Complex equipment-oriented full-life-cycle reliability evaluation method

Abstract

The invention discloses a full-life-cycle reliability evaluation method for complex equipment, which belongs to the field of equipment reliability evaluation, and specifically comprises the following steps of: dividing the full-life cycle of the complex equipment into four life stages, and then giving the type of reliability evaluation indexes of the complex equipment in each life stage; then, a method for establishing a scoring standard of each evaluation index is provided, evaluation values of all the evaluation indexes can be obtained according to the established scoring standard, and finally, the evaluation value of each evaluation index is obtained by combining the weight values of different subsystems, the weight values of different reliability evaluation indexes and the weight values of different life stages of the complex equipment. And completing reliability evaluation of the complex equipment in different life stages and the whole life cycle.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The invention relates to a reliability evaluation method for complex equipment, and belongs to the field of equipment reliability evaluation. Background Art

[0002] With the rapid development of the country's manufacturing industry, equipment in various industries has become more and more complex and sophisticated. Its research and development and production often integrate knowledge from various fields such as machinery, hydraulics, electronics, control, and computers. At present, complex equipment can basically meet most of the needs in terms of functions and performance, but there is a gap with the international advanced level in terms of reliability. Through reliability evaluation, the reliability level of equipment can be accurately grasped, thereby providing guidance for improving equipment reliability. At present, the commonly used equipment reliability evaluation method is to first calculate the mean time between failures (MTBF) based on the equipment failure data in the use stage, and then perform reliability evaluation based on the size of MTBF. However, the commonly used equipment reliability evaluation method has the following defects: First, when using this method, a large amount of equipment failure data needs to be collected, which takes a long time and a lot of manpower and material resources. Secondly, the commonly used reliability evaluation method can only be used for reliability evaluation after the equipment is manufactured, which is not helpful for improving equipment reliability. Finally, it is not comprehensive to evaluate equipment reliability using only the single indicator of MTBF. Therefore, it is an urgent need for the manufacturing industry to carry out research on complex equipment reliability evaluation technology, evaluate the reliability level of complex equipment from the perspective of the entire life cycle, and form a practical and scientific complex equipment reliability evaluation system.

[0003] The reliability level of complex equipment is an important indicator to measure the quality of equipment. Through reliability evaluation, we can know the reliability level of complex equipment and the main reasons for the reliability level of equipment, so as to provide guidance for improving the reliability of equipment. Using the reliability evaluation method of complex equipment, we can design complex equipment with high reliability, and we can also improve the reliability of existing complex equipment. Complex equipment has a complex structure. When using traditional complex equipment reliability evaluation methods for evaluation, the workload is large, the time is long, and the evaluation indicators are too single. Therefore, it is urgent to propose a reliability evaluation method that is easy to calculate, simple in process and highly practical in the current research on the reliability of complex equipment. Solving the problem of reliability evaluation of complex equipment requires two important steps:

[0004] First, establish a reliability evaluation index system for complex equipment throughout its life cycle;

[0005] According to all reliability-related work contents during the entire life cycle of complex equipment and combined with the work priorities of each life stage, the reliability evaluation indicators of complex equipment at different life stages are determined, and a reliability evaluation indicator system for complex equipment throughout its life cycle is established. Under this indicator system, the reliability evaluation of complex equipment can be realized.

[0006] Second, establish scoring criteria;

[0007] After the evaluation indicators of each life stage of complex equipment are determined, relevant scoring standards are established for different evaluation indicators based on the relevant data existing in each life stage, so as to achieve the purpose of using specific numerical values ​​to characterize the reliability level of complex equipment under a unified reliability evaluation index system, making the reliability evaluation results more intuitive.

[0008] The present invention utilizes relevant data throughout the life cycle of complex equipment to establish an evaluation index system and scoring criteria, and combines evaluation indicators, life stages, and subsystem weight information to obtain reliability evaluation results for complex equipment at different life stages and throughout its life cycle. Summary of the invention

[0009] The purpose of this invention is to provide a full life cycle reliability evaluation method for complex equipment, which mainly performs the following tasks:

[0010] 1) Divide the life cycle of complex equipment into four stages, namely, design stage, manufacturing stage, assembly stage and use stage;

[0011] 2) Divide the complex equipment into several subsystems based on its structure and functional characteristics and the relevant data of similar products in the previous period, and determine the important types of components in each subsystem;

[0012] 3) According to the reliability-related work content in each life stage, the reliability evaluation indicators of different life stages are determined to form a reliability evaluation indicator system for complex equipment.

[0013] 4) Analyze the relevant data of each life stage, establish corresponding scoring standards for different reliability indicators, and then obtain the evaluation values ​​of different evaluation indicators based on the scoring standards.

[0014] 5) Based on the evaluation values ​​of different evaluation indicators, combined with the weights of different evaluation indicators, different life stages and different subsystems, the reliability evaluation results of complex equipment at different life stages and the reliability evaluation results of the entire life cycle are calculated. According to the evaluation results, the relevant work of each life stage is improved to improve the reliability level of domestic complex equipment.

[0015] Through the above steps, a new reliability evaluation method for the entire life cycle of complex equipment was invented to evaluate the reliability level of domestic complex equipment. According to the evaluation results, the shortcomings of the reliability work of complex equipment in each life stage can be identified, and guidance can be provided for improving the reliability of complex equipment throughout the entire life cycle of design, manufacturing, assembly and use.

[0016] The specific steps are as follows:

[0017] Step 1: Divide the entire life cycle of complex equipment into four life stages: design stage, manufacturing stage, assembly stage and use stage.

[0018] Step 2: Divide the complex equipment into subsystems and key components based on the structural characteristics, functional principles, and previously collected failure data of similar complex equipment. Divide the complex equipment into m subsystems, each of which contains several key components. These subsystems form a subsystem set {O 1 ,O 2 ,O 3 ,…,O m}, where O m It represents the mth subsystem of the complex equipment, where m represents the number of subsystems into which the complex equipment is divided.

[0019] Step 3: Determine the reliability evaluation indicators for each life stage of complex equipment.

