Subsea Autonomous High Integrity Pressure Protection System is used in the subsea production process to lower the pressure level of downstream equipment and pipelines and to protect low-pressure pipelines and equipment. Once failure occurs, it will cause serious environmental damage and huge economic losses. In this article, a method of Dynamic Bayesian networks is proposed based on different failure types detected by different test methods. The reliability and availability of HIPPS with different detection methods were analyzed quantitatively. The results show that the performance of the system is improved significantly after inspection and maintenance. Compared with traditional methods, the performance of HIPPS is improved after the partial stroke test is introduced. Through sensitivity analysis, it is found that failure rates have a greater impact on the reliability of HIPPS valves. Increasing partial stroke test coverage can improve HIPPS performance. To improve the reliability of HIPPS, it is necessary to improve the reliability of the execution unit, especially the HIPPS valves. The analysis of the PST strategy can provide a theoretical basis for selecting the frequency of partial stroke test and functional test interval in actual projects.
YangXPengYHuM, et al. Application of HIPPS system in compressor station of long distance pipeline. Petrol Eng Cons2019; 45: 56–59.
2.
WangB. Discussion on application of High Integrity Pressure Protection System. Automation in Petro-Chemical Industry2015; 51(6): 28–31.
3.
WangWWangSGuoZ, et al. HIPPS application for HZ25-3 development projection. Electronic. Instrumentation2016; 23(2): 44–46, 50.
4.
TheobeldMC. Subsea High Integrity Pressure Protection Systems for high pressure oil and gas developments. In: Offshore technology conference, Houston, TX, USA, 6–9 May 1996, p.9. Houston, TX: Offshore Technology Conference.
5.
WuSZhangLLundteigenMA, et al. Reliability assessment for final elements of SISs with time dependent failures. J Loss Prev Process Ind2018; 51: 186–199.
6.
IEC61508. Functional safety of electrical/electronic/programmable electronic safety-related systems. Geneva: International Electrotechnical Commission, 2010.
7.
Torres-EcheverríaACMartorellSThompsonHA. Modelling and optimization of proof testing policies for safety instrumented systems. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2009; 94(4): 838–854.
8.
LiuYRausandM. Reliability effects of test strategies on safety-instrumented systems in different demand modes. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2013; 119: 235–243.
9.
LundteigenMARausandM. Partial stroke testing of process shutdown valves: how to determine the test coverage. J Loss Prev Process Ind2008; 21(6): 579–588.
10.
WuSZhangLZhengW, et al. Reliability modeling of subsea SISs partial testing subject to delayed restoration. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2019; 191: 106546.
11.
LundteigenMARausandM. The effect of partial stroke testing on the reliability of safety valves. In: European safety and reliability conference (ESREL 2007), Stavanger, Norway, 25–27June2007.
12.
LedererCAltstadtSAndriamonjeS, et al. Introduction to partial stroke testing. In: SICE annual conference 2008 – international conference on instrumentation, control and information technology, Tokyo, Japan, 20–22 August 2008. Tokyo, Japan: SICE.
13.
SummersAZacharyB. Variable function voting solenoid-operated valve apparatus and testing method therefore. US20020091451 Patent, 2001.
14.
SummersAZacharyB. Partial-stroke testing of safety block valves. Control Eng2000; 47: 87–89.
15.
InnalFLundteigenMALiuY, et al. PFDavg generalized formulas for SIS subject to partial and full periodic tests based on multi-phase Markov models. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2016; 150: 160–170.
16.
JinHRausandM. Reliability of safety-instrumented systems subject to partial testing and common-cause failures. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2014; 121: 146–151.
17.
BrissaudFBarrosABérenguerC. Probability of failure on demand of safety systems: impact of partial test distribution. Proc IMechE, Part O: J Risk and Reliability2012; 226(4): 426–436.
18.
PascualRLouitDJardineAKS. Optimal inspection intervals for safety systems with partial inspections. J Oper Res Soc2011; 62: 2051–2062.
19.
Nelson-BridgewaterSHiezMCaudinJ, et al. High Integrity Pressure Protection System for ESP activated wells. In: SPE international conference on health, safety, and environment, Long Beach, California, USA, 17–19March2014, p.10. Long Beach, CA: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
20.
LangvikSAarebrotE. High Integrity Pressure Protection Systems for production applications. Vol. 4. SPE Advanced Technology Series. Society of Petroleum Engineers, 1996, pp. 155–159.
21.
HutchingsV. Is the Subsea High Integrity Pressure Protection System (HIPPS) coming of age? In: Subsea Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) conference, Newcastle, UK, 2–3June2010, p.8. Newcastle: Society of Underwater Technology.
22.
HuJZhangLMaL, et al. An integrated safety prognosis model for complex system based on dynamic Bayesian network and ant colony algorithm. Expert Syst Appl2011; 38(3): 1431–1446.
23.
MurphyKP. Dynamic bayesian networks: representation, inference and learning. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 2002.
24.
YuanLCuiZ. Reliability analysis for the consecutive-k-out-of-n: F system with repairmen taking multiple vacations. Applied Math Modell2013; 37(7): 4685–4697.
25.
O’ConnorPDT. An introduction to reliability and maintainability engineering, Charles E. Ebeling, McGraw-Hill, 1997. Number of pages: 489. Price: £22.99. Qual Reliab Eng Int1998; 14: 295.
26.
LiuZLiuYCaiB, et al. Dynamic Bayesian network modeling of reliability of subsea blowout preventer stack in presence of common cause failures. J Loss Prev Process Ind2015; 38: 58–66.
27.
KohdaTCuiW. Risk-based reconfiguration of safety monitoring system using dynamic Bayesian network. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2007; 92(12): 1716–1723.
28.
CaiBLiuYZhangY, et al. Dynamic Bayesian networks based performance evaluation of subsea blowout preventers in presence of imperfect repair. Expert Syst Appl2013; 40: 7544–7554.
29.
KimSJSeongPHLeeJS, et al. A method for evaluating fault coverage using simulated fault injection for digitalized systems in nuclear power plants. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2006; 91: 614–623.
30.
DuganJBTrivediKS. Coverage modeling for dependability analysis of fault-tolerant systems. IEEE T Comput1989; 38(6): 775–787.
31.
CaiBLiuYFanQ, et al. Performance evaluation of subsea BOP control systems using dynamic Bayesian networks with imperfect repair and preventive maintenance. Eng Appl Artif Intel2013; 26(10): 2661–2672.
32.
TorO. Reliability data for safety instrumented systems – PDS data handbook, 2010 edition. Trondheim: SINTEF Technology and Society, 2014.
33.
CaiBLiuYZhangY, et al. A dynamic Bayesian networks modeling of human factors on offshore blowouts. J Loss Prev Process Ind2013; 26(4): 639–649.
34.
CaiBLiuYZhangY, et al. Dynamic Bayesian networks based performance evaluation of subsea blowout preventers in presence of imperfect repair. Expert Syst Appl2013; 40(18): 7544–7554.
35.
JonesBJenkinsonIYangZ, et al. The use of Bayesian network modelling for maintenance planning in a manufacturing industry. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2010; 95(3): 267–277.
