Evaluation method, device and storage medium for monitoring safety status of pressure equipment

Abstract

The present invention relates to the technical field of safety monitoring of pressure-bearing equipment, and in particular to an evaluation method, device and storage medium for monitoring the safety status of pressure-bearing equipment. As for the evaluation method, it comprises: reading the data of the pressure-bearing equipment; analyzing the failure mode of the pressure-bearing equipment and determining the monitoring method; establishing a data analysis model and determining the monitoring critical value; establishing an evaluation model and conducting a comprehensive safety status assessment. As for the evaluation device, it executes the evaluation method for monitoring the safety status of pressure-bearing equipment; the evaluation device comprises: a reading unit, a monitoring method determination unit, a critical value determination unit and an evaluation model establishment unit. The above technical solution realizes the online real-time monitoring and evaluation of the safety status of pressure-bearing equipment, solves the problems of low efficiency of regular inspection of pressure-bearing equipment, lagging behind the changes in safety indicators (defects), and inability to alarm in real time, and achieves the effect of dynamic comprehensive safety status assessment of pressure-bearing equipment based on usage parameters, operating conditions, and changes in the initiation and development of defects.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to the field of pressure equipment safety monitoring technology, and more particularly to a method, device, and storage medium for evaluating the safety status of pressure equipment. This technology is primarily used for real-time online monitoring of the comprehensive safety status of pressure-bearing equipment, such as boilers, pressure vessels, and pressure piping, among other special equipment. The method, device, and hardware / software system utilize monitoring data combined with design, manufacturing, installation, operation, maintenance, and inspection data to achieve real-time evaluation of the comprehensive safety status. Background Art

[0002] Special equipment refers to boilers, pressure vessels (including gas cylinders), pressure piping, elevators, lifting machinery, passenger ropeways, large amusement facilities, and special motor vehicles used within a site (factory), as well as other special equipment covered by this Law as provided for by laws and administrative regulations. Within the industry, boilers, pressure vessels, and pressure piping are generally referred to as pressure-bearing special equipment. The state has established clear regulatory standards for regular inspection and evaluation of the safety status of pressure-bearing special equipment. For example, pressure vessels are subject to regular inspections in accordance with TSG21, "Regulations on Safety Technical Supervision of Stationary Pressure Vessels." Pressure piping, divided into long-distance, public, and industrial pipelines, is inspected in accordance with TSG D7003, "Rules for Periodic Inspection of Pressure Piping - Long-distance (Oil and Gas) Pipelines," TSG D7004, "Rules for Periodic Inspection of Pressure Piping - Public Pipelines," and TSG D7005, "Rules for Periodic Inspection of Pressure Piping - Industrial Pipelines," respectively. Boilers are inspected in accordance with TSG11, "Technical Regulations for Boiler Safety."

[0003] Taking pressure vessels as an example, the general process for periodic inspections includes inspection plan development, pre-inspection preparation, inspection implementation, defect and issue handling, inspection result summary, and inspection report issuance. According to the standards, periodic inspections of metal pressure vessels primarily focus on macroscopic inspection, wall thickness measurement, surface defect detection, and safety accessory inspection; additional items may be added as necessary, including buried defect detection, material analysis, sealing and fastener inspection, strength verification, pressure resistance testing, and leakage testing. Periodic inspections of pressure equipment strictly in accordance with regulations and standards generally provide a comprehensive assessment of the equipment's safety status; however, there are occasional exceptions. In recent years, several cases of pressure equipment leaking and exploding during the periodic inspection cycle or immediately after commissioning demonstrate that periodic inspections cannot comprehensively assess the safety status of pressure equipment. Furthermore, the relevant standards for periodic inspections of pressure equipment define "periodic inspection" as merely a compliance verification activity for in-service pressure equipment. This also highlights the inadequacy of periodic inspections in assessing safety status. The so-called "conformity verification" means that when the operating parameters, operating conditions, etc. of the pressure-bearing equipment change, the premise of "conformity verification" is often not met and the safety status of the pressure-bearing equipment cannot be accurately evaluated.

[0004] For pressure piping and boilers, regular inspections conducted in accordance with standards such as TSG7003, TSG7004, TSG7005, and TSG11 all suffer from a lack of real-time performance. This issue is not particularly pronounced for pressure-bearing equipment with stable operating conditions, no defects, or a high risk of defects. However, for equipment with unstable operating conditions and a high risk of defects, this lack of real-time performance may have serious consequences for its safe operation. It is particularly important to note that in TSG21, equipment rated a Safety Level 4 may be monitored for use under certain conditions; a Safety Level 5 indicates the discovery of serious defects that impact safe use and requires removal from service. For serious defects that impact safe use, repairs are generally followed by subsequent inspection and evaluation before use. However, in situations where time and space constraints make repair impossible, repairs may lead to more serious defects, or repairs are costly and time-consuming, owners will opt for a different approach: evaluating the defect for suitability for use and addressing the defect. Most defects generally pass evaluation. For defects with the potential for serious consequences or expansion, the evaluation or inspection unit will require the owner to monitor and operate them according to Level 4 safety status standards. The reality is that while nearly all petrochemical plants in my country have installed DCS systems to monitor operating parameters, which has played a role in ensuring the safe operation of pressure-bearing equipment, the monitoring methods for defects are limited. Aside from periodic manual thickness measurements for wall thickness and periodic manual retesting of surface or buried defects using non-destructive testing methods, all other methods rely primarily on manual observation. With the development of the electronic information industry, chemical process safety management needs to be strengthened. Online safety monitoring and automated testing are needed to promptly identify the root causes of abnormal operating conditions, assess potential consequences, and develop safety response plans. Preventive maintenance should be carried out, and key equipment should be equipped with online monitoring systems for regular monitoring (inspection). Therefore, it is appropriate to begin experimenting with online monitoring of pressure-bearing equipment, such as stress monitoring, corrosion monitoring, and leak detection.

[0005] The safety assessment of pressure equipment abroad is also guided by regulations and standards. For example, the American Petroleum Institute (API) API 510, "Code for Inspection of Pressure Vessels: In-Service Inspection, Classification, Repair, and Alteration," categorizes periodic pressure vessel inspections into six types: internal inspection, in-service inspection, external inspection, thickness inspection, corrosion under insulation inspection, and RBI inspection. The first five inspections are generally required, but the frequency of each inspection varies. Internal inspections are similar to domestic periodic inspections in terms of inspection items and timing, while external inspections are similar in content to domestic annual inspections.

