem selection unit and have a known quantitative relationship of failure risk. It is determined whether or not (S19).
  • the applicability determination unit 16 determines that the subsystem y that is not selected by the special subsystem selection unit exists (YES in S19), the applicability determination unit 16 applies the failure risk evaluation system 10C as in the fourth embodiment.
  • a failure risk evaluation model of the subsystem can be derived (S20). Therefore, the applicability determining unit 16 determines that “Applicable”, and the evaluation result output unit 13 outputs “Applicable” on the screen (S21). When it is determined as “applicable”, the evaluation result output unit 13 outputs the subsystem failure risk evaluation model derived by the failure risk evaluation system 10C to the screen.
  • the processing by the failure risk evaluation system 10C according to the fourth embodiment, which is determined to be “applicable”, is executed (S22), and this processing ends.
  • the failure risk according to each embodiment cannot be estimated because the quantitative relationship of failure risks of a plurality of subsystems cannot be estimated. Rating system not applicable. Therefore, the applicability determination unit 16 determines that the application is not possible. Further, in step S11, even when neither the failure history of the entire system nor the failure risk evaluation model exists (NO in S11), the failure risk evaluation system according to each embodiment cannot be applied. 16 determines that “not applicable”.
  • the applicability determination unit 16 determines that the application is not applicable, the failure risk evaluation of the entire system and subsystem by the failure risk evaluation system according to each embodiment is not applicable. Therefore, when the applicability determination unit 16 determines “not applicable”, it displays the data “not applicable” and data necessary for making the failure risk evaluation system according to any of the embodiments applicable. In addition, the evaluation result output unit 13 outputs (S23). At this time, “applicable”, “not applicable”, and types of necessary data may be output to a screen or the like and presented to the operator.
  • the failure risk evaluation model of the subsystem and the condition that the evaluation model cannot be derived by the failure risk evaluation system according to each embodiment are excluded. Therefore, it is possible to prevent an abnormal failure risk from being output.
  • the applicability determination unit 16 can appropriately select the failure risk evaluation system according to the applicable embodiment based on the type of data currently possessed. In addition, the applicability determination unit 16 can present the missing data type and the number of data when the subsystem failure risk evaluation model and the evaluation model cannot be derived.
  • FIG. 12 is an explanatory diagram showing a display example of the operation screen 80 output to the display device 25 according to each embodiment.
  • the operation screen 80 is an example of a screen that can be displayed by the evaluation result output unit 13 shown in FIG. 2 when the operator operates the failure risk evaluation system according to each embodiment, for example.
  • the operation screen 80 includes an evaluation target information display unit 81 that displays information about the entire system and subsystems to be evaluated, a failure risk evaluation model selection unit 82, an evaluation data selection unit 83, and a failure risk evaluation result output unit 84.
  • Prepare The operation screen 80 output by the evaluation result output unit 13 includes at least a part of the evaluation target information display unit 81, the failure risk evaluation model selection unit 82, and the evaluation data selection unit 83.
  • the evaluation target information display unit 81 displays the information about the entire system and each subsystem, which is the target of failure risk evaluation, in an enterable manner.
  • the operator can input the names and configurations of the entire system and each subsystem through the evaluation target information display unit 81.
  • the input names and configurations of the entire system and each subsystem are displayed on the evaluation target information display section 81.
  • the name of the entire system is displayed as “XX1”
  • the name of the subsystem A is displayed as “YY1”
  • the name of the subsystem B is displayed as “YY2”.
  • the system configuration diagram shows that the subsystems A and B constitute the entire system.
  • the failure risk evaluation model selection unit 82 displays the failure risk evaluation model used for the entire system and subsystems in a selectable manner. Through the failure risk evaluation model selection unit 82, the operator can select a failure risk evaluation model used for formulating the failure risk for the years elapsed after the introduction of the entire system. The worker may select a general-purpose mathematical expression such as an exponential expression or a Weibull expression from those registered in advance as the failure risk evaluation model, or may input a unique model expression. In FIG. 12, the model 1 is selected as the failure risk evaluation model of the subsystem A, and the model 2 is selected as the failure risk evaluation model of the subsystem B.
  • the failure risk evaluation model selection unit 82 quantitatively determines The relationship is entered.
  • the failure risk evaluation model selection unit 82 inputs that the failure risk is low.
  • the quantitative relationship is not input in FIG. 12, if the ratio indicating the quantitative relationship of each subsystem is input from the terminal 7 shown in FIG. 9, the quantitative relationship calculating unit 14 calculates the ratio. The quantitative relationship of each subsystem created is displayed. Regardless of which failure risk evaluation model is used, the explanatory variable is the elapsed year (or operating period) after introduction, and the objective variable is the failure risk.
  • the evaluation data selection unit 83 selectably displays evaluation data used for failure risk evaluation.
  • the operator selects the data item of the data used by the failure risk evaluation system according to each embodiment to derive the failure risk evaluation model through the evaluation data selection unit 83.
  • the group shown in the data item is an index showing what purpose the entire system and subsystems are used for. For example, even if the subsystem is a pump, the risk of failure varies depending on whether the pump is flushed with water or air. Therefore, even if the pumps are the same, it is possible to select the group by changing the use of the data item such that water is passed through the pump in the group A and air is passed through the pump in the group B.
  • data may be used only for groups in a usage environment similar to the system under evaluation, or data for all groups may be used.
  • the check mark indicates that the group A is selected as the data item used for the failure risk evaluation.
  • the failure risk evaluation result output unit 84 displays a future predicted failure risk display unit 85, a predicted failure risk display unit 86 during maintenance, a recommended maintenance presentation unit 87, and a remarks column 88.
  • the future predictive failure risk display unit 85 displays a change in failure risk of the entire system and each subsystem in the future with respect to the elapsed years after introduction.
  • the predictive failure risk display unit 86 during maintenance execution presents the transition of the failure risk of the entire system and each subsystem when the maintenance displayed in the recommended maintenance presentation unit 87 is implemented, after the introduction.
  • the period 86a in the predicted failure risk display portion 86 at the time of performing maintenance represents a past failure risk evaluation result
  • the period 86b represents a future failure risk evaluation result predicted after the maintenance A is performed.
  • the recommended maintenance presentation unit 87 displays the timing for recommending maintenance for each subsystem.
  • the timing at which maintenance is recommended is set, for example, as the elapsed year (or operating period) after installation when the predicted failure risk of each subsystem or the entire system exceeds a predetermined threshold.
  • the timing for recommending maintenance is displayed as a “!” mark 85a on the future predicted failure risk display portion 85.
  • the remarks column 88 displays a comment for notifying the worker in advance when the failure risk in each subsystem increases.
  • the "! mark 88a shown in the remarks column 88 represents the failure risk evaluation result for the "! mark 85a shown in the recommended maintenance presentation unit 87. Therefore, the operator can confirm the failure risk indicated by the "! mark 88a shown in the remarks column 88 and perform necessary maintenance for the subsystem A.
  • a maintenance service in which the failure risk evaluation system according to each of the above-described embodiments is combined with a sales support system, and the evaluation value obtained by evaluating the failure risk is presented to the maintenance staff through the sales support system. May be.
  • the replacement proposal of the subsystem whose failure risk is predicted can be provided to the customer through the maintenance staff.
  • mapping subsystems with a high failure risk to design drawings, etc. we provide an optimization system for operators that decides the result of failure risk predictions, the number of workers to deal with failures, and the location of workers. You may. As a result, it becomes easy to understand the subsystems having a high failure risk in the entire system, and it becomes possible to appropriately arrange the workers.
  • each of the above-described embodiments is a detailed and specific description of the configuration of an apparatus and a system in order to explain the present invention in an easy-to-understand manner, and is not necessarily limited to one having all the configurations described.
  • a part of the configuration of the embodiment described here can be replaced with the configuration of another embodiment, and further, the configuration of another embodiment can be added to the configuration of one embodiment. It is possible. Further, it is possible to add, delete, or replace a part of the configuration of each embodiment with another configuration.
  • the control lines and information lines are shown to be necessary for explanation, and not all the control lines and information lines are shown in the product. In reality, it may be considered that almost all the configurations are connected to each other.