[0020] The reliability evaluation indicators in the design stage include: reliability, risk, safety and maintainability. The reliability evaluation indicators in the manufacturing stage include: product quality and standardization. The reliability evaluation indicators in the assembly stage include: assembly quality and standardization. The reliability evaluation indicators in the use stage include: availability, product quality, safety and performance.

[0021] Step 4: Establish scoring criteria for evaluation indicators in the design phase of complex equipment and obtain evaluation values ​​for each evaluation indicator in the design phase.

[0022] (1) The reliability scoring standard is established based on the calculated reliability of the entire complex equipment. The reliability calculation formula for the entire complex equipment is:

[0023]

[0024] Among them, R 整机 For the reliability of complex equipment, R i is the reliability of the ith subsystem, and m is the number of subsystems. The reliability scoring criteria for the complex equipment design phase are shown in Table 1 below:

[0025] Table 1. Scoring criteria for reliability of complex equipment design stage

[0026]

[0027]

[0028] According to the reliability scoring criteria in Table 1, the evaluation value SKK of the reliability index in the design stage of complex equipment can be obtained.

[0029] (2) The risk scoring standard is established based on two secondary evaluation indicators, namely the severity of complex equipment failures and the detectability of failures. Therefore, it is necessary to establish scoring standards for these two secondary evaluation indicators.

[0030] Based on the fault data of similar complex equipment collected in the early stage, all the fault modes of each complex equipment subsystem were obtained. The scoring standard of fault severity was established based on the fault severity of the fault mode of the complex equipment subsystem, as shown in Table 2 below:

[0031] Table 2 Scoring criteria for fault severity during the design phase of complex equipment

[0032] Rating scale Criteria 5 The fault is minor and affects the appearance of the equipment 4 The failure caused inconvenience to the operator; the equipment efficiency was reduced but the equipment did not stop. 3 Failures cause equipment downtime without any harm to the operator 2 The failure caused minor injuries to personnel; the failure caused the equipment to shut down and require dismantling and overhaul 1 The failure caused more serious injuries to personnel than minor injuries; the failure caused the equipment to be irreparable.

[0033] For each subsystem, according to the scoring criteria in Table 2, the fault severity evaluation values ​​of all fault modes in the subsystem can be obtained, and the minimum value among these evaluation values ​​is selected as the fault severity evaluation value of the subsystem, which is recorded as Among them, O i is the i-th subsystem, and there are m subsystems in total.

[0034] The detectability scoring criteria are established based on the detectability of the failure modes of complex equipment subsystems, as shown in Table 3 below:

[0035] Table 3 Scoring criteria for fault detectability during the design phase of complex equipment

[0036]

[0037]

[0038] For each subsystem, according to the scoring criteria in Table 3, the evaluation values ​​of the detectability of all fault modes in the subsystem can be obtained. The minimum value among these evaluation values ​​is selected as the fault detectability evaluation value of the subsystem, which is recorded as Among them, O i is the i-th subsystem, and there are m subsystems in total.

[0039] Based on the above two scoring criteria, the fault severity evaluation value and fault detectability evaluation value of each subsystem can be obtained. The risk of complex equipment design stage is the comprehensive performance of the fault severity and fault detectability of all subsystems. Therefore, the calculation formula of the evaluation value SFX of the risk index of complex equipment design stage is:

[0040]

[0041] Among them, θ iis the importance weight value of the ith subsystem. There are m subsystems in total. The weight value of each subsystem can be obtained through expert experience.

[0042] (3) The safety scoring standard is established based on whether the relevant work such as the mechanical system safety design, control system safety design, electrical system safety design and functional safety design of the complex equipment during the complex equipment design process has referred to the current national standards or industry standards. The evaluation value of the safety index in the complex equipment design stage is recorded as SAQ.

[0043] First, all national standards and industry standards related to mechanical system safety design, control system safety design, electrical system safety design and functional safety design of complex equipment are listed to form a standard set {B 1 ,B 2 ,B 3 ,…,B n}, where B n represents the nth national standard or industry standard related to the safety design of complex equipment, and n represents the total number of all national standards and industry standards related to the safety design of complex equipment. Then, it is judged whether the relevant design scheme of the safety design of complex equipment meets the standard set {B 1 ,B 2 ,B 3 ,…,B n}. Define the initial value of the safety index evaluation value SAQ of the complex equipment design stage as 0. When the relevant design scheme of the complex equipment safety design meets a standard requirement, the value of the safety evaluation value SAQ is increased by 1, and if it does not meet the requirements, it is increased by 0 until all the standards in the standard set are judged. Finally, the final value of SAQ is used as the evaluation value of the safety index of the complex equipment design stage.

[0044] (4) The maintainability scoring criteria are based on the proportion of standard parts among all key component types that make up the complex equipment.

[0045] According to the drawing information of complex equipment, the number of all key parts and components that make up the complex equipment is counted, recorded as Q. Determine whether each type of part is a standard part, and count the number of all standard parts and components, recorded as P. The calculation formula for the proportion of standard parts α is:

[0046]

[0047] The maintainability scoring standards for complex equipment in the design phase are shown in Table 4 below:

[0048] Table 4. Scoring criteria for maintainability of complex equipment during the design phase

[0049] Rating scale Criteria 10 90％≤α≤100％ 9 80％≤α＜90％ 8 70％≤α＜80％ 7 60％≤α＜70％ 6 50％≤α＜60％ 5 45％≤α＜50％ 4 40％≤α＜45％ 3 30％≤α＜40％ 2 20％≤α＜30％ 1 α＜20％

[0050] According to the scoring criteria in Table 4, the evaluation value SWX of the maintainability index in the design stage of complex equipment can be obtained.

[0051] Step 5: Establish scoring criteria for evaluation indicators in the manufacturing stage of complex equipment and obtain the evaluation values ​​of each evaluation indicator in the manufacturing stage.

[0052] (1) The scoring standard for product quality is established based on two secondary evaluation indicators: the quality level of purchased parts and the quality level of self-made parts in all key components of complex equipment. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a scoring standard for these two secondary evaluation indicators: the quality level of purchased parts and the quality level of self-made parts.

