Evaluation method and evaluation system

Abstract

This provides a novel approach to evaluating flanges that utilizes tightening conditions estimated based on 3D shape data. [Solution] This evaluation method includes a tightening condition estimation step in which an estimation unit (48) estimates tightening conditions to fasten the flange and prevent fluid leakage based on three-dimensional data representing the flange surface (sealing surface 8) in three dimensions, and a determination step in which a determination unit (50) determines whether or not the flange can be used based on the tightening conditions and the physical conditions (repair standard value E) of the fastening members involved in fastening the flange.

Description

[Technical Field]

[0001] The present disclosure relates to a technology for evaluating the state of a flange used for sealing between pipelines via a gasket and presenting the evaluation result. [Background Art]

[0002] Conventionally, regarding flange state evaluation, according to Patent Document 1, there are techniques that acquire three-dimensional shape data of a flange, evaluate the state of the flange surface based on this three-dimensional shape data, and determine whether repair of the flange surface is necessary based on scratches and the amount of distortion generated on the flange surface (see, for example, Patent Document 1). [Prior Art Documents] [Patent Documents]

[0003] [Patent Document 1] Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 2024-44482 [Summary of the Invention] [Problem to be Solved by the Invention]

[0004] However, Patent Document 1 does not explicitly disclose an evaluation method that employs an approach for estimating tightening conditions for fastening a flange based on three-dimensional shape data.

[0005] Accordingly, an object of the present disclosure is to provide a flange evaluation method based on a new approach that uses tightening conditions estimated based on three-dimensional shape data. [Means for Solving the Problem]

[0006] To achieve the above objective, one aspect of the evaluation method of this disclosure includes a tightening condition estimation step in which an estimation unit estimates tightening conditions for fastening the flange and preventing fluid leakage based on three-dimensional data representing the flange surface in three dimensions, and a determination step in which a determination unit determines whether or not the flange can be used based on the tightening conditions and the physical conditions of the fastening members involved in fastening the flange.

[0007] In this evaluation method, the three-dimensional data represents the irregularities corresponding to the strain on the flange surface, and in the tightening condition estimation step, the estimation unit estimates the tightening conditions when tightening the strained flange based on the difference between the recesses and protrusions on the flange surface represented by the three-dimensional data.

[0008] In this evaluation method, in the tightening condition estimation step, the estimation unit determines the difference between each of the pair of flanges and estimates the tightening condition based on the difference between the relatively large and relatively small values ​​among the sum of the differences at corresponding positions on the flange surfaces.

[0009] In this evaluation method, the fastening members are the flange, bolt and gasket, the tightening condition is the axial force of the bolt fastening the flange, and in the determination step, the determination unit compares the tightening condition with the strength of at least one of the flange, bolt and gasket to determine whether or not the flange can be used.

[0010] This evaluation method further includes an output step in which an output unit outputs the result determined in the judgment step, and the output unit outputs the amount of material removed from the flange surface along with the result.

[0011] To achieve the above objective, one aspect of the evaluation system of this disclosure includes an estimation unit that estimates tightening conditions for fastening a flange to prevent fluid leakage based on three-dimensional data representing the flange surface in three dimensions, and a determination unit that determines whether or not the flange can be used based on the tightening conditions and the physical conditions of the fastening members involved in fastening the flange. [Effects of the Invention]

[0012] According to this disclosure, the following effects can be obtained.

[0013] (1) By estimating the fastening conditions for the strain state of the flange surface obtained from 3D data, and determining whether or not the flange needs repair based on those fastening conditions, it becomes possible to evaluate the flange fastening according to its usage condition.

[0014] (2) By evaluating the strain state of the flange by comparing the tightening conditions estimated from the strain state with conditions such as the strength of the components constituting the flange fastener, it is possible to reduce the risk of leakage of the flange fastener due to necessary repairs, as well as to enhance safety against damage or breakage of the flange, etc.

[0015] (3) By combining the tightening conditions estimated from the strain state with conditions such as the strength of the flange to determine whether repairs are necessary, it is possible to avoid excessive repairs, without being affected by the knowledge level or skill level of the worker. [Brief explanation of the drawing]

[0016] [Figure 1] This diagram shows the diagnostic targets of the evaluation system. [Figure 2] This is a diagram showing an example configuration of the evaluation system according to the first embodiment. [Figure 3] This figure shows measurement information representing the condition of the flange surface. [Figure 4] This figure shows the process for calculating the distance between flange faces. [Figure 5] This figure shows an example of the process for estimating tightening conditions based on the condition of the flange surface. [Figure 6] This is a diagram showing the processing table. [Figure 7] This figure shows the results of the assessment of tightening conditions and physical conditions. [Figure 8] This figure shows the results of the assessment of tightening conditions and physical conditions. [Figure 9] This is a flowchart showing evaluation processing. [Figure 10] This is a flowchart showing evaluation processing of the evaluation system according to the second embodiment. [Figure 11] This is a diagram showing a database of the evaluation system according to the third embodiment. [Figure 12] This is a diagram showing measurement results of a flange state. Mode for Carrying Out the Invention

[0017] [First Embodiment] A in Figure 1 shows a flange fastener that is a diagnosis target of the evaluation system, and B in Figure 1 shows a flange of the flange fastener. Figure 2 shows the configuration of the evaluation system. The configurations shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2 are examples, and the present disclosure is not limited to such configurations.

[0018] The evaluation system of the present disclosure has a function of evaluating whether periodic flange repair is necessary and presenting the result to a user, for example, in maintenance of a flange fastener 2 for connecting pipes to each other to form a pipeline. Furthermore, the evaluation system may be provided with a function of presenting the possibility of a risk of fluid leakage from the flange fastener 2, advice on flange repair work, and the like.

[0019] <About Evaluation Target> As shown in, for example, A in Figure 1, the flange fastener 2 is a connecting portion between pipelines in a plant, and functions as a seal portion between the pipelines. In this flange fastener 2, a flange 6-1 is provided at an end portion of a pipeline 4-1, a flange 6-2 is provided at an end portion of a pipeline 4-2, and a gasket 10 is disposed between respective seal surfaces 8 of the flanges 6-1 and 6-2. The gasket 10 is an example of a sealing material that seals between the seal surfaces 8 of the respective flanges 6-1 and 6-2.

[0020] Each flange 6-1 and 6-2 has a bolt fastening portion 12 (Figure 1B) on the outer circumference of the sealing surface 8 (Figure 1B) on the flange surface 7. Multiple bolt through holes 14 (Figure 1B) are formed in this bolt fastening portion 12 at equal angular intervals, and the flanges 6-1 and 6-2 are connected by tightening nuts 18 onto each bolt 16 that passes through the bolt through holes 14, with the positions aligned. The tightening axial force F of each bolt 16 becomes the surface pressure (=seal pressure) applied from the sealing surface 8 of flanges 6-1 and 6-2 to the gasket 10. Therefore, leakage of fluid passing through the flange fastening body 2 is prevented.

[0021] As this fluid passes through, the flange fastener 2 is subjected to multiple loads such as pressure, heat, and vibration, and also deteriorates over time due to overtightening or uneven tightening during installation. This deterioration causes radial strain and circumferential strain in the flanges 6-1, 6-2 and the sealing surface 8, for example. This deterioration results in curvature and distortion of the flanges 6-1, 6-2 and the sealing surface 8. Such deterioration can lead to a decrease in the range, area, and sealing pressure of the sealing surface 8 and the gasket 10, which can ultimately cause leakage from the flange fastener 2.

