Korean Chemical Engineering Research, Vol.60, No.3, 347-355, August, 2022
AHP를 활용한 안전밸브(PSV) 고장모드의 Cause Factors 우선순위 분석
Priority Analysis of Cause Factors of Safety Valve Failure Mode Using Analytical Hierarchy Process
안전밸브(PSV)는 다양한 원인으로 발생하는 압력이 설정 압력에 도달하면 자동적으로 스프링이 작동하면서 분출되 고 일정 압력 이하가 되면 정상상태로 복원되는 안전장치이다. 안전밸브는 압력상승 등 비정상 상태에서 정상 작동할 수 있도록 주기적인 검사와 모니터링 이행이 필수적이다. 그러나 현행 안전검사는 정해진 주기에만 수행되고 있어 정 상작동 여부의 안전성을 확보하는 데 어려움이 있다. 따라서 안전관리에 필요한 안전밸브의 고장모드와 원인요소를 찾 아 평가항목을 개발하였다. 그리고 항목의 우선순위를 도출하여 안전성 확보를 위한 의사결정 정보를 제공하고자 한 다. 이를 위해 15명의 전문가를 대상으로 안전밸브(PSV)의 Failure Mode Cause Factor(FMCFs)와 관련하여 중요하다 고 판단되는 평가요인을 도출하기 위해 3차례에 걸친 델파이(Delphi) 조사를 수행하였다. 그 결과 안전밸브의 6개 고 장모드와 그 하위요인 22개의 평가요인을 선정하였다. 이와 같이 선정된 평가요인들의 우선순위를 분석하기 위해 계 층구조를 도식화하였고 우선순위 계산에는 계층적 의사결정 방법(AHP)을 적용하였다. 분석결과 FMCFs의 고장모드 우선순위는 ‘Leakage’(0.226), ‘Fail to open’(0.201), ‘Fail to relieve req’d capacity’(0.152), ‘Open above set pressure’ (0.149), ‘Spuriously open’(0.146), ‘Stuck open’(0.127) 순으로 확인하였다. FMCFs의 하위 우선순위는 ‘PSV component rupture’(0.109), ‘Fail to PSV size calculation’(0.068), ‘PSV Spring aging’(0.065), ‘Erratic opening’(0.059), ‘Damage caused by improper installation and handling’(0.058), ‘Fail to spring’(0.053) 등의 순으로 확인하였다. 우선순위가 결정된 FMCFs 효율적인 관리를 통해 안전밸브의 취약점을 파악하고 안전성을 향상하는데 기여할 수 있을 것으로 기대된다.
The safety valve (PSV) is a safety device that automatically releases a spring when the pressure generated by various causes reaches the set pressure, and is restored to a normal state when the pressure falls below a certain level. Periodic inspection and monitoring of safety valves are essential so that they can operate normally in abnormal conditions such as pressure rise. However, as the current safety inspection is performed only at a set period, it is difficult to ensure the safety of normal operation. Therefore, evaluation items were developed by finding failure modes and causative factors of safety valves required for safety management. In addition, it is intended to provide decision-making information for securing safety by deriving the priority of items. To this end, a Delphi survey was conducted three times to derive evaluation factors that were judged to be important in relation to the Failure Mode Cause Factor (FMCFs) of the safety valve (PSV) targeting 15 experts. As a result, 6 failure modes of the safety valve and 22 evaluation factors of its sub-factors were selected. In order to analyze the priorities of the evaluation factors selected in this way, the hierarchical structure was schematized, and the hierarchical decision-making method (AHP) was applied to the priority calculation. As a result of the analysis, the failure mode priorities of FMCFs were ‘Leakage’ (0.226), ‘Fail to open’ (0.201), ‘Fail to relieve req'd capacity’ (0.152), ‘Open above set pressure’ (0.149), ‘Spuriously’ ‘open’ (0.146) and ‘Stuck open’ (0.127) were confirmed in the order. The lower priority of FMCFs is ‘PSV component rupture’ (0.109), ‘Fail to PSV size calculation’ (0.068), ‘PSV Spring aging’ (0.065), ‘Erratic opening’ (0.059), ‘Damage caused by improper installation and handling’ (0.058), ‘Fail to spring’ (0.053), etc. were checked in the order. It is expected that through efficient management of FMCFs that have been prioritized, it will be possible to identify vulnerabilities of safety valves and contribute to improving safety.
