基于模糊ANP的海底管道失效风险综合评价

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.05.029

中国安全科学学报 ›› 2019, Vol. 29 ›› Issue (5): 178-184.doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.05.029

基于模糊ANP的海底管道失效风险综合评价

雷云^1,2, 余建星^1,2 教授, 吴朝晖³, 陈海成^1,2, 刘俊雄^1,2

1 天津大学水利工程仿真与安全国家重点实验室,天津 300072;
2 高新船舶与深海开发装备协同创新中心, 上海 200240;
3 海洋石油工程股份有限公司,天津 300451

收稿日期:2019-01-28 修回日期:2019-03-25 发布日期:2020-11-02
作者简介:雷云(1995—),女,江西新余人,硕士研究生,研究方向为海底管道风险。E-mail:369545807@qq.com。
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金资助(51239008);国家科技重大专项经费资助(2016ZX05057020, 2016ZX05028005-004)。

Comprehensive evaluation of failure risks of submarine pipelines based on fuzzy ANP

LEI Yun^1,2, YU Jianxing^1,2, WU Zhaohui³, CHEN Haicheng^1,2, LIU Junxiong^1,2

1 State Key Laboratory of Hydraulic Engineering Simulation and Safety, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China;
2 Collaborative Innovation Center for Advanced Ship and Deep-sea Exploration,Shanghai 200240, China;
3 Offshore Petroleum Engineering Co., Ltd., Tianjin 300451, China

Received:2019-01-28 Revised:2019-03-25 Published:2020-11-02

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 为更准确地评价海底管道失效风险,综合采用德尔菲法、模糊理论、网络分析法(ANP)和模糊综合评价法,首先,依据专家意见与事故统计数据,从腐蚀、自然因素、第三方破坏、材料等 4个方面辨识管道失效风险源;其次,邀请领域专家评估管道失效概率,判断各风险因素相互影响的重要度;然后,通过模糊理论处理评估信息,使用Matlab软件完成极限超矩阵和全局权重向量的编程计算;最后,以南海荔湾某在役输气管道为例,进行模糊综合评估。结果表明:该在役管道的风险评价等级为较低;第三方破坏与腐蚀是海底管道失效的主要原因,与事故统计数据基本一致,验证了基于模糊ANP的失效风险综合评估的合理性。

关键词: 海底管道, 失效风险, 网络分析法(ANP), 极限超矩阵, 三角模糊数, 综合评价

Abstract: Delphi method, fuzzy theory, ANP and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method were adopted in this paper in order to evaluate the failure risk of submarine pipelines more accurately. Firstly, efforts were made to identify the risk sources of pipeline failure from four aspects: corrosion, natural factors, third-party damage and materials according to experts' opinions and accident statistics. Secondly, experts of this field were invited to evaluate the failure probability of pipelines and the importance of each risk factor affecting each other. Then, the evaluation information was processed with fuzzy theory, and the limit hypermatrix and global weight direction were calculated by using the software of Matlab. Finally fuzzy comprehensive evaluation was carried out with an in-service gas pipeline in Liwan, South China Sea as an example. The results show that the risk assessment level of this pipeline is low, and the third-party damage and corrosion are the main reasons for the failure of submarine pipelines, which is basically consistent with the accident statistics, verifying the rationality of the comprehensive evaluation of failure risk based on fuzzy ANP.

Key words: submarine pipelines, failure risk, analytic network process (ANP), limit hypermatrix, triangular fuzzy number, comprehensive evaluation

中图分类号:

X937

雷云, 余建星, 吴朝晖, 陈海成, 刘俊雄. 基于模糊ANP的海底管道失效风险综合评价[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2019, 29(5): 178-184.

LEI Yun, YU Jianxing, WU Zhaohui, CHEN Haicheng, LIU Junxiong. Comprehensive evaluation of failure risks of submarine pipelines based on fuzzy ANP[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2019, 29(5): 178-184.