[0022] Each flange 6-1 (6-2) can be separated from the flange fastener 2 by releasing the fastening of the bolts 16 and nuts 18, as shown in Figure 1B, for example, to expose the sealing surface 8 of the flange. This flange surface 7 has a bolt fastening portion 12 on its outer circumference and a sealing surface 8 on its inner circumference. The evaluation system measures the strain, which is the state of each sealing surface 8 when the connection between flanges 6-1 and 6-2 is released, estimates the gap that occurs when flanges 6-1 and 6-2 are joined, and estimates the tightening conditions corresponding to that gap to determine whether repair to the flange surface is necessary. In other words, each sealing surface 8 is the evaluation surface of the evaluation system. The range of the evaluation surface is, for example, the entire sealing surface 8. Furthermore, the range of the evaluation surface is not limited to, for example, the entire sealing surface 8; a portion of the sealing surface 8 set in advance may be adopted, or a range including the flange surface 7 together with the sealing surface 8 may be adopted.

[0023] Furthermore, the evaluation process measures the condition information of the flange surface in the circumferential direction of the flange, for example, within an angle range of 0°-360°. The resolution of this measurement can be, for example, 1°, or it can be set to any other angle. In addition, the evaluation system may generate an evaluation screen that includes measured values ​​such as the magnitude of strain at predetermined angles (0°, 45°, 90°, 135°, 180°, 225°, 270°, 315°) relative to the circumferential direction of the flange. The evaluation system 24 may also set virtual grid lines 22 to identify the position of the seal surface 8 on the surface in the circumferential direction of the flange. The angle of these grid lines 22 may be set to, for example, 45° intervals, or other angle intervals may be set.

[0024] <Evaluation System 24> The evaluation system 24 includes functions for acquiring condition information of the sealing surface 8 of the flanges 6-1 and 6-2 to be evaluated, estimating the tightening conditions of the flanges based on this condition information, determining whether or not the flanges need repair, and presenting the evaluation results. The evaluation system 24 includes, for example, a 3D (three-dimensional) scanner 26, a terminal device 28, and a server 32, as shown in Figure 2.

[0025] The 3D scanner 26 is, for example, a handheld non-contact 3D scanner and is an example of a three-dimensional measuring machine that constitutes a data acquisition means for acquiring 3D data. The bolts 16 and nuts 18 are removed to separate the flange fastener 2 into flanges 6-1, 6-2 and gasket 10. After cleaning the sealing surface 8 to be diagnosed, data indicating the flange condition is acquired from at least the sealing surface 8 using the 3D scanner 26. The 3D scanner 26 can be any type that can acquire three-dimensional data (hereinafter referred to as "3D data"), such as a laser type.

[0026] The 3D scanner 26 is connected to a terminal device 28, for example, by wired or wireless connection, and 3D data acquired by the 3D scanner 26 is periodically or irregularly received by the terminal device 28. The terminal device 28 can be any device capable of data communication between the 3D scanner 26 and the server 32, and can be a PC (Personal Computer), tablet, or smartphone. The 3D data is, for example, a collection of points in three-dimensional coordinates (X, Y, Z), and is point cloud data representing the shape of the diagnostic surface, such as strain, distortion, unevenness, and inclination.

[0027] The terminal device 28 is connected to the server 32 via a network 30 such as the Internet, and transmits 3D data acquired from the 3D scanner 26 to the server 32. This terminal device 28 is composed of a computer and includes a processor, output unit (I / O), communication unit, information display unit, etc. The terminal device 28 executes a program stored in memory, for example, to acquire 3D data from the 3D scanner 26, transmit the 3D data to the server 32, and present evaluation information including information from the server 32 regarding the necessity of flange repair and instructions for repair processing, as well as advice information such as comments on leakage risk. The memory of the terminal device 28 is an example of a recording medium including, for example, ROM (Read-Only Memory) and RAM (Random-Access Memory), and stores various data such as received 3D data and evaluation results, as well as the OS (Operating System) and operation control programs for configuring the evaluation system 24. In addition, the I / O may, for example, acquire 3D data from the 3D scanner 26, transmit 3D data, receive information such as evaluation results and repair instructions from the server 32, and receive flange medical record data including the magnitude of strain on the sealing surface along with the evaluation results, and display it on the display unit 34 or the like.

[0028] In the evaluation system 24, for example, the 3D scanner 26 and the terminal device 28 may be integrated into a single unit. That is, the terminal device 28 may be equipped with, for example, a camera capable of capturing 3D data from an object and an application program to process that data.

[0029] Server 32 has an estimation function that uses 3D data received from terminal device 28 to estimate the current tightening conditions for flanges 6-1 and 6-2 based on at least the state of the sealing surface 8, and a determination function that determines whether or not repair of the flanges is necessary based on those tightening conditions. In addition, if Server 32 determines that repair is necessary, it generates instruction information for the repair and leakage risk information regarding the current state of the sealing surface 8. Furthermore, Server 32 may generate a display screen that includes a diagram and measurement information that allows for a visual understanding of the state of the sealing surface 8, for example, based on the acquired 3D data.

[0030] This server 32 is composed of a computer equipped with, for example, a processor and memory. The processor and memory perform calculations for the evaluation processing program, receiving 3D data from the terminal device 28, performing evaluation processing including determining whether or not flange repair is necessary based on the 3D data, and generating flange repair instructions and comments for the user according to the evaluation results. The server 32 includes, for example, a communication unit 35, a storage unit 36, a processing unit 38, and an information presentation unit 40.

[0031] The communication unit 35 is a functional unit that connects to the network 30, receives 3D data from the terminal device 28, and transmits generated evaluation result screens and flange medical record data, including measured values, to the terminal device 28. The memory unit 36 ​​is composed of recording media such as ROM and RAM, and stores an OS that controls the basic operation of the server 32, a judgment program that performs flange condition determination, a processing table 42 which serves as a work area for data processing, and a database (hereinafter referred to as "DB") 44 which stores 3D data which are measured values ​​and tightening conditions for flange fastening calculated using this 3D data.

[0032] The processing unit 38 is a functional unit that performs an estimation function to estimate tightening conditions through program calculation processing and a judgment function to determine whether or not repair of the flange is necessary based on those tightening conditions. For example, it consists of an analysis processing unit 46, an estimation unit 48, a judgment unit 50, an output unit 52, and so on. The analysis processing unit 46 uses the acquired 3D data to analyze the position on the sealing surface 8 of the flange and the amount of unevenness at that position, and to calculate the inter-face distance, which is the size of the gap between the faces of the opposing flanges 6-1 and 6-2. The estimation unit 48 is an example of a functional unit that estimates the flange tightening conditions for the inter-face distance calculated by the analysis processing unit 46. In this tightening condition estimation process, the unit calculates the axial force value (hereinafter referred to as the "judgment axial force value") required to fasten the flange without repair, taking into account the irregularities formed on the flange surface. In other words, the calculation of the judgment axial force value is a simulation process that simulates fastening the flanges 6-1 and 6-2 to be judged in a way that prevents fluid leakage from the piping.

[0033] The judgment unit 50 compares the calculated judgment axial force value with a reference value set based on the physical conditions of the components constituting the flange fastener 2 to determine whether or not the flange needs to be repaired. These physical conditions include, for example, the strength of flanges 6-1, 6-2, gasket 10, bolts 16, nuts 18, etc., and the allowable tightening force of one or more of these is used as the reference value for the judgment. In other words, in determining whether or not the flange needs to be repaired, the judgment unit 50 determines whether, given the strain currently present on the analyzed sealing surface 8, tightening with the judgment axial force without repair would prevent leakage of the flange fastener 2 or cause damage or plastic deformation to the components. Furthermore, the judgment unit 50 also compares the set existing tightening force PT with the judgment axial force as a user's operating environment condition to determine whether or not the user's tightening condition is sufficient.