[0006] Regarding internal inspection, API 510 stipulates that online inspection can replace internal inspection when certain conditions are met. The standard also states that if two of the given conditions are not met, multiple identical containers with the same media and operating conditions can be inspected internally for one container, and the results analyzed. The remaining containers can then be replaced with online inspection. Therefore, the quality of online inspection plays a crucial role in replacing internal inspection within the API standard.

[0007] When assessing the safety status of pressure equipment, both domestic and international standards currently rely on a scoring system, assessing specific inspection items individually without considering the interplay and correlation between factors. The most serious hazard is the ultimate safety status of the pressure equipment, and comprehensive assessments are often static, not dynamic. Furthermore, these systems lack integration with operation and maintenance systems, and offer no guidance on addressing high risks or consequences.

[0008] The above analysis shows that the primary method for inspecting, testing, and evaluating the safety status of pressure equipment is still periodic inspections. This inspection process suffers from inefficiency, lags behind changes in safety indicators (defects), and lacks real-time alarms. Safety status evaluation only verifies compliance with operating conditions and fails to provide a dynamic, comprehensive assessment based on operational parameters, operating conditions, and the development and progression of defects. Effective, specific methods are also lacking for monitoring pressure equipment operating issues caused by excessive defects during periodic inspections. Summary of the Invention

[0009] The present invention aims to provide an evaluation method, device and storage medium for monitoring the safety status of pressure-bearing equipment, so as to solve the above-mentioned technical problem in the prior art that the inspection of pressure-bearing equipment lags behind the changes in safety indicators (defects).

[0010] In order to achieve the above object, on the one hand, the technical solution adopted by the present invention is:

[0011] A method for evaluating the safety status monitoring of pressure equipment comprises the following steps:

[0012] S1. Read the data of pressure-bearing equipment;

[0013] S2. Analyze the failure modes of pressure equipment and determine monitoring methods;

[0014] S3. Establish a data analysis model and determine the monitoring threshold:

[0015] S31. Use finite element method to establish data analysis model of pressure equipment based on design, manufacturing, inspection and testing data;

[0016] S32. Analyze the monitoring locations that are prone to defects based on the failure modes, and provide the critical values ​​of the monitoring locations for each monitoring method.

[0017] S4. Establish an evaluation model and conduct comprehensive safety status assessment:

[0018] S41. Establish a factor set for safety status evaluation of pressure equipment based on operating parameters, monitoring parameters, and failure causes, and determine the influence coefficients between factors in the factor set;

[0019] S42. Convert all the influence coefficients of multiple factors into the values ​​of single factors;

[0020] S43. Compare the range of critical values ​​and evaluate the comprehensive safety status of the pressure-bearing equipment.

[0021] Preferably, the data analysis model contains defects detected during pressure-bearing equipment inspection, and determines the stress state and stress distribution cloud diagram of the pressure-bearing equipment under different working conditions.

[0022] Preferably, the monitoring method includes crack initiation monitoring, monitoring of known defect activity, monitoring of known defect height, gas leakage monitoring, stress and strain monitoring, uneven settlement monitoring or wall thickness monitoring.

[0023] Preferably, a method for evaluating the safety status monitoring of pressure equipment also includes installation testing of an intelligent monitoring terminal; the intelligent monitoring terminal includes one or more terminals selected from the group consisting of a pressure intelligent monitoring terminal, a temperature intelligent monitoring terminal, an acoustic emission intelligent monitoring terminal, a leakage intelligent monitoring terminal, a stress intelligent monitoring terminal, a tilt intelligent monitoring terminal, a corrosion intelligent monitoring terminal, and a TOFD intelligent monitoring terminal.

[0024] Preferably, in S41, the factor set is set to U1, U1 = {u1, u2, u3, u4...u n}; where u n Indicates pressure, temperature, crack growth, leakage, stress, tilt, corrosion or buried defects;

[0025] In S41, the influence coefficient is formed into an influence coefficient matrix ξ,

[0026]

[0027] in, It means that the jth factor is affected by the ith factor;

[0028] In S42, the influence coefficient matrix ξ can be transformed into a diagonal matrix λ.

[0029]

[0030] Preferably, the influencing factor is set as a numerical value, or as a corresponding relationship of an enumerated array, or as a function.

[0031] On the other hand, the technical solution adopted by the present invention is:

[0032] An evaluation device for monitoring the safety status of pressure-bearing equipment, wherein the evaluation device performs any of the above evaluation methods for monitoring the safety status of pressure-bearing equipment; the evaluation device for monitoring the safety status of pressure-bearing equipment comprises:

[0033] A reading unit, the reading unit is used to read the data of the pressure-bearing equipment;

[0034] a monitoring method determination unit, the monitoring method determination unit being used to analyze a failure mode of the pressure-bearing equipment and determine a monitoring method;

[0035] A critical value determination unit, which is used to establish a data analysis model for the pressure-bearing equipment using a finite element method based on design, manufacturing, and inspection and testing data, analyze monitoring locations prone to defects in combination with failure modes, and provide critical values ​​for the monitoring locations for each monitoring method;

[0036] An evaluation model establishment unit, the evaluation model establishment unit is used to establish a factor set for evaluating the safety status of pressure equipment according to operating parameters, monitoring parameters and failure causes, determine the influence coefficients between factors in the factor set; and convert all the influence coefficients of multiple factors into the values ​​of single factors; and

[0037] The comprehensive safety status assessment unit is used to compare the value range of the critical value and evaluate the comprehensive safety status of the pressure-bearing equipment.

[0038] Preferably, an evaluation device for monitoring the safety status of pressure equipment also includes an intelligent monitoring unit; the intelligent monitoring unit includes one or more terminals selected from the group consisting of a pressure intelligent monitoring terminal, a temperature intelligent monitoring terminal, an acoustic emission intelligent monitoring terminal, a leakage intelligent monitoring terminal, a stress intelligent monitoring terminal, a tilt intelligent monitoring terminal, a corrosion intelligent monitoring terminal, and a TOFD intelligent monitoring terminal.

[0039] On the other hand, the technical solution adopted by the present invention is:

[0040] A storage medium comprising a stored program; wherein the program executes the evaluation method for monitoring the safety status of pressure equipment as described in any one of the above.

[0041] On the other hand, the technical solution adopted by the present invention is:

[0042] A processor is used to run a program; wherein, when the program is running, the evaluation method for monitoring the safety status of pressure equipment as described in any one of the above is executed.

