Failure evaluation system and failure evaluation method

Abstract

To accurately grasp a failure state of equipment included in a plant according to an actual object.SOLUTION: A failure evaluation system 10, which is a system for evaluating a failure state of equipment 110 included in a plant 100, comprises: a first acquisition unit 11 that acquires a first number of times, which is the number of failures of the equipment 110 based on automatic monitoring by a monitoring device 20 installed for the equipment 110; a second acquisition unit 12 that acquires a second number of times, which is the number of failures of the equipment 110 based on an inspection of the equipment 110 by an inspector; and an evaluation unit 13 that evaluates the failure state of the equipment 110, based on the first number of times acquired by the first acquisition unit 11 and the second number of times acquired by the second acquisition unit 12.SELECTED DRAWING: Figure 1

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to a failure evaluation system and a failure evaluation method for evaluating the failure state of equipment included in a plant.

Background Art

[0002] Conventionally, it has been proposed that a plant monitoring and control device analyzes plant signals collected from equipment included in a plant to determine abnormalities (see, for example, Patent Document 1).

Prior Art Documents

Patent Documents

[0003]

Patent Document 1

Summary of the Invention

Problems to be Solved by the Invention

[0004] With only automatic monitoring by a monitoring device for equipment included in a plant as in the above technology, it is not always possible to accurately grasp the failure state of the equipment in accordance with the actual situation.

[0005] The present invention has been made in view of the above, and an object thereof is to provide a failure evaluation system and a failure evaluation method capable of accurately grasping the failure state of equipment included in a plant in accordance with the actual situation.

Means for Solving the Problems

[0006] To achieve the above objective, the failure evaluation system according to the present invention is a failure evaluation system for evaluating the failure status of equipment included in a plant, comprising: a first acquisition means for acquiring a first number of failures of the equipment based on automatic monitoring by a monitoring device installed on the equipment; a second acquisition means for acquiring a second number of failures of the equipment based on inspections by an inspector of the equipment; and an evaluation means for evaluating the failure status of the equipment based on the first number acquired by the first acquisition means and the second number acquired by the second acquisition means.

[0007] In the failure evaluation system according to the present invention, the failure status of equipment is evaluated based on a first number of inspections based on automatic monitoring by a monitoring device, in addition to a second number of inspections based on inspections by an inspector. As a result, the failure evaluation system according to the present invention makes it possible to accurately grasp the failure status of equipment included in a plant in a manner that reflects the actual situation.

[0008] The evaluation method may involve comparing the first number of trials with the second number of trials to evaluate the equipment's failure status. This configuration allows for an appropriate and reliable evaluation of the equipment's failure status.

[0009] Of the first and second counts, one is the number of failures for each of the multiple devices, and the other is the number of failures for the unit that includes all of the multiple devices. The evaluation means may compare the total number of failures for each of the multiple devices with the number of failures for the unit that includes all of the devices to evaluate the failure status of the equipment. With this configuration, when the first and second counts are as described above, the failure status of the equipment can be evaluated appropriately and reliably.

[0010] Of the first and second counts, at least one is the number of failures in a unit that includes multiple devices, and the evaluation means may allocate the number of failures to each of the multiple devices based on the number of failures in the unit that includes multiple devices, and evaluate the failure status of each of the multiple devices. With this configuration, when the first and second counts are as described above, the failure status of the devices can be evaluated appropriately and reliably.

[0011] Incidentally, in addition to being described as an invention of a failure evaluation system as described above, the present invention can also be described as an invention of a failure evaluation method as follows. These are substantially the same invention, differing only in category, and produce similar functions and effects.