[0034] The output unit 52 is a functional unit that generates and outputs evaluation information including the judgment result from the judgment unit 50. In addition to the judgment result, the evaluation information may also include information such as the amount of material to be removed from the flange surface as repair instruction information for the flange, as well as advice information corresponding to the repair process and information such as the possibility of leakage at the current inter-face distance. The amount of material to be removed from the flange surface may be set to a value corresponding to the difference between the judgment axial force and the reference value or the inter-face distance value, for example, based on DB44 stored in the memory unit 36 ​​or judgment data not shown, and the evaluation information can be generated by reading such a set value.

[0035] The information presentation unit 40 is a means for presenting the generated evaluation information, and is a functional unit that transmits the evaluation information to the user's terminal device 28 via the communication unit 35, in addition to the display unit of the server 32.

[0036] <Flange measurement results> Figure 3 shows an example of measurement information representing the condition of the flange surface. This measurement information is, for example, the result of 3D data analysis by the analysis processing unit 46, and consists of a radial strain table 60 (Figure 3A) of the flange surface and a circumferential strain table 62 (Figure 3B) of the flange surface. These strain tables 60 and 62 are examples of flange medical records that show the results of diagnostic and evaluation processing of the condition of the components constituting the flange fastener 2 based on the measured values ​​of the 3D data.

[0037] The radial strain table 60 presents analysis results 60-1, 60-2, and 60-3 of the height (strain) of the flange surface in the direction from the inner diameter side to the outer diameter side at angles of 45°, 135°, and 310°, which are set in the circumferential direction of the flange surface.

[0038] The circumferential strain table 62 shows, for example, the state of strain generated in the circumferential direction of the flange surface. Analysis result 62-1 shows the position where the maximum strain is formed, at a position 5 mm from the inner diameter side of the flange surface, and analysis result 62-2 shows the position where the minimum strain is formed, at a position 12 mm from the inner diameter side of the flange surface. In addition, analysis result 62-3 shows the position where the difference in strain unevenness is maximum, at a position 5 mm from the inner diameter side of the flange surface.

[0039] The analysis processing unit 46 analyzes the strain on the flange surface at set intervals from the inner diameter side to the outer diameter side of the acquired 3D data, for example, and stores the results in the processing table 42 and DB 44. In the process of evaluating whether or not the flange needs repair, the stored strain and its formation position information are used to calculate the inter-face distance.

[0040] <Calculation process for the distance between flange faces> Figure 4 shows the procedure for calculating the distance between flange faces. The calculation details and procedure shown in Figure 4 are just one example. The analysis processing unit 46 analyzes the amount of strain change on the flange surface for each flange 6-1 and 6-2, as shown in Figure 4A, for example. Here, the flange fastener 2 is described as flange 6-1 positioned on the upper side and flange 6-2 positioned on the lower side, but the same applies to flanges 6-1 and 6-2 positioned to the left, right, or other directions depending on the installation state of the piping. Also, in Figure 4, the vertical axis represents strain depth and the horizontal axis represents the angle in the circumferential direction, but it does not only show the strain at a predetermined position from the inner diameter side, but also represents the strain of the entire flange surface in two dimensions.

[0041] Furthermore, the calculation of the inter-face distance is not limited to generating a graph showing the change in strain as shown in Figure 4; for example, the inter-face distance can be calculated from the strain values ​​of each flange 6-1 and 6-2 stored in the processing table 42 or DB 44.

[0042] The analysis processing unit 46 extracts the maximum strain heights LMA and LMB for each flange 6-1 and 6-2, respectively, and calculates the difference values ​​DA and DB between these maximum values ​​LMA and LMB and each strain height. These difference values ​​DA and DB are absolute values ​​that are independent of the direction (positive or negative) of the unevenness. The calculated difference values ​​DA and DB can be stored in the processing table 42, for example, along with the strain position information.

[0043] Next, the analysis processing unit 46 sums up the calculated difference values ​​DA and DB for each flange 6-1 and 6-2 for each position. In this summation, for example, as shown in Figure 4B, the state when flanges 6-1 and 6-2 are fastened together, that is, the state in which the flange surfaces are positioned vertically and facing each other, is assumed, and the difference value DA calculated for flange 6-1 is inverted. In this inversion process, for example, the angle value taken in the circumferential direction, which is the position information stored in association with the difference value DA, is inverted by 360° and combined with the difference value DB of the corresponding position information. In addition, as shown in the figure, the strain values ​​are rearranged so that the position information of the upper flange is displaced from 360° to 0°.

[0044] Next, the analysis processing unit 46 compares the sum of the difference values ​​DA+DB at each position of flanges 6-1 and 6-2, and extracts the minimum value DS and its position information. This summing of difference values ​​and extraction of the minimum value DS assumes a state where the maximum values ​​LMA and LMB of flanges 6-1 and 6-2 are superimposed, as shown in Figure 4C, for example. That is, a maximum value LM, which is a common reference value for the magnitude of each strain, is set between the opposing flange surfaces, and the difference values ​​of each position relative to this maximum value LM are extracted. At this stage of extracting the difference values ​​relative to the maximum value LM, it can be estimated that the flange surfaces do not come into contact with each other, except, for example, when the positions of the maximum values ​​LMA and LMB of each flange are opposite each other.

[0045] The analysis processing unit 46 analyzes the state in which the flange surfaces are in contact only at position X, where the minimum value DS is located, by subtracting the minimum value DS from the sum of the difference values ​​DA+DB at each position on the entire flange surface, for example, as shown in D in Figure 4. Then, the analysis processing unit 46 can determine the gap that occurs between the flange surfaces at each position, using position X as a reference. Based on this, the analysis processing unit 46 extracts the maximum value DSM and its position information from the gap between the flange surfaces at each position. In the evaluation system 24, the maximum value DSM calculated here is set as the inter-face distance for determining whether or not flange repair is necessary. In other words, the calculation of the inter-flange distance utilizes the difference between the maximum and minimum values ​​of the sum of the difference values ​​at each position on the flange surface.

[0046] Note that the method for calculating the inter-face distance shown here is just one example. The analysis processing unit 46 may, for example, use the difference between the minimum value and the maximum value of the sum of the difference values ​​between the flange faces when they are facing each other as the inter-face distance, or it may use the difference between the maximum value of the sum and the maximum value and the longest value as the inter-face distance. In other words, in the fastening condition estimation process described later, if it is possible to calculate the axial force value and torque value necessary to seal the gap that occurs in the part where the gasket is placed, values ​​other than the maximum or minimum value of the gap due to strain may be used. Furthermore, in the calculation process for the inter-face distance, the difference values ​​DA and DB were calculated using the maximum values ​​LMA and LMB of the irregularities as reference values ​​to derive the strain depth on each flange surface. However, values ​​other than the maximum values ​​LMA and LMB may be used as these reference values. For example, these reference values ​​may be the minimum strain value for each flange surface, or predetermined values ​​other than the maximum or minimum value, where a value relatively large relative to the maximum strain value and a value relatively small relative to the minimum strain value are set. These relatively large and relatively small values ​​are intended to be used, for example, to set the reference values ​​for the inter-face distance by using the second or subsequent largest or smallest values ​​relative to the maximum or minimum strain value at each position on the analyzed flange surface. The analysis processing unit 46 then calculates the difference values ​​MA and MB of the unevenness at each position on the flange surface relative to the set reference value.

[0047] <Calculation of Judgment Axis Force> Figure 5 illustrates the principle of the calculation process for tightening conditions. In Figure 5, for the sake of simplicity, it is assumed that strain is present only on the upper flange surface, and the strain is hypothetically formed across the entire sealing surface 8, based on the position where the strain height is at its maximum.