[0043] Beneficial effects of the present invention:

[0044] A series of technical solutions such as evaluation methods and devices for monitoring the safety status of pressure equipment are adopted. First, the failure mode of the pressure equipment is determined by reading the data of the pressure equipment monitoring object, and the real-time monitoring method is selected according to the failure mode. The monitoring critical value of each monitoring parameter and the numerical relationship between different monitoring parameters are analyzed through the finite element model. Finally, a comprehensive safety status evaluation mathematical model is established by comprehensively analyzing the design, manufacturing, installation, operation, maintenance, and inspection data, as well as the monitoring parameter types, and the software is used to form a real-time evaluation system for the comprehensive safety status of pressure equipment. The online real-time monitoring and evaluation of the safety status of pressure equipment is realized, solving the problems of low efficiency of regular inspection of pressure equipment, lagging behind the changes in safety indicators (defects), and inability to issue real-time alarms. The effect of dynamic comprehensive safety status assessment of pressure equipment based on usage parameters, operating conditions, and changes in the initiation and development of defects is achieved. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0045] In order to more clearly illustrate the specific embodiments of the present invention or the technical solutions in the prior art, the following briefly introduces the drawings required for use in the specific embodiments or the description of the prior art. Obviously, the drawings described below are some embodiments of the present invention. For ordinary technicians in this field, other drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without paying any creative work.

[0046] Figure 1 is a flow chart of an evaluation method for monitoring safety status of pressure equipment in an embodiment;

[0047] Figure 2 is a flow chart of an evaluation method for monitoring safety status of pressure equipment in an embodiment;

[0048] Figure 3 is a structural diagram of an evaluation system for monitoring the safety status of pressure equipment in an embodiment;

[0049] Figure 4 This is a schematic diagram of the deformation of the spherical tank when the entire tank is tilted (tilted to the right) in one embodiment;

[0050] Figure 5 This is a schematic diagram of the deformation of the spherical tank when the two side pillars sink in one embodiment;

[0051] Figure 6 The present invention is a structural diagram of an online monitoring and evaluation system for the comprehensive safety status of an LPG spherical tank in an embodiment. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0052] It should be noted that, in the absence of conflict, the embodiments and features of the embodiments in this application can be combined with each other. The present application will be described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings and in combination with the embodiments.

[0053] In order to enable those skilled in the art to better understand the present invention, the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present invention will be clearly and completely described below in conjunction with the drawings in the embodiments of the present invention. Obviously, the described embodiments are only part of the embodiments of the present invention, not all of the embodiments. Based on the embodiments in the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by ordinary technicians in this field without making creative efforts should fall within the scope of protection of this application.

[0054] It should be noted that the terms "first", "second" etc. in this application are used to distinguish similar objects, and are not necessarily used to describe a specific order or sequential order. It should be understood that the data used in this way can be interchanged in appropriate circumstances, so that the embodiments of the application described here. In addition, the terms "including" and "having" and any of their variations are intended to cover non-exclusive inclusions, for example, the process, method, system, product or equipment that includes a series of steps or units is not necessarily limited to those steps or units clearly listed, but may include other steps or units that are not clearly listed or inherent to these processes, methods, products or equipment.

[0055] It should be understood that when an element (such as a layer, film, region, or substrate) is described as being "on" another element, the element may be directly on the other element or intervening elements may be present. Moreover, in this application, when an element is described as being "connected" to another element, the element may be "directly connected" to the other element or "connected" to the other element through a third element.

[0056] Example 1

[0057] See also Figure 1 The present invention provides a method for evaluating the safety status monitoring of pressure equipment, comprising the following steps:

[0058] S1. Read the data of pressure-bearing equipment;

[0059] S2. Analyze the failure modes of pressure equipment and determine monitoring methods;

[0060] S3. Establish a data analysis model and determine the monitoring threshold:

[0061] S31. Use finite element method to establish data analysis model of pressure equipment based on design, manufacturing, inspection and testing data;

[0062] S32. Analyze the monitoring locations that are prone to defects based on the failure modes, and provide the critical values ​​of the monitoring locations for each monitoring method.

[0063] S4. Establish an evaluation model and conduct comprehensive safety status assessment:

[0064] S41. Establish a factor set for safety status evaluation of pressure equipment based on operating parameters, monitoring parameters, and failure causes, and determine the influence coefficients between factors in the factor set;

[0065] S42. Convert all the influence coefficients of multiple factors into the values ​​of single factors;

[0066] S43. Compare the range of critical values ​​and evaluate the comprehensive safety status of the pressure-bearing equipment.

[0067] In one embodiment, reading the data of the pressure-bearing equipment includes data collection and analysis. The design, manufacturing, installation, quality certification documents, usage management, inspection and testing data and standards submitted by the user unit, as well as comprehensive inspection of similar containers, accident event handling and other data are reviewed and familiarized. If necessary, research and analysis are conducted. Furthermore, the data are design data, manufacturing (including on-site welding) data, installation completion data, usage management data, and inspection and examination data of the pressure-bearing equipment. Among them, the strength calculation book in the design data serves as one of the data calculation criteria for subsequent evaluation. The material and performance in the strength calculation book determine the accuracy of the basic evaluation data.

[0068] In one embodiment of step S2, based on comprehensive inspections of similar containers, accident event handling, defect distribution and other information, combined with design, manufacturing and use management information, the risks posed by the failure modes of the monitored equipment to the pressure-bearing equipment are analyzed, and mainly targeting intrinsically safe failure modes, corresponding monitoring methods, intelligent monitoring terminals and disposal measures are selected.

[0069] The monitoring methods may include the following: crack initiation monitoring, known defect activity monitoring, known defect height monitoring, gas leakage monitoring, stress and strain monitoring, uneven settlement monitoring, or wall thickness monitoring.

[0070] A preferred solution is that the intelligent monitoring terminal corresponds to the monitoring method. Specifically:

[0071] 1. For monitoring crack initiation and known defect activity, the acoustic emission method is recommended.

[0072] 2. The TOFD method should be used to monitor known defect heights; other methods can be used if they can effectively monitor.

[0073] 3. The selection of gas leakage monitoring methods shall be carried out in accordance with Appendix E of GB / T 50493-2019 "Petrochemical Combustible Gas and Toxic Gas Detection and Alarm Design Standard".

