A method for assessing the relative failure risk of structural components based on configuration-independent safety parameters

Abstract

This invention discloses a method for assessing the relative failure risk of structural components based on configuration-independent safety parameters, belonging to the field of structural component failure risk assessment technology. The method includes: S1 obtaining configuration-related safety parameters; S2 establishing a mapping model; S3 determining the relative relationship of failure criterion parameters; S4 determining the relative relationship of failure probabilities; and S5 assessing the relative failure risk. This invention maps the safety parameters of structural components to a configuration-independent level, and through the relative relationship between configuration-independent safety parameters such as failure criterion parameters and failure probabilities, transforms the failure risk of a benchmark structural component into a reference value for the failure risk of a target structural component, ultimately obtaining the relative failure risk of the target structural component for safety assessment. This solves the problem of insufficient supporting data for structural component failure risk in existing technologies.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of structural component failure risk assessment technology, and in particular to a method for assessing the relative failure risk of structural components based on configuration-independent safety parameters. Background Technology

[0002] Failure risk is a crucial indicator of structural component safety from a system safety perspective. Its dimension is generally "times per hour," representing the number or frequency of structural component failures per unit time. For structural components with severe failure consequences, the quantitative indicators for failure risk are more stringent, reaching up to 10. -7 Up to 10 -8 Order of magnitude. To obtain a quantitative value for the failure risk, it is necessary to conduct structural reliability tests for a period of time that is orders of magnitude inversely proportional to the target value or even longer, i.e., 10... 7 Up to 10 8 The testing time can be on the order of hours or even higher. For structural components with complex materials or processes and high costs, it is often difficult to shorten the testing time through batch testing. This results in the failure risk assessment of structural components incurring huge time and economic costs, which is not conducive to the demonstration and review of the safety requirements of structural components.

[0003] Existing technologies for assessing the risk of structural component failure mainly include: (1) expert experience method; (2) margin equivalence method; and (3) reliability test method.

[0004] The existing technology has at least the following problems:

[0005] (1) Reliance on experience. The expert experience method refers to the subjective determination of the failure risk of a structural component based on the engineer's experience, through scoring or other means. The given value has a high degree of subjectivity. The margin equivalence method refers to the determination of the failure risk of a structural component based on the safety margin of the structural component failure, and the resulting value still depends to some extent on design experience. When the experience-based method is applied to structural components with new materials or configurations, it may be difficult to identify their safety risks.

[0006] (2) High acquisition cost. If the failure risk of structural components is obtained through reliability testing, it requires a high time cost. The testing time can be shortened by batch testing. However, for structural components with complex materials or processes and high cost, it often requires a high economic cost.

[0007] (3) The evaluation conclusions are difficult to reuse. The failure risk of structural components obtained based on existing methods is strongly correlated with the load state and configuration parameters of the structural components. The evaluation conclusions of failure risk are only applicable to the structural components and are difficult to support the failure risk assessment of other structural components.

[0008] Therefore, proposing a structural component relative failure risk assessment method based on configuration-independent safety parameters to address the difficulties in existing technologies is a problem that urgently needs to be solved by those skilled in the art. Summary of the Invention

[0009] In view of this, the present invention provides a method for assessing the relative failure risk of structural components based on configuration-independent safety parameters. The relative failure risk assessment method is part of the safety assessment process. Figure 3 As shown, for a certain failure mode of a structural component, its safety can be evaluated at multiple levels, namely configuration-dependent safety parameters and configuration-independent safety parameters. Configuration-independent safety parameters include failure criterion parameters, failure probability, and failure risk. This invention maps configuration-dependent safety parameters such as load and structure of the structural component to configuration-independent safety parameters, including failure criterion parameters in a deterministic sense and failure probability in a tolerance sense. By comparing the relative relationship of configuration-independent safety parameters of the reference structural component and the target structural component, the failure risk of the reference structural component is transformed into a reference value of the failure risk of the target structural component, obtaining the relative failure risk of the target structural component, and evaluating its safety based on the relative failure risk of the target structural component.