[0048] The estimation unit 48 uses the inter-face distance L (=DSM), which is the gap between flanges calculated by the analysis process, to calculate the determination axial force, which is a tightening condition. In calculating this determination axial force, for example, as shown in Figure 5A, a simulation is performed assuming a state similar to that of the flange fastener 2, with a gasket 10 interposed between flanges 6-1 and 6-2. At this time, the flange fastener 2 is, for example, before tightening the bolts 16 and nuts 18, and a gap due to strain occurs between the gasket 10 and the flange surface at the sealing surface 8 on the flange 6-1 side. This gap that occurs between the joint surface of the flange surface and the gasket may cause, for example, a portion of the fluid flowing in the pipes 4-1 and 4-2 to leak out. The estimation unit 48 calculates an axial force value that compresses and deforms the gasket 10 through the fastening process, filling the gap between the gasket 10 and the flange 6-1 (6-2), as shown in Figure 5B, thereby filling the inter-face distance L (=DSM).

[0049] In calculating the axial force for this determination, it is necessary to consider deformation conditions such as the material, thickness, and rigidity of the intervening gasket 10. This evaluation system 24 utilizes compression curve data that shows the relationship between gasket surface pressure, compressive load, and compressive deformation, for example, as shown in Figure 5C. This compression curve data is data obtained in advance through experiments, etc., depending on the material of the gasket 10, and is stored in the memory unit 36. In addition, necessary information may be obtained from an external database (not shown).

[0050] The estimation unit 48 extracts from the compression curve data the load value WB on the flange surface required to compress the gasket by an additional distance L, based on the displacement L1 when the recommended surface pressure value WA is set for the gasket 10 to be used. Then, using the extracted load value WB, the estimation unit 48 calculates the axial force value for each bolt 16 as the determination axial force value, using the number of bolts 16 used to fasten the flanges 6-1 and 6-2.

[0051] <Regarding processing table 42> The processing table 42 is an example of an area for storing information used in the evaluation process of flanges 6-1 and 6-2. For example, it may store information that identifies flanges 6-1 and 6-2, as well as information on bolts and gaskets used for fastening, measured 3D data or calculated inter-face distance, and judgment axial force. As shown in Figure 6, for example, the processing table 42 consists of an identification information section 63, an equipment name information section 64, a flange information section 65, a bolt information section 66, and a gasket information section 68.

[0052] The identification information unit 63 contains information for identifying, for example, information on multiple flange fasteners 2 or past information, and may include a serial number, a name, or the date of creation. The equipment name information unit 64 and the flange information unit 65 store information such as the name and number of the flange fastener 2 and plant that are subject to evaluation processing, and the model number that identifies the flange to be used.

[0053] The bolt information section 66 is an area that stores information about the bolts 16 used in the flange fastening body 2, and includes, for example, a nominal size information section 661, an outer diameter information section 662, a pitch information section 663, an effective cross-sectional area information section 664, a bolt material information section 665, a yield point information section 666, a number information section 667, and an allowable tightening force information section 668. Each of these information sections 661 to 668 stores information such as the material and strength of the bolts 16, which is used in the calculation process of the judgment axial force described above, as well as in the process of determining whether or not the flange needs to be repaired.

[0054] The gasket information section 68 is a region that stores information about the gasket 10 used in the flange fastening body 2, and includes, for example, an outer diameter information section 681, an inner diameter information section 682, a gasket area information section 683, a type information section 684, a maximum allowable clamping surface pressure information section 685, and an allowable clamping force information section 686. Each of these information sections 681-686 contains, for example, values ​​set for each gasket 10 to be used, information for identifying the gasket 10, and information calculated based on the set values.

[0055] The information stored in the bolt information unit 66 and gasket information unit 68 includes, for example, information obtained from external sources regarding the specifications of the bolts and gaskets to be used and information set for each product, as well as information obtained from the user that is determined by the specifications of the flange fastener 2, and information calculated by the processing unit 38.

[0056] <Decision Processing> Figures 7 and 8 show the results of the assessment of flange tightening conditions and physical conditions. The assessment content and results shown in Figures 7 and 8 are examples. The judgment unit 50 compares the judgment axial force, which is a tightening condition, with the physical conditions of the fastening members involved in fastening to determine whether or not flanges 6-1 and 6-2 can be used. Specifically, the judgment unit 50 compares the calculated judgment axial force with the allowable tightening force of any one of the gasket 10, bolt 16, flanges 6-1 and 6-2, or a combination of these, to determine whether the current flanges 6-1 and 6-2, which are strained, can be used. As an example of how to determine whether or not flanges 6-1 and 6-2 can be used, the determination unit 50 makes a determination as to whether or not repairs are necessary to flanges 6-1 and 6-2 (Figure 7A) and a determination as to the user's usage status (Figure 7B, Figure 8).

[0057] In determining whether repairs are necessary, the calculated judgment axial force value is compared to the repair standard value E, for example, as shown in Figure 7A. Based on this, the judgment unit 50 outputs a judgment result, for example, "×" and a corresponding instruction pattern "A", if the judgment axial force is higher than the repair standard value E, indicating that repairs are necessary. If the judgment axial force is lower than the repair standard value, it outputs a judgment result, for example, "○" and a corresponding instruction pattern "B", indicating that repairs are not necessary. This repair standard value E is a physical condition of the fastening member, and is, for example, one of the allowable tightening forces for the strength standards of the gasket, bolt, and flange, or a combination of several of these values.

[0058] Furthermore, when determining whether repairs are necessary, for example, if multiple types of allowable tightening forces with different values ​​are used, multiple repair standard values ​​E1, E2, ... should be compared with the judgment axial force according to the comparison target. The judgment unit 50 then determines whether repairs are necessary or not, using "○" or "×", and the corresponding response instruction patterns "A", "B", ..., depending on which of the regions the judgment axial force value falls into, as defined by the multiple repair standard values ​​E1, E2, ...

[0059] Pattern "A" of the response instructions includes comments such as "the strain is large" or "repair of the flange is recommended," along with the amount of material to be removed from the flange surface. Pattern "B" of the response instructions only includes comments indicating that there is little concern about leakage or flange deformation, and does not include the amount of material to be removed. In addition, when setting multiple repair criteria values ​​E1, E2, etc., for the range between each criterion value, it is sufficient to include comments indicating the possibility of deformation or damage to the part for the criterion value where the judgment axial force value is exceeded, or recommending flange repair, along with the amount of material to be removed from the flange corresponding to the criterion value.

[0060] Furthermore, the judgment unit 50 compares the existing tightening force PT set by the user with the judgment axial force to determine whether the user's usage conditions are appropriate. This determination of whether the user's usage conditions are appropriate may be performed, for example, when it is determined that flange repair is unnecessary ("○"). In determining the usage state, for example, as shown in Figure 7B, the calculated judgment axial force value is compared to whether it is higher than the existing tightening force PT. Based on this, if the judgment axial force is higher than the existing tightening force PT, the judgment unit 50 outputs a judgment result of, for example, "△" and corresponding response instruction pattern "C". If the judgment axial force is lower than the existing tightening force PT, the user-set tightening force is considered sufficient, and the judgment result of, for example, "○" and corresponding response instruction pattern "D" is output. This response instruction pattern "C" presents comments such as a concern about airtightness in the current usage state and an instruction to increase the tightening force, since the user-set tightening force is weak. On the other hand, response instruction pattern "D" only needs to present comments indicating that there is little concern about leakage or flange deformation.

[0061] Comments corresponding to such response instruction patterns may be read from a database (not shown) stored in the memory unit 36, for example, depending on the judgment result.

[0062] Although the determination of whether repair is necessary and the determination of the usage status are explained separately here, the determination process is not limited to a two-stage process. The calculated determination unit 50 can, for example, as shown in Figure 8, compare the magnitude relationship between the repair standard value E and the user's existing tightening force PT with respect to the determination axial force, and simultaneously determine whether repair is necessary and whether the usage status of the flange fastening is appropriate.