[0012] In other words, the failure evaluation method according to the present invention is a failure evaluation method which is an operation method of a failure evaluation system for evaluating the failure state of equipment included in a plant, and includes: a first acquisition step of acquiring a first number of failures of the equipment based on automatic monitoring by a monitoring device installed on the equipment; a second acquisition step of acquiring a second number of failures of the equipment based on inspection by an inspector of the equipment; and an evaluation step of evaluating the failure state of the equipment based on the first number acquired in the first acquisition step and the second number acquired in the second acquisition step. [Effects of the Invention]

[0013] According to the present invention, the failure status of equipment included in a plant can be accurately determined in accordance with the actual condition. [Brief explanation of the drawing]

[0014] [Figure 1] This figure shows the configuration of a failure evaluation system according to an embodiment of the present invention. [Figure 2] This table shows examples of the first and second counts being compared. [Figure 3] This table shows another example of the first and second counts being compared. [Figure 4] This table shows examples of the number of failures calculated for each piece of equipment. [Figure 5] This is an example of information used to determine the failure status rank based on the number of failures. [Figure 6] This flowchart shows a failure evaluation method, which is a process performed in a failure evaluation system according to an embodiment of the present invention. [Modes for carrying out the invention]

[0015] Embodiments of the failure evaluation system and failure evaluation method according to the present invention will be described in detail below with reference to the drawings. In the description of the drawings, the same elements are denoted by the same reference numerals, and redundant explanations are omitted.

[0016] Figure 1 shows the failure evaluation system 10 according to this embodiment. The failure evaluation system 10 is a system (device) for evaluating the failure status of equipment 110 included in a plant 100 (equipment installed within the plant 100 and constituting the plant 100, equipment used in the plant 100). The target plant 100 is a factory, facility, etc., in which some equipment 110 is used. There may be multiple pieces of equipment 110 included in the plant 100. In this case, the failure evaluation system 10 evaluates the failure status for each piece of equipment 110. The target plant 100 and the equipment 110 included in the plant 100 may be conventional.

[0017] Plant 100 is specifically, for example, a water treatment plant. In this case, the equipment 110 included in Plant 100 is specifically, for example, a pump, valves, and a screen. Alternatively, a predetermined number of pieces of equipment 110 may constitute a single facility 120 (or be included in a single facility 120). For example, a pump, valves, and a screen may constitute a main pump facility.

[0018] The failure state of the device 110 evaluated by the failure evaluation system 10 is, for example, the degree to which the device 110 has failed during a preset target period. The target period is, for example, a period of 1 to 180 months in the past. The failure evaluation system 10 determines, for example, the failure occurrence situation rank of the device 110 in five levels from 1 to 5 as the above evaluation. The larger the value of the failure occurrence situation rank, the higher the frequency of failure of the device 110. The evaluation result by the failure evaluation system 10 is used, for example, for the determination of replacement of the device 110 in the plant 100. Specifically, from the evaluation result by the failure evaluation system 10 and other factors, a comprehensive evaluation considering the soundness and importance of each device 110 is performed and used for the determination of replacement of the device 110.

[0019] Note that the failure state of the device 110 evaluated by the failure evaluation system 10 may be other than the above as long as it is a state related to the failure of the device 110. Also, the failure state of the device 110 evaluated by the failure evaluation system 10 may be used for other purposes than the above.

[0020] Specifically, the failure evaluation system 10 is composed of a computer including hardware such as a CPU (Central Processing Unit) and a memory. Each function of the failure evaluation system 10 described later is exerted by these components operating by a program or the like. Note that the failure evaluation system 10 may be realized by one computer or may be realized by a computer system configured by connecting a plurality of computers to each other via a network. Also, the failure evaluation system 10 may have a communication function for transmitting and receiving information to and from another device via a network for acquiring information used for evaluating the failure state of the device 110 as described later.

[0021] Subsequently, the functions of the failure evaluation system 10 according to the present embodiment will be described. As shown in FIG. 1, the failure evaluation system 10 includes a first acquisition unit 11, a second acquisition unit 12, and an evaluation unit 13.

[0022] The first acquisition unit 11 is a first acquisition means that acquires a first number of failures of the equipment 110 based on automatic monitoring by a monitoring device 20 installed on the equipment 110.

