基于EWM-AHP-云模型的站场法兰系统密封失效风险评估

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.09.2040

中国安全科学学报 ›› 2023, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (9): 150-156.doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.09.2040

基于EWM-AHP-云模型的站场法兰系统密封失效风险评估

李凤¹^,²(), 张来斌¹^,², 董绍华¹^,²^,^**(), 陈林¹^,², 张行³

¹ 中国石油大学(北京) 安全与海洋工程学院,北京 102249
² 应急管理部油气生产安全与应急技术重点实验室,北京 102249
³ 中国石油大学(北京) 机械与储运工程学院, 北京 102249

收稿日期:2023-03-10 修回日期:2023-06-11 出版日期:2023-09-28
通讯作者:
**董绍华(1972—),男,山东寿光人,博士,教授,主要从事管道完整性及氢能输送方面的研究。E-mail:shdong@cup.edu.cn。
作者简介:
李凤 (1992—),女,重庆人,博士研究生,主要研究方向为管道输送及管道安全检测。E-mail:lif.cc@qq.com。
张来斌教授
陈林讲师
张行副教授
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金资助(51874322); 中石油战略合作科技专项(ZLZX2020-05)

Research on sealing failure risk assessment of station flange system based on EWM-AHP-cloud model

LI Feng¹^,²(), ZHANG Laibin¹^,², DONG Shaohua¹^,²^,^**(), CHEN Lin¹^,², ZHANG Hang³

¹ College of Safety and Ocean Engineering, China University of Petroleum (Beijing), Beijing 102249, China
² Key Laboratory of Oil and Gas Safety and Emergency Technology, Ministry of Emergency Management, Beijing 102249, China
³ College of Mechanical and Transportation Engineering, China University of Petroleum (Beijing), Beijing 102249, China

Received:2023-03-10 Revised:2023-06-11 Published:2023-09-28

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为提升站场法兰连接系统安全评估的准确性,提出一种基于熵权法(EWM)-层次分析法(AHP)-云模型的站场法兰系统密封失效风险评估方法。首先采用EWM和AHP组合权重降低单一AHP法计算权重的主观性,并采用云模型解决站场法兰连接系统密封失效风险因素的模糊性、随机性以及难以量化的问题;其次以我国华北地区某输气站场为例,验证该方法的科学性和有效性,并依据站场法兰历史失效数据建立法兰系统密封失效风险评估指标体系,采用EWM-AHP法确定各指标的组合权重;然后根据等级量化标准建立标准云,使用Matlab软件计算各风险指标的云数字特征值,并绘制云图;最后基于EW-型指数贴近度计算确定各风险指标的风险等级。结果表明:所评估法兰系统密封失效的综合风险等级为较高风险,评估结果与实际情况基本吻合。EWM-AHP-云模型能较好地实现法兰系统密封失效风险评估,该方法具有一定的科学性和有效性。

关键词: 熵权法(EWM)-层次分析法(AHP), 云模型, 法兰系统, 密封失效, 风险评估

Abstract:

To improve the accuracy of safety assessment of station flange connection system, a seal failure risk assessment method based on EWM-AHP-cloud model was proposed. EWM and AHP were used to combine the weights to reduce the subjectivity of the single AHP method in calculating the weights. Cloud model was used to solve the problems of fuzziness, randomness and difficulty in quantifying the sealing failure risk factors of flange connection system in station. An example of a gas transmission station in North China was used for verification. The sealing failure risk assessment index system of flange system was established based on the historical failure data of station flanges, and the EWM-AHP method was used to determine the combined weight of each index. The standard cloud was established according to the hierarchical quantization standard, and the cloud digital eigenvalue of each risk index was calculated by Matlab, and the cloud map was drawn. The risk level of each risk index was determined based on the EW-type index closeness. The results indicate that the comprehensive risk level of sealing failure of the flange system being evaluated is relatively high, and the evaluation results are basically consistent with the actual situation. The EWM-AHP cloud model can effectively assess the risk of sealing failure in flange systems, and this method has a certain degree of scientificity and effectiveness.

Key words: entropy weight method (EWM)-analytic hierarchy process(AHP), cloud model, flange system, seal failure, risk assessment

李凤, 张来斌, 董绍华, 陈林, 张行. 基于EWM-AHP-云模型的站场法兰系统密封失效风险评估[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(9): 150-156.

LI Feng, ZHANG Laibin, DONG Shaohua, CHEN Lin, ZHANG Hang. Research on sealing failure risk assessment of station flange system based on EWM-AHP-cloud model[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(9): 150-156.