[0063] In addition, the judgment unit 50 may, for example, compare the repair standard value E with the existing tightening force PT as a judgment of the user's usage status. That is, if the existing tightening force PT set by the user is large compared to the repair standard value E, which is a physical condition such as the allowable tightening force of the fastening member, the judgment unit 50 may generate a judgment result including a comment indicating that damage or deformation of the flange, gasket, or bolt may occur.

[0064] <Evaluation Process> Figure 9 is a flowchart of the evaluation process. The processing steps and content shown in Figure 9 are examples, and this disclosure is not limited to such configurations. The evaluation process shown in Figure 9 is an example of the evaluation method of this disclosure and a program for implementing this evaluation method using a computer.

[0065] Server 32 uses the acquired 3D data of the flange surface to perform the calculation of the determination axial force (S11). In the calculation of the determination axial force, for example, the analysis processing unit 46 described above calculates the distance between the flange surfaces, and the estimation unit 48 calculates the axial force value for each bolt based on information such as the required load value on the gasket 10 when fastening in accordance with that distance between the surfaces. The determination unit 50 determines whether or not the flange requires repair based on the calculated axial force value (S12). If it determines that repair is required based on the determination result (YES in S12), it generates an evaluation result including the details of the determination and instructions for repair (S13).

[0066] In determining whether flange repair is necessary, the judgment axial force is compared with the repair standard value E, and the decision is made based on the relative magnitude of the values. The repair standard value E can be, for example, the allowable tightening force of gasket 10, bolt 16, flange 6-1, 6-2, or a combination of these values. When multiple repair standard values ​​E are used, the judgment unit 50 may, for example, first compare the allowable tightening force of bolt 16 with the allowable tightening force of gasket 10, and use the smaller of the two values ​​as the first repair standard value E1, and then compare it with the judgment axial force. If the judgment axial force is greater than the repair standard value E1, the judgment result should be presented, including the content of the repair required and a corresponding instruction pattern.

[0067] If the axial force is less than the repair standard value E1, it is compared to the second repair standard value E2 based on the allowable tightening force of flanges 6-1 and 6-2. If the axial force is greater than the repair standard value E2, the judgment unit 50 should then present the judgment result, including the content of the repair required and the corresponding instruction pattern. The judgment unit 50 indicates that repair is unnecessary if the judgment axial force is smaller than the repair standard value E2.

[0068] Next, if the judgment unit 50 determines that no repairs are needed to the flange (NO in S12), it evaluates the customer's usage conditions and determines whether the customer's tightening force is sufficient (S14). The judgment unit 50 compares the determined axial force with the existing tightening force obtained from the user and evaluates whether the tightening force is sufficient based on the magnitude of the values. As a result, if the tightening force is sufficient (YES in S14), the judgment unit 50 displays an evaluation result of "no problem" (S15), or if it is not sufficient (NO in S14), it displays an evaluation result including instructions to increase the tightening force or other advice (S16).

[0069] Here, we will explain how to calculate the allowable tightening force for one of the gaskets 10, bolts 16, flanges 6-1, or 6-2, which will be used as repair standard values. These allowable tightening forces can be calculated using, for example, the calculation method (JPI-8R-15-2018) set by the JPI standard (Japan Petroleum Institute).

[0070] <Tightening force considering flange strength calculations> When calculating the clamping force considering the strength of the flange, one can adopt a method that involves three steps: 1) calculating the moments M1-M5 from each stress condition and determining the minimum moment (allowable moment Mo); 2) calculating the clamping force Wo from this Mo; and 3) adopting a clamping force that takes pressure information into consideration.

[0071] In the first step, for example, in the case of an integrated flange, the limitations of each stress condition are confirmed using the following formula. The allowable stress σf of the flange material at the design temperature is expressed using the yield point σy, which is the minimum yield point or 0.2% proof stress (yield point) of the flange, as shown in Equation 1 below.

number

[0072] Furthermore, the following conditions apply as allowable values ​​for each stress condition. The limitation on axial stress in flanges other than cast iron, for example, can be expressed as shown in Equation 2. In this case, we assume that the allowable stress σn at the operating temperature of the shell material is smaller when comparing 1.5σf and 2.5σn.

number

[0073] The limitation of radial stress in the flange can be expressed as shown in Equation 3.

number

[0074] The limit on the circumferential stress of the flange can be expressed as shown in Equation 4.

number

[0075] The combined stress limit of the axial stress of the hub and the radial stress of the flange can be expressed as shown in Equation 5.

number

[0076] The combined stress limit of the axial stress of the hub and the circumferential stress of the flange can be expressed as shown in Equation 6.

number

[0077] Furthermore, the axial stress σH of the hub, the radial stress σR of the flange, and the circumferential stress σT of the flange can be expressed as shown in equations 7, 8, and 9 below.

number

[0078]

number

number

[0079] Then, the limit moments (M1-M5) are calculated from conditions 1-5 shown in equation 2-6 above, compared, and the minimum value is selected as the flange allowable moment Mo.

[0080] Next, as the second step, we calculate the clamping force Wo under operating conditions from Mo.

[0081]

number

number

[0082] Then, as a third step, calculate the Wo value, which is the ambient temperature pressure / design temperature pressure, and divide the minimum tightening force Wo by the number of bolts to obtain a value that can be adopted as the tightening force considering flange strength calculations.

[0083] <Tightening force considering bolt strength calculations> When calculating the tightening force considering the bolt strength, the allowable tightening force of the bolt can be calculated, for example, using equations 12 and 13 below. When performing torque management

number

number

[0084] <Tightening force considering gasket strength calculations> For example, the following equation 14 can be used to calculate the allowable tightening force of a gasket.

number

[0085] <Effects of the First Embodiment> With this configuration, the following effects can be obtained. (1) By estimating the tightening conditions for the strain state of the flange surface from 3D data and comparing those tightening conditions with standard values ​​based on the component strength of the flange fastener, it becomes possible to evaluate whether repairs are necessary in accordance with the usage condition of the flange.

[0086] (2) By combining the tightening conditions estimated from the strain state with conditions such as the strength of the flange to determine whether repairs are necessary, it is possible to avoid excessive repairs, without being affected by the knowledge level or skill level of the worker.

[0087] (3) By employing a method that extracts the maximum value of the difference in the unevenness of the flange surface from the 3D data and directly inputs that value into the compression curve of the gasket, it becomes possible to make an objective and automated decision on whether or not to use the flange, i.e., whether or not the flange needs to be repaired, which previously relied on the judgment of skilled workers, without becoming dependent on individual expertise.

[0088] (4) By adopting a mechanism that references compression curve data within the logic and converts it to the required surface pressure according to the magnitude of the irregularities on the analyzed flange surface, equivalent evaluation processing can be performed even when the type of gasket is changed, thereby reducing variability in on-site judgment when using the flange fastener 2.

[0089] (5) By incorporating the allowable tightening force of bolt standards and gasket standards into the calculation logic of the evaluation process and adopting a method of comparison, the risk of bolt fracture and gasket damage can be identified in advance, thereby improving safety.

[0090] (6) By setting multiple repair standard values ​​based on the allowable tightening force of bolts, gaskets, and flanges, and making it easier to understand which range of these repair standard values ​​the judgment axial force falls into, the suitability with the user's usage conditions is improved, and it becomes easier to understand and predict the need for maintenance.

[0091] (7) By designing the entire evaluation process, including the determination of whether repairs are necessary and the condition of use, to be automated as a macro or cloud process, the time required for the evaluation process can be reduced, and the efficiency of maintenance work on the flange fasteners 2, including flange repair, can be improved.

[0092] [Second Embodiment] Figure 10 shows the evaluation process of the evaluation system according to the second embodiment. The processing content and procedures shown in Figure 10 are examples only, and this disclosure is not limited to such content. In Figure 10, the same or equivalent processes as those in Figure 9 are denoted by the same reference numerals, and their descriptions are omitted.