[0010] To achieve the above objectives, the present invention adopts the following technical solution: a method for assessing the relative failure risk of structural components based on configuration-independent safety parameters, comprising the following steps:

[0011] S1. Steps for obtaining configuration-related safety parameters: Identify the failure modes and influencing factors of the failure criteria parameters of the target structural component; based on the failure modes and influencing factors of the failure criteria parameters, select a reference structural component as the safety boundary reference, and obtain the configuration-related safety parameters of the reference structural component.

[0012] S2. Mapping model establishment steps: Based on the failure modes and failure criterion parameters of the target structural component in S1, establish a mapping model from configuration-related safety parameters to failure criterion parameters.

[0013] S3, Failure Criterion Parameter Relative Relationship Judgment Step: Calculate and compare the failure criterion parameters of the target structural component and the reference structural component through the mapping model in S2. If the failure criterion parameters of the target structural component are safe relative to the reference structural component, proceed to S5; otherwise, proceed to S4.

[0014] S4. Failure Probability Relative Relationship Judgment Step: Clarify the tolerance range of the factors affecting the failure criterion parameters, calculate and compare the failure probabilities of the target structural component and the reference structural component. If the failure probability of the target structural component is safe relative to the reference structural component, proceed to S5; otherwise, proceed to S1 to reselect the reference structural component.

[0015] S5. Relative Failure Risk Assessment Steps: Statistically determine the absolute failure risk of the benchmark structural component, thereby obtaining the relative failure risk of the target structural component, and evaluate the safety of the structural component.

[0016] Optionally, in the above method, the failure mode in S1 can be obtained from structural safety requirements, design and operational experience.

[0017] Optionally, in the above method, the failure criterion parameters in S1 are configuration-independent, including but not limited to: safety factor and safety margin;

[0018] The factors influencing the failure criterion parameters are configuration-dependent, including but not limited to: structural parameters and load parameters;

[0019] Structural parameters are the geometric and material parameters that affect the load-bearing capacity of structural components;

[0020] Load parameters are characteristic parameters related to failure modes, including but not limited to: mechanical loads, thermal loads, and aerodynamic loads; load parameters are the objects directly or indirectly monitored by sensors during the operation of mechanical equipment.

[0021] The load parameters are extracted features related to the failure mode, including but not limited to: peak value, rate of change, cumulative value over time, and phase difference between different loads.

[0022] Optionally, the mapping model in S2 can be configured to perform analysis related to failure modes.

[0023] Among them, the factors affecting configuration-related safety parameters and failure criterion parameters are the same.

[0024] The above method, optionally, includes the following specific content in S3:

[0025] Based on the mapping model established by S2, the failure criterion parameters of the target structural component and the reference structural component are calculated respectively. Based on the calculation results, the relative safety of the target structural component and the reference structural component is evaluated. The working conditions for comparing the failure criterion parameters are obtained by key point analysis.

[0026] The above method, optionally, includes the following specific steps in S4:

[0027] S401: Clearly define the tolerance type and numerical range of the factors affecting the failure criterion parameters;

[0028] S402: Calculate the failure probability of the target structural component and the reference structural component respectively using the uncertainty quantification analysis method. The dimension of the failure probability is "1".

[0029] S403: Based on the calculation results in S402, a comparison is made to obtain the failure probability comparison results between the target structural component and the reference structural component.

[0030] Optionally, in the above method, the tolerance types in S401 include: the dispersion of material parameters and geometric parameters of the structural component, as well as the dispersion of other major parameters affecting the load of the structural component in the mechanical equipment where the structural component is located; other major parameters affecting the load of the structural component include, but are not limited to: the geometric and material parameters of other structural components in the mechanical equipment besides the target structural component, the environmental parameters of the mechanical equipment, and the control input parameters of the mechanical equipment.

[0031] The above methods, optionally, include, but are not limited to, the uncertainty quantification analysis methods in S402: generalized stress-intensity interference theory and Monte Carlo method.