[0053] Among them, the quality level of purchased parts is obtained based on the quality pass rate β of purchased parts obtained by sampling and testing of purchased parts. The scoring standard of the quality level of purchased parts is established according to the size of β, as shown in the following Table 5:

[0054] Table 5 Scoring criteria for the quality level of purchased parts in the complex equipment manufacturing stage

[0055]

[0056]

[0057] For each subsystem, according to the scoring criteria in Table 5, the evaluation value of the quality level of purchased parts in all key components in the subsystem can be obtained.

[0058] The quality level of self-made parts is obtained based on the ratio of the rework and repair time to the time required for one-time qualified manufacturing during the manufacturing process. The calculation formula is:

[0059]

[0060] According to the size of γ, a scoring standard for the quality level of self-made parts is established, as shown in Table 6 below:

[0061] Table 6 Scoring criteria for the quality level of self-made parts in the complex equipment manufacturing stage

[0062] Rating scale Criteria 10 γ=100% 9 90%≤γ<100% 8 80%≤γ<90% 7 70%≤γ<80% 6 60%≤γ<70% 5 50%≤γ<60% 4 40%≤γ<50% 3 30%≤γ<40% 2 20%≤γ<30% 1 γ<20%

[0063] For each subsystem, according to the scoring criteria in Table 6, the evaluation value of the quality level of self-made parts in all key components in the subsystem can be obtained.

[0064] For each subsystem, combined with the scoring criteria in Table 5 and Table 6, the minimum value of the evaluation values ​​of the quality levels of all self-made parts and purchased parts in the subsystem is selected as the product quality evaluation value of the subsystem, denoted as Among them, O i is the i-th subsystem, and there are m subsystems in total.

[0065] Product quality is the comprehensive performance of the manufacturing quality of all subsystems. Therefore, the calculation formula of the evaluation value ZCZ of the product quality index in the complex equipment manufacturing stage is:

[0066]

[0067] Among them, θ i is the importance weight value of the ith subsystem. There are m subsystems in total. The weight value of each subsystem can be obtained through expert experience.

[0068] (2) The normative scoring criteria are based on whether the control work related to the manufacturing process and manufacturing quality of key components in the subsystem during the manufacturing process of complex equipment is strict.

[0069] The established scoring standards for the manufacturing compliance of key components of complex equipment are shown in Table 7 below:

[0070] Table 7 Scoring criteria for manufacturing standardization of key components of complex equipment

[0071]

[0072] The manufacturing standardization of all key components is evaluated according to the 10 scoring criteria in Table 7. The initial value of the manufacturing standardization evaluation value of each key component is defined as 0. When the actual manufacturing situation of the component meets the judgment criteria, its manufacturing standardization evaluation value is increased by 1, otherwise it is increased by 0, and finally the manufacturing standardization evaluation value of the component is obtained.

[0073] For each subsystem, according to the scoring criteria in Table 7, the manufacturing standardization evaluation values ​​of all key components in the subsystem can be obtained. The minimum value among these evaluation values ​​is selected as the manufacturing standardization evaluation value of the subsystem, which is recorded as Among them, O i is the i-th subsystem, and there are m subsystems in total.

[0074] Combining the importance weight values ​​of each subsystem, the evaluation value ZGF of the normative index in the complex equipment manufacturing stage can be calculated. The calculation formula is:

[0075]

[0076] Among them, θ i is the importance weight value of the ith subsystem. There are m subsystems in total. The weight value of each subsystem can be obtained through expert experience.

[0077] Step 6: Establish scoring criteria for evaluation indicators in the assembly phase of complex equipment and obtain evaluation values ​​of each evaluation indicator in the assembly phase.

[0078] (1) The scoring standard for assembly quality is established based on the assembly quality level of complex equipment. The assembly quality level is obtained based on the ratio of the rework and repair time of complex equipment during the assembly process to the time required for one-time qualified assembly. The calculation formula is:

[0079]

[0080] According to the size of δ, the scoring criteria for assembly quality in the complex equipment assembly stage are established, as shown in Table 8 below:

[0081] Table 8 Evaluation criteria for assembly quality during the complex equipment assembly phase

[0082] Rating scale Criteria 10 δ=100% 9 90%≤δ<100% 8 80%≤δ<90% 7 70%≤δ<80% 6 60%≤δ<70% 5 50%≤δ<60% 4 40%≤δ<50% 3 30%≤δ<40% 2 20%≤δ<30% 1 δ<20%

[0083] According to the scoring criteria in Table 8, the evaluation value PZZ of the assembly quality index in the complex equipment assembly stage can be obtained.

[0084] (2) The normative scoring criteria are established based on whether the control work related to assembly process and assembly quality during the assembly of complex equipment is strict.

[0085] The normative scoring criteria for the complex equipment assembly stage are shown in Table 9 below:

[0086] Table 9 Scoring criteria for the standardization of complex equipment assembly stage

[0087]

[0088] According to the serial numbers in Table 9, the initial value of the evaluation value PGF of the normative index of the complex equipment assembly stage is defined as 0. When the actual manufacturing situation of the complex equipment meets the judgment standard, the value of the normative index evaluation value PGF is increased by 1, otherwise it is increased by 0. Finally, the final value of PGF is used as the evaluation value of the normative index of the complex equipment assembly stage.

[0089] Step 7: Establish scoring criteria for evaluation indicators during the use phase of complex equipment and obtain evaluation values ​​for each evaluation indicator during the use phase.

[0090] (1) The availability scoring standard is based on the mean time between failures (MTBF) and mean time to repair (MTTR) of complex equipment. The calculation formula for the availability A of complex equipment during the use phase is:

[0091]

[0092] According to the size of A, the scoring criteria for the availability of complex equipment in the use phase are established, as shown in Table 10 below:

[0093] Table 10 Scoring criteria for availability of complex equipment during the use phase

[0094]

[0095]

[0096] According to the availability scoring criteria in Table 10, the evaluation value YKY of the availability index of complex equipment in the use phase can be obtained.

[0097] (2) The scoring standard for product quality is established based on the quality level of products processed or produced by complex equipment, and the quality level of products is obtained based on the quality qualification rate ε of the products. The scoring standard for product quality indicators in the use stage of complex equipment is established based on the size of ε, as shown in Table 11 below:

[0098] Table 11 Scoring criteria for product quality during the use phase of complex equipment

[0099] Rating scale Criteria 10 ε=100% 9 90%≤ε<100% 8 80%≤ε<90% 7 70%≤ε<80% 6 60%≤ε<70% 5 50%≤ε<60% 4 40%≤ε<50% 3 30%≤ε<40% 2 20%≤ε<30% 1 ε<20%

[0100] According to the scoring criteria in Table 11, the evaluation value YZZ of the product quality index in the use stage of complex equipment can be obtained.

