多失效模式下天然气管网线路系统可靠性评估模型

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2025.09.0510

中国安全科学学报 ›› 2025, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (9): 176-184.doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2025.09.0510

多失效模式下天然气管网线路系统可靠性评估模型

徐后佳¹^,²(), 帅健¹^,², 李云涛¹^,²^,^**(), 闫序¹, 李兴涛³, 孙秉才⁴

¹ 中国石油大学(北京) 安全与海洋工程学院,北京 102249
² 中国石油大学(北京) 油气生产安全与应急技术应急管理部重点实验室, 北京 102249
³ 中国石油国际勘探开发有限公司,北京 100034
⁴ 中国石油集团安全环保技术研究院有限公司,北京 102206

收稿日期:2025-04-03 修回日期:2025-06-10 出版日期:2025-09-28
通信作者:
**李云涛(1988—),男,陕西岐山人,博士,教授,主要从事油气火灾试验与仿真技术、危险化学品风险评价等方面的研究。E-mail: liyt@cup.edu.cn。
作者简介:
徐后佳 (1996—),男,安徽池州人,博士研究生,主要研究方向为油气生产安全。E-mail:xuhj3020@163.com。
帅健教授
李兴涛高级工程师
孙秉才高级工程师
基金资助:
国家重点研发计划项目(2023YFC3011300); 中国石油天然气集团有限公司科技项目(2023DJ6508)

Reliability assessment model of natural gas pipeline line system under multiple failure modes

XU Houjia¹^,²(), SHUAI Jian¹^,², LI Yuntao¹^,²^,^**(), YAN Xu¹, LI Xingtao³, SUN Bingcai⁴

¹ College of Safety and Ocean Engineering, China University of Petroleum (Beijing), Beijing 102249, China
² Key Laboratory of Oil and Gas Production Safety and Emergency Technology Emergency Management, China University of Petroleum (Beijing), Beijing 102249, China
³ China National Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Company Ltd., Beijing 100034, China
⁴ CNPC Safety and Environment Protection Research Institute, Beijing 102206, China

Received:2025-04-03 Revised:2025-06-10 Published:2025-09-28

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为保障管网安全运行,全面量化评价天然气管网线路的系统可靠性,提出“单元-管段-管网”3个层级的天然气管网线路系统可靠性评估模型。首先,通过分析管网线路系统组成,建立钢管、焊缝单元在不同失效模式下的状态方程,结合蒙特卡罗算法,计算不同失效模式下的失效概率。基于事故树和最小次序理论构建“单元-管段”层级的可靠性模型,实现“单元-管段”层级的可靠性计算。其次,运用GO法分析管网线路拓扑结构,构建“管段-管网”层级的结构可靠性模型,计算整个管网线路系统的结构可靠性,快速定位可靠性薄弱的管段。最后,结合某管网实例验证该模型的准确性和适用性。结果表明:管网线路系统的可靠性与管材强度和壁厚呈正相关,与径厚比及内压呈负相关;相较于以X80为代表的高钢级管道,低钢级管道构成的管网系统对外部因素具有更高敏感性,其可靠性受外部扰动的影响程度更为显著。

关键词: 失效模式, 管网线路系统, 可靠性评估, 管段可靠度, GO法

Abstract:

In order to ensure the safe operation of gas pipeline networks and to enable the overall reliability assessment of pipeline systems, a three-level reliability evaluation model "component-segment-pipeline network" was proposed for natural gas pipeline networks. First, the state equations of steel pipe and weld units under different failure modes were established by analyzing the composition of the pipe network line system. Combined with the Monte Carlo algorithm, the failure probability under different failure modes was calculated. Based on fault tree analysis and the minimal cut set theory, a "component-segment" level reliability model was developed, enabling the hierarchical reliability evaluation from components to pipeline segments. Next, the GO method was applied to analyze the topological structure of the pipeline network, and a structural reliability model at "segment-pipeline networ" level was established. The structural reliability of the entire pipeline network was calculated and weak segments in terms of reliability were identified rapidly. Finally, a case study was conducted to verify the accuracy and applicability of the proposed model. The results show that the reliability of pipeline network systems is positively correlated with pipe material strength and wall thickness, and negatively correlated with the diameter-to-thickness ratio and internal pressure. Compared to high-grade pipelines represented by X80, networks composed of lower-grade pipelines exhibit higher sensitivity to external factors, with their reliability being more significantly affected by external disturbances.