[0032] The above method, optionally, includes the following specific content in S5:

[0033] S501: Statistical reliability test or operational data to obtain the failure risk of a baseline structural component;

[0034] S502: Based on the design requirements for the failure risk of the target structural component, the entities responsible for the safety assessment and review of the target structural component shall jointly formulate a failure risk scaling factor. The failure risk value of the benchmark structural component shall be multiplied by the scaling factor to obtain the relative failure risk of the target structural component, which shall serve as a parameter for evaluating the safety of the structural component.

[0035] S503: Compare the relative failure risk of the target structural component with the design requirements to evaluate the safety of the structural component.

[0036] As can be seen from the above technical solution, compared with the prior art, the present invention's method for assessing the relative failure risk of structural components based on configuration-independent safety parameters has the following beneficial effects:

[0037] (1) It does not rely on experience; the relative failure risk of the target structural component is based on a quantitative comparison with the reference structural component at the configuration-independent safety parameter level, and the failure risk of the reference structural component is based on quantitative statistics or assessment of data, without relying on expert experience.

[0038] (2) Low acquisition cost; The accumulated operational data of the used structural components are used for the safety demonstration and review process of new structural components. The relative failure risk of the structural components is obtained based on the data stock, without the need to carry out special reliability tests, which helps to reduce the time and economic cost of safety demonstration and review.

[0039] (3) The evaluation conclusions can be reused; the analysis method is based on configuration-independent safety parameters, so the failure risk obtained is independent of the structural components; as the operational data accumulates, the target structural component can be transformed into a benchmark structural component, providing support for the relative failure risk assessment of new target structural components;

[0040] (4) Safety design guidelines for structural components can be derived from safety demonstration and review methods; safety design criteria should be upgraded from configuration-related safety parameters to configuration-independent safety parameters, and should be applied throughout the entire life cycle of structural component safety design, demonstration, review and operation; in order to comprehensively consider the needs of both mechanical equipment performance and safety improvement, robust design of structural components should be developed in the sense of tolerance. Attached Figure Description

[0041] To more clearly illustrate the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present invention or the prior art, the drawings used in the description of the embodiments or the prior art will be briefly introduced below. Obviously, the drawings described below are only embodiments of the present invention. For those skilled in the art, other drawings can be obtained based on the provided drawings without creative effort.

[0042] Figure 1 A flowchart of a method for assessing the relative failure risk of structural components based on configuration-independent safety parameters provided by this invention;

[0043] Figure 2 A schematic diagram illustrating the framework of a structural component relative failure risk assessment method based on configuration-independent safety parameters provided by this invention;

[0044] Figure 3 A schematic diagram illustrating the classification of security parameter types provided by this invention;

[0045] Figure 4 This is a schematic diagram of the generalized stress-intensity interference theory involved in this invention. Detailed Implementation

[0046] The technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are only some embodiments of the present invention, and not all embodiments. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art without creative effort are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0047] In this application, relational terms such as "first" and "second" are used merely to distinguish one entity or operation from another, and do not necessarily require or imply any such actual relationship or order between these entities or operations. The terms "comprising," "including," or any other variations thereof are intended to cover non-exclusive inclusion, such that a process, method, article, or apparatus that comprises a list of elements includes not only those elements but also other elements not expressly listed, or elements inherent to such a process, method, article, or apparatus. Without further limitation, an element defined by the phrase "comprising one..." does not exclude the presence of other identical elements in the process, method, article, or apparatus that includes said element.

[0048] Reference Figure 1-2 As shown, this invention discloses a method for assessing the relative failure risk of structural components based on configuration-independent safety parameters, comprising the following steps:

[0049] S1. Steps for obtaining configuration-related safety parameters: Identify the failure modes and influencing factors of the failure criteria parameters of the target structural component; based on the failure modes and influencing factors of the failure criteria parameters, select a reference structural component as the safety boundary reference, and obtain the configuration-related safety parameters of the reference structural component.

[0050] S2. Mapping model establishment steps: Based on the failure modes and failure criterion parameters of the target structural component in S1, establish a mapping model from configuration-related safety parameters to failure criterion parameters.