图/表 14

图1

图2

表1

图3

表2

图4

表3

表4

图5

图6

图7

表5

图8

表6

参考文献 17

[1]	谭清磊, 陈国明, 付建民. 高含硫气田集气站设备定量风险评价[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2012, 22(1):94-99.
	TAN Qinglei, CHEN Guoming, FU Jianmin. A quantitative risk assessment method for equipments of high-sulfur gas field gathering station[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2012, 22(1):94-99.
[2]	沈啸彪, 章兰珠, 徐绍焕, 等. 高压自紧式法兰密封结构研究[J]. 润滑与密封, 2020, 45(11):52-59. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0254-0150.2020.11.009
	SHEN Xiaobiao, ZHANG Lanzhu, XU Shaohuan, et al. Research on high pressure self-sealing flange structure[J]. Lubrication Engineering, 2020, 45(11):52-59. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0254-0150.2020.11.009
[3]	郭岩宝, 张政, 王德国, 等. 考虑微动磨损的法兰垫片泄漏路径研究[J]. 石油科学通报, 2020, 5(3):420-428.
	GUO Yanbao, ZHANG Zheng, WANG Deguo, et al. Study of the flange gasket leakage path under fretting wear[J]. Petroleum Science Bulletin, 2020, 5(3):420-428.
[4]	谢伟康, 陈国明, 师吉浩, 等. 联合站油气设备泄漏燃爆事故及危险区域识别[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(12):85-94. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.12.012
	XIE Weikang, CHEN Guoming, SHI Jihao, et al. Blast accidents caused by gas leakage and identification of hazardous areas in united stations[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(12):85-94. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.12.012
[5]	董绍华. 中国油气管道完整性管理20年回顾与发展建议[J]. 油气储运, 2020, 39(3):241-261.
	DONG Shaohua. Review of China's oil and gas pipeline integrity management in the past 20 years and development suggestions[J]. Oil & Gas Storage and Transportation, 2020, 39(3):241-261.
[6]	田瑶. 燃气站场法兰连接系统紧密性评价研究[D]. 北京: 中国石油大学(北京), 2019.
	TIAN Yao. Research on tightness evaluation of gas station flange connection system[D]. Beijing: China University of Petroleum (Beijing), 2019.
[7]	胡少波. 螺栓-法兰连接系统RCM分析及故障风险评价[J]. 石油化工设备, 2013, 42(2):66-71.
	HU Shaobo. Reliability centered maintenance and risk assessment of bolt-flange connection system[J]. Petro-chemical Equipment, 2013, 42(2):66-71.
[8]	孙振国, 顾伯勤. 基于紧密性的法兰模糊可靠性优化设计方法[J]. 石油化工设备, 2014, 43(6):32-36.
	SUN Zhenguo, GU Boqin. Fuzzy reliability optimization design method for flange based on tightness of connections[J]. Petro-Chemical Equipment, 2014, 43(6):32-36.
[9]	王承彬, 多依丽, 孙铁, 等. 高温螺栓法兰连接结构及风险分析[J]. 辽宁石油化工大学学报, 2022, 42(2):67-72.
	WANG Chengbin, DUO Yili, SUN Tie, et al. High temperature bolted flange connection structure and risk analysis[J]. Journal of Liaoning Petrochemical University, 2022, 42(2):67-72.
[10]	ZHANG Zheng, GUO Yanbao, WANG Deguo, et al. A Noisy-OR gate based fuzzy fault tree approach for micro-leakage evaluation of bolt-gasket-flange connection (BGFC)[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2021, 71: DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2021.104521.
[11]	彭玉杰, 董绍华, 谢书懿, 等. 基于EWM-AHP模糊贝叶斯网络的储罐区风险分析[J]. 消防科学与技术, 2022, 41(5):634-638.
	PENG Yujie, DONG Shaohua, XIE Shuyi, et al. Risk analysis of tank farm based on EWM-AHP and fuzzy Bayesian network[J]. Fire Science and Technology, 2022, 41(5):634-638.
[12]	YU Dejian, HONG Xiyue. A theme evolution and knowledge trajectory study in AHP using science mapping and main path analysis[J]. Expert Systems with Applications, 2022, 205(10):DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2022.117675.
[13]	XIE Shuyi, DONG Shaohua, CHEN Yinuo, et al. A novel risk evaluation method for fire and explosion accidents in oil depots using bow-tie analysis and risk matrix analysis method based on cloud model theory[J]. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2021, 215(1):DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2021.107791.
[14]	吴仁彪, 何宇翔, 贾云飞. 基于改进层次分析法的重点人员风险评价方法[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(10):112-118. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2021.10.016
	WU Renbiao, HE Yuxiang, JIA Yunfei. Key personnel risk assessment method based on improved AHP[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(10):112-118. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2021.10.016
[15]	张渺. G1-EW 组合赋权云模型下地铁运营安全风险评价[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(6):163-170. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.06.0947
	ZHANG Miao. Risk assessment of metro operation based on G1-EW combination weighting cloud model[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(6):163-170. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.06.0947
[16]	任剑. 基于云模型的语言随机多准则决策方法[J]. 计算机集成制造系统, 2012, 18(12):2792-2797.
	REN Jian. Linguistic-stochastic multi-criterion decision-making method based on cloud model[J]. Computer Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 2012, 18(12):2792-2797.
[17]	黄琼桃, 刘瑞敏. 一种云模型相似性度量方法[J]. 控制工程, 2022, 29(9):1600-1604.
	HUANG Qiongtao, LIU Ruimin. A new similarity measurement method for cloud models[J]. Control Engineering of China, 2022, 29(9):1600-1604.