[0023] The monitoring device 20 is a device (system) that automatically monitors the equipment 110. The monitoring device 20 detects malfunctions in the equipment 110 by automatically monitoring it. A conventional monitoring device can be used as the monitoring device 20. The detection of malfunctions by the monitoring device 20 can be performed in the same way as with a conventional monitoring device.

[0024] For example, the monitoring device 20 is equipped with an instrument or sensor that detects the operation or status of the equipment 110, and monitors the equipment 110 based on the information obtained from the instrument or sensor. The monitoring device 20 may also monitor the equipment 110 in a configuration other than that described above. The monitoring device 20 performs monitoring for each piece of equipment 110, or for each piece of equipment 120 that comprises multiple pieces of equipment 110. Monitoring by the monitoring device 20 may be performed continuously, or it may be performed during a predetermined time period (for example, when the equipment 110 is in operation).

[0025] The failures targeted by the failure evaluation system 10 are pre-defined failures. For example, the failures targeted by the failure evaluation system 10 are critical failures that significantly disrupt the operation of the plant 100.

[0026] The monitoring device 20 outputs information related to the number of failures of the equipment 110, which is the monitoring result of the equipment 110. For example, if the monitoring device 20 detects a failure for each piece of equipment 110 or facility 120 that is the unit of monitoring, it outputs information to that effect. The monitoring device 20 may have a communication function and be able to send and receive information with the failure evaluation system 10. In that case, the monitoring device 20 transmits the above information to the failure evaluation system 10.

[0027] The first acquisition unit 11 receives information transmitted from the monitoring device 20. From the received information, the first acquisition unit 11 counts and acquires the number of failures for each piece of equipment 110 or facility 120 that constitutes the monitoring unit as the first count. The first count is, for example, the number of failures of the equipment 110 during the above-mentioned period.

[0028] The first acquisition unit 11 may acquire the first count by a method other than those described above. For example, instead of receiving information directly from the monitoring device 20, the first acquisition unit 11 may acquire the first count by accepting information input to the failure evaluation system 10 from the plant manager or the like who has referred to the monitoring results of the monitoring device 20. Alternatively, instead of counting the first count, the first acquisition unit 11 may acquire the first count from the monitoring device 20 or the plant manager or the like. The first acquisition unit 11 outputs the acquired first count to the evaluation unit 13.

[0029] The second acquisition unit 12 is a second acquisition means that acquires a second number, which is the number of times the equipment 110 has failed, based on inspections of the equipment 110 by an inspector.

[0030] In this embodiment, fault detection is performed not only by the monitoring device 20 but also by inspection by an inspector (manual inspection). The inspector detects faults in the equipment 110 through inspection. The inspection by the inspector to detect faults (for example, the serious faults described above) can be performed in the same manner as in the conventional method.

[0031] The inspector performs inspections on each piece of equipment 110, or on each piece of equipment 120 that comprises multiple pieces of equipment 110. Note that the unit of equipment 110 monitored by the monitoring device 20 and the unit of equipment 110 inspected by the inspector may be different. Inspections by the inspector may be performed as appropriate at predetermined intervals.

[0032] The inspector transmits information regarding the number of failures of equipment 110, which is the inspection result of equipment 110, to the failure evaluation system 10. For example, the inspector has an inspector's terminal 30 that has a communication function that allows it to send and receive information with the failure evaluation system 10. When the inspector detects a failure in each piece of equipment 110 or facility 120 that is the unit of inspection, the inspector transmits information to that effect to the failure evaluation system 10 using the inspector's terminal 30.

[0033] The second data acquisition unit 12 receives information transmitted from the inspector's terminal 30. From the received information, the second data acquisition unit 12 counts and acquires the number of failures for each piece of equipment 110 or facility 120 that constitutes the inspection unit as the second count. The second count is the number of failures of the equipment 110 during the same target period as the first count.

