(47a) New Insights Into Computing PFDavg for Pressure Relief Valves Based On Proof Test Data
AIChE Spring Meeting and Global Congress on Process Safety
2009
2009 Spring Meeting & 5th Global Congress on Process Safety
11th Process Plant Safety Symposium
Mechanical Integrity - State of the Art
Tuesday, April 28, 2009 - 8:00am to 8:30am
Previously we analyzed several CCPS PERD Pressure Relief Valve (PRV) proof test data sets using Quantal Response Analysis (QRA) and obtained estimates for λD, the constant failure rate for the "stuck-shut" failure mode, in the range of [10-8, 10-7] failures/hour. We also found that in that range of values, λD alone explained only a small fraction of the observed failures; the remaining failures were modeled by probability of initial failure (PIF) in the range of 1% - 1.6%.
Using Statistical Signature Analysis (SSA), we now re-analyze two of the data sets, this time considering more complex models of λD(t) to explain the observed failures and to compute average probability of failure on demand (PFDavg). Our findings are:
? Any analysis of proof test data, based solely on operating times until proof test and results of proof test (pass/fail), must necessarily admit multiple explanations for the failure mechanisms underlying the test results, i.e., one data set will be statistically consistent with more than one λD(t).
? Since PFDavg serves to measure risk reduction, it should include all dangerous failures regardless of underlying cause. By using more complex models for λD(t) than are currently considered, e.g., models which can include constant λD, both zero or non-zero PIF, and models for infant mortality and/or failure rate growth, it is possible for λD(t) to account for all observed failures regardless of underlying cause.
? Each different explanation of failures observed, i.e., each different λD(t) model produced from a single data set, potentially produces a different value for PFDavg for any given proof test interval, TP. Thus, one data set can support multiple values of PFDavg for any fixed TP. However, for the data analyzed to date and for a fixed value of λD, these difference are small for TP > 4.5 years. Generally, in these cases, PFDavg > 0.01. Hence, once TP reaches about 4.5 years, the data analyzed support Safety Integrity Level (SIL) 1 behavior for all of the complex models of λD(t) explored thus far. For values of TP < 2 years, some complex models for λD(t) support SIL 2 behavior. But we can not tell by currently available analysis methods which models best represent the actual failure mechanisms responsible for the proof test data observed. Thus, in general, current data supports SIL 1 behavior for PRV.
Checkout
This paper has an Extended Abstract file available; you must purchase the conference proceedings to access it.
Do you already own this?
Log In for instructions on accessing this content.
Pricing
Individuals
AIChE Pro Members | $150.00 |
AIChE Graduate Student Members | Free |
AIChE Undergraduate Student Members | Free |
AIChE Explorer Members | $225.00 |
Non-Members | $225.00 |