Key words: failure mode, pipe network line system, reliability assessment, pipeline segment reliability, graphical and operational (GO) method

中图分类号:

X937

徐后佳, 帅健, 李云涛, 闫序, 李兴涛, 孙秉才. 多失效模式下天然气管网线路系统可靠性评估模型[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2025, 35(9): 176-184.

XU Houjia, SHUAI Jian, LI Yuntao, YAN Xu, LI Xingtao, SUN Bingcai. Reliability assessment model of natural gas pipeline line system under multiple failure modes[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2025, 35(9): 176-184.

图/表 13

图1

图2

表1

各类型操作的可靠度运算

类型	对象	可靠度	失效概率	失效率	维修率
类型1	操作符参数Q	$R Q (1) = 1$	$P Q (2) = 0$	$λ Q = 0$	$μ Q = ∞$
	输入信号参数W	$R W 1$	$P W 2$	$λ W$	$μ W$
	输出信号参数T	$R T (1) = R W 1$	$P T (2) = P W 2$	$λ T = λ W$	$μ T = λ T R T (1) / P T 2$
类型2	操作符参数Q	$R Q (1) = 1$	$P Q (2) = 0$	$λ Q = 0$	$μ Q = ∞$
	输入信号参数W	$R W 1 1 、 R W 2 1 、$ …	$P W 1 2 、 P W 2 2 、$ …	$λ W 1 、 λ W 2 、$ …	$μ W 1 、 μ W 2 、$ …
	输出信号参数T	R_T(1)=1-P_T(2)	$P T (2) = ∏ i = 1 n P W i 2$	$λ T = ∑ i = 1 n μ W i$	$μ T = λ T R T (1) / P T 2$
类型5	操作符参数Q	$R Q (1) = 1$	$P Q (2) = 0$	$λ Q = 0$	$μ Q = ∞$
类型5	输出信号参数T	$R T (1) = R Q 1$	$P T (2) = 0$	$λ T = 0$	$μ T = ∞$

