API RP 691-2017 Risk-based Machinery Management (FIRST EDITION).pdf

1、Risk-based Machinery ManagementAPI RECOMMENDED PRACTICE 691 FIRST EDITION, JUNE 2017Special NotesAPI publications necessarily address problems of a general nature. With respect to particular circumstances, local, state, and federal laws and regulations should be reviewed.Neither API nor any of APIs

2、employees, subcontractors, consultants, committees, or other assignees make any warranty or representation, either express or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information contained herein, or assume any liability or responsibility for any use, or the results

3、of such use, of any information or process disclosed in this publication. Neither API nor any of APIs employees, subcontractors, consultants, or other assignees represent that use of this publication would not infringe upon privately owned rights.API publications may be used by anyone desiring to do

4、 so. Every effort has been made by the Institute to assure the accuracy and reliability of the data contained in them; however, the Institute makes no representation, warranty, or guarantee in connection with this publication and hereby expressly disclaims any liability or responsibility for loss or

5、 damage resulting from its use or for the violation of any authorities having jurisdiction with which this publication may conflict.API publications are published to facilitate the broad availability of proven, sound engineering and operating practices. These publications are not intended to obviate

6、 the need for applying sound engineering judgment regarding when and where these publications should be utilized. The formulation and publication of API publications is not intended in any way to inhibit anyone from using any other practices.Any manufacturer marking equipment or materials in conform

7、ance with the marking requirements of an API standard is solely responsible for complying with all the applicable requirements of that standard. API does not represent, warrant, or guarantee that such products do in fact conform to the applicable API standard.All rights reserved. No part of this wor

8、k may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Contact the Publisher, API Publishing Services, 1220 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005.Copy

9、right 2017 American Petroleum InstituteForewordNothing contained in any API publication is to be construed as granting any right, by implication or otherwise, for the manufacture, sale, or use of any method, apparatus, or product covered by letters patent. Neither should anything contained in the pu

10、blication be construed as insuring anyone against liability for infringement of letters patent.This document was produced under API standardization procedures that ensure appropriate notification and participation in the developmental process and is designated as an API standard. Questions concernin

11、g the interpretation of the content of this publication or comments and questions concerning the procedures under which this publication was developed should be directed in writing to the Director of Standards, American Petroleum Institute, 1220 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005. Requests for permi

12、ssion to reproduce or translate all or any part of the material published herein should also be addressed to the director.Generally, API standards are reviewed and revised, reaffirmed, or withdrawn at least every five years. A one-time extension of up to two years may be added to this review cycle.

13、Status of the publication can be ascertained from the API Standards Department, telephone (202) 682-8000. A catalog of API publications and materials is published annually by API, 1220 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005.Suggested revisions are invited and should be submitted to the Standards Departm

14、ent, API, 1220 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005, standardsapi.org.iiiContentsPage1 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15、. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 Machinery Risk Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.3 Limitatio

16、ns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.4 Work Process Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17、. . . . . . . . . . 52 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Terms, Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18、 . . . . . . . . . . 83.1 Terms and Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83.2 Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19、 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 Feasibility and Concept Selection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20、 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174.2 Technical Risk Categorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194.3 Technology Readiness Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21、. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194.4 Product Qualification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204.5 API 691 Feasibility and Concept Selection Facility A

22、udit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Front-end Engineering Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23、 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255.2 Preliminary Machinery Risk Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275.3 Reliability, Availability, and Maintaina

24、bility Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285.4 Machinery Design and Selection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295.5 Process and Instrument Diagram (P new m

25、anufacturing centers having difficulty in consistently achieving acceptable levels of quality; new applications and services that involve unproven design envelopes; larger fleets of aging machinery operating in process and pipeline facilities; limited experienced resources operating and maintaining

26、machinery.These and other drivers have influenced the content of the pages that follow, including understanding of the following.1) Machinery risk is context dependent. It may be quite different among companies operating identical machinery within the same process service. Therefore, to be truly eff

27、ective, the API Subcommittee on Mechanical Equipment (SOME) determined that prescriptive design requirements, as seen in machinery base standards, such as API 610, could not be imposed upon the industry by API 691. Since every company has unique engineering specifications, process requirements, work

28、er competencies, work processes, risk tolerances, etc., API 691 allows internal risk criteria and methodologies to be utilized by individual operating companies for the purpose of identifying and managing high-risk machinery applications within the context of their own operating regimes. 2) Machiner

29、y risk is systemic. As such, the recommended practice sets minimum requirements for operating companies, selected designated responsible parties (DRPs), and vendors. Depending on the companies within this system, risk levels may either rise or fall for any given machinery asset. Each company is enco

30、uraged to map the API 691 processes outlined herein to their internal work process to the extent possible. The vendor is required to maintain on file design failure mode and effects analysis (DFMEA) as specified by the operating company. They are also responsible to track the technology readiness le

31、vels (TRL 350 F (177 C) and having design or specified off design operating pressures 80 % maximum allowable working pressure (MAWP), c) services operating at temperatures 400 F (204 C), d) components and subcomponents having technology readiness levels (TRLs) 7 whose failure may lead to a loss of c