[0101] (3) The safety scoring criteria are based on the degree of harm caused to the operator by the complex equipment during use. The safety scoring criteria for the complex equipment during use are shown in Table 12 below:

[0102] Table 12 Scoring criteria for safety of complex equipment during use

[0103]

[0104] According to the scoring criteria in Table 12, the evaluation value YAQ of the safety index of the use phase of complex equipment can be obtained.

[0105] (4) The performance scoring standard is established based on the stability level of the performance of complex equipment during use. Generally speaking, the performance of complex equipment includes multiple performance parameters. The most important performance parameters are selected as secondary indicators, and the scoring standard is established for the secondary indicators.

[0106] The scoring standard for the secondary index is the ratio of the actual variation range of the performance parameter to the allowable variation range ρ i The calculation formula is based on:

[0107]

[0108] Among them, ρ i is the ratio of the actual variation range of the ith performance parameter to the allowable variation range. There are k performance parameters for complex equipment. The established performance parameter scoring criteria are shown in Table 13 below:

[0109] Table 13 Scoring criteria for performance parameters of complex equipment in the use phase

[0110]

[0111]

[0112] According to the scoring criteria in Table 13, the evaluation values ​​of various important performance parameters in the use stage of complex equipment can be obtained, and the lowest value among all performance parameter evaluation values ​​is taken as the value of the performance indicator evaluation value YXN in the use stage of complex equipment.

[0113] Step 8: Calculate the reliability evaluation results of complex equipment at different life stages.

[0114] (1) The reliability evaluation value of complex equipment design stage is defined as SK, and its calculation formula is:

[0115] SK=SKK*μ 1 +SFX*μ 2 +SAQ*μ 3 +SWX*μ 4 (10)

[0116] Among them, μ 1 , μ 2 , μ 3 and μ 4 They are the weight values ​​of the four evaluation indicators, namely reliability, risk, safety and maintainability in the design phase. These weight values ​​can be obtained through expert experience. The SK value is the reliability evaluation result of the complex equipment in the design phase.

[0117] (2) The reliability evaluation value of the complex equipment manufacturing stage is defined as ZK, and its calculation formula is:

[0118] ZK=ZCZ*σ 1 +ZGF*σ 2 (11)

[0119] Among them, σ 1 and σ 2 They are the weight values ​​of two evaluation indicators, namely product quality and standardization in the manufacturing stage. These weight values ​​can be obtained through expert experience. The ZK value is the reliability evaluation result of the complex equipment in the manufacturing stage.

[0120] (3) The reliability evaluation value of the complex equipment assembly stage is defined as PK, and its calculation formula is:

[0121] PK=PZZ*π 1 +PGF*π 2 (12)

[0122] Among them, π 1 and π 2 They are the weight values ​​of two evaluation indicators, namely assembly quality and standardization in the assembly stage. These weight values ​​can be obtained through expert experience. The PK value is the reliability evaluation result of the complex equipment in the assembly stage.

[0123] (4) Define the reliability evaluation value of complex equipment in the use stage as YK, and its calculation formula is:

[0124] YK=YKY*τ 1 +YZZ*τ 2 +YAQ*τ 3 +YXN*τ 4 (13)

[0125] Among them, τ 1 , τ 2 , τ 3 and τ 4 They are the weight values ​​of four evaluation indicators, namely availability, product quality, safety and performance during the use phase. These weight values ​​can be obtained through expert experience. The YK value is the reliability evaluation result of the complex equipment during the use phase.

[0126] Step 9: Calculate the reliability evaluation results of the complex equipment throughout its life cycle.

[0127] The reliability evaluation value of the whole life cycle of complex equipment is defined as QK, and its calculation formula is:

[0128] QK=SK*ω 1 +ZK*ω 2 +RK*ω 3 +YK*ω 4 (14)

[0129] Among them, ω 1 ,ω 2 ,ω 3 and ω 4 They are the weight values ​​of the four life stages of complex equipment, namely the design stage, use stage, assembly stage and use stage. These weight values ​​can be obtained through expert experience. The QK value is the reliability evaluation result of the entire life cycle of the complex equipment. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0130] Figure 1 It is a flow chart of the implementation of the method of the present invention. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0131] The present invention takes a certain type of vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment as an example to verify the reliability evaluation method of the above-mentioned complex equipment throughout its life cycle. Specifically, it includes the following steps:

[0132] Step 1: The entire life cycle of the vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment is divided into four stages: design stage, manufacturing stage, assembly stage and use stage.

[0133] Step 2: Divide the vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment into subsystems and key components, and divide it into 6 subsystems, each subsystem has several key components.

[0134] Table 14 Division results of subsystems and key components of vacuum high pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment

[0135] Serial number Subsystem Key components 1 Vacuum furnace Furnace shell, sealing ring, furnace door, furnace body support 2 Heating system Material table, insulation layer, heating element, thermocouple 3 Vacuum system Mechanical pump, Roots pump, vacuum gauge 4 Gas quenching system Motor, heat exchanger, charging valve 5 Water Cooling System Pressure testing instruments, pipelines, valves 6 Electronic control system Industrial computers, programmable controllers, temperature controllers

[0136] Step 3: Determine the reliability evaluation indicators of vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment at each life stage.

[0137] The reliability evaluation indicators in the design stage include: reliability, risk, safety and maintainability. The reliability evaluation indicators in the manufacturing stage include: product quality and standardization. The reliability evaluation indicators in the assembly stage include: assembly quality and standardization. The reliability evaluation indicators in the use stage include: availability, product quality, safety and performance.

[0138] Step 4: Establish scoring criteria for evaluation indicators in the design phase of vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment, and obtain evaluation values ​​for each evaluation indicator in the design phase.