[0093] This embodiment shows a case where, in addition to the evaluation process shown in the first embodiment, which includes determining whether repair is necessary for the gasket and its usage condition, the evaluation process further includes a comparison process between the recommended surface pressure of the flange fastener 2 and the allowable tightening force of the gasket, bolts, and flange. In other words, this evaluation process includes a step of evaluating design problems of the flange fastener 2, in addition to determining whether repair is necessary and its usage condition according to the condition of the flange surface.

[0094] The processing unit 38 of the server 32 uses the acquired 3D data of the flange surface to perform the calculation of the determination axial force (S21) and the calculation of the recommended surface pressure of the flange fastener 2 (S22). The calculation of the determination axial force can be performed in the same way as the process in S11 of Figure 9 described above. The judgment unit 50 first compares the gasket strength, bolt allowable tightening force, flange allowable tightening force, etc., with the recommended surface pressure W of the flange fastener 2, and determines whether any one or more combinations of the allowable tightening forces are equal to or greater than the recommended surface pressure (S23). In this comparison of the allowable tightening force with respect to the recommended surface pressure, for example, the allowable tightening forces of the gasket, bolts, and flanges may be compared, and the smallest or largest value may be selected and set as the comparison target.

[0095] As a result of this comparison, the judgment unit 50 determines that if the allowable tightening force is less than the recommended surface pressure (NO in S23), there is a structural defect in the flange fastener 2, and proposes to the user the existence of the defect and advice suggesting a design change (S24). In other words, in such a case, it indicates that the strength of one or more of the gasket 10, bolt 16, flanges 6-1, 6-2, or these components is insufficient for the surface pressure suitable for fastening the flange fastener 2 (recommended surface pressure). As a result, the evaluation system 24 performs a process to prompt a design change, etc., without determining the repair or usage condition of the flange.

[0096] Furthermore, based on the comparison results, if the allowable tightening force is equal to or greater than the recommended surface pressure (YES in S23), the judgment unit 50 determines that the flange fastening body 2 has sufficient strength even when fastened at the recommended surface pressure, and proceeds to the comparison process between the determined axial force and the repair standard value (S25). The comparison process in S25 corresponds to the processes in S12 and S14 in Figure 9. Therefore, a detailed explanation is omitted. The judgment unit 50 presents the user with comparison results, including a determination of whether repairs are necessary and the user's usage status (S26). As described above, when multiple repair criteria values ​​E1, E2, ... are compared with the judgment axis force, the determination of whether repairs are necessary and the content of comments are set based on the relative magnitudes of the repair criteria values ​​E1, E2, and E3.

[0097] <Recommended surface pressure settings W1, W2, and W3> For calculating the recommended surface pressure used in the evaluation process, one can, for example, use bolt load calculations based on ASME standards or methods specified in JIS B 8265. (1) Required bolt load in use: Wm1 is calculated using Equation 15 and used as the recommended surface pressure W1 for evaluation. This example is for the case of a flat seat, etc.

number

number

[0098] In Equation 15, Hp is the compressive force applied to the gasket to maintain airtightness, and is shown by Equation 17.

number

[0099] (2) Required bolt load when tightening the gasket: Wm2 is calculated using Equation 18 and is the recommended surface pressure W2 to be used for evaluation.

number

[0100] (3) Furthermore, a unique recommended clamping pressure σg is set, and using this recommended clamping pressure σg, the surface pressure value Wmg is calculated using Equation 19, and this is designated as the recommended surface pressure W3 used for evaluation.

number

[0101] <Effects of the second embodiment> With this configuration, the following effects can be obtained. (1) The same effects as in the first embodiment can be obtained.

[0102] (2) By calculating the recommended surface pressure of the flange fastener 2 and comparing it with the strength (allowable clamping force) of each component constituting the flange fastener 2, it is possible to determine whether there are any structural defects, thereby improving the safety of plants and other facilities that use the flange fastener 2.

[0103] [Third Embodiment] Figure 11 shows the database of the evaluation system according to the third embodiment, and Figure 12 shows the state information of the flange surface. The content of the information and the configuration of the display screen shown in Figures 11 and 12 are examples, and this disclosure is not limited to such configurations.

[0104] This evaluation system 24 includes a function to generate a display screen that color-codes the distance between flange faces, which has been analyzed based on three-dimensional information, based on positional information on the flange faces, for example, regarding the strain state on the sealing surfaces 8 of flanges 6-1 and 6-2, which have been analyzed using three-dimensional data. The processing unit 38 of the server 32 can generate the display screen in the output unit 52 using information generated by the analysis processing unit 46, evaluation information from the estimation unit 48 and the judgment unit 50, for example. This display screen contains the information that constitutes the flange medical record described above.

[0105] The DB44 within the storage unit 36 ​​includes, for example, a date and time information unit 70, an equipment information unit 72, a measurement result information unit 74, a strain result unit 76, and an inter-plane distance information unit 78, which are areas for storing information for generating a display screen. The date and time information unit 70 may be set to, for example, the date on which the evaluation process described above is performed during maintenance of the flange fastener 2, the date on which the 3D data was measured, or the date on which the 3D data was stored in DB44. The equipment information unit 72 should store information such as the model numbers and names of the flanges 6-1 and 6-2 and the gasket 10 to be used, and the name of the plant where the flange fastener 2 is installed.

[0106] The measurement result information unit 74 stores, for example, contour shape information of the sealing surface 8, a color state diagram (color state image), angle information, judgment information, a color scale, height information, and position marks. The color state diagram is color information that represents the size of the gap on the flange surface using a color scheme corresponding to the color scale. This color information includes the color range, hue, intensity, saturation, and brightness. The angle information includes the angle information attached to B in Figure 1. The judgment information includes, for example, the difference value between the amount of unevenness on the sealing surface 8 analyzed with 3D data relative to a reference height set on the flange surface, and the size of the gap and its position information calculated between the faces of opposing flanges 6-1 and 6-2.

[0107] A color scale is an example of a color scheme standard that represents the color scheme of a color state diagram. It is a scale information expressed in hues such as dark red, red, orange, yellow, yellow-green, green, blue, indigo, and dark blue, corresponding to reference data that identifies the size of the gap between flange surfaces, and representing nine colors ranging from warm to cool tones. In addition to hue, lightness, saturation, or brightness may also be used in the color scheme, and the hue may include black, gray, and white.

[0108] The strain result section 76 is a region that stores the amount of strain irregularities analyzed by the analysis processing unit 46 using 3D data, as described above, or the difference between this amount of irregularities and a predetermined reference value. It has a radial strain section 76-1 for analysis in the radial direction and a circumferential strain section 76-2 for analysis in the circumferential direction. This strain information can be used in the flange report generation process.

[0109] The inter-face distance information unit 78 is a region that stores the inter-face distance information of flanges 6-1 and 6-2 calculated by the analysis processing unit 46 during the inter-face distance calculation process. This inter-face distance information includes, for example, at least the maximum value DSM and its position information among the difference values ​​which are the gaps between the flange faces calculated, and further includes information such as position information (X) where the difference value between the flange faces obtained in the calculation process is the minimum value DS.

[0110] <Flange surface condition information> The status information screen 80 is an example of a color status diagram representing the strain state on the flange surface. Within an image representing the contour of at least the sealing surface 8 of the flange, a color status image 82 is presented, color-coded according to the size of the gap, which is the distance between the opposing flange surfaces, and a color scale 84 representing each color and the size of the gap is also presented. The common symbols representing each hue in the color status image 82 and the color scale 84 indicate the same hue and its range. The color status image 82 also presents angles and grid lines representing angular positions.