[0051] S3, Failure Criterion Parameter Relative Relationship Judgment Step: Calculate and compare the failure criterion parameters of the target structural component and the reference structural component through the mapping model in S2. If the failure criterion parameters of the target structural component are safe relative to the reference structural component, proceed to S5; otherwise, proceed to S4.

[0052] S4. Failure Probability Relative Relationship Judgment Step: Clarify the tolerance range of the factors affecting the failure criterion parameters, calculate and compare the failure probabilities of the target structural component and the reference structural component. If the failure probability of the target structural component is safe relative to the reference structural component, proceed to S5; otherwise, proceed to S1 to reselect the reference structural component.

[0053] S5. Relative Failure Risk Assessment Steps: Statistically determine the absolute failure risk of the benchmark structural component, thereby obtaining the relative failure risk of the target structural component, and evaluate the safety of the structural component.

[0054] Specifically, since failure risk is also a configuration-independent safety parameter, a structural component whose failure risk has already been assessed can be used as a benchmark structural component. The quantitative failure risk of the benchmark structural component is taken as the failure risk value, thereby obtaining the relative failure risk of the structural component to be assessed (referred to as the target structural component). The relative relationship between the two can be derived from the configuration-independent safety parameters of the structural component.

[0055] Furthermore, the failure modes in S1 are derived from structural safety requirements, design, and operational experience. Specifically, the failure criterion parameters are structural safety indicators that are directly related to the failure modes in a deterministic sense, such as the fracture margin of the wheel and the instability margin of the compression member.

[0056] Furthermore, the failure criterion parameters in S1 are configuration-independent, including but not limited to: safety factor and safety margin;

[0057] The factors influencing the failure criterion parameters are configuration-dependent, including but not limited to: structural parameters and load parameters;

[0058] Structural parameters are the geometric and material parameters that affect the load-bearing capacity of structural components;

[0059] Load parameters are characteristic parameters related to failure modes, including but not limited to: mechanical loads, thermal loads, and aerodynamic loads; load parameters are the objects directly or indirectly monitored by sensors during the operation of mechanical equipment.

[0060] The load parameters are extracted features related to the failure mode, including but not limited to: peak value, rate of change, cumulative value over time, and phase difference between different loads.

[0061] Specifically, structural parameters are related to the configuration of the structural components themselves, while load parameters are related to the configuration of the mechanical equipment in which the structural components are located.

[0062] The reference structural component should have sufficient data accumulation. On the one hand, the configuration-related safety parameter data of the reference structural component should cover the influence parameters analyzed in S1 and can be derived from the design parameters. On the other hand, the reference structural component should have sufficient reliability test or operational data accumulation for the purpose of statistically quantifying the failure risk.

[0063] There is a strong correlation between structural loads or structural parameters and failure risk. That is, for structural components with the same structure or load-bearing capacity, the higher the load, the higher the failure risk; for the same load, structural components with weaker load-bearing capacity have a higher failure risk.

[0064] However, parameters such as loads are also strongly correlated with the application scenario and configuration of structural components. That is, it is difficult to compare the relative safety of structural components with different structures and loads. Therefore, a reliable model or method is necessary to map configuration-related safety parameters to a configuration-independent safety parameter level to obtain the relative safety of the reference and target structural components. Configuration-independent safety parameters include failure criterion parameters and failure probabilities, excluding failure risk. Configuration-independent safety parameters comprehensively consider the influence of loads and structural parameters and can be used to assess the relative safety of the target and reference structural components for a specific failure mode. If the failure criterion parameters of the target structural component are safer than those of the reference structural component, its failure risk is lower than that of the reference structural component, and vice versa.

[0065] Furthermore, the mapping model in S2 has analysis capabilities related to failure modes;

[0066] Among them, the factors affecting configuration-related safety parameters and failure criterion parameters are the same.

[0067] Specifically, mapping models include, but are not limited to, functional models, performance models, and behavioral models;

[0068] The model scope includes the minimum range of mechanical equipment that affects the load and bearing capacity of structural components;

[0069] The input to the mapping model consists of the factors influencing the failure modes, and their coupling effects are considered.