[0074] 4. For stress and strain monitoring, the resistance strain method, fiber Bragg grating method, and vibrating string method should be selected.

[0075] 5. Uneven settlement monitoring can be carried out using the inclination method, displacement sensor, static level, GPS method, and multi-point laser ranging method.

[0076] 6. Wall thickness monitoring can be carried out by ultrasonic thickness measurement method, electromagnetic ultrasonic method, leakage flux method, laser holography method and electric fingerprint method.

[0077] 7. For other failure modes identified through failure mode analysis, effective methods must be adopted to monitor them.

[0078] In another preferred embodiment, the pressure equipment safety status monitoring and evaluation method further includes installation and testing of intelligent monitoring terminals; the intelligent monitoring terminals include one or more of pressure intelligent monitoring terminals, temperature intelligent monitoring terminals, acoustic emission intelligent monitoring terminals, leakage intelligent monitoring terminals, stress intelligent monitoring terminals, tilt intelligent monitoring terminals, corrosion intelligent monitoring terminals, and TOFD intelligent monitoring terminals. Generally, the intelligent monitoring terminals correspond to the monitoring method.

[0079] In one embodiment of step S3, the data analysis model includes defects detected during inspection of the pressure-bearing equipment, and determines the stress state and stress distribution cloud diagram of different working conditions of the pressure-bearing equipment.

[0080] In step S41, in one embodiment, the factor set is set to U1, U1 = {u1, u2, u3, u4...u n}; where u n Indicates pressure, temperature, crack growth, leakage, stress, tilt, corrosion or buried defects.

[0081] In step S41, in one embodiment, the influence coefficient is formed into an influence coefficient matrix ξ,

[0082]

[0083] in, It means that the jth factor is affected by the ith factor.

[0084] In step S42, in one embodiment, the influence coefficient matrix ξ can be transformed into a diagonal matrix λ.

[0085]

[0086] Preferably, the impact factor can be set as a numerical value, or as a corresponding relationship of an enumerated array, or as a function.

[0087] Example 2

[0088] See also Figure 2 、 Figure 3 The present invention provides an evaluation method for monitoring the safety status of pressure equipment, which can be described from another aspect below, and its technical solution is systematically explained to facilitate a comprehensive understanding of this technology.

[0089] This embodiment first develops a method flow for online monitoring and evaluation of the comprehensive safety status of pressure equipment, such as Figure 2 The system integrates and combines multiple intelligent monitoring terminals to form an online monitoring system for the comprehensive safety status of pressure-bearing equipment. Some online monitoring terminals identify effective monitoring methods for defects exceeding standards discovered during regular inspections. Finally, based on real-time data from the monitoring terminals and combined with data from design, manufacturing, installation, operation, maintenance, and inspection, a comprehensive, dynamic assessment of the safety status of pressure-bearing equipment is achieved. This complete hardware and software system combines real-time data from the monitoring terminals with data from design, manufacturing, installation, operation, maintenance, and inspection.

[0090] (1) Develop a process for online monitoring and evaluation of the comprehensive safety status of pressure-bearing equipment.

[0091] (2) Data collection and analysis

[0092] Review and familiarize yourself with the design, manufacturing, installation, quality certification documents, usage management, inspection and testing information and standards submitted by the user unit, as well as comprehensive inspection of similar containers, accident incident handling and other information; conduct research and analysis when necessary.

[0093] Design data: qualification certificate of the design unit, design, installation and operating instructions, design drawings, strength calculation sheet, etc.

[0094] Manufacturing (including on-site welding) information: manufacturing unit qualification certificate, product certificate, quality certificate, completion drawing, etc., as well as manufacturing supervision inspection certificate.

[0095] Installation completion data: renovation or major repair data; including construction plan, completion data, and renovation and major repair supervision and inspection certificates.

[0096] Usage management information: use registration certificate, special equipment use registration form, operation records, start and stop records, changes in operating conditions, and records of abnormal conditions during operation, etc.

[0097] Inspection and examination data: previous regular annual inspection reports and periodic inspection reports; pay special attention to problems found and how they were handled.

[0098] The strength calculation sheet in the design data is one of the data calculation criteria for subsequent evaluation. The material and performance determine the accuracy of the basic evaluation data.

[0099] (3) Failure mode analysis and determination of monitoring methods

[0100] Based on comprehensive inspections of similar vessels, accident handling, defect distribution and other data, combined with design, manufacturing and usage management data, the risks posed by the failure modes of the monitored equipment to the pressure-bearing equipment are analyzed. Focusing on intrinsically safe failure modes, corresponding monitoring methods, intelligent monitoring terminals and disposal measures are selected.

[0101] Acoustic emission is recommended for monitoring crack initiation and known defect activity. The TOFD method should be used for monitoring known defect heights; other methods may be used if they are effective. The selection of gas leak monitoring methods shall be in accordance with Appendix E of GB / T 50493-2019, "Petrochemical Combustible and Toxic Gas Detection and Alarm Design Standard." Stress and strain monitoring methods should include resistance strain measurement, fiber grating (FBG) measurement, and vibrating string measurement. Uneven settlement monitoring can include inclination angle measurement, displacement sensors, static levels, GPS, and multi-point laser ranging. Wall thickness monitoring can include ultrasonic thickness measurement, electromagnetic ultrasonic measurement, magnetic flux leakage, laser holography, and electrical fingerprint measurement.

[0102] For other failure modes identified through failure mode analysis, effective methods must be adopted to monitor them.

[0103] (4) Model establishment and determination of monitoring critical values

[0104] Based on design, manufacturing, and inspection data, a finite element method is used to establish a data analysis model for pressure-bearing equipment. This model incorporates defects detected during inspection and determines the stress state and stress distribution cloud diagrams for different operating conditions. Combined with failure mode analysis, this model identifies the weakest, most likely, or most susceptible to defects. Critical values ​​for each monitoring method are assigned to different locations, providing a basis for online monitoring and early warning.

[0105] (5) Installation and testing of intelligent monitoring terminals

[0106] Carry out installation and performance testing according to the methods provided by each intelligent monitoring terminal.

[0107] (6) Evaluation model and comprehensive safety status assessment

[0108] Establish a set of factors for evaluating the safety status of pressure equipment, determine the influence coefficients between factors, form an influence coefficient matrix, and conduct a comprehensive analysis and theoretical calculation of the safety status of pressure equipment based on the digital model of pressure equipment to give the safety status level of pressure equipment.