Landscapes

  • Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
  • Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
  • Economics (AREA)
  • Entrepreneurship & Innovation (AREA)
  • Human Resources & Organizations (AREA)
  • Marketing (AREA)
  • Operations Research (AREA)
  • Quality & Reliability (AREA)
  • Strategic Management (AREA)
  • Tourism & Hospitality (AREA)
  • Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • General Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
  • General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • Theoretical Computer Science (AREA)
  • Management, Administration, Business Operations System, And Electronic Commerce (AREA)

Abstract

La présente invention concerne un système d'évaluation de risque de défaillance comprenant : une unité d'acquisition d'historique permettant d'acquérir l'historique des défaillances d'un système global comprenant une pluralité de sous-systèmes et l'historique des maintenances d'un ou plusieurs sous-systèmes sélectionnés parmi la pluralité de sous-systèmes ; et une unité de calcul du modèle d'évaluation de risque de défaillance qui obtient le risque de défaillance d'un sous-système pour lequel il n'y a pas d'historique des maintenances en calculant un modèle d'évaluation de risque de défaillance permettant d'évaluer le risque de défaillance dudit sous-système sur la base de l'historique des défaillances du système global et de l'historique des maintenances acquis desdits sous-systèmes.
PCT/JP2019/045076 2019-02-15 2019-11-18 Système d'évaluation de risque de défaillance et procédé d'évaluation de risque de défaillance WO2020166156A1 (fr)

Applications Claiming Priority (2)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
JP2019025924A JP7278093B2 (ja) 2019-02-15 2019-02-15 故障リスク評価システム及び故障リスク評価方法
JP2019-025924 2019-02-15