[0070] The output of the mapping model is the failure criterion parameters directly related to the failure mode;

[0071] The mapping model has analysis capabilities related to failure modes. For example, for failure modes related to transient processes, the mapping model should have transient analysis capabilities.

[0072] The mapping model should be fully validated to achieve a high level of confidence.

[0073] Furthermore, the specific content of S3 includes:

[0074] Based on the mapping model established by S2, the failure criterion parameters of the target structural component and the reference structural component are calculated respectively. Based on the calculation results, the relative safety of the target structural component and the reference structural component is evaluated. The working conditions for comparing the failure criterion parameters are obtained by key point analysis.

[0075] Specifically, for failure modes involving transients, the comparison condition should be the minimum difference between the failure criterion parameters of the target structural component and the reference structural component during the transient process.

[0076] Furthermore, the specific steps in S4 include:

[0077] S401: Clearly define the tolerance type and numerical range of the factors affecting the failure criterion parameters;

[0078] S402: Calculate the failure probability of the target structural component and the reference structural component respectively using the uncertainty quantification analysis method. The dimension of the failure probability is "1".

[0079] S403. Based on the calculation results in S402, a comparison is made to obtain the failure probability comparison results between the target structural component and the reference structural component.

[0080] Specifically, the design time of the target structural component is generally later than that of the reference structural component. As the performance of the machinery in which the structural component is located increases and the structural components become increasingly lightweight, the safety margin of the target structural component is often lower than that of the reference structural component. It may be difficult to directly obtain the relative safety relationship between the target and reference structural components through failure criterion parameters. Therefore, the relative safety of the target and reference structural components can be assessed based on the relative relationship of failure probabilities. Failure probability, in a tolerance sense, further considers the uncertainty of the influencing factors of the failure criterion parameters.

[0081] Failure probability and failure risk are positively correlated; that is, the higher the failure probability of a structural component, the higher the failure risk, and vice versa. For example, assuming a target structural component and a reference structural component have the same load-bearing capacity, but the load on the target structural component is higher than that on the reference structural component, the failure criterion parameters for the target structural component are biased towards the dangerous side. Therefore, one cannot conclude that the target structural component is biased towards safety based on these parameters. However, if the mechanical equipment in which the target structural component is located has a better robust design, and the load tolerance or dispersion can be controlled within a smaller range, then the failure probability of the target structural component is lower than that of the reference structural component. Based on this, we can conclude that the failure risk of the target structural component is lower than that of the reference structural component. See also... Figure 4 .

[0082] Furthermore, the tolerance types in S401 include: material parameter dispersion, geometric parameter dispersion of structural components, and dispersion of other major parameters affecting the load of structural components in the mechanical equipment where the structural components are located; other major parameters affecting the load of structural components include, but are not limited to: geometric and material parameters of other structural components in the mechanical equipment besides the target structural component, environmental parameters of the mechanical equipment, and control input parameters of the mechanical equipment.

[0083] Furthermore, the uncertainty quantification analysis methods in S402 include, but are not limited to: generalized stress-intensity interference theory and Monte Carlo method.

[0084] Specifically, the sample size for calculating the failure probability should be determined with reference to the magnitude analysis of the failure probability.

[0085] Furthermore, the specific content of S5 includes:

[0086] S501 uses statistical reliability test or operational data to obtain the failure risk of a reference structural component;

[0087] S502, based on the design requirements for the failure risk of the target structural component, requires the responsible parties for the safety assessment and review of the target structural component to jointly develop a failure risk scaling factor. The failure risk value of the benchmark structural component is multiplied by the scaling factor to obtain the relative failure risk of the target structural component, which serves as a parameter for evaluating the safety of the structural component.

[0088] S503 compares the relative failure risk of the target structural component with the design requirements to evaluate the structural component's safety.

