ASME PCC-3-2007 Inspection Planning Using Risk-Based Methods (PCC-3 - 2007)《用基于风险法的检验计划》.pdf

1、Inspection Planning Using Risk-Based Methods AN AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDASME PCC-32007This page intentionally left blank.ASME PCC-32007InspectionPlanning UsingRisk-BasedMethodsAN AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDDate of Issuance: June 30, 2008The 2007 edition of this Standard is being issued with an auto

2、matic addenda subscription service.The use of addenda allows revisions made in response to public review comments or committeeactions to be published as necessary; revisions published in addenda will become effective 6 monthsafter the Date of Issuance of the addenda. This Standard will be revised wh

3、en the Society approvesthe issuance of a new edition.ASME issues written replies to inquiries concerning interpretations of technical aspects of thisStandard. The interpretations will be included with the above addenda service.ASME is the registered trademark of The American Society of Mechanical En

4、gineers.This code or standard was developed under procedures accredited as meeting the criteria for American NationalStandards. The Standards Committee that approved the code or standard was balanced to assure that individuals fromcompetent and concerned interests have had an opportunity to particip

5、ate. The proposed code or standard was madeavailable for public review and comment that provides an opportunity for additional public input from industry, academia,regulatory agencies, and the public-at-large.ASME does not “approve,” “rate,” or “endorse” any item, construction, proprietary device, o

6、r activity.ASME does not take any position with respect to the validity of any patent rights asserted in connection with anyitems mentioned in this document, and does not undertake to insure anyone utilizing a standard against liability forinfringement of any applicable letters patent, nor assumes a

7、ny such liability. Users of a code or standard are expresslyadvised that determination of the validity of any such patent rights, and the risk of infringement of such rights, isentirely their own responsibility.Participation by federal agency representative(s) or person(s) affiliated with industry i

8、s not to be interpreted asgovernment or industry endorsement of this code or standard.ASME accepts responsibility for only those interpretations of this document issued in accordance with the establishedASME procedures and policies, which precludes the issuance of interpretations by individuals.No p

9、art of this document may be reproduced in any form,in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise,without the prior written permission of the publisher.The American Society of Mechanical EngineersThree Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990Copyright 2008 byTHE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERSA

10、ll rights reservedPrinted in U.S.A.CONTENTSForeword ivCommittee Roster . v1 Scope, Introduction, and Purpose. 12 Basic Concepts 13 Introduction to Risk-Based Inspection. 44 Planning the Risk Analysis . 95 Data and Information Collection 136 Damage Mechanisms and Failure Modes 157 Determining Probabi

11、lity of Failure 178 Determining Consequence of Failure 209 Risk Determination, Analysis, and Management . 2710 Risk Management With Inspection Activities 3211 Other Risk Mitigation Activities 3412 Reanalysis 3513 Roles, Responsibilities, Training, and Qualifications . 3614 Documentation and Record K

12、eeping 3815 Definitions and Acronyms 3916 References 40Figures2.1 Risk Plot . 22.3 Management of Risk Using RBI . 33.3.1 Continuum of RBI Approaches . 53.3.4 Risk-Based Inspection Planning Process . 74.4.1 Relationship Among Component, Equipment, System, Process Unit, andFacility 118.5 Determination

13、 of Consequence of Failure . 269.2.1 Example of Calculating the Probability of a Specific Consequence . 299.5.1 Example Risk Matrix Using Probability and Consequence Categories 31Tables2.3 Factors Contributing to Loss of Containment 48.3.5-1 Three-Level Safety, Health, and Environmental Consequence

14、Categories . 228.3.5-2 Six-Level Safety, Health, and Environmental Consequence Categories 228.3.7 Six-Level Table . 2316 References . 41Nonmandatory AppendicesA Damage Mechanism Definitions 47B Damage Mechanism and Defects Screening Tables . 58C Table of Inspection/Monitoring Methods . 65D Quantitat

15、ive Methods Including Expert Opinion Elicitation 71E Examples of Risk-Based Inspection Program Audit Questions . 79iiiFOREWORDASME formed an Ad Hoc Task Group on Post Construction in 1993 in response to an identifiedneed for recognized and generally accepted engineering standards for the inspection

16、and mainte-nance of pressure equipment after it has been placed in service. At the recommendation of thisTask Group, the Board on Pressure Technology Codes and Standards (BPTCS) formed the PostConstruction Committee (PCC) in 1995. The scope of this committee was to develop and maintainstandards addr

17、essing common issues and technologies related to post-construction activities, andto work with other consensus committees in the development of separate, product-specific codesand standards addressing issues encountered after initial construction for equipment and pipingcovered by Pressure Technolog

