International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research

Home About Us Scope Editorial Board Blog/Latest News Contact Us
10th percentile
Powered by  Scopus
Scopus coverage:
Nov 2018 to May 2020


IJSTR >> Volume 9 - Issue 8, August 2020 Edition

International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research  
International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research

Website: http://www.ijstr.org

ISSN 2277-8616

Using Of Total Down Time (TDT) Importance Grouping And Risk Priority Number (RPN) For Failures Ranking In Gas Compression Plants

[Full Text]



Mohamed Hussein M. Faris, Dr. Elamin Elhussein, Dr. Hassan Osman



Total Down Time Importance, Gas Compression Plants, Modern Maintenance, Maintenance Management and Engineering, Risk Priority Number, Reliability Centered Maintenance



The gas compression plant is an essential and major unit in oil and gas industries that have high gas oil ratio or high gas production. Compressed gas is needed as fuel, support processing mechanism, increase reservoir build up pressure by gas injection as well as a useful product. Gas plants are critical and dangerous working location and it is classified as a critical zone due to circumstance parameters like high pressure, high temperature, gas specifications and the potential to impact to human health, safety, environment and possibility to impact invested revenues in case of incidents. Therefore, all recorded compression plant operational failures shall be assessed and reviewed in order to decrease the unit down time and increase plant safety and efficiency. In general, Limited studies were conducted in gas plant maintenance management. This paper studied a working gas compression unit in an operating oil and gas field and it presents a model of failures raking and sorting in gas plants based on total down time importance and risk priority number to demonstrate the area of failures which need attention of the owner and the site working team.



[1] M. H. M. Faris, E. Elhussein, H. O. Ali, and A. Yousif, “A Review of Applied Modern Condition Monitoring and Best Maintenance Engineering Practices in Reciprocating Gas Compression Plants,” vol. 12, no. 12, pp. 2983–2987, 2019.
[2] M. K. Moorthy and G. TamizhMani, “Automation of risk priority number calculation of photovoltaic modules,” in 2016 IEEE 43rd Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (PVSC), 2016, pp. 1730–1735.
[3] S. Tatapudi, P. Sundarajan, C. Libby, J. Kuitche, and G. TamizhMani, “Risk priority number for PV module defects: influence of climatic condition,” in Proc.SPIE, 2018, vol. 10759.
[4] S. Tatapudi, J. Kuitche, and G. Tamizhmani, “A novel climate-specific field accelerated testing of PV modules ,” New Concepts in Solar and Thermal Radiation Conversion and Reliability 2018 , vol. 10759 BT-New Concepts in Solar and Thermal Radiation Conversion and Reliability. SPIE , 01-Jan-2018.
[5] D. C. Jordan, T. J. Silverman, J. H. Wohlgemuth, S. R. Kurtz, and K. T. VanSant, “Photovoltaic failure and degradation modes,” Prog. Photovoltaics Res. Appl., vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 318–326, Apr. 2017.
[6] J. M. Kuitche, R. Pan, and G. T. (Mani), “Investigation of Dominant Failure Mode(s) for Field-Aged Crystalline Silicon PV Modules Under Desert Climatic Conditions,” IEEE J. Photovoltaics, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 814–826, 2014.
[7] D. H. Stamatis, Failure Mode andEffect Analysis, 2nd ed. Milwaukee: William A. Tony, 2003.
[8] D. R. Kiran, “Failure Modes and Effects Analysis,” 2017, pp. 373–389.
[9] 9. Hugh Jack, Engineering Design, Planning, and Management, 1st ed. Academic Press Inc, 2013.
[10] C.-L. L. Tie Liu, “Application of FMEA and KT Method on Fab Daily Management,” J. Qual., vol. 15 (6), pp. 399–407, 2008.
[11] N. Sellappan, S. Oman, and K. Palanikumar, “Modified Prioritization Methodology for Risk Priority Number in Failure Mode and Effects Analysis,” vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 27–36, 2013.
[12] A. Murri, M., Tavassi, & Di Marzo, “On-line Plant Diagnosis System Combining FMEA Techniques and Data-Models,” Proc. 1st Int. Conf. Exp. / Process / Syst. Model. / Simul. / Optim., pp. 1–6, 2005.
[13] P. Rajput, M. Malvoni, N. M. Kumar, O. S. Sastry, and G. N. Tiwari, “Risk priority number for understanding the severity of photovoltaic failure modes and their impacts on performance degradation,” Case Stud. Therm. Eng., vol. 16, p. 100563, 2019.
[14] K. O. Kim and M. J. Zuo, “General model for the risk priority number in failure mode and effects analysis,” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., vol. 169, pp. 321–329, 2018.
[15] N.-C. Xiao, H.-Z. Huang, Y. Li, L. He, and T. Jin, “Multiple failure modes analysis and weighted risk priority number evaluation in FMEA,” Eng. Fail. Anal., vol. 18, pp. 1162–1170, Jun. 2011.
[16] P. D. B.S. Dhillon, Engineering Maintainability. Gulf Professional Publishing, 1999.
[17] A. Ouédraogo, A. Groso, and T. Meyer, “Risk analysis in research environment – Part I: Modeling Lab Criticity Index using Improved Risk Priority Number,” Saf. Sci. - SAF SCI, vol. 49, pp. 778–784, Jul. 2011.
[18] G. Di Bona et al., “Total efficient risk priority number ( TERPN ): a new method for risk Total efficient risk priority number ( TERPN ): a new method for risk assessment,” J. Risk Res., no. April, pp. 1–25, 2017.
[19] F. Rezaei, M. Yarmohammadian, and M. Ferdosi, “Revised Risk Priority Number in Failure Mode and Effects Analysis Model from the Perspective of Healthcare System Revised Risk Priority Number in Failure Mode and Effects Analysis Model from the Perspective of Healthcare System,” no. February, 2018.