[0089] Specifically, the failure risk scaling factor in S502 can be formulated by comprehensively considering factors such as the reliability of the mapping model and the calculation method of the failure risk of the reference structural component. The value of the failure risk scaling factor is always not less than 1. Therefore, the failure risk of the target structural component is always not less than that of the reference structural component, and the evaluation structure is conservative.

[0090] Specifically, the criteria for evaluating the safety of structural components in S503 are as follows: if the relative failure risk of the target structural component is safer than the design requirements, the safety review can be passed; otherwise, it will not be passed, and the structural component needs to be redesigned and its safety demonstrated.

[0091] As operational data accumulates, target structural components can be transformed into benchmark structural components, providing support for the relative failure risk assessment of new target structural components.

[0092] In a specific embodiment provided by the present invention, a certain benchmark aero-engine model already exists. No turbine rotor over-rotation failure occurred during flight hours.

[0093] Assuming the probability of turbine rotor overspeed fracture failure is constant and independent of the time of the previous failure, then within a certain period of time... k The probability of failure follows a Poisson distribution:

[0094] (1)

[0095] in, P k This indicates that the turbine rotor overspeed occurs over a period of time. k The probability of failure. This represents the expected number of failures occurring within this time period. The probability that this failure will not occur within this time period is:

[0096] (2)

[0097] Conservatively speaking, the above The probability of turbine rotor over-rotation and fracture during flight hours is 0.5, that is... The probability of failure during this period can be calculated as follows: Therefore, the risk of engine turbine rotor failure due to over-rotation is:

[0098] (3)

[0099] Based on the overall performance and air system coupled calculation model of the aero-engine, it has been shown that the over-rotation fracture margin of the turbine rotor of this engine within the flight envelope is inferior to that of the turbine rotor of the target engine to be certified. Therefore, the accumulated safe operation data of this benchmark aero-engine can be used to support the failure risk assessment of the target engine. Therefore, the failure risk of over-rotation fracture of the target turbine engine rotor should not be higher than that of the target turbine engine rotor. Each flight hour. Based on the relative safety failure risk assessment method proposed in this invention, the failure risk of the target engine turbine rotor undergoing over-rotation fracture can be conservatively assessed as: Each flight hour.

[0100] Therefore, the method proposed in this invention can quantitatively calculate the failure risk of the target structural component based on the existing operational data of the benchmark structural component, which helps to reduce the dependence on expert experience.

[0101] The various embodiments in this specification are described in a progressive manner. Similar or identical parts between embodiments can be referred to mutually. Each embodiment focuses on describing the differences from other embodiments. In particular, for system or system embodiments, since they are basically similar to method embodiments, the description is relatively simple, and relevant parts can be referred to the descriptions in the method embodiments. The systems and system embodiments described above are merely illustrative. The units described as separate components may or may not be physically separate. The components shown as units may or may not be physical units; that is, they may be located in one place or distributed across multiple network units. Some or all of the modules can be selected to achieve the purpose of this embodiment according to actual needs. Those skilled in the art can understand and implement this without creative effort.

[0102] The above description of the disclosed embodiments enables those skilled in the art to make or use the invention. Various modifications to these embodiments will be readily apparent to those skilled in the art, and the general principles defined herein may be implemented in other embodiments without departing from the spirit or scope of the invention. Therefore, the invention is not to be limited to the embodiments shown herein, but is to be accorded the widest scope consistent with the principles and novel features disclosed herein.