Publications (1)

Publication Number Publication Date
WO2020166156A1 true WO2020166156A1 (fr) 2020-08-20

Family

ID=72044754

Family Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
PCT/JP2019/045076 WO2020166156A1 (fr) 2019-02-15 2019-11-18 Système d'évaluation de risque de défaillance et procédé d'évaluation de risque de défaillance

Country Status (2)

Country Link
JP (1) JP7278093B2 (fr)
WO (1) WO2020166156A1 (fr)

Cited By (2)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
CN112233420A (zh) * 2020-10-14 2021-01-15 腾讯科技（深圳）有限公司 一种智能交通控制系统的故障诊断的方法及装置
CN112862218A (zh) * 2021-03-17 2021-05-28 广东电网有限责任公司 电力设备超期服役管理系统

Citations (3)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
JP2006202171A (ja) * 2005-01-24 2006-08-03 Chugoku Electric Power Co Inc:The 保守費配分システム及び保守費配分方法
JP2007316718A (ja) * 2006-05-23 2007-12-06 Hitachi Ltd 予測損失額算出システム、予測損失額算出方法、およびプログラム
JP2009251822A (ja) * 2008-04-03 2009-10-29 Toshiba Corp 複合診断・保守計画支援システム及びその支援方法

Patent Citations (3)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
JP2006202171A (ja) * 2005-01-24 2006-08-03 Chugoku Electric Power Co Inc:The 保守費配分システム及び保守費配分方法
JP2007316718A (ja) * 2006-05-23 2007-12-06 Hitachi Ltd 予測損失額算出システム、予測損失額算出方法、およびプログラム
JP2009251822A (ja) * 2008-04-03 2009-10-29 Toshiba Corp 複合診断・保守計画支援システム及びその支援方法

Cited By (3)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
CN112233420A (zh) * 2020-10-14 2021-01-15 腾讯科技（深圳）有限公司 一种智能交通控制系统的故障诊断的方法及装置
CN112233420B (zh) * 2020-10-14 2023-12-15 腾讯科技（深圳）有限公司 一种智能交通控制系统的故障诊断的方法及装置
CN112862218A (zh) * 2021-03-17 2021-05-28 广东电网有限责任公司 电力设备超期服役管理系统

Also Published As

Publication number Publication date
JP7278093B2 (ja) 2023-05-19
JP2020135232A (ja) 2020-08-31

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
WO2018079778A1 (fr) Dispositif, procédé et programme de gestion de production
US8959401B2 (en) System operations management apparatus, system operations management method and program storage medium
US11500369B2 (en) Operation/maintenance management method, program, and operation/maintenance management system
US20130041783A1 (en) System and method for dynamic spare part management
JP5386437B2 (ja) 定期点検計画装置、システム及び方法
EP2472457A1 (fr) Systèmes et procédés à utiliser pour corriger une défaillance prévue dans un procédé de production
WO2020166156A1 (fr) Système d'évaluation de risque de défaillance et procédé d'évaluation de risque de défaillance
US11042823B2 (en) Business management system
JP2010073121A (ja) プラント機器の補修工事スケジュール作成方法、および、補修工事スケジュール作成システム
JP2010027044A (ja) 電力流通設備保守支援装置、電力流通設備保守支援方法および電力流通設備保守支援プログラム
US10417712B2 (en) Enterprise application high availability scoring and prioritization system
JP2018190424A (ja) 在庫管理装置、在庫管理方法、およびプログラム
AU2024203343A1 (en) Maintenance plan assistance method and maintenance plan assistance device
US10222788B2 (en) Plan generating device and plan generating method
WO2016125248A1 (fr) Système d'aide à la maintenance, procédé d'aide à la maintenance et programme d'aide à la maintenance
JP2019175273A (ja) 品質評価方法および品質評価装置
KR20190043571A (ko) 안내 정보 제시 시스템, 안내 정보 제시 방법, 기록 매체에 저장된 프로그램 및 안내 정보 제시 장치
JP7339861B2 (ja) 故障確率評価システム
JP2022032684A (ja) 設備保全支援システム及び設備保全支援方法
JP6488891B2 (ja) 保守作業間隔決定装置
KR101290533B1 (ko) 건축물 유지 관리의 우선순위 도출을 위한 정량적 시설 상태 지수 산출 방법 및 시스템
Cuculoski Obsolescence management of electronic and control systems
JP2002117164A (ja) 作業車両の修理費予測システム
JP2020102097A (ja) 劣化度合予測システムおよび劣化度合予測方法
JP2021033488A (ja) 作業指示装置及び作業指示方法

Legal Events

Date Code Title Description
121 Ep: the epo has been informed by wipo that ep was designated in this application

Ref document number: 19915106

Country of ref document: EP

Kind code of ref document: A1

NENP Non-entry into the national phase

Ref country code: DE

122 Ep: pct application non-entry in european phase

Ref document number: 19915106

Country of ref document: EP

Kind code of ref document: A1