参考文献

[1] 张秀林, 谢丽婉, 陈国明. 海底管道完整性管理技术[J]. 石油矿场机械, 2011, 40(12): 10-15.
ZHANG Xiulin, XIE Liwan, CHEN Guoming. Integrity management technique for submarine pipeline[J]. Oil Field Equipment, 2011, 40(12): 10-15.
[2] 范英, 李辰, 晋民杰, 等. 三角模糊数和层次分析法在风险评价中的应用研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2014, 24(7): 70-74.
FAN Ying, LI Chen, JIN Minjie, et al. Triangular fuzzy number and analytic hierarchy process applied in risk assessment [J].China Safety Science Journal, 2014, 24 (7): 70-74.
[3] 金加林, 刘喜华. 房地产开发投资风险的专家评价法[J]. 南京农业大学学报:社会科学版, 2004(2): 37-41.
JIN Jialin, LIU Xihua. Expert evaluation of investment risk in real estate development [J]. Journal of Nanjing Agricultural University: Social Science Edition, 2004 (2): 37-41.
[4] 徐涛龙, 姚安林, 蒋宏业, 等. 基于模糊综合评价的城市燃气管网第三方破坏失效可能性研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2010, 20(8): 165-169.
XU Taolong, YAO Anlin, JIANG Hongye, et al. Study on the possibility of the third-party failure of urban gas pipeline network based on fuzzy comprehensive evaluation [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2010, 20(8): 165-169.
[5] 何莎, 勾炜, 胡燕, 等. 基于层次分析法的页岩气集输管道风险评价方法研究[J]. 科技创新与应用, 2019(14): 1-3.
HE Sha, GOU Wei, HU Yan, et al. Study on risk assessment method of shale gas gathering pipeline based on analytic hierarchy process [J]. Innovation and Application of Science and Technology, 2019 (14): 1-3.
[6] CAGNO E, CARON F, MANCINI M, et al. Using AHP in determining the prior distributions on gas pipeline failures in a robust Bayesian approach[J]. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2000, 67(3): 275-284.
[7] 萨迪[美]. 网络层次分析法原理及其应用: 基于利益、机会、成本及风险的决策方法[M]. 鞠彦兵, 刘建昌, 译.北京: 北京理工大学出版社, 2015: 28-32.
SAATY T L. Principle and application of network analytic hierarchy process: decision making method based on interest, opportunity, cost and risk [M]. JU Yanbing, LIU Jianchang, Translated. Beijing: Beijing University of Technology Press, 2015:28-32.
[8] 杨娥. 海底管道风险评价研究[D]. 成都: 西南石油大学, 2012.
YANG E. Study on risk assessment of submarine pipeline[D]. Chengdu: Southwest Petroleum University, 2012.
[9] SAATY T L. Decision making with the dependence and feedback[M]. Pittsburgh: RWS Publication, 1996: 10-12.
[10] 代言明, 胡彦杰,邓敏, 等. 基于模糊网络分析法的公路隧道火灾风险综合评价模型[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2016, 16(4): 57-61.
DAI Yanming, HU Yanjie, DENG Min, et al. Comprehensive evaluation model of highway tunnel fire risk based on fuzzy network analysis [J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2016, 16 (4): 57-61.
[11] 陈思宇, 方国华, 黄显峰. 模糊网络层次分析法在水利工程招标风险评价中的应用[J]. 水利经济, 2018, 36(2):15-19, 83.
CHEN Siyu, FANG Guohua, HUANG Xianfeng. Application of fuzzy network analytic hierarchy process in risk evaluation of bidding for water conservancy project [J]. Water Conservancy Economy, 2018,36(2): 15-19, 83.
[12] 范英, 李辰, 晋民杰, 等. 三角模糊数和层次分析法在风险评价中的应用研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2014, 24(7): 70-74.
FAN Ying, LI Chen, JIN Minjie, et al. Triangular fuzzy number and analytic hierarchy process applied in risk assessment [J].Chinese Safety Science Journal, 2014, 24 (7): 70-74.
[13] MARKOWSKI A S, MANNAN M S.Fuzzy risk matrix[J].Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2008, 159(1): 152-157.
[14] 王莲芬. 网络分析法(ANP)的理论与算法[J]. 系统工程理论与实践, 2001,21(3): 44-50.
WANG Lianfen. The theory and algorithm of analytic network process[J]. Systems Engineering-Theory& Practice, 2001,21(3): 44-50.
[15] 黄振, 张佳华, 秦文俊. 基于德尔菲法和层次分析法的医疗设备购置决策研究[J]. 中国医学装备, 2018, 15(8): 99-103.
HUANG Zhen, ZHANG Jiahua, QIN Wenjun. Decision-making research on medical equipment purchase based on Delphi method and analytic hierarchy process [J]. China Medical Equipment, 2018, 15 (8): 99-103.
[16] Risk assessment data directory: risers and pipeline release frequencies[EB/OL]. [2018-02-28]. http://www.ogp.org.uk/pubs/434-04.
[17] 江锦, 马洪新, 秦立成. 几种典型海底管道修复技术[C]. 第十五届中国海洋(岸)工程学术讨论会论文集(上), 2011:405-410.
JIANG Jin, MA Hongxin, QIN Licheng. Several typical submarine pipeline repair technologies [C]. Papers of the 15^th China Ocean (Coastal) Engineering Symposium (I), 2011: 405-410.
[18] 贺纯纯, 王应明. 网络层次分析法研究述评[J]. 科技管理研究, 2014, 34(3): 204-208.
HE Chunchun, WANG Yingming. Research review of network analytic hierarchy process[J]. Science and Technology Management Research, 2014,34 (3): 204-208.