[0139] (1) During the design phase of vacuum high pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment, the reliability data assigned to each subsystem is shown in Table 15 below:

[0140] Table 15 Reliability assigned to subsystems of vacuum high pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment during the design phase

[0141] Serial number Subsystem Reliability value 1 Vacuum furnace 0.9955 2 Heating system 0.9536 3 Vacuum system 0.9571 4 Gas quenching system 0.9870 5 Water Cooling System 0.9804 6 Electronic control system 0.9729

[0142] Substituting the data in Table 15 into Formula 1, the reliability calculation value R of vacuum high pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment can be obtained. 整机 =0.8553, which is greater than the reliability design value of 0.85. Therefore, according to the scoring criteria in Table 1, the evaluation value SKK of the reliability index in the design stage of vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment is 10.

[0143] (2) Based on the failure data of similar vacuum heat treatment equipment collected in the early stage, the failure mode of the vacuum heat treatment equipment subsystem is obtained as shown in Table 16 below.

[0144] Table 16 Failure mode table of vacuum heat treatment equipment subsystem

[0145]

[0146] For each subsystem of the vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment, the fault severity evaluation value of all fault modes in the subsystem can be obtained according to the scoring criteria in Table 2, and the minimum value among the evaluation values ​​is selected as the fault severity evaluation value of the subsystem, as shown in Table 17 below:

[0147] Table 17 Evaluation values ​​of fault severity of vacuum heat treatment equipment subsystem

[0148]

[0149] For each subsystem of the vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment, the fault detectability evaluation value of all fault modes in the subsystem can be obtained according to the scoring criteria in Table 3, and the minimum value among the evaluation values ​​is selected as the fault detectability evaluation value of the subsystem, as shown in Table 18 below:

[0150] Table 18 Evaluation values ​​of detectability of faults in vacuum heat treatment equipment subsystems

[0151]

[0152]

[0153] According to expert experience, the weight values ​​of the importance of the six subsystems of vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment can be obtained, as shown in Table 19 below:

[0154] Table 19 Subsystem importance weights of vacuum high pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment

[0155] Serial number Subsystem Importance weight value 1 Vacuum furnace 0.21 2 Heating system 0.19 3 Vacuum system 0.19 4 Gas quenching system 0.13 5 Water Cooling System 0.13 6 Electronic control system 0.15

[0156] According to the data in Table 17, Table 18 and Table 19, substituting them into Formula 2, it can be calculated that the evaluation value SFX of the risk index in the design stage of vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment is 4.8.

[0157] (3) Six national standards and industry standards related to mechanical system safety design, control system safety design, electrical system safety design and functional safety design of vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment were sorted out and summarized, as shown in Table 20 below:

[0158] Table 20 Standards related to safety design of vacuum high pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment

[0159]

[0160] After judgment, the relevant design schemes for the safety design of vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment all meet the 6 standard requirements in Table 20, and the evaluation value SAQ of the safety index in the design stage of vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment is obtained to be 6.

[0161] (4) Table 14 lists 20 key parts of vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment. After judgment, it is determined that there are 16 standard parts. Substituting into Formula 3, it can be obtained that the proportion of standard parts is α = 80%. According to the scoring criteria in Table 4, the evaluation value SWX of the maintainability index of vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment in the design stage is 9.

[0162] Step 5: Establish scoring criteria for evaluation indicators in the manufacturing stage of vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment, and obtain evaluation values ​​for each evaluation indicator in the manufacturing stage.

[0163] (1) Table 14 lists 20 key components of vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment, of which 16 are purchased parts and 4 are self-made parts. By sampling purchased parts, the quality qualification rate β of purchased parts can be obtained; by tracking the manufacturing process of self-made parts, the ratio of the rework and repair time of self-made parts in the manufacturing process to the time taken for one-time qualified manufacturing γ can be determined. Combined with the scoring criteria in Tables 5 and 6, the product quality evaluation values ​​of key components and subsystems are determined, as shown in Table 21 below:

[0164] Table 21 Quality level of purchased and self-made parts for vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment

[0165]

[0166]

[0167] Substituting the data in Table 21 and Table 19 into Formula 5, the evaluation value ZCZ of the product quality index in the manufacturing stage of vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment can be obtained as 9.79.

[0168] (2) Table 14 lists 20 key components of vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment. Combined with the scoring criteria in Table 7, the evaluation values ​​of the manufacturing standardization of key components and subsystems are obtained. The specific situation is shown in Table 22 below:

[0169] Table 22 Evaluation values ​​of manufacturing standardization of vacuum high pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment subsystems and key components

[0170]

[0171] Substituting the data in Table 22 into Formula 6, the evaluation value ZGF of the normative index of the manufacturing stage of vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment can be obtained as 9.05.

[0172] Step 6: Establish a scoring standard for the evaluation indicators of the vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment assembly stage, and obtain the evaluation value of each evaluation indicator in the assembly stage.

[0173] (1) Through on-site investigation of the assembly process of vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment, combined with formula 7, it is obtained that the ratio of the rework and repair time of vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment in the assembly process to the time taken for one-time qualified assembly is 92%. Combined with the scoring criteria in Table 8, the evaluation value PZZ of the assembly quality index of vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment in the assembly stage is 9.

[0174] (2) Through on-site investigation of vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment assembly manufacturing enterprises and assembly processes, combined with the scoring criteria in Table 9, the evaluation value PGF of the normative indicators of the vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment assembly stage can be obtained as 8.

[0175] Step 7: Establish scoring criteria for the evaluation indicators of the vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment during the use phase, and obtain the evaluation values ​​of each evaluation indicator during the use phase.

[0176] (1) Through on-site investigation of the use process of vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment, the operation information, fault information and maintenance information of the vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment are obtained. Substituting into formula 8, the availability of the vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment in the use stage A=0.83 is obtained. Combined with the scoring criteria in Table 10, the evaluation value YKY of the availability index of the vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment in the use stage is 8.

[0177] (2) By sampling and inspecting the products during the use of the vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment, the product quality qualification rate ε=93% was obtained. Combined with the scoring criteria in Table 11, the evaluation value YZZ of the product quality index during the use stage of the vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment can be obtained as 9.