[0111] The color scale 84 is an example of a color scheme standard used in the color state image 82. In this color scale 84, along with the hue, each hue is identified by reference data representing the size of the gap. In this embodiment, dark red 84-1, red 84-2, orange 84-3, yellow 84-4, green 84-5, blue-green 84-6, blue 84-7, indigo 84-8, and dark blue 84-9 are used as different hues from warm colors to cool colors. In other words, the color scheme standard is colored within a plurality of predetermined ranges included in a color scheme standard of ±0.01 mm or more and ±0.2 mm or less. The color scheme standard may be set based on, for example, an arbitrary tolerance value for the size of the gap.

[0112] The color scale 84 assigns the above colors in a gradient. In this color scale 84, for example, a predetermined reference value, which is the gap size, which is the distance between the faces of the analyzed flanges 6-1 and 6-2, can be set as the first color, and the parts of the gap that are the same as or close to this reference value can be displayed in green 84-5. Furthermore, the color scale 84 can determine the difference in gap size relative to this reference value, and set the parts with a large difference as the second color, dark red 84-1 and red 84-2. In addition, the color scale 84 may set the parts with a small difference relative to the reference value as the third color, such as blue 84-7, indigo 84-8, and dark blue 84-9.

[0113] In addition, the color scale 84 may, for example, display the gap amount at which the need for repair of the flange switches as the first color, using green 84-5, as a result of the process of determining whether or not repair is necessary for the flange. The color scale 84 may also set dark red 84-1 and red 84-2 as the second color for the gap amount that requires repair of the flange surface, and conversely, set blue 84-7, indigo 84-8, and dark blue 84-9 as the third color for the gap amount that does not require repair of the flange. Furthermore, the color scale 84 may perform a judgment process that includes not only the size of the gap on opposing flange surfaces but also the unevenness, and display the part where the distance between the flange surfaces is smallest or close to it as the first color, using green 84-5. Furthermore, the color scale 84 may be configured to set a second color, dark red 84-1 or red 84-2, as appropriate for the size of the gap in the portion of the gap that protrudes from the upper flange 6-1 side of the reference point, and conversely, a third color, blue 84-7, indigo 84-8 or dark blue 84-9, as appropriate for the size of the gap in the recessed portion of the gap on the lower flange 6-2 side. Furthermore, regarding color schemes, in addition to the hues of dark red 84-1, red 84-2, orange 84-3, yellow 84-4, green 84-5, blue-green 84-6, blue 84-7, indigo 84-8, and dark blue 84-9, one or more of the following may be used in combination: lightness, saturation, brightness, etc.

[0114] Regarding the setting of the color scale 84, the example shown involves setting a reference color between warm and cool colors and switching between warm and cool color schemes depending on the distance between surfaces and other conditions of the flange surface, but this is not the only option. For example, the color scale 84 may set a first color scheme based on the smallest or no distance between surfaces, define a range based on the magnitude of the distance between surfaces, and then set a second and third color scheme according to that range, or it may set both the first and second color schemes.

[0115] In addition, the color status image 82 on the status information screen 80 may not only display color information corresponding to the distance between flange faces, but may also display comment information that includes advice on repairs and other maintenance to the user. This comment information may include, for example, information indicating the minimum and maximum positions of the distance between faces, information indicating areas on the flange surface that require particular repair, and advice information such as the methods to be used for repairs. This advice on repair locations can be used, for example, when partial repairs to the flange surface are required, or as information to check the repair status after front surface repair work has been performed.

[0116] <Effects of the third embodiment> With this configuration, the same effects as those of the first and second embodiments can be obtained, and in addition, the user can be presented with visually clear information regarding the gap caused by strain between flange surfaces during the evaluation process. Furthermore, after the repair process, 3D data is acquired again, and the size and condition of the flange surface distance are analyzed to generate a color condition image 82, making it possible to visually confirm whether the repair was appropriate or not.

[0117] [Other embodiments] The above embodiments include the following modifications.

[0118] (1) In this evaluation system 24, the evaluation process for the flange surface is not limited to showing only whether repair is necessary and the amount of cutting required, but may also show location information indicating the repair locations on the seal surface 8. This location information may, for example, indicate the locations with the highest values ​​for the flange surface distance on the analyzed seal surface 8. In addition, the processing unit may, for example, display comment information prompting repair in the flange condition image 82 of the flange report for areas with large flange surface distances.

[0119] (2) This evaluation system 24 may include a function to generate numerical information and comments indicating the likelihood of leakage occurring, based on, for example, the magnitude of the analyzed flange inter-face distance and the magnitude of the calculated judgment axial force value, and present them to the user.

[0120] (3) This evaluation system 24 may have a function to store information such as past evaluation results, whether repairs have been made, and the amount of repairs for each flange fastener 2 to be evaluated, and to compare this with the results of the next evaluation process. By such a comparison, it becomes possible to analyze the amount and location of strain generated according to the usage environment and usage conditions of the flange fastener 2, taking into account the time elapsed since the previous evaluation process. This makes it possible to set the frequency and timing of maintenance for the flange fastener 2 and adjust the amount of repairs, thereby increasing convenience.

[0121] (4) In the above embodiment, a case was shown in which strain occurs on both sides of the flanges 6-1 and 6-2 used in the flange fastening body 2, but the present disclosure is not limited to such a case. By analyzing the collected three-dimensional data, it is possible to determine that strain occurs only on the sealing surface 8 of either flange 6-1 or 6-2, or even if strain occurs on both, that only one of the flanges 6-1 or 6-2 requires repair, and to generate such an evaluation result.

[0122] (5) In the above embodiment, the tightening conditions used to determine whether or not repairs are needed for the flange were shown to be the calculation of the estimated axial force value required for the tightening process with respect to the analyzed flange inter-face distance, but the system is not limited to this. In the evaluation system 24 of this disclosure, for example, in addition to axial force, the system may calculate the rotation angle required to fasten the bolts 16 and nuts 18 by a predetermined amount and the torque value required for such fastening, and use these calculated values ​​to determine whether or not repairs are needed for the flange by comparing them with the physical conditions of the fastening members. Other tightening conditions may include, for example, the hardness of the gasket and the degree of deformation of the gasket due to tightening, or the degree of inclination of the bolts 16 and nuts 18 with respect to the vertical during tightening to fill the analyzed flange inter-face distance, the degree of deformation of the bolts 16, and the temperature state of the bolts 16 and nuts 18 during tightening.

[0123] (6) In the above embodiment, a bolt 16 and a nut 18 were used as means for fastening the flanges 6-1 and 6-2 in the flange fastening body 2, but the present disclosure is not limited to such means. In the flange fastening body 2, for example, a method of fastening without providing bolt holes in the outer peripheral portion of the flange surface may be used, in which clamps are placed around the flanges 6-1 and 6-2 that sandwich the gasket 10, and the outer flange surface is pressed with the clamps. In the case of such a method, the evaluation system 24 of the present disclosure can determine whether or not the flange needs to be repaired by using, for example, the stress value applied to the entire flange surface by the pressure of the clamps as a tightening condition with respect to the analyzed flange surface distance.

[0124] Next, the following notes are provided regarding the contents of this disclosure as described above. The technical ideas related to this disclosure can be understood at various levels and variations, from higher-level concepts to lower-level concepts, and this disclosure is not limited to the following notes.

[0125] (Note 1) An evaluation method for evaluating the condition of the flange of a flange fastening body fastened with a gasket interposed therebetween, A step of acquiring condition information of each flange surface using a measuring means, The processing unit performs the steps of using the state information to calculate the distance between the faces of the flanges when they are facing each other, The processing unit performs a processing step of calculating estimated tightening conditions for the flange based on the inter-face distance information, evaluating the state of the flange surface from the estimated tightening conditions, and generating corresponding processing information according to the evaluation result. The information presentation means includes the step of presenting the corresponding processing information, An evaluation method that includes this.