18、y Codes and Standards. The BPTCS covers non-nuclear boilers,pressure vessels (including heat exchangers), piping and piping components, pipelines, andstorage tanks.The PCC selects standards to be developed based on identified needs and the availability ofvolunteers. The PCC formed the Subcommittee o

19、n Inspection Planning and the Subcommitteeon Flaw Evaluations in 1995. In 1998, a Task Group under the PCC began preparation of Guidelinesfor Pressure Boundary Bolted Flange Joint Assembly, and in 1999 the Subcommittee on Repairand Testing was formed. Other topics are under consideration and may pos

20、sibly be developedinto future guideline documents. The subcommittees were charged with preparing standardsdealing with several aspects of the inservice inspection and maintenance of pressure equipmentand piping.This Standard provides guidance on the preparation and implementation of a risk-based ins

21、pec-tion plan. Flaws that are identified during inspection plan implementation are then evaluated,when appropriate, using the procedures provided in the API 579-1/ASME FFS-1, Fitness forService. If it is determined that repairs are required, guidance on repair procedures is providedin ASME PCC-2, Re

22、pair of Pressure Equipment and Piping.This Standard is based on API 580, Risk-Based Inspection. By agreement with the AmericanPetroleum Institute, this Standard is closely aligned with the RBI process in API 580, which isoriented toward the hydrocarbon and chemical process industries. In the standar

23、ds developmentprocess that led to the publication of this Standard, numerous changes, additions, and improve-ments to the text of API 580 were made, many of which are intended to generalize the RBI processto enhance applicability to a broader spectrum of industries.This Standard provides recognized

24、and generally accepted good practices that may be usedin conjunction with Post-Construction Codes, such as API 510, API 570, and NB-23.ASME PCC-32007 was approved as an American National Standard on October 4, 2007.ivASME COMMITTEE ONPRESSURE TECHNOLOGY POST CONSTRUCTION(The following is the roster

25、of the Committee at the time of approval of this Standard.)STANDARDS COMMITTEE OFFICERSD. A. Lang, Sr., ChairJ. R. Sims, Jr., Vice ChairS. J. Rossi, SecretarySTANDARDS COMMITTEE PERSONNELG. A. Antaki, Becht Nuclear ServicesJ. E. Batey, The Dow Chemical Co.C. Becht IV, Becht Engineering Co., Inc.D. L

26、. Berger, PPL Generation LLCP. N. Chaku, ABB Lummus Global, Inc.P. Hackford, Utah Labor CommissionW. J. Koves, UOP LLCD. A. Lang, Sr., FM GlobalC. R. Leonard, Life Cycle EngineeringK. Mokhtarian, ConsultantC. C. Neely, Becht Engineering Co., Inc.POST CONSTRUCTION SUBCOMMITTEE ON INSPECTION PLANNINGC

27、. R. Leonard, Chair, Life Cycle EngineeringD. A. Lang, Sr., Vice Chair, FM GlobalD. R. Sharp, Secretary, The American Society of MechanicalEngineersL. P. Antalffy, Fluor DanielJ. L. Arnold, Structural Integrity AssociatesJ. E. Batey, The Dow Chemical Co.D. L. Berger, PPL Generation LLCF. L. Brown, T

28、he National Board of Boiler and Pressure VesselInspectorsvT. M. Parks, The National Board of Boiler and Pressure VesselInspectorsJ. T. Reynolds, ConsultantS. C. Roberts, Shell Global Solutions US, Inc.C. D. Rodery, BP North American Products, Inc.S. J. Rossi, The American Society of Mechanical Engin

29、eersC. W. Rowley, The Wesley Corp.M. E. G. Schmidt, ConsultantJ. R. Sims, Jr., Becht Engineering Co., Inc.C. D. Cowfer, Contributing Member, ConsultantE. Michalopoulos, Contributing Member, City of Kozani, GreeceP. N. Chaku, ABB Lummus Global, Inc.C. D. Cowfer, ConsultantF. R. Duvic III, Vessel Stat

30、isticsG. A. Montgomery, Progress Energy Fossil GenerationC. C. Neely, Becht Engineering Co., Inc.D. T. Peters, Structural Integrity AssociatesJ. T. Reynolds, ConsultantM. E. G. Schmidt, ConsultantJ. R. Sims, Jr., Becht Engineering Co., Inc.G. M. Tanner, M however, this Standard has been specifically

31、developed for applications involving fixed pressure-containing equipment and components. This Standardis not intended to be used for nuclear power plant com-ponents; see ASME BPV, Section XI, Rules for InserviceInspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components. It pro-vides guidance to owners, operators,

32、 and designers ofpressure-containing equipment for developing andimplementing an inspection program. These guidelinesinclude means for assessing an inspection program andits plan. The approach emphasizes safe and reliableoperation through cost-effective inspection. A spectrumof complementary risk an