  1. Flowstar company, “Technical Data,” UK, https://www.flowstarvalveshop. com/pages/safety-relief-valves(2021).
  2. Korea Ministry of Government Legislation, “Occupational Safety and Health Act and Enforcement Regulations of the Act,” (2021).
  3. Korea Ministry of Government Legislation, “Regulations for Occupational Safety and Health,” (2021).
  4. Korea Ministry of Government Legislation, “High Pressure Gas Safety Control and Enforcement Rules of the Act,” (2021).
  5. Daniel A. Crowl, Joseph F. Louvar, “Chemical Process Safety: Fundamentals with Applications, 4th Edition,” 379-406(2019).
  6. Jang YR, Kim JH, Kim SH, Kwak YH, KIGAS, 21(6), 15 (2017)
  7. API 580 American Petroleum Institute, “Risk-based Inspection,” Washington, D.C.: API Publishing Services(2002).
  8. API 581 American Petroleum Institute, “Risk-based Inspection Technology,” Washington, D.C.: API Publishing Services(2008).
  9. American Petroleum Institute, “API-520 Sizing, Selection, and Installation of Pressure-Relieving Devices in Refineries Part I - Sizing and Selection,” (2000).
  10. European Committee for Standardization, “Safety Devices for Protection Against Excessive Pressure - Part1: Safety Valves (ISO 4126-1:2013),” (2013).
  11. Unver S, Alexandria Eng. J., 60, 1591 (2021)
  12. CHoi SH, KIGAS, 22(6), 40 (2018)
  13. Kim YJ, Shim JS, Institute Public Policy Administration, 21(1), 5 (2007)
  14. Vaidya O, Kumar S, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 169(1), 1 (2006)
  15. Subramanian N, Ramanathan R, Int. J. Prod. Econ., 138(3), 215 (2012)
  16. Ishizaka A, Labib A, OR Insight, 22(4), 201 (2009)
  17. Chemweno P, Pintelon L, Van Horenbeek A, Muchiri P, Int. J. Prod. Econ., 170, 663 (2015)
  18. Zavadskas EK, Podvezko V, Int. J. Inform. Technol. Decis. Making, 15, 267 (2016)
  19. Jovcic S, Prusa P, Nikolicic S, Adv. Sci. Technol. Res. J., 12(2), 137 (2018)
  20. Seong JH, Byun YS, KOSOS, 31(5), 61 (2016)
  21. Kim JM, Lee JB, Chang SR, KOSOS, 32(5), 96 (2017)
  22. Davoodi A, Int. J. Industr. Math., 1(4), 343 (2009)
  23. Cabala P, “Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process in Evaluating Decision Alternatives, Institute of Organization and Management 1, 1-23, (2010).
  24. Han Y, Wang Z, Lu X, Hu B, Int. J. Geo-Inf., 9(86), 1 (2020)
  25. Saaty TL, Eur J. Oper, 48, 9 (1990)
  26. Eskander RFA, Alexandria Eng. J., 57(4), 4207 (2018)
  27. Kang EJ, Jang SM, Kil TS, JKCA, 19(6), 402 (2019)
  28. An JS, “Developing Evaluation Criteria for Historic Gardens Preservation Condition by Applying Delphi Technique and Analytic Hierarchy Process,” Sungkyunkwan University, 38-60, (2011).
  29. Reynolds J, Thomas H, Moosemiller M, Process Plant Safety Symposium, Pressure Relief Systems (Session T5a12), 1-6, (2001).
  30. Lawshe CH, Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563 (1975)