[0109] a. Establish factor sets based on operation, monitoring and failure causes

[0110] U1={u1,u2,u3,u4…u n}={pressure, temperature, crack growth, leakage, stress, tilt, corrosion, buried defects...}

[0111] b. Conduct theoretical analysis and experiments, combine the finite element model and data review content, identify the influencing factors between factors, abstract them into mathematical expressions, and form an influence coefficient matrix:

[0112]

[0113] in, Indicates that the jth factor is affected by the ith factor. Influencing factors generally have the following characteristics: an influencing factor can be a single value, an enumerated array, or a function; and the influencing factors of the same factors on different pressure-bearing equipment may vary.

[0114] For example, the relationship between the wall thickness and pressure of a spherical container can be directly determined by the method in the design standard.

[0115]

[0116] Where: δ—wall thickness, mm; for non-corroded parts, the actual thickness value can be directly used; for easily corroded parts, the data from the wall thickness intelligent monitoring terminal can be used.

[0117] p c —Operating pressure, MPa;

[0118] —Welding joint coefficient, generally a fixed value;

[0119] σ—allowable stress of the spherical shell material at operating temperature, MPa; can be obtained by looking up the table and interpolation;

[0120] D i —The inner diameter of the spherical shell.

[0121] c. The influence coefficient matrix ξ can be transformed into a diagonal matrix λ.

[0122]

[0123] In this way, the impact of multiple factors is converted into single-factor values ​​for evaluation. By comparing different ranges of monitoring critical values, the comprehensive safety status of pressure-bearing equipment can be evaluated. Each real-time monitoring value can be used to derive a predicted value for the next day, week, month, and so on, based on the monitoring curve. Using the predicted value instead of the monitored value for comprehensive safety status evaluation, this method enables the prediction of the comprehensive safety status of pressure-bearing equipment.

[0124] d. Emergency measures and treatment

[0125] Calculate the safety status of pressure-bearing equipment based on digital models. Provide diagnostic advice based on the results. In the event of an emergency, provide treatment suggestions based on the plan.

[0126] Finally, the hardware in the above technical solution cooperates with the on-site computer and network server to form an evaluation system for monitoring the safety status of pressure equipment, such as Figure 3 Among them, the network server is designed to communicate with mobile phones and computers. The network server can transmit the design data, manufacturing data, installation data, maintenance data, and inspection and testing data of pressure-bearing equipment.

[0127] This embodiment provides an apparatus and method for monitoring and evaluating the comprehensive safety status of pressure-bearing equipment in real time. First, through data review and analysis, failure modes of the pressure-bearing equipment are determined. A real-time monitoring method and intelligent monitoring terminal are selected for each failure mode. Finite element models are used to analyze the critical values ​​of each monitoring parameter and the numerical relationships between different monitoring parameters. Finally, a comprehensive mathematical model for evaluating the comprehensive safety status is established and implemented as software, creating software for evaluating the comprehensive safety status of pressure-bearing equipment in real time. This method enables online, real-time monitoring and evaluation of the safety status of pressure-bearing equipment, resolving the issues of inefficient regular inspections, lagging behind changes in safety indicators (defects), and inability to generate real-time alarms. It achieves the goal of dynamically evaluating the comprehensive safety status of pressure-bearing equipment based on operating parameters, operating conditions, and the initiation and development of defects. Specific monitoring methods are also provided for defects exceeding the specified limits discovered during regular inspections. For example, acoustic emission or time-of-flight (TOFD) methods are used to monitor defect expansion; stress concentration is monitored using stress monitoring methods; and corrosion is monitored using ultrasonic wall thickness monitoring methods. All methods have been experimentally validated in projects and have achieved excellent results.

[0128] Example 3

[0129] See also Figure 5-Figure 6 This embodiment takes the online monitoring and evaluation of the comprehensive safety status of an LPG spherical tank as an example to further illustrate an evaluation method for monitoring the safety status of pressure equipment involved in the first and second embodiments.

[0130] 1. 3000m 3 The basic design data of the LPG spherical tank are shown in the following table; among them, the spherical tank contains an unfused defect with a length of 40 mm and a height of 2 mm.

[0131] <![CDATA[3000m 3 LPG spherical tank size mm]]> SR 9000×48 Design pressure MPa 1.77 Design temperature ℃ 50 Operating pressure MPa 1.5 Operating temperature ℃ 41.4 Material medium Liquefied petroleum gas Corrosion allowance mm 2 Spherical shell material Q370R Forging materials 16Mn

[0132] 2. Data collection and analysis

[0133] Review and familiarize yourself with the design, manufacturing, installation, quality certification documents, usage management, inspection and testing data and standards submitted by the user unit.

[0134] A review of operational management processes and documentation revealed that, due to various reasons, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) spherical tanks can harbor defects during the manufacturing process, both permitted and unpermitted by standards. These defects can expand and instigate during use. In some cases, cracks in spherical tanks were repaired only to have new cracks discovered in the next cycle. A global survey of major spherical tank accidents and comprehensive inspections revealed that defective tanks accounted for 37.8% of all spherical tanks, with defects contributing to 32.1% of major accidents. The main types of defects included corrosion, cracks, and buried defects.

[0135] 3. Failure mode analysis and determination of monitoring methods

[0136] According to the investigation of major accidents involving spherical tanks, defects, together with personnel, management and system safety, constitute almost all the causes of major accidents involving liquefied petroleum gas spherical tanks.

[0137] Taking into account the design, manufacturing, operation, medium and other factors of spherical tanks, the main failure modes for liquefied gas spherical tanks are as follows: (1) sulfide stress corrosion cracking; (2) ductile fracture; (3) brittle fracture; (4) corrosion failure; (5) fatigue, wear and aging effects; (6) leakage failure; (7) spherical tank instability failure; (8) uneven settlement of spherical tank legs.

[0138] Based on the priority of safety factors, it was found that sulfide stress corrosion cracking, structural damage caused by the expansion of buried defects, and leakage failure are the failure modes that threaten the safety of liquefied petroleum gas spherical tanks the most. Uneven settlement of the legs, corrosion thinning, and ductile fracture caused by overpressure in the spherical tank all affect the safe operation of liquefied petroleum gas spherical tanks. To ensure the inherent safety of the spherical tank, based on the above main failure modes, six monitoring methods are proposed as follows:

[0139]

[0140]

[0141] 4. Model establishment and determination of monitoring critical values

[0142] The monitoring parameters of spherical tanks in this project include seven types: acoustic emission source, buried defects, leakage, wall thickness, stress, uneven settlement and temperature. A monitoring method is given for each parameter, and critical values ​​for different parts or types are given for each method based on reference standards and finite element analysis.