[0034] The second acquisition unit 12 may acquire the second count by a method other than those described above. For example, instead of receiving information directly from the inspector's terminal 30, the second acquisition unit 12 may acquire the second count by accepting information input to the failure evaluation system 10 from the plant manager or the like, who has referred to the inspector's inspection results. Alternatively, instead of counting the second count, the second acquisition unit 12 may acquire the second acquisition unit 12 from the inspector's terminal 30 or the plant manager or the like. The second acquisition unit 12 outputs the acquired second count to the evaluation unit 13.

[0035] As described above, one of the first and second counts may be the number of failures for each of the multiple devices 110, while the other may be the number of failures for a unit that combines the multiple devices 110 (for example, a unit of 120 pieces of equipment). Furthermore, at least one of the first and second counts may be the number of failures for a unit that combines the multiple devices 110.

[0036] The evaluation unit 13 is an evaluation means that evaluates the failure state of equipment 110 based on a first count obtained by the first acquisition unit 11 and a second count obtained by the second acquisition unit 12. The evaluation unit 13 may evaluate the failure state of equipment 110 by comparing the first count and the second count. The evaluation unit 13 may evaluate the failure state of equipment 110 by comparing the total number of failures for each of the multiple pieces of equipment 110 with the number of failures for a unit that groups the multiple pieces of equipment 110 together (for example, a unit of 120 pieces of equipment). The evaluation unit 13 may also evaluate the failure state of each of the multiple pieces of equipment 110 by allocating the number of failures for each of the multiple pieces of equipment 110 together (for example, a unit of 120 pieces of equipment) based on the number of failures for that unit.

[0037] The evaluation unit 13 evaluates the failure status of the equipment 110, for example, as follows: The evaluation unit 13 receives a first count from the first acquisition unit 11. The evaluation unit 13 receives a second count from the second acquisition unit 12.

[0038] First, the evaluation unit 13 compares the first count and the second count according to the equipment 110 as follows to calculate the number of failures for each piece of equipment 110. If both the first count and the second count have been obtained on a per-piece basis for each piece of equipment 110, the evaluation unit 13 compares the first count and the second count for each piece of equipment 110 and adopts the larger of the two counts as the number of failures for that piece of equipment 110.

[0039] In the table in Figure 2(a), if the first count (number of serious failures detected by the monitoring device 20) and the second count (number of serious failures recorded in the inspection records) are the same, such as for the XX pump, XX valve, and XX screen, the evaluation unit 13 adopts either the first count or the second count as the number of failures for the equipment 110. For example, the evaluation unit 13 adopts the first count as the number of failures for the equipment 110. In this case, it is assumed that there were no missed detections of failures by either the monitoring device 20 or the inspection by the inspector.

[0040] If the second number (number of serious failures in the inspection record) is greater than the first number (number of serious failures monitored by the monitoring device 20), as in the table in Figure 2(b) for valve XX, the evaluation unit 13 adopts the second number as the number of failures for the equipment 110. In this case, it is interpreted that there are missed failure detections in the monitoring by the monitoring device 20.

[0041] If the first number (number of serious failures detected by the monitoring device 20) is greater than the second number (number of serious failures recorded in the inspection records), as shown in the table in Figure 2(c) for valve XX, the evaluation unit 13 adopts the first number as the number of failures for the equipment 110. In this case, it is interpreted that there were some failures missed during the inspection by the inspector.

[0042] If at least one of the first count and the second count is obtained as part of a facility 120 unit comprising multiple devices 110, the evaluation unit 13 sums up at least one of the first count and the second count and uses the summed value for comparison. The values ​​to be compared are those relating to the same multiple devices 110. For example, as shown in the tables in Figure 3, if the first count (number of serious failures monitored by the monitoring device 20) is the value for the main pump facility comprising XX pumps, XX valves, and XX screens, and the second count (number of serious failures in the inspection record) is the value for each XX pump, XX valve, and XX screen, the evaluation unit 13 sums up the second counts for each XX pump, XX valve, and XX screen and compares the summed value with the first count for the main pump facility.