32、ontainment and/or a loss of functionality that could lead to a potential process safety event (see Table 1), e) liquid services operating at pressures in excess of 600 psig (41.4 bar), f) liquid services having specific gravities less than 0.5. It is acknowledged that most operating companies and ve

33、ndors may have existing risk management processes. This recommended practice is not written to replace or invalidate company practices but is meant to supplement them to provide safe working and living environments for facilities and surrounding communities. Operating companies (i.e. Sections 5, 6,

34、7, and 8 for design, installation, and operating purposes) or vendors i.e. in Section 4 for research and development (R b) IEC 61508-1, IEC 61508-2, and IEC 61508-3; c) IEC 61511 (Parts 1, 2, and 3) or ANSI/ISA-84.00-2004 (Mod IEC 61511); d) IEC 62061 or ISO 13849-1 and ISO 13849-2. 2 API RECOMMENDE

35、D PRACTICE 691 1.1.4 Other standards and technical reports may be used to further assist in the application of this standard including: a) ISO 12100, 3 b) ISO/TR 14121, 4 c) VDMA 4315, 5 d) IEC 60812, 6 e) IEC 64244-3. 7 1.1.5 This recommended practice is intended to be used by operating companies,

36、their designated responsible parties (DRP), and vendors that are identified as potentially operating at high risk. It is applicable to both new (Sections 4 to 8) and existing (Section 8) installations. NOTE This can include some supporting process equipment, for example, knockout drums, instrumentat

37、ion, etc. that are located off-skid. 1.2 Machinery Risk Management General 1.2.1The term “API 691 Machinery” is used in this recommended practice to identify machinery that warrants a comprehensive machinery risk management system. Using risk ranking to prioritize machinery for further study and/or

38、action provides a focus that maximizes the risk reduction of ongoing activities and improves the effectiveness of machinery risk management systems. Management System 1.2.2A management system to implement and sustain risk management programs for machinery should include: 1) procedures covering imple

39、mentation, program maintenance, and reassessment (including reassessment triggers), 2) roles/responsibilities, training, and competence testing to ensure employment of qualified personnel, 3) documentation requirements of the risk analyses (e.g. scope, boundaries, assumptions, and mitigation actions

40、), 4) data requirements including validation requirements, 5) acceptable risk limits and thresholds, 6) management of change (MOC) process, 7) program audit traceability requirements. Risk Assessments 1.2.3Assessment of probability and consequence can be done by a variety of approaches at the operat

41、ing company or vendors option. Refer to Annex A for further information. This recommended practice allows flexibility in assessment approaches (various qualitative, semi-quantitative, or quantitative methods) and defines only the deliverables needed at each stage to determine appropriate mitigations

42、. RISK-BASED MACHINERY MANAGEMENT 3 Risk Mitigation 1.2.4Risk mitigation is typically accomplished by: a) identifying risk levels above owner-defined limits, b) identifying both the probability of failure (POF) and consequence of failure (COF) to understand the risk drivers, c) identifying scenarios

43、 in sufficient detail to provide the specified deliverables at each life cycle stage, d) identifying potential mitigations for either or both probability and consequence, e) selecting and testing mitigations for sufficient risk reduction, f) documenting and implementing the selected mitigations. NOT

44、E All of the steps above may not be appropriate at every life cycle stage. Integration with Other Risk Assessments 1.2.5The risk assessment methodologies within this recommended practice encompass approaches that enhance those conducted as part of a typical process hazard analysis (PHA) or reliabili

45、ty centered maintenance (RCM) program, both of which tend to focus on only a portion of the equipment life cycle. Integration of the various methodologies across the machinery life cycle (and its organizational supply chain) is key to a successful machinery risk management program. Operating compani

46、es or their designated responsible party (DRP) may perform initial screening of machinery as part of routine process safety management (PSM) and/or hazard and operability (HAZOP) studies. These may also be useful in providing information on risk (e.g. consequence and/or operating scenarios). Risk As

47、sessment and Mitigation Activities by Life Cycle Stage 1.2.61.2.6.1 General Risk assessment is used at different stages of the life cycle in different ways. These typically include two stages: a screening to identify machinery warranting further review and a more detailed assessment to identify need

48、ed mitigation. For screening assessments, consequence alone may be used to trigger the need for further, more detailed risk assessments (e.g. better screening and evaluate risk management activities). The following outlines the risk assessment and mitigation activities at each of the life cycle phas

49、es. It should be noted that API 691 Machinery can be declassified at any phase by the operating company if it is deemed that machinery or machinery components and subcomponents are not considered high risk and do not require mitigation. 1.2.6.2 Feasibility and Concept Selection (Section 4) A screening assessment is performed early to identify machinery with potential high risks principally in the research, development, new applications, or manufacturing activities. Technical risk categorization (TRC) and technical readiness level (TRL) assessments aid in risk assessme