[0143] The critical values ​​of the above-mentioned LPG spherical tank with a diameter of 18 meters and welded with Q370R steel are as follows:

[0144]

[0145]

[0146] 5. Evaluation model and comprehensive safety status assessment

[0147] Establish a set of factors for evaluating the safety status of spherical tanks, determine the influence coefficients between factors, form an influence coefficient matrix, and conduct a comprehensive analysis of the safety status of spherical tanks based on the digital model of spherical tanks, perform theoretical calculations, and give the safety status level of spherical tanks.

[0148] a. Establish factor sets based on operation, monitoring and failure causes

[0149] U1={u1,u2,u3,u4…u n} = {pressure, temperature, crack growth, leakage, stress, tilt, wall thickness, buried defects}

[0150] Perform necessary calculations and substitute the diagonal matrix λ of the latest monitoring value as follows:

[0151]

[0152] (pressure, temperature, crack growth, leakage, stress, tilt, wall thickness, buried defects)

[0153] The pressure and temperature levels are not discussed in this embodiment.

[0154] Regarding the level of crack growth: Level I does not require verification, Level II can be verified based on the use of the inspected part and the actual structure of the acoustic emission positioning source, Level III should be verified, and Level IV should take emergency shutdown measures for the spherical tank. This monitoring is level 4, and the spherical tank takes emergency shutdown measures.

[0155] Leaks are classified into two levels: leakage or non-leakage. In the event of a leak, the spherical tank must be shut down immediately. This monitoring result is 0, indicating that no leakage has occurred.

[0156] The stress classification is as follows:

[0157] Monitoring stress Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 σ σ<allowable stress / 2 σ<allowable stress σ<2*allowable stress σ<tensile strength

[0158] The stress value of this monitoring result is 340MPa, which exceeds the allowable stress. The safety status is level 3.

[0159] The tilt classification is as follows: Level 1: the settlement of two adjacent columns is 0 to 2 mm; Level 2: the settlement of two adjacent columns is 2 to C max ; Level 3: The settlement of two adjacent columns is greater than or equal to C max Among them: C maxFor stress analysis calculations, the maximum support settlement value is calculated when the corresponding allowable stress is reached in the spherical tank, including but not limited to the spherical shell, support plate, support, support rod, etc. The maximum support settlement value for this spherical tank is 5.8mm.

[0160] In this monitoring, the tilt is 4.5mm, which corresponds to a safety level of 2.

[0161] The wall thickness is classified as follows:

[0162] Monitoring wall thickness Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 T <![CDATA[T≥δ+3C2]]> <![CDATA[δ+C2≤T<δ+3C2]]> <![CDATA[δ≤T<δ+C2]]> T<δ

[0163] Where C2 is the annual corrosion rate calculated from the most recent monitoring results, and δ is the design value calculated without any additional margin. The calculated δ is 42mm, and based on the wall thickness monitoring curve, C2 is 0. The wall thickness classification is 1.

[0164] Buried defects are classified as follows:

[0165]

[0166] Where h is the defect height, l is the defect length, and t is the wall thickness; h max 、l max The critical height and length of the phase defect are calculated according to GB / T19624. In this monitoring, the height of the lack of fusion defect is 2mm and has not changed. The grade is 2.

[0167] According to all the above monitoring results, the safety level of the spherical tank is level 4, and the spherical tank is shut down urgently.

[0168] Furthermore, in one embodiment, an online monitoring and evaluation system for the comprehensive safety status of an LPG spherical tank is provided. Figure 6 Multiple intelligent data acquisition terminals are provided; these terminals can be understood as the intelligent monitoring terminals described in the aforementioned embodiments. The tilt intelligent data acquisition terminal 1 is located at the top of the LPG spherical tank 8, and the temperature intelligent data acquisition terminal 6 is located at the bottom of the LPG spherical tank 8. Furthermore, an acoustic emission intelligent data acquisition terminal 2, a stress intelligent data acquisition terminal 3, a TOFD intelligent data acquisition terminal 4, a leakage intelligent data acquisition terminal 5, and a wall thickness intelligent data acquisition terminal 7 are also fixedly provided on the LPG spherical tank 8 and / or its support. The aforementioned intelligent data acquisition terminals are connected to the monitoring and fault diagnosis platform via the RS458 communication protocol.

[0169] Example 4

[0170] See also Figure 1 、 Figure 2 The present invention provides an evaluation device for monitoring the safety status of pressure-bearing equipment, and the evaluation device for monitoring the safety status of pressure-bearing equipment executes the evaluation method for monitoring the safety status of pressure-bearing equipment described in the above embodiment 1 or embodiment 2.

[0171] The evaluation device for monitoring the safety status of pressure equipment includes:

[0172] A reading unit, the reading unit is used to read the data of the pressure-bearing equipment;

[0173] a monitoring method determination unit, the monitoring method determination unit being used to analyze a failure mode of the pressure-bearing equipment and determine a monitoring method;

[0174] A critical value determination unit, which is used to establish a data analysis model for the pressure-bearing equipment using a finite element method based on design, manufacturing, and inspection and testing data, analyze monitoring locations prone to defects in combination with failure modes, and provide critical values ​​for the monitoring locations for each monitoring method;

[0175] An evaluation model establishment unit, the evaluation model establishment unit is used to establish a factor set for evaluating the safety status of pressure equipment according to operating parameters, monitoring parameters and failure causes, determine the influence coefficients between factors in the factor set; and convert all the influence coefficients of multiple factors into the values ​​of single factors; and

[0176] The comprehensive safety status assessment unit is used to compare the value range of the critical value and evaluate the comprehensive safety status of the pressure-bearing equipment.

[0177] In one embodiment, reading the data of the pressure-bearing equipment includes data collection and analysis. The design, manufacturing, installation, quality certification documents, use management, inspection and testing data and standards submitted by the user unit, as well as comprehensive inspection of similar containers, accident event handling and other data are reviewed and familiarized. If necessary, research and analysis are conducted. Furthermore, the data are design data, manufacturing (including on-site welding) data, installation completion data, use management data, and inspection and examination data of the pressure-bearing equipment. Among them, the strength calculation book in the design data serves as one of the data calculation criteria for subsequent evaluation. The material and performance in the strength calculation book determine the accuracy of the basic evaluation data.