[0043] The evaluation unit 13 calculates the number of failures for the equipment 110 based on the larger of those counts. If the counts are the same, the evaluation unit 13 adopts the count for each piece of equipment 110 as the number of failures for that piece of equipment 110. For example, as shown in the table in Figure 3(a), if the sum of the first count for the main pump equipment (number of serious failures due to monitoring by the monitoring device 20) and the second count for the XX pump, XX valve, and XX screen (number of serious failures in the inspection record) is the same, the evaluation unit 13 adopts the second count for each piece of equipment 110 as the number of failures for that piece of equipment 110. In this case, it is assumed that there were no missed failures detected by either the monitoring by the monitoring device 20 or the inspection by the inspector.

[0044] If the total number of occurrences for each piece of equipment 110 is greater than the number of occurrences for a total equipment unit 120 (which is a collection of multiple pieces of equipment 110), the evaluation unit 13 adopts the number of occurrences for each piece of equipment 110 as the number of failures for that piece of equipment 110. For example, as shown in the table in Figure 3(b), if the total number of occurrences for the second set of XX pumps, XX valves, and XX screens (number of serious failures in the inspection records) is greater than the number of occurrences for the first set of main pump equipment (number of serious failures monitored by the monitoring device 20), the evaluation unit 13 adopts the second set of occurrences for each piece of equipment 110 as the number of failures for that piece of equipment 110. In this case, it is interpreted that there are missed failure detections in the monitoring by the monitoring device 20.

[0045] If the number of failures for a set of equipment units 120, which is a collection of multiple pieces of equipment 110, is greater than the sum of the failure counts for each individual piece of equipment 110, the evaluation unit 13 allocates the failure counts to each of the multiple pieces of equipment 110 based on the failure counts for the set of equipment units 120, and calculates the failure count for each individual piece of equipment 110.

[0046] For example, as shown in the table in Figure 3(c), if the first number of failures for the main pump equipment (number of serious failures monitored by the monitoring device 20) is greater than the sum of the second number of failures for the XX pump, XX valve, and XX screen (number of serious failures recorded in the inspection records), the evaluation unit 13 allocates the number of failures to each of the multiple pieces of equipment 110 based on the first number.

[0047] For example, the evaluation unit 13 calculates a value obtained by subtracting the sum of the second count from the first count (the difference between the first count and the sum of the second count). The evaluation unit 13 divides the calculated difference equally among the number of devices 110 related to the second count compared with the first count (the sum of the second count), adds the divided value to the second count for each device 110, and takes the added count as the failure count for that device 110. Figure 4 shows an example of the failure count for each device 110 calculated in the case of the table in Figure 3(c). In this case, it is interpreted that there were missed failure detections during the inspection by the inspector. In this case, the calculated failure count may include decimal values, but the evaluation unit 13 may perform rounding. For example, the evaluation unit 13 may truncate the decimal part of the calculated failure count.

[0048] In the example shown in Figure 3, the first count represents the number of failures in a unit of multiple devices 110 (equipment 120 units), and the second count represents the number of failures for each of the multiple devices 110. However, conversely, the second count may represent the number of failures in a unit of multiple devices 110 (equipment 120 units), and the first count may represent the number of failures for each of the multiple devices 110. In that case as well, the number of failures for each of the devices 110 can be calculated based on a comparison between the first and second counts, as described above.

[0049] Based on a comparison between the first and second failure counts, the evaluation unit 13 calculates the number of failures for each piece of equipment 110. Based on the calculated number of failures, the evaluation unit 13 determines the failure occurrence rank for each piece of equipment 110, which is the evaluation result of the failure status of the piece of equipment 110. The evaluation unit 13 stores in advance information (table) for determining the failure occurrence rank from the number of failures (number of major failures during the target period), as shown in Figure 5. This information associates the failure occurrence rank with each range of failure counts. In this embodiment, the value of the failure occurrence rank is set to be higher for ranges with a larger number of failures. The evaluation unit 13 determines the failure occurrence rank for each piece of equipment 110 from the number of failures calculated based on this information.