基于模糊ANP的海底管道失效风险综合评价

Comprehensive evaluation of failure risks of submarine pipelines based on fuzzy ANP

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	熊钰, 孔德中, 杨胜利, 吴桂义, 左宇军, 程占博. 大倾角工作面煤壁稳定性的云模型综合辨识[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(3): 144-151.
[2]	龙腾腾, 殷继艳, 欧朝蓉, 杨强, 李勇, 王秋华. 云南省森林火灾风险综合评价及空间格局研究^*[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(9): 167-173.
[3]	张新生, 蔡宝泉. 基于改进随机森林模型的海底管道腐蚀预测^*[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(8): 69-74.
[4]	吴维讲师, 罗欣然, 魏明. 基于SD模型的跑道侵入风控网络脆弱性分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(4): 41-48.
[5]	杨天姿, 王铁骊, 彭恒明, 段海林. 小微企业生产安全事故应急脆弱性评价^*[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(12): 176-183.
[6]	余建星, 范海昭, 陈海成, 吴世博, 韩放, 刘少卿. 海洋立管失效风险因素分析方法及应用^*[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(11): 47-53.
[7]	姜涛, 张玉龙, 李士博, 李政, 邱海良. 大型多功能救援属具的综合性能评价体系[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(1): 102-108.
[8]	朱冠吉, 刘迪, 孙强, 周子超. 铁路机车驾驶员职业安全适应性评价[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(S1): 64-70.
[9]	贾宝峰, 阎美好. 铁路快运货物安全预警系统研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(S1): 121-127.
[10]	毕傲睿, 骆正山, 宋莹莹, 张新生. 内腐蚀海底管道剩余强度的FOA-GRNN模型[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(6): 78-83.
[11]	宋英华, 吴昊, 刘丹, 王喆. 基于D-S证据理论的地震应急救援群决策[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(5): 163-168.
[12]	杨越, 黄贻刚, 宋祥波, 王建忠. 基于运行数据的管制员工作效能测评方法[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(3): 8-14.
[13]	周俊. 铁路客运站客流安全态势评价^*[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2019, 29(S2): 126-133.
[14]	李程睿, 赵明, 尹盼盼, 刘美池, 马乐陶. 高速铁路客运站安全评价^*[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2019, 29(S2): 149-153.
[15]	王永刚, 张迪, 刘晓璐. 航空安全员安全保障能力评价研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2019, 29(8): 10-16.