[0178] Preferably, an evaluation device for monitoring the safety status of pressure-bearing equipment further includes an intelligent monitoring unit connected to the critical value determination unit and / or the evaluation model establishment unit; the intelligent monitoring unit includes one or more of a pressure intelligent monitoring terminal, a temperature intelligent monitoring terminal, an acoustic emission intelligent monitoring terminal, a leakage intelligent monitoring terminal, a stress intelligent monitoring terminal, a tilt intelligent monitoring terminal, a corrosion intelligent monitoring terminal, and a TOFD intelligent monitoring terminal. Generally, the intelligent monitoring terminal corresponds to the monitoring method.

[0179] The monitoring methods may include the following: crack initiation monitoring, known defect activity monitoring, known defect height monitoring, gas leakage monitoring, stress and strain monitoring, uneven settlement monitoring, or wall thickness monitoring.

[0180] Regarding monitoring methods, specifically:

[0181] 1. For monitoring crack initiation and known defect activity, the acoustic emission method is recommended.

[0182] 2. The TOFD method should be used to monitor known defect heights; other methods can be used if they can effectively monitor.

[0183] 3. The selection of gas leakage monitoring methods shall be carried out in accordance with Appendix E of GB / T 50493-2019 "Petrochemical Combustible Gas and Toxic Gas Detection and Alarm Design Standard".

[0184] 4. For stress and strain monitoring, the resistance strain method, fiber Bragg grating method, and vibrating string method should be selected.

[0185] 5. Uneven settlement monitoring can be carried out using the inclination method, displacement sensor, static level, GPS method, and multi-point laser ranging method.

[0186] 6. Wall thickness monitoring can be carried out by ultrasonic thickness measurement method, electromagnetic ultrasonic method, leakage flux method, laser holography method and electric fingerprint method.

[0187] 7. For other failure modes identified through failure mode analysis, effective methods must be adopted to monitor them.

[0188] The above-mentioned evaluation device for monitoring the safety status of pressure-bearing equipment includes a processor and a memory. The above-mentioned reading unit, monitoring method determination unit, critical value determination unit, evaluation model establishment unit and comprehensive safety status assessment unit are all stored in the memory as program units, and the processor executes the above-mentioned program units stored in the memory to realize the corresponding functions.

[0189] The processor includes a kernel, which retrieves the corresponding program unit from memory. One or more kernels can be configured. By adjusting kernel parameters, the impact coefficient is accurately calculated as a single factor value and compared with the critical value range to accurately evaluate the comprehensive safety status of the pressure-bearing equipment.

[0190] The memory may include non-permanent memory in a computer-readable medium, random access memory (RAM) and / or non-volatile memory, such as read-only memory (ROM) or flash RAM, and the memory includes at least one memory chip.

[0191] One embodiment provides a device, comprising a processor, a memory, and a program stored in the memory and executable on the processor, wherein when the processor executes the program, at least the following steps are performed:

[0192] S1. Read the data of pressure-bearing equipment;

[0193] S2. Analyze the failure modes of pressure equipment and determine monitoring methods;

[0194] S3. Establish a data analysis model and determine the monitoring threshold:

[0195] S31. Use finite element method to establish data analysis model of pressure equipment based on design, manufacturing, inspection and testing data;

[0196] S32. Analyze the monitoring locations that are prone to defects based on the failure modes, and provide the critical values ​​of the monitoring locations for each monitoring method.

[0197] S4. Establish an evaluation model and conduct comprehensive safety status assessment:

[0198] S41. Establish a factor set for safety status evaluation of pressure equipment based on operating parameters, monitoring parameters, and failure causes, and determine the influence coefficients between factors in the factor set;

[0199] S42. Convert all the influence coefficients of multiple factors into the values ​​of single factors;

[0200] S43. Compare the range of critical values ​​and evaluate the comprehensive safety status of the pressure-bearing equipment.

[0201] The above-mentioned devices can be servers, PCs, PADs, mobile phones, etc.

[0202] Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the embodiments of the present application can be provided as methods, systems, or computer program products. Therefore, the present application can adopt the form of a complete hardware embodiment, a complete software embodiment, or an embodiment in combination with software and hardware. Moreover, the present application can adopt the form of a computer program product implemented on one or more computer-usable storage media (including but not limited to magnetic disk storage, CD-ROM, optical storage, etc.) that contain computer-usable program code.

[0203] The present application is described with reference to the flowcharts and / or block diagrams of the methods, devices (systems), and computer program products according to the embodiments of the present application. It should be understood that each process and / or box in the flowchart and / or block diagram, as well as the combination of the processes and / or boxes in the flowchart and / or block diagram, can be implemented by computer program instructions. These computer program instructions can be provided to a processor of a general-purpose computer, a special-purpose computer, an embedded processor, or other programmable data processing device to produce a machine, so that the instructions executed by the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing device generate instructions for implementing the steps in the process. Figure 1 a process or multiple processes and / or boxes Figure 1 A device that provides the functions specified in a block or multiple blocks.

[0204] These computer program instructions may also be stored in a computer readable memory that can direct a computer or other programmable data processing device to work in a specific manner, so that the instructions stored in the computer readable memory produce an article of manufacture comprising an instruction device, which implements the process Figure 1 a process or multiple processes and / or boxes Figure 1 The function specified in one or more boxes.

[0205] These computer program instructions can also be loaded onto a computer or other programmable data processing device so that a series of operational steps are executed on the computer or other programmable device to produce a computer-implemented process, thereby providing the instructions executed on the computer or other programmable device for implementing the process. Figure 1 a process or multiple processes and / or boxes Figure 1 A step that specifies a function in one or more boxes.

[0206] In a typical configuration, a computing device includes one or more processors (CPUs), input / output interfaces, network interfaces, and memory.

[0207] The memory may include non-permanent memory in a computer-readable medium, random access memory (RAM) and / or non-volatile memory in the form of read-only memory (ROM) or flash RAM. The memory is an example of a computer-readable medium.

[0208] Computer-readable media includes permanent and non-permanent, removable and non-removable media that can be implemented by any method or technology to store information. The information can be computer-readable instructions, data structures, program modules or other data. Examples of computer storage media include, but are not limited to, phase change memory (PRAM), static random access memory (SRAM), dynamic random access memory (DRAM), other types of random access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), flash memory or other memory technology, compact disc read-only memory (CD-ROM), digital versatile disc (DVD) or other optical storage, magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices or any other non-transmission media that can be used to store information that can be accessed by a computing device. As defined herein, computer-readable media does not include transitory computer-readable media (transitory media), such as modulated data signals and carrier waves.