[0050] The evaluation unit 13 outputs a failure occurrence status rank for each determined piece of equipment 110. For example, the evaluation unit 13 outputs (transmits) the failure occurrence status rank for each piece of equipment 110 to the system that performs the overall evaluation of each piece of equipment 110 as described above, or to the user's terminal of the failure evaluation system 10. Alternatively, the evaluation unit 13 may output the failure occurrence status rank for each piece of equipment 110 in a format that can be recognized by the user of the failure evaluation system 10 (for example, display or audio output). Furthermore, the evaluation unit 13 may output the failure occurrence status rank for each piece of equipment 110 by a method other than those described above.

[0051] Furthermore, the evaluation result of the failure status of the equipment 110 by the evaluation unit 13 may be other than the failure status rank, as long as it is obtained based on the first and second counts. The method of evaluating the failure status of the equipment 110 by the evaluation unit 13 may also be other than those described above, as long as it is performed based on the first and second counts. The above describes the functions of the failure evaluation system 10 according to this embodiment.

[0052] Next, using the flowchart in Figure 6, we will explain the fault evaluation method, which is the process (operation method performed by the fault evaluation system 10) executed by the fault evaluation system 10 according to this embodiment.

[0053] In the failure evaluation system 10, the first acquisition unit 11 acquires a first number of failures of the equipment 110 based on automatic monitoring by a monitoring device 20 installed on the equipment 110 (S01, first acquisition step). The second acquisition unit 12 acquires a second number of failures of the equipment 110 based on inspections by an inspector (S02, second acquisition step). The first acquisition step (S01) and the second acquisition step (S02) described above can be performed independently of each other, so they do not necessarily have to be performed in the order shown above.

[0054] Next, the evaluation unit 13 evaluates the failure status of the equipment 110 based on the first and second counts (S03, evaluation step). For example, as described above, the failure occurrence status rank for each piece of equipment 110 is determined. Subsequently, the evaluation unit 13 outputs the evaluation result, for example, the failure occurrence status rank for each piece of equipment 110 (S04). This is a failure evaluation method, which is a process executed in the failure evaluation system 10 according to this embodiment.

[0055] While the results of inspections by inspectors are also important, conventional methods did not take this into consideration. In contrast, in this embodiment, the failure status of equipment 110 is evaluated based on a second number of inspections by inspectors, in addition to a first number of inspections based on automatic monitoring by the monitoring device 20. For example, as described above, the first number of inspections is corrected by the second number of inspections, or the second number of inspections is corrected by the first number of inspections, and the failure status of equipment 110 is evaluated based on the corrected number of inspections. In this way, the failure status is evaluated by utilizing both the automatic monitoring by the monitoring device 20 and the results of inspections by inspectors. As a result, according to this embodiment, the failure status of equipment 110 included in the plant 100 can be accurately grasped in accordance with the actual condition.

[0056] As in this embodiment, the failure state of the device 110 may be evaluated by comparing the first number of times and the second number of times. With this configuration, the failure state of the device can be evaluated appropriately and reliably.

[0057] Furthermore, as illustrated in Figure 3, one of the first and second counts may be the number of failures for each of the multiple devices 110, and the other may be the number of failures for the unit that includes all of the multiple devices 110. The failure status of the device 110 can then be evaluated by comparing the total number of failures for each of the multiple devices 110 with the number of failures for the unit that includes all of the multiple devices 110. With this configuration, the failure status of the device can be evaluated appropriately and reliably when the first and second counts are as described above.

[0058] Furthermore, as illustrated in Figure 4, at least one of the first and second counts may be the number of failures in a unit that includes multiple 110 devices. The failure count may then be allocated to each of the multiple 110 devices based on the failure count in that unit, and the failure status of each of the multiple 110 devices may be evaluated. With this configuration, when the first and second counts are as described above, the failure status of the devices can be evaluated appropriately and reliably.