[0178] (3) By tracking and investigating the operating conditions of the vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment during use, combined with the scoring criteria in Table 12, the evaluation value YAQ of the safety index of the vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment during use is obtained as 10.

[0179] (4) There are three main performance parameters of vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment: temperature uniformity, vacuum stability and heating power stability. By tracking and investigating the changes in performance parameters during the use of vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment, the actual variation range and allowable variation range of the three performance parameters were collected and substituted into formula 9 to obtain the ratio ρ of the actual variation range to the allowable variation range of each performance parameter. Combined with the scoring criteria in Table 13, the evaluation values ​​of the three performance parameters can be obtained, as shown in Table 23 below:

[0180] Table 23 Evaluation values ​​of three performance parameters of vacuum high pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment

[0181] Performance parameters ρ value Performance parameter evaluation value Temperature uniformity 100％ 10 Vacuum stability 100％ 10 Heating power stability 100％ 10

[0182] The lowest value among the evaluation values ​​of the three performance parameters is 10, so the performance index evaluation value YXN of the vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment use stage is 10.

[0183] Step 8: Calculate the reliability evaluation results of the vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment at different life stages.

[0184] According to the previous 7 steps, the evaluation values ​​of all reliability evaluation indicators of the 4 life stages of vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment can be obtained. According to expert experience, the weight value of each evaluation indicator in each life stage can be obtained. The specific data are shown in Table 24 below:

[0185] Table 24 Evaluation values ​​of reliability evaluation indicators of vacuum high pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment for four life cycles

[0186]

[0187] Substituting the data in Table 24 into formulas 10, 11, 12 and 13, it is obtained that the reliability evaluation value SK of the vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment in the design stage is 7.494; the reliability evaluation value ZK of the vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment in the manufacturing stage is 9.4274; the reliability evaluation value PK of the vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment in the assembly stage is 8.51; and the reliability evaluation value YK of the vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment in the use stage is 9.18.

[0188] Step 9: Calculate the reliability evaluation results of the vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment over its entire life cycle.

[0189] According to expert experience, the weight values ​​of the design stage, manufacturing stage, assembly stage and use stage of vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment are 0.25, 0.22, 0.23 and 0.3 respectively. Substituting the result obtained in step 8 into formula 14, the full life cycle reliability evaluation result QK of vacuum high-pressure gas quenching heat treatment equipment is 8.6588.

Claims

1. A full life cycle reliability evaluation method for complex equipment, characterized by: This method divides the whole life cycle of complex equipment into four life stages, namely, the design stage, the manufacturing stage, the assembly stage and the use stage; the types of reliability evaluation indicators of complex equipment in each life stage are given. The reliability evaluation indicators of the design stage are reliability, risk, safety and maintainability; the reliability evaluation indicators of the manufacturing stage are product quality and standardization; the reliability evaluation indicators of the assembly stage are assembly quality and standardization; the reliability evaluation indicators of the use stage are availability, product quality, safety and performance; a method for establishing scoring standards for each evaluation indicator is proposed. According to the established scoring standards, the evaluation values ​​of all evaluation indicators can be obtained, and the weight values ​​of different subsystems of complex equipment, the weight values ​​of different reliability evaluation indicators and the weight values ​​of different life stages are combined to finally complete the reliability evaluation of complex equipment at different life stages and throughout the life cycle; The specific steps are as follows: Step 1: Divide the life cycle of complex equipment into four life stages: design stage, manufacturing stage, assembly stage and use stage; Step 2: According to the structural characteristics and functional principles of complex equipment and the fault data information of similar complex equipment collected in the early stage, the complex equipment is divided into subsystems and key components; the complex equipment is divided into m subsystems, each of which contains several key components; the subsystems form a subsystem set {O1, O2, O3, ..., O m }, where O m It represents the mth subsystem of the complex equipment, where m represents the number of subsystems into which the complex equipment is divided; Step 3: Determine the reliability evaluation indicators of complex equipment at each life stage; The reliability evaluation indicators in the design stage include: reliability, risk, safety and maintainability; the reliability evaluation indicators in the manufacturing stage include: product quality and standardization; the reliability evaluation indicators in the assembly stage include: assembly quality and standardization; the reliability evaluation indicators in the use stage include: availability, product quality, safety and performance; Step 4: Establish the scoring criteria for the evaluation indicators in the design stage of complex equipment and obtain the evaluation values ​​of each evaluation indicator in the design stage; Step 5: Establish the scoring criteria for the evaluation indicators of the complex equipment manufacturing stage and obtain the evaluation values ​​of each evaluation indicator of the manufacturing stage; Step 6: Establish the scoring criteria for the evaluation indicators of the complex equipment assembly stage and obtain the evaluation values ​​of each evaluation indicator of the assembly stage; Step 7: Establish the scoring criteria for the evaluation indicators of the use phase of complex equipment and obtain the evaluation values ​​of each evaluation indicator of the use phase; Step 8: Calculate the reliability evaluation results of complex equipment at different life stages; Step 9: Calculate the reliability evaluation results of the complex equipment throughout its life cycle.