[0209] It should also be noted that the terms "comprises," "includes," or any other variations thereof are intended to encompass non-exclusive inclusion, such that a process, method, commodity, or apparatus that includes a series of elements includes not only those elements but also other elements not explicitly listed, or includes elements inherent to such process, method, commodity, or apparatus. In the absence of further limitations, an element defined by the phrase "comprises a ..." does not exclude the presence of other identical elements in the process, method, commodity, or apparatus that includes the element.

[0210] Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the embodiments of the present application may be provided as methods, systems, or computer program products. Therefore, the present application may take the form of a complete hardware embodiment, a complete software embodiment, or an embodiment combining software and hardware. Furthermore, the present application may take the form of a computer program product implemented on one or more computer-usable storage media (including but not limited to magnetic disk storage, CD-ROM, optical storage, etc.) containing computer-usable program code.

[0211] Example 5

[0212] The present invention provides a storage medium having a program stored thereon, which, when executed by a processor, implements the evaluation method for monitoring the safety status of pressure-bearing equipment in the above-mentioned embodiments 1 to 3.

[0213] Example 6

[0214] The present invention provides a processor, which is used to run a program, wherein the program, when running, executes the evaluation method for monitoring the safety status of pressure equipment in the above-mentioned embodiments 1 to 3.

[0215] The above description is merely a preferred embodiment of the present application and is not intended to limit the present application. Various modifications and variations are possible for those skilled in the art. Any modifications, equivalent substitutions, or improvements made within the spirit and principles of the present application shall be included within the scope of protection of the present application.

Claims

1. A method for evaluating the safety status of pressure equipment, characterized in that: The following steps are involved: S1. Read the data of pressure-bearing equipment; S2. Analyze the failure modes of pressure equipment and determine monitoring methods; S3. Establish a data analysis model and determine the monitoring threshold: S31. Use finite element method to establish data analysis model of pressure equipment based on design, manufacturing, inspection and testing data; S32. Analyze the monitoring locations that are prone to defects based on the failure modes, and provide the critical values ​​of the monitoring locations for each monitoring method. S4. Establish an evaluation model and conduct comprehensive safety status assessment: S41. Establish a factor set for safety status evaluation of pressure equipment based on operating parameters, monitoring parameters, and failure causes, and determine the influence coefficients between factors in the factor set; S42. Convert all the influence coefficients of multiple factors into the values ​​of single factors; S43. Compare the range of critical values ​​and evaluate the comprehensive safety status of the pressure equipment; In S41, the factor set is set as U1, U1 = {u1, u2, u3, u4...u n }; where u n Indicates pressure, temperature, crack growth, leakage, stress, tilt, corrosion or buried defects; In S41, the influence coefficient is formed into an influence coefficient matrix ξ, in, It means that the jth factor is affected by the ith factor; In S42, the influence coefficient matrix ξ can be transformed into a diagonal matrix λ. The data analysis model contains defects detected during pressure-bearing equipment inspection, and determines the stress state and stress distribution cloud diagram of the pressure-bearing equipment under different working conditions.

2. The method for evaluating the safety status monitoring of pressure equipment according to claim 1, characterized in that: The monitoring methods include crack initiation monitoring, monitoring of known defect activity, monitoring of known defect height, gas leakage monitoring, stress and strain monitoring, uneven settlement monitoring or wall thickness monitoring.

3. A method for evaluating safety status monitoring of pressure equipment according to claim 1 or 2, characterized in that: It also includes the installation test of the intelligent monitoring terminal; the intelligent monitoring terminal includes one or more terminals selected from the group consisting of pressure intelligent monitoring terminal, temperature intelligent monitoring terminal, acoustic emission intelligent monitoring terminal, leakage intelligent monitoring terminal, stress intelligent monitoring terminal, tilt intelligent monitoring terminal, corrosion intelligent monitoring terminal and TOFD intelligent monitoring terminal.

4. The method for evaluating the safety status monitoring of pressure equipment according to claim 1, characterized in that: The influence coefficient is set as a numerical value, or as a corresponding relationship of an enumeration array, or as a function.

5. An evaluation device for monitoring the safety status of pressure equipment, characterized in that: The evaluation device for monitoring the safety status of pressure-bearing equipment performs the evaluation method for monitoring the safety status of pressure-bearing equipment according to any one of claims 1 to 4; The evaluation device for monitoring the safety status of pressure equipment includes: A reading unit, the reading unit is used to read the data of the pressure-bearing equipment; a monitoring method determination unit, the monitoring method determination unit being used to analyze a failure mode of the pressure-bearing equipment and determine a monitoring method; A critical value determination unit, which is used to establish a data analysis model for the pressure-bearing equipment using a finite element method based on design, manufacturing, and inspection and testing data, analyze monitoring locations prone to defects in combination with failure modes, and provide critical values ​​for the monitoring locations for each monitoring method; An evaluation model establishment unit, the evaluation model establishment unit is used to establish a factor set for evaluating the safety status of pressure equipment according to operating parameters, monitoring parameters and failure causes, determine the influence coefficients between factors in the factor set; and convert all the influence coefficients of multiple factors into the values ​​of single factors; The comprehensive safety status assessment unit is used to compare the value range of the critical value and evaluate the comprehensive safety status of the pressure-bearing equipment.

6. The device for monitoring the safety status of pressure equipment according to claim 5, characterized in that: It also includes an intelligent monitoring unit; the intelligent monitoring unit includes one or more terminals selected from the group consisting of a pressure intelligent monitoring terminal, a temperature intelligent monitoring terminal, an acoustic emission intelligent monitoring terminal, a leakage intelligent monitoring terminal, a stress intelligent monitoring terminal, a tilt intelligent monitoring terminal, a corrosion intelligent monitoring terminal, and a TOFD intelligent monitoring terminal.

7. A storage medium, characterized in that: The storage medium includes a stored program; wherein, the program executes the evaluation method for monitoring the safety status of pressure equipment according to any one of claims 1 to 4.

8. A processor, characterized in that: The processor is used to run a program; wherein, when the program is running, the evaluation method for monitoring the safety status of pressure equipment according to any one of claims 1 to 4 is executed.

Images