[0059] However, the evaluation of the equipment's failure status does not necessarily have to be carried out in the manner described above; it may be done based on the first and second counts.

[0060] The failure evaluation system and failure evaluation method of this disclosure have the following configuration. [1] A failure assessment system for evaluating the failure status of equipment included in a plant, A first acquisition means for acquiring a first number of failures of the equipment based on automatic monitoring by a monitoring device installed on the equipment, A second acquisition means for acquiring a second number, which is the number of times the equipment has failed based on inspections of the equipment by an inspector, An evaluation means for evaluating the failure state of the equipment based on a first number obtained by the first acquisition means and a second number obtained by the second acquisition means, A failure assessment system equipped with the following features. [2] The failure evaluation system according to [1], wherein the evaluation means compares the first number of times with the second number of times to evaluate the failure state of the equipment. [3] Of the first number and the second number, one is the number of failures for each of the multiple devices, and the other is the number of failures for the unit that includes all of the said multiple devices. The failure evaluation system described in [2] evaluates the failure status of the equipment by comparing the total number of failures for each of the multiple pieces of equipment with the number of failures for the multiple pieces of equipment as a unit. [4] Of the first number and the second number, at least one is the number of failures in a unit that includes multiple devices, The evaluation means is a failure evaluation system according to any one of [1] to [3] which allocates the number of failures to each of the multiple devices based on the number of failures of the multiple devices as a unit, and evaluates the failure status of each of the multiple devices. [5] A failure evaluation method which is a method for operating a failure evaluation system for evaluating the failure status of equipment included in a plant, A first acquisition step involves obtaining a first number of failures of the equipment based on automatic monitoring by a monitoring device installed on the equipment, A second acquisition step involves obtaining a second number, which is the number of times the equipment has failed based on inspections of the equipment by an inspector. An evaluation step which evaluates the failure state of the equipment based on the first number obtained in the first acquisition step and the second number obtained in the second acquisition step, Failure evaluation method including [Explanation of Symbols]

[0061] 10...Fault assessment system, 11...First acquisition unit, 12...Second acquisition unit, 13...Evaluation unit, 20...Monitoring device, 30...Terminal for inspectors, 100...Plant, 110...Equipment, 120...Facilities.

Claims

1. A failure assessment system for evaluating the failure status of equipment included in a plant, A first acquisition means for acquiring a first number of failures of the equipment based on automatic monitoring by a monitoring device installed on the equipment, A second acquisition means for acquiring a second number, which is the number of times the equipment has failed based on inspections of the equipment by an inspector, An evaluation means for evaluating the failure state of the equipment based on a first number obtained by the first acquisition means and a second number obtained by the second acquisition means, A failure assessment system equipped with the following features.

2. The failure evaluation system according to claim 1, wherein the evaluation means evaluates the failure state of the equipment by comparing the first number of times with the second number of times.

3. Of the first and second counts, one is the number of failures for each of the multiple devices, and the other is the number of failures for the multiple devices as a whole. The failure evaluation system according to claim 2, wherein the evaluation means evaluates the failure status of the equipment by comparing the total number of failures for each of the plurality of equipment with the number of failures for the plurality of equipment as a unit.

4. Of the first number and the second number, at least one is the number of failures in a unit that combines multiple devices. The failure evaluation system according to any one of claims 1 to 3, wherein the evaluation means allocates the number of failures to each of the multiple devices based on the number of failures of the multiple devices as a unit, and evaluates the failure status of each of the multiple devices.

5. A failure evaluation method, which is a method for operating a failure evaluation system that evaluates the failure status of equipment included in a plant, A first acquisition step involves obtaining a first number of failures of the equipment based on automatic monitoring by a monitoring device installed on the equipment, A second acquisition step involves obtaining a second number, which is the number of times the equipment has failed based on inspections by an inspector of the equipment; An evaluation step in which the failure state of the equipment is evaluated based on the first number obtained in the first acquisition step and the second number obtained in the second acquisition step, Failure evaluation method including

Images