2. The method for evaluating the reliability of complex equipment throughout its life cycle according to claim 1, characterized in that: The specific implementation process of step 4 is as follows: (1) The reliability scoring standard is established based on the calculated reliability of the complex equipment as a whole. The reliability calculation formula of the complex equipment as a whole is: Among them, R 整机 For the reliability of complex equipment, R i is the reliability of the ith subsystem, m is the number of subsystems; the reliability scoring standard for the complex equipment design phase is shown in Table 1 below: Table 1. Scoring criteria for reliability of complex equipment design stage According to the reliability scoring criteria in Table 1, the evaluation value SKK of the reliability index in the design stage of complex equipment is obtained; (2) The risk scoring standard is established based on two secondary evaluation indicators: the severity of complex equipment failures and the degree of failure detectability. Therefore, it is necessary to establish scoring standards for these two secondary evaluation indicators. Based on the fault data of similar complex equipment collected in the early stage, all the fault modes of each complex equipment subsystem are obtained; the fault severity scoring standard is established based on the fault severity of the fault mode of the complex equipment subsystem, as shown in Table 2 below: Table 2 Scoring criteria for fault severity during the design phase of complex equipment For each subsystem, according to the scoring criteria in Table 2, the evaluation values ​​of the fault severity of all fault modes in the subsystem are obtained, and the minimum value among these evaluation values ​​is selected as the fault severity evaluation value of the subsystem, which is recorded as i=1,2,…m; where O i is the i-th subsystem, and there are m subsystems in total; The detectability scoring criteria are established based on the detectability of the failure modes of complex equipment subsystems, as shown in Table 3 below: Table 3 Scoring criteria for fault detectability during the design phase of complex equipment For each subsystem, according to the scoring criteria in Table 3, the evaluation values ​​of the detectability of all fault modes in the subsystem are obtained, and the minimum value among these evaluation values ​​is selected as the fault detectability evaluation value of the subsystem, which is recorded as i=1,2,…m; where O i is the i-th subsystem, and there are m subsystems in total; Based on the above two scoring criteria, the fault severity evaluation value and fault detectability evaluation value of each subsystem are obtained. The risk of complex equipment design stage is the comprehensive performance of the fault severity and fault detectability of all subsystems. Therefore, the calculation formula of the evaluation value SFX of the risk index of complex equipment design stage is: Among them, θi is the importance weight value of the ith subsystem, there are m subsystems in total, and the weight value of each subsystem is obtained through expert experience; (3) The scoring standard for safety is established based on whether the mechanical system safety design, control system safety design, electrical system safety design and functional safety design of the complex equipment during the design process of the complex equipment refer to the current national standards or industry standards; the evaluation value of the safety index in the complex equipment design stage is recorded as SAQ; First, all national standards and industry standards related to mechanical system safety design, control system safety design, electrical system safety design and functional safety design of complex equipment are listed to form a standard set {B1, B2, B3, …, B n }, where B n represents the nth national standard or industry standard related to the safety design of complex equipment, and n represents the total number of all national standards and industry standards related to the safety design of complex equipment; then, it is judged whether the relevant design scheme of the safety design of complex equipment complies with the standard set {B1, B2, B3, …, B n }; define the initial value of the safety index evaluation value SAQ of the complex equipment design stage as 0. When the relevant design scheme of the complex equipment safety design meets a standard requirement, the value of the safety evaluation value SAQ is increased by 1, and if it does not meet the standard requirement, it is increased by 0 until all the standards in the standard set are judged; finally, the final value of SAQ is used as the evaluation value of the safety index of the complex equipment design stage; (4) The maintainability scoring criteria are based on the proportion of standard parts among all key component types that make up the complex equipment; According to the drawing information of complex equipment, the number of all key parts and components that make up the complex equipment is counted, recorded as Q; determine whether each type of parts is a standard part, and count the number of all parts and components that are standard parts, recorded as P. The calculation formula for the proportion of standard parts types α is: The maintainability scoring standards for complex equipment in the design phase are shown in Table 4 below: Table 4. Scoring criteria for maintainability of complex equipment during the design phase According to the scoring criteria in Table 4, the evaluation value SWX of the maintainability index in the design stage of complex equipment is obtained.

3. The method for evaluating the reliability of complex equipment throughout its life cycle according to claim 1, characterized in that: The implementation process of step 5 is as follows: (1) The scoring standard for product quality is established based on two secondary evaluation indicators: the quality level of purchased parts and the quality level of self-made parts in all key components of complex equipment. Therefore, it is necessary to establish scoring standards for the two secondary evaluation indicators: the quality level of purchased parts and the quality level of self-made parts; Among them, the quality level of purchased parts is obtained based on the quality pass rate β of purchased parts obtained by sampling and testing of purchased parts. The scoring standard of the quality level of purchased parts is established according to the size of γ, as shown in Table 5 below: Table 5 Scoring criteria for the quality level of purchased parts in the complex equipment manufacturing stage For each subsystem, according to the scoring criteria in Table 5, the evaluation value of the quality level of purchased parts in all key components in the subsystem is obtained; The quality level of self-made parts is obtained based on the ratio of the rework and repair time to the time required for one-time qualified manufacturing during the manufacturing process of self-made parts. The calculation formula is: According to the size of γ, a scoring standard for the quality level of self-made parts is established, as shown in Table 6 below: Table 6 Scoring criteria for the quality level of self-made parts in the complex equipment manufacturing stage For each subsystem, according to the scoring criteria in Table 6, the evaluation value of the quality level of self-made parts in all key components in the subsystem is obtained; For each subsystem, combined with the scoring criteria in Table 5 and Table 6, the minimum value of the evaluation values ​​of the quality levels of all self-made parts and purchased parts in the subsystem is selected as the product quality evaluation value of the subsystem, denoted as i=1,2,…m; where O i is the i-th subsystem, and there are m subsystems in total; Product quality is the comprehensive performance of the manufacturing quality of all subsystems. Therefore, the calculation formula for the evaluation value ZCZ of the product quality index in the complex equipment manufacturing stage is: Among them, θ i is the importance weight value of the ith subsystem, there are m subsystems in total, and the weight value of each subsystem can be obtained through expert experience; (2) The normative scoring criteria are based on whether the control work related to the manufacturing process and manufacturing quality of key components in the subsystem during the manufacturing process of complex equipment is strict; The established scoring standards for the manufacturing compliance of key components of complex equipment are shown in Table 7 below: Table 7 Scoring criteria for manufacturing standardization of key components of complex equipment According to the 10 scoring criteria in Table 7, the manufacturing standardization of all key components is evaluated; the initial value of the manufacturing standardization evaluation value of each key component is defined as 0. When the actual manufacturing situation of the component meets the judgment criteria, the manufacturing standardization evaluation value is increased by 1, otherwise it is increased by 0, and finally the manufacturing standardization evaluation value of the key component is obtained; For each subsystem, according to the scoring criteria in Table 7, the manufacturing standardization evaluation values ​​of all key components in the subsystem are obtained, and the minimum value among these evaluation values ​​is selected as the manufacturing standardization evaluation value of the subsystem, which is recorded as i=1,2,…m; where O i is the i-th subsystem, and there are m subsystems in total; The evaluation value ZGF of the normative index of the complex equipment manufacturing stage is calculated by combining the importance weight values ​​of each subsystem. The calculation formula is: Among them, θ i is the importance weight value of the ith subsystem. There are m subsystems in total, and the weight value of each subsystem is obtained through expert experience.