33、alysis approaches (qualitativethrough fully-quantitative) should be considered as partof the inspection planning process.1.2 IntroductionThis Standard provides information on using riskanalysis to develop and plan an effective inspectionstrategy. Inspection planning is a systematic process thatbegin

34、s with identification of facilities or equipment andculminates in an inspection plan. Both the probability1of failure and the consequence of failure should be evalu-ated by considering all credible damage mechanismsthat could be expected to affect the facilities or equip-ment. In addition, failure s

35、cenarios based on each credi-ble damage mechanism should be developed andconsidered.The output of the inspection planning process con-ducted according to these guidelines should be aninspection plan for each equipment item analyzed thatincludes(a) inspection methods that should be used(b) extent of

36、inspection (percent of total area to beexamined or specific locations)(c) inspection interval (timing)(d) other risk mitigation activities(e) the residual level of risk after inspection and othermitigation actions have been implemented1Likelihood is sometimes used as a synonym for probability; how-e

37、ver, probability is used throughout this Standard for consistency.11.3 PurposeThis Standard presents the concepts and principlesused to develop and implement a risk-based inspection(RBI) program. Items covered are(a) an introduction to the concepts and principles ofRBI1 Scope, Introduction, and Purp

38、ose2 Basic Concepts3 Introduction to Risk-Based Inspection(b) individual sections that describe the steps inapplying these principles within the framework of theRBI process4 Planning the Risk Analysis5 Data and Information Collection6 Damage Mechanisms and Failure Modes7 Determining Probability of F

39、ailure8 Determining Consequence of Failure9 Risk Determination, Analysis, and Management10 Risk Management With Inspection Activities11 Other Risk Mitigation Activities12 Reanalysis13 Roles, Responsibilities, Training, andQualifications14 Documentation and Record Keeping1.4 Relationship to Regulator

40、y and JurisdictionalRequirementsThis Standard does not replace or supersede laws,regulations, or jurisdictional requirements.2 BASIC CONCEPTS2.1 RiskEveryone lives with risk and, knowingly or unknow-ingly, people are constantly making decisions based onrisk. Simple decisions such as whether to drive

41、 to workor walk across a busy street involve risk. Bigger decisionssuch as buying a house, investing money, and gettingmarried all imply an acceptance of risk. Life is not risk-free and even the most cautious, risk-averse individualsinherently take risks.For example, when driving a car, an individua

42、l acceptsthe possibility that he or she could be killed or seriouslyinjured. The risk is accepted because the probability ofbeing killed or seriously injured is low while the benefitrealized (either real or perceived) justifies the risk taken.ASME PCC-32007Fig. 2.1 Risk PlotIso-risk lineProbability

43、of FailureConsequence of Failure31279106845Influencing the decision is the type of car, the safetyfeatures installed, traffic volume and speed, and otherfactors such as the availability, risks, and affordabilityof alternatives (e.g., mass transit).Risk is the combination of the probability of someev

44、ent occurring during a time period of interest and theconsequences (generally negative) associated with thatevent. Mathematically, risk should be expressed asrisk p probability H11547 consequenceUnderstanding the two-dimensional aspect of riskallows new insight into the use of risk analysis forinspe

45、ction prioritization and planning. Figure 2.1 dis-plays the risk associated with the operation of a numberof equipment items. Both the probability and conse-quence of failure have been determined for ten equip-ment items, and the results have been plotted. The pointsrepresent the risk associated wit

46、h each equipment item.An “iso-risk” line, representing a constant risk level, isalso shown on Fig. 2.1. A user-defined acceptable risklevel could be plotted as an iso-risk line. In this way theacceptable risk line would separate the unacceptablefrom the acceptable risk items (i.e., if the iso-risk l

47、ine onthe plot represents the acceptable risk, then equipmentitems 1, 2, and 3 would pose an unacceptable risk thatrequires further attention). Often a risk plot is drawnusing log-log scales for a better understanding of therelative risks of the items assessed.Risk levels or values may be assigned t

48、o each equip-ment item. This may be done graphically by drawing aseries of iso-risk lines and identifying the equipmentitems that fall into each band or it may be done numeri-cally. Either way, a list that is ordered by risk is a2risk-based ranking of the equipment items. Using sucha list, or plot,

49、an inspection plan may be developed thatfocuses attention on the items of highest risk.2.2 Overview of Risk AnalysisThe complexity of a risk analysis is a function of thenumber of factors that can affect the risk and there is acontinuous spectrum of methods available to assess risk.The methods range from a strictly relative ranking torigorous calculation. The methods generally represent arange of precision for the resulting risk analysis (seepara. 3.3.6).Any particular analysis may not yield usable resultsdue to a lack of data, low-quality data, or the use of anapproach that does not ade