一级指标	AHP权重	二级指标	AHP权重	CR值	EWM-AHP权重	修正后的权重
B₁	0.245	B₁₁	0.109	0.002	0.016	0.098
		B₁₂	0.309		0.056	0.342
		B₁₃	0.582		0.093	0.560
B₂	0.534	B₂₁	0.122	0.017	0.014	0.073
		B₂₂	0.558		0.117	0.619
		B₂₃	0.320		0.058	0.308
B₃	0.221	B₃₁	0.540	0.005	0.051	0.497
		B₃₂	0.297		0.039	0.377
		B₃₃	0.163		0.013	0.126

风险等级	评分范围	云模型表示
低风险	(0, 2]	(1, 0.33, 0.01)
较低风险	(2, 4]	(3, 0.33, 0.01)
中风险	(4, 6]	(5, 0.33, 0.01)
较高风险	(6, 8]	(7, 0.33, 0.01)
高风险	(8, 10]	(9, 0.33, 0.01)

指标	专家1	专家2	专家3	专家4	专家5
B₁₁	9	8	7	7	8
B₁₂	8	7	6	9	7
B₁₃	6	7	7	8	6
B₂₁	3	2	2	4	3
B₂₂	6	7	6	6	5
B₂₃	5	4	5	3	4
B₃₁	6	8	5	6	4
B₃₂	2	1	3	3	1
B₃₃	2	2	2	3	1

指标	云模型表示
B₁₁	(7.8,0.802,0.238)
B₁₂	(7.4,1.103,0.289)
B₁₃	(6.8,0.802,0.238)
B₂₁	(2.8,0.802,0.238)
B₂₂	(6.0,0.501,0.499)
B₂₃	(4.2,0.802,0.238)
B₃₁	(5.8,1.303,0.708)
B₃₂	(2.0,1.003,0.073)
B₃₃	(2.0,0.501,0.499)

指标	云模型表示
B₁	(7.103, 0.905 0.255)
B₂	(5.212, 0.616, 0.399)
B₂	(3.889, 1.089, 0.442)
B	(5.383, 0.791, 0.374)

基于EWM-AHP-云模型的站场法兰系统密封失效风险评估

Research on sealing failure risk assessment of station flange system based on EWM-AHP-cloud model

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 14

参考文献 17

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

指标	低风险	较低风险	中等风险	较高风险	高风险
B₁	448.211	60.725	8.245	1.216	6.715
B₂	68.391	9.366	1.486	6.166	44.823
B₃	18.728	2.7544	3.3592	23.289	169.586
B	134.035	18.101	2.456	3.012	22.246

[1]	李新宏, 付雅倩, 刘亚洲, 韩子月, 张认认. 基于Copula-BN的海上船舶碰撞风险评估方法[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(9): 204-213.
[2]	程瑞, 盘烨, 代军吉, 王涛, 解忠操. 公路路侧事故风险评估与路侧安全设计研究综述[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(9): 214-226.
[3]	李思聪, 许涛. 药物粉尘的职业卫生风险评估与管理研究综述[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(8): 219-230.
[4]	莫俊文, 王锐锐, 滕仓国. 高海拔铁路工程施工人员不安全行为评估[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(8): 30-38.
[5]	陈芳, 崔庆敏, 向千秋. 基于动态贝叶斯网络的民航空中停车事件安全风险评估[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(7): 16-23.
[6]	魏琳, 李丽华, 秦立强, 肖延辉, 唐玉光. 城市地铁恐怖袭击事件应急能力综合评价[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(7): 213-221.
[7]	张晖, 刘永杰, 吴超仲, 丁乃侃, 张琦, 肖逸影. 考虑行车安全事件严重程度和个体差异的驾驶行为风险评估[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(7): 24-31.
[8]	罗振华, 郭俊涛, 韩建强. 基于云模型的装配式地铁车站施工安全风险评价[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(6): 88-95.
[9]	程方明, 王琛琛, 袁晓芳. 安全发展视角下城市应急管理能力评估[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(5): 158-167.
[10]	杨校毅, 杨春雪, 朱俞臣, 杨雪松. 面向OSH的职业心理管控法律法规比较研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(5): 81-87.
[11]	南彦洲, 柯辉, 朱才华, 姚振兴, 李岩. 面向驾驶员心电数据的交叉口驾驶风险评估方法[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(2): 185-193.
[12]	王轶宏, 翟越, 李艳, 屈璐. 城市燃气管网泄漏蒸气云爆炸事故风险评估[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(2): 194-201.
[13]	马天行, 林允, 周晓斌, 魏培荣, 李仁宗, 苏家玉. 煤层底板突水危险性预测的熵权-正态云模型[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(S1): 171-177.
[14]	郑安娜, 李建微, 陈思喜, 郭伟, 陈晓梦. 城市洪涝风险评估中的软件应用及进展[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(9): 118-125.
[15]	姜文宇, 王飞, 苏国锋, 李鑫, 孟庆祥, 王冠宁. 面向森林火灾的应急管理信息化关键技术[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(9): 182-191.