4. The method for evaluating the reliability of complex equipment throughout its life cycle according to claim 1, characterized in that: The implementation process of step 6 is as follows: (1) The scoring standard for assembly quality is established based on the assembly quality level of complex equipment; the assembly quality level is obtained based on the ratio of the rework and repair time of complex equipment during the assembly process to the time required for one-time qualified assembly, and its calculation formula is: According to the size of δ, the scoring criteria for assembly quality in the complex equipment assembly stage are established, as shown in Table 8 below: Table 8 Evaluation criteria for assembly quality during the complex equipment assembly phase According to the scoring criteria in Table 8, the evaluation value PZZ of the assembly quality index of the complex equipment assembly stage is obtained; (2) The normative scoring criteria are based on whether the control work related to assembly process and assembly quality during the assembly of complex equipment is strict; The normative scoring criteria for the complex equipment assembly stage are shown in Table 9 below: Table 9 Scoring criteria for the standardization of complex equipment assembly stage According to the serial numbers in Table 9, judge one by one, and define the initial value of the evaluation value PGF of the normative indicators of the complex equipment assembly stage as 0. When the actual manufacturing situation of the complex equipment meets the judgment criteria, the value of the normative indicator evaluation value PGF is increased by 1, otherwise it is increased by 0; finally, the final value of PGF is used as the evaluation value of the normative indicators of the complex equipment assembly stage.

5. The method for evaluating the reliability of complex equipment throughout its life cycle according to claim 1, characterized in that: The implementation process of step 7 is as follows: (1) The scoring standard of availability is established based on the mean time between failures (MTBF) and the mean time to repair (MTTR) of complex equipment. The calculation formula for the availability A of complex equipment during the use phase is: According to the size of A, the scoring criteria for the availability of complex equipment in the use phase are established, as shown in Table 10 below: Table 10 Scoring criteria for availability of complex equipment during the use phase According to the availability scoring criteria in Table 10, the evaluation value YKY of the availability index of the complex equipment in the use phase is obtained; (2) The scoring standard for product quality is established based on the quality level of products processed or produced by complex equipment, and the quality level of products is obtained based on the quality qualification rate ε of the products. The scoring standard for product quality indicators in the use stage of complex equipment is established based on the size of ε, as shown in Table 11 below: Table 11 Scoring criteria for product quality during the use phase of complex equipment According to the scoring criteria in Table 11, the evaluation value YZZ of the product quality index in the use stage of complex equipment is obtained; (3) The safety scoring criteria are based on the degree of harm caused to the operator by the complex equipment during use. The safety scoring criteria for the complex equipment during use are shown in Table 12 below: Table 12 Scoring criteria for safety of complex equipment during use According to the scoring criteria in Table 12, the evaluation value YAQ of the safety index of the use phase of complex equipment is obtained; (4) The performance scoring standard is established based on the stability level of the performance of complex equipment during use. The performance of complex equipment includes multiple performance parameters. The most important performance parameters are selected as secondary indicators, and the scoring standard is established for the secondary indicators; The scoring standard for the secondary index is the ratio of the actual variation range of the performance parameter to the allowable variation range ρ i The calculation formula is based on: Among them, ρ i is the ratio of the actual variation range of the ith performance parameter to the allowable variation range. There are k performance parameters for complex equipment. The established performance parameter scoring criteria are shown in Table 13 below: Table 13 Scoring criteria for performance parameters of complex equipment in the use phase According to the scoring criteria in Table 13, the evaluation values ​​of various important performance parameters in the use stage of complex equipment are obtained, and the lowest value among all performance parameter evaluation values ​​is taken as the value of the performance index evaluation value YXN in the use stage of complex equipment.

6. The method for evaluating the reliability of complex equipment throughout its life cycle according to claim 1, characterized in that: The implementation process of step 8 is as follows: (1) Define the reliability evaluation value of complex equipment design stage as SK, and its calculation formula is: SK=SKK*μ1+SFX*μ2+SAQ*μ3+SWX*μ4 (10) Among them, μ1, μ2, μ3 and μ4 are the weight values ​​of the four evaluation indicators of reliability, risk, safety and maintainability in the design stage, respectively. These weight values ​​are obtained through expert experience, and the SK value is the reliability evaluation result of the complex equipment in the design stage; (2) The reliability evaluation value of the complex equipment manufacturing stage is defined as ZK, and its calculation formula is: ZK=ZCZ*σ1+ZGF*σ2 (11) Among them, σ1 and σ2 are the weight values ​​of the two evaluation indicators of product quality and standardization in the manufacturing stage, respectively. These weight values ​​are obtained through expert experience, and the ZK value is the reliability evaluation result of the manufacturing stage of complex equipment; (3) The reliability evaluation value of the complex equipment assembly stage is defined as PK, and its calculation formula is: PK=PZZ*π1+PGF*π2 (12) Among them, π1 and π2 are the weight values ​​of the two evaluation indicators of assembly quality and standardization in the assembly stage, respectively. These weight values ​​are obtained through expert experience, and the PK value is the reliability evaluation result of the assembly stage of complex equipment; (4) Define the reliability evaluation value of complex equipment in the use stage as YK, and its calculation formula is: YK=YKY*τ1+YZZ*τ2+YAQ*τ3+YXN*τ4 (13) Among them, τ1, τ2, τ3 and τ4 are the weight values ​​of the four evaluation indicators of availability, product quality, safety and performance in the use phase, respectively. These weight values ​​are obtained through expert experience, and the YK value is the reliability evaluation result of the complex equipment in the use phase.

7. The method for evaluating the reliability of complex equipment throughout its life cycle according to claim 1, characterized in that: The implementation process of step 9 is as follows: define the reliability evaluation value of the complex equipment throughout its life cycle as QK, and its calculation formula is: QK=ZK*ω1+ZK*ω2+PK*ω3+YK*ω4 (14) Among them, ω1, ω2, ω3 and ω4 are the weight values ​​of the four life stages of complex equipment, namely the design stage, use stage, assembly stage and use stage. The weight values ​​are obtained through expert experience, and the QK value is the reliability evaluation result of the entire life cycle of the complex equipment.

Images