Research Papers: Operations, Applications and Components

The Effects of Maintenance Actions on the Average Probability of Failure on Demand of Spring Operated Pressure Relief Valves

[+] Author and Article Information
Julia V. Bukowski

Department of Electrical and
Computer Engineering,
Villanova University,
Villanova, PA 19085
e-mail: julia.bukowski@villanova.edu

William M. Goble

exida, LLC,
Sellersville, PA 18960
e-mail: wgoble@exida.com

Robert E. Gross

Savannah River Nuclear Solutions,
Aiken, SC 29808
e-mail: robert.gross@srs.gov

Stephen P. Harris

Savannah River National Laboratory,
Aiken, SC 29808
e-mail: stephen.harris@srnl.doe.gov

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received September 2, 2014; final manuscript received March 16, 2015; published online June 9, 2015. Assoc. Editor: David L. Rudland. The United States Government retains, and by accepting the article for publication, the publisher acknowledges that the United States Government retains, a nonexclusive, paid-up, irrevocable worldwide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this work, or allow others to do so, for United States Government purposes.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 137(6), 061601 (Dec 01, 2015) (7 pages) Paper No: PVT-14-1143; doi: 10.1115/1.4030084 History: Received September 02, 2014; Revised March 16, 2015; Online June 09, 2015

The safety integrity level (SIL) of equipment used in safety instrumented functions is determined by the average probability of failure on demand (PFDavg) computed at the time of periodic inspection and maintenance, i.e., the time of proof testing. The computation of PFDavg is generally based solely on predictions or estimates of the assumed constant failure rate of the equipment. However, PFDavg is also affected by maintenance actions (or lack thereof) taken by the end user. This paper shows how maintenance actions can affect the PFDavg of spring operated pressure relief valves (SOPRV) and how these maintenance actions may be accounted for in the computation of the PFDavg metric. The method provides a means for quantifying the effects of changes in maintenance practices and shows how these changes impact plant safety.

Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Conceptual representation of a typical SOPRV

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Plot of distribution of SOPRV by orifice diameter and set pressure with FTO SOPRV noted

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Plot of distribution of SOPRV by proof test ratio, R, and year of proof test with FTO SOPRV noted as to cause: random versus user responsibility

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Plots of PFDavg versus TP for maintenance scenarios 1a, 2a, 3a, and 4

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Plots of PFDavg versus TP for maintenance scenarios 1b, 2b, 3b, and 4




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In