Claims

1. A method for assessing the relative failure risk of structural components based on configuration-independent safety parameters, characterized in that, Includes the following steps: S1. Steps for obtaining configuration-related safety parameters: Identify the failure modes and influencing factors of the failure criteria parameters of the target structural component. Based on the failure modes and influencing factors of the failure criteria parameters, select a reference structural component as the safety boundary reference and obtain the configuration-related safety parameters of the reference structural component. S2. Mapping model establishment steps: Based on the failure modes and failure criterion parameters of the target structural component in S1, establish a mapping model from configuration-related safety parameters to failure criterion parameters. S3, Failure Criterion Parameter Relative Relationship Judgment Step: Calculate and compare the failure criterion parameters of the target structural component and the reference structural component through the mapping model in S2. If the failure criterion parameters of the target structural component are safe relative to the reference structural component, proceed to S5; otherwise, proceed to S4. S4. Failure Probability Relative Relationship Judgment Step: Clarify the tolerance range of the factors affecting the failure criterion parameters, calculate and compare the failure probabilities of the target structural component and the reference structural component. If the failure probability of the target structural component is safe relative to the reference structural component, proceed to S5; otherwise, proceed to S1 to reselect the reference structural component. S5. Relative Failure Risk Assessment Steps: Statistically determine the absolute failure risk of the benchmark structural component, thereby obtaining the relative failure risk of the target structural component, and evaluate the safety of the structural component. The failure criterion parameters in S1 are configuration-independent and include: safety factor and safety margin; The factors influencing the failure criterion parameters are configuration-dependent, including structural parameters and load parameters; Structural parameters are the geometric and material parameters that affect the load-bearing capacity of structural components; Load parameters are characteristic parameters related to failure modes, including mechanical loads, thermal loads, and aerodynamic loads; load parameters are the objects directly or indirectly monitored by sensors during the operation of mechanical equipment. The load parameters are extracted features related to the failure mode, including: peak value, rate of change, cumulative value over time, and phase difference between different loads.

2. The method for assessing the relative failure risk of structural components based on configuration-independent safety parameters according to claim 1, characterized in that, In S1, failure modes are derived from structural safety requirements, design and operational experience.

3. The method for assessing the relative failure risk of structural components based on configuration-independent safety parameters according to claim 1, characterized in that, The mapping model in S2 has analysis functions related to failure modes; Among them, the factors affecting configuration-related safety parameters and failure criterion parameters are the same.

4. The method for assessing the relative failure risk of structural components based on configuration-independent safety parameters according to claim 1, characterized in that, Based on the mapping model established by S2, the failure criterion parameters of the target structural component and the reference structural component are calculated respectively. Based on the calculation results, the relative safety of the target structural component and the reference structural component is evaluated. The working conditions for comparing the failure criterion parameters are derived from key point analysis.

5. The method for assessing the relative failure risk of structural components based on configuration-independent safety parameters according to claim 3, characterized in that, The specific steps in S4 include: S401: Clearly define the tolerance type and numerical range of the factors affecting the failure criterion parameters; S402: Calculate the failure probability of the target structural component and the reference structural component respectively using the uncertainty quantification analysis method. The dimension of the failure probability is "1". S403: Based on the calculation results in S402, a comparison is made to obtain the failure probability comparison results between the target structural component and the reference structural component.

6. The method for assessing the relative failure risk of structural components based on configuration-independent safety parameters according to claim 5, characterized in that, The tolerance types in S401 include: the dispersion of material parameters and geometric parameters of structural components, as well as the dispersion of other major parameters affecting the load of structural components in the mechanical equipment in which the structural components are located; other major parameters affecting the load of structural components include, but are not limited to: the geometric and material parameters of other structural components in the mechanical equipment other than the target structural component, the environmental parameters of the mechanical equipment, and the control input parameters of the mechanical equipment.

7. The method for assessing the relative failure risk of structural components based on configuration-independent safety parameters according to claim 6, characterized in that, The uncertainty quantification analysis methods in S402 include, but are not limited to: generalized stress-intensity interference theory and Monte Carlo method.

8. The method for assessing the relative failure risk of structural components based on configuration-independent safety parameters according to claim 1, characterized in that, The specific content of S5 includes: S501: Statistical reliability test or operational data to obtain the failure risk of a baseline structural component; S502: Based on the design requirements for the failure risk of the target structural component, the entities responsible for the safety assessment and review of the target structural component shall jointly formulate a failure risk scaling factor. The failure risk value of the benchmark structural component shall be multiplied by the scaling factor to obtain the relative failure risk of the target structural component, which shall serve as a parameter for evaluating the safety of the structural component. S503: Compare the relative failure risk of the target structural component with the design requirements to evaluate the safety of the structural component.

Images