During the operation of the device, should priority be given to protecting the equipment or to maintaining production?
Thread Content
I hope everyone will speak up actively. I’m really confused: a few days ago, fluctuations in steam pressure caused one of the shaft vibration levels of the turbine to rise to over 100 μ. Since it’s a two-out-of-three system, the turbine didn’t shut down; subsequently, the operator disabled the interlock. Is it wrong to do this? Is it right to do it?
Make a choice by weighing the pros and cons while ensuring safety.
[url=forum.php?mod=redirect How to ensure security
When handling matters, one should have a plan ahead and a plan behind; it is not advisable to adopt reckless tactics that try to hide the truth. When encountering such a situation, you should report it to your supervisor as soon as possible, and it is best to offer suggestions for their reference. When your supervisor weighs the pros and cons and makes production arrangements for special situations, you just need to carry out those arrangements. Removing interlocks in such a casual manner means that once the equipment is damaged, that’s what happens :) The impact of equipment failures on production needs to be taken into consideration; if a foreign-made device experiences severe damage to its bearings, which in turn leads to damage to the rotor blades, then the next issue is determining how quickly the rotor can be replaced – it’s a quite complex process. Earn as much money as you can and handle as many responsibilities as you can; it is recommended to report matters related to chain operations as early as possible. If it is necessary to escalate the report or leave a record of such reporting, do so. To avoid being held accountable for unclear reasons.
[url=forum.php?mod=redirect It seems like a good point – the first thing to do should be to report it rather than cutting off the chain, and it’s necessary to leave some trace
This post was last edited by “Hasty Passerby” on July 22, 2018, at 22:25. There should be strict institutional regulations governing the removal of interlocks; it is not permissible for just one specialty to carry this out. Therefore, the internal operators alone cannot decide to remove interlocks – there must be approval from relevant specialties and supervisors. From the perspective of problem diagnosis, when this situation occurs, the first thing to check is whether there are any abnormalities in the parameters displayed by the subsequent axis instruments It is necessary to determine whether the high shaft vibration at that time was merely a temporary phenomenon resulting from abnormal steam parameters, and whether it returned to normal once the steam conditions normalized. If that is indeed the case, then there seems to be no need to disable the interlock; it is likely that the vibration level is still somewhat high, and the interlock was disabled as a precaution to prevent sudden increases in vibration that could lead to shutdown. From the perspective of production and equipment safety, if the equipment is damaged, the waiting time for spare parts can be very long, especially in the case of foreign-made equipment, which can have a significant impact on production. Therefore, if interlock operations are disabled without carefully assessing whether the equipment is indeed damaged, there is a high risk of the accident escalating. In terms of equipment management, it is appropriate to explain the potential hazards and concerns to higher-level authorities and to submit a written report.
[url=forum.php?mod=redirect]That’s great; I’ve learned something new. Thank you
Generally speaking, it’s definitely not right; large devices that don’t come with spare parts are meant to be maintained. The procurement process for imported large-scale equipment can be incredibly frustrating. As for smaller devices, I’ve seen them being replaced when they become damaged. It’s definitely not possible to operate in a chain format using internal methods; whether from a technical standpoint or from a management perspective, it requires meetings for discussion, or instructions from the technical supervisor. For your factory, choosing one out of two means having a backup probe; this takes into account the possibility of false alarms or failures on the probe, and interlocking can be considered after verifying that it is indeed a problem with the probe.
There are three lines of safety and environmental protection equipment, and the most important thing is the equipment itself! Once the interlock for equipment shutdown is established*, all of a person’s ways of thinking change. Operating the equipment with hidden defects, as well as equipment failures, will directly affect stable production and environmental protection standards.