[0126] (Note 2) The processing unit extracts the maximum strain height of each flange surface based on the state information, calculates the difference in strain height of the flange surface with respect to the maximum value, uses the difference in strain height and the position information of the strain to calculate the maximum gap between the flange surfaces that occurs when parts of the flanges come into contact with each other, and sets the maximum gap value in the inter-surface distance information. The evaluation method described in Appendix 1, including the method described therein.

[0127] (Note 3) The aforementioned processing unit, A step of calculating the estimated tightening conditions according to the inter-face distance information using gasket information obtained from the user, A step of comparing the estimated tightening conditions with gasket strength information, flange strength information, bolt strength information, user tightening information, recommended surface pressure information for flange fastening, or two or more of these, and generating corresponding processing information based on the relative magnitudes of the compared values, along with the evaluation result of the flange surface. The evaluation method described in Appendix 1 or 2, including the method described in Appendix 1 or 2.

[0128] (Note 4) A data acquisition means for acquiring three-dimensional data that represents the flange surface in three dimensions, An information processing device comprising: an estimation unit that estimates tightening conditions for fastening a flange to prevent fluid leakage based on the three-dimensional data; and a determination unit that determines whether or not the flange can be used based on the tightening conditions and the physical conditions of the fastening members involved in fastening the flange; An evaluation system that includes this.

[0129] (Note 5) The evaluation system described in Appendix 4, wherein the estimation unit calculates the difference between the recess and the protrusion corresponding to the strain of the flange surface represented by the three-dimensional data, and estimates the tightening conditions for tightening the flange with respect to the difference value.

[0130] (Note 6) The estimation unit obtains the difference value for each of the pair of flanges, calculates the sum of the difference values ​​at corresponding positions on the flange surfaces, compares the sum of the values ​​to select a flange surface interval where the difference between a relatively large value and a relatively small value is, and estimates the tightening conditions based on this flange surface interval, as described in Appendix 5.

[0131] (Note 7) The evaluation system described in Appendix 6, wherein the determination unit compares the tightening conditions, including the axial force of the bolts fastening the flange, with the strength of at least one of the flange, the bolts, and the gasket, to determine whether or not the flange can be used.

[0132] (Note 8) Furthermore, the evaluation system described in Appendix 4 includes an output unit that outputs the amount of material to be removed from the flange surface along with the result determined by the judgment unit.

[0133] (Note 9) An evaluation program to be executed by a computer, Based on three-dimensional data representing the flange surface in three dimensions, it has a function to estimate the tightening conditions necessary to fasten the flange and prevent fluid leakage. A function to determine whether or not the flange can be used, based on the aforementioned tightening conditions and the physical conditions of the fastening members involved in fastening the flange, An evaluation program that causes the aforementioned computer to execute.

[0134] (Note 10) A function to calculate the difference between recesses and protrusions corresponding to the strain of the flange surface represented by the three-dimensional data, Based on the difference value, a function is provided to estimate the tightening conditions when tightening the flange that has strain, The evaluation program described in Appendix 9, including the evaluation program described in Appendix 9.

[0135] (Note 11) A function to calculate the difference value for each of the pair of flanges and to calculate the sum of the difference values ​​at corresponding positions on the flange surfaces, A function to estimate the tightening conditions based on the difference between the relatively large and relatively small values ​​in the total, which is the flange surface distance, The evaluation program described in Appendix 10, including the evaluation program described in Appendix 10.

[0136] (Note 12) A function for comparing the tightening conditions, including the axial force of the bolts fastening the flange, with the strength of at least one of the flange, the bolts, and the gasket. A function to determine whether or not the flange can be used based on the comparison results, The evaluation program described in Appendix 11, including the evaluation program described in Appendix 11.

[0137] (Note 13) The function outputs the result of the decision on whether or not to use the flange, along with information on the amount to be removed due to the repair of the flange surface. The evaluation program described in Appendix 12, including the following.

[0138] As described above, the most preferred embodiments and examples of this disclosure have been described. This disclosure is not limited to those described above. Various modifications and changes are possible for those skilled in the art based on the gist of the invention as described in the claims or disclosed in the forms for carrying out the invention. It goes without saying that such modifications and changes are within the scope of the art of this disclosure. [Explanation of Symbols]

[0139] 2. Flange fasteners 4-1, 4-2 pipeline 6-1, 6-2 flanges 7 Flange surface 8. Sealing surface 10 Gaskets 12 Bolt fastening section 14 bolt through holes 16 volts 18 nuts 22 grid lines 24 Evaluation System 26 3D scanners 28 Terminal devices 30 Networks 32 servers 34 Display section 35 Communications Department 36 Memory section 38 Processing Unit 40 Information presentation section 42 Processing Tables 44 DB 46 Analysis Processing Unit 48 Estimation part 50 Judgment Department 52 Output section 60 Radial strain table 62. Tumultuous strain table 60-1, 60-2, 60-3, 62-1, 62-2, 62-3 analysis results 63 Identification Information Section 64 Device name information section 65 Flange Information Section 66 Volt Information Department 661 Calling Information Department 662, 681 Outer diameter information section 663 Pitch Information Section 664 Effective Cross-Sectional Area Information Unit 665 Bolt Material Information Section 666 Yield Point Information Department 667 Number of trains information department 668 Allowable clamping force information section 68 Gasket Information Department 682 Internal diameter information section 683 Gasket Area Information Section 684 Type Information Section 685 Maximum Allowable Clamping Surface Pressure Information Section 686 Allowable clamping force information section 70. Information Department (Date and Time) 72 Equipment Information Department 74 Measurement result information section 76. Strain Results Section 76-1 Radial strain section 76-2 Circumferential strain area 78 Inter-plane distance information unit 80 Status Information Screen 82-color state image 84 color scale 84-1 Dark red 84-2 Red 84-3 Orange 84-4 Yellow 84-5 Green 84-6 Blue-green 84-7 Blue 84-8 Indigo 84-9 Dark Blue

Claims

1. A tightening condition estimation step in which an estimation unit estimates the tightening conditions necessary to fasten the flange and prevent fluid leakage, based on three-dimensional data representing the flange surface in three dimensions, An evaluation method characterized by including a determination step in which a determination unit determines whether or not the flange can be used based on the aforementioned tightening conditions and the physical conditions of the fastening member involved in fastening the flange.

2. The three-dimensional data represents the irregularities corresponding to the strain on the flange surface, The evaluation method according to claim 1, characterized in that, in the tightening condition estimation step, the estimation unit estimates the tightening conditions when tightening the strained flange based on the difference between the concave and convex portions of the flange surface represented by the three-dimensional data.

3. The evaluation method according to claim 2, characterized in that, in the tightening condition estimation step, the estimation unit obtains the difference between each of the pair of flanges, and estimates the tightening condition based on the difference between the flange surfaces, which is the difference between a relatively large value and a relatively small value among the sum of the differences at corresponding positions on the flange surfaces.

4. The fastening members are the flange, bolt and gasket, The aforementioned tightening condition is the axial force of the bolt fastening the flange, The evaluation method according to claim 3, characterized in that in the determination step, the determination unit compares the tightening conditions with the strength of at least one of the flange, the bolt, and the gasket to determine whether or not the flange can be used.

5. The evaluation method according to claim 4, further comprising an output step in which an output unit outputs the result determined in the judgment step, wherein the output unit outputs the amount of material removed from the flange surface along with the result.

6. An estimation unit estimates the tightening conditions necessary to fasten the flange and prevent fluid leakage, based on three-dimensional data representing the flange surface in three dimensions. A determination unit that determines whether or not the flange can be used based on the aforementioned tightening conditions and the physical conditions of the fastening member involved in fastening the flange, An evaluation system characterized by including the following.

Images