表1

表2

图3

表3

表4

图4

表5

表6

图5

图6

图7

参考文献 23

[1]	宫运华, 张喆, 范志炜. 油气管道事故原因分类模型及其社会网络分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2024, 34(9):34-40.
	GONG Yunhua, ZHANG Zhe, FAN Zhiwei. Classification model of oil and gas pipeline accidents causes and its social network analysis[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(9):34-40. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.09.1353
[2]	王海燕, 任帅, 孙东旭. 含腐蚀缺陷油气管道剩余强度的评价方法对比[J]. 腐蚀与防护, 2025, 46(2):80-88,94.
	WANG Haiyan, REN Shuai, SUN Dongxu. Comparison of evaluation methods for residual strength of oil and gas pipeline with corrosion defects[J]. Corrosion and Protection, 2025, 46(2):80-88,94.
[3]	骆正山, 毕傲睿. 腐蚀管道寿命可靠性的步降应力加速试验研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2017, 27(1):59-64. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2017.01.011
	LUO Zhengshan, BI Aorui. Research on reliability of corroded pipelines based on step-down-stress accelerated life testing[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2017, 27(1):59-64. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2017.01.011
[4]	任伟, 帅健. 管道环焊缝可靠性的参数统计分布研究[J]. 石油科学通报, 2016, 1(3):484-492.
	REN Wei, SHUAI Jian. Research into the statistical distribution of reliability parameters for girth welds on pipelines[J]. Petroleum Science Bulletin, 2016, 1(3):484-492.
[5]	王旭, 帅健, 张圣柱, 等. 基于应变的高钢级管道环焊接头失效评定方法[J]. 天然气工业, 2023, 43(2):121-130.
	WANG Xu, SHUAI Jian, ZHANG Shengzhu, et al. A strain based failure assessment method for girth welded joints in high grade steel line pipes[J]. Natural Gas Industry, 2023, 43(2):121-130.
[6]	ABYANI M, BAHAARI M. A new approach for finite element based reliability evaluation of offshore corroded pipelines[J]. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, 2021,193: DOI: 10.1016/J.IJPVP.2021.104449.
[7]	ABDELMOETY K, KAINAT M, YOOSEF-GHODSI N, et al. Strain-based reliability analysis of dented pipelines using a response surface method[J]. Journal of Pipeline Science and Engineering, 2022, 2(1):29-38.
[8]	王东营, 陈小平, 刘权, 等. 基于改进的云模型-FMEA的油气管道风险排序[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2024, 34(5):61-68. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.05.1069
	WANG Dongying, CHEN Xiaoping, LlU Quan, et al. Risk ranking of oil and gas pipeline based on improved cloud model-FMEA[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(5):61-68. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.05.1069
[9]	CALEYO F, VALOR A, ALFONSO L, et al. Bayesian analysis of external corrosion data of non-piggable underground pipelines[J]. Corrosion Science, 2015, 90: 33-45.
[10]	LEIRA B, NAESS A, NAESS O. Reliability analysis of corroding pipelines by enhanced Monte Carlo simulation[J]. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, 2016,144:11-17.
[11]	LIU Aihua, CHEN Ke, HUANG Xiaofei, et al. Dynamic risk assessment model of buried gas pipelines based on system dynamics[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2021, 208: DOI: 10.1016/J.RESS.2020.107326.
[12]	AULIA T, SRIRAMULA S. Dynamic reliability model for subsea pipeline risk assessment due to third-party interference[J]. Journal of Pipeline Science and Engineering, 2021, 1(3): 277-289.
[13]	ZHENG Qian, ABDELMOETY K, LI Yong, et al. Reliability analysis of intact and defected pipes for internal pressure related limit states specified in CSA Z622:19[J]. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, 2021,192: DOI:10.1016/J.IJPVP.2021.104411.
[14]	韩冰, 季蓓蕾, 付强, 等. 含体积型缺陷集输管道剩余强度评价方法适用性[J]. 腐蚀与防护, 2025, 46(3):91-98.
	HAN Bing, JI Beilei, FU Qiang, et al. Applicability of residual strength evaluation method for gathering and transportation pipelines with volume defects[J]. Corrosion and Protection, 2025, 46(3):91-98.
[15]	ASME B31G-2009, Manual for determining the remaining strength of corroded pipelines[S].
[16]	BS 7910-2019, Guide to methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in metallic structures[S].
[17]	张强, 杨玉锋, 郑洪龙, 等. 第三方挖掘作用下管道可靠性评估研究[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2017, 13(2):143-147.
	ZHANG Qiang, YANG Yufeng, ZHENG Honglong, et al. Study on reliability evaluation of pipeline under the effect of third-party excavation[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2017, 13(2):143-147.
[18]	WALODDI W. A statistical distribution function of wide applicability[J]. Journal of Applied Mechanics. 1951,18: 293-297.
[19]	EZMAREH Z, YARI G. Statistical inference of stress-strength reliability of gompertz distribution under type II censoring. advances in mathematical physics[J]. Advances in Mathematical Physics, 2022: DOI:10.1155/2022/2129677.
[20]	温轶群, 段富海. 一种基于GO法的多态反馈系统选择性维修模型[J]. 大连理工大学学报, 2023, 63(5):501-508.
	WEN Yiqun, DUAN Fuhai. A selective maintenance model for polymorphic feedback system based on GO methodology[J]. Journal of Dalian University of Technology, 2023, 63(5):501-508.
[21]	NAZEMI N, DAS S. Behavior of X60 line pipe subjected to axial and lateral deformations[J]. Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, 2010, 132(3): DOI:10.1115/1.4001426.
[22]	杨玉锋, 葛新东, 郑洪龙, 等. 第三方损坏对管道可靠性的影响规律[J]. 油气储运, 2017, 36(8):903-909.
	YANG Yufeng, GE Xindong, ZHENG Honglong, et al. Influence laws of third party damage on pipeline reliability[J]. Oil and Gas Storage and Transportation, 2017, 36(8):903-909.
[23]	郭庆, 翟红波, 刘永寿. 考虑动态腐蚀的输流管道时变共振可靠性及灵敏度分析[J]. 兵器装备工程学报, 2024, 45(1):166-172, 216.
	GUO Qing, ZHAI Hongbo, LIU Yongshou. Time-variant resonance reliability and sensitivity analysis of pipes conveying fluid considering dynamic corrosion[J]. Journal of Ordnance Equipment Engineering, 2024, 45(1):166-172, 216.

管线名称	输气量/ (10⁸ m³·a^-1)	设计压力/ MPa	管径/ mm	钢级
1	36	6.4	660	X60
2	170	10.0	1 016	X70
3	150	10.0	1 016	X70

名称	分布类型	均值/mm	标准差/mm
腐蚀长度	对数正态分布	24	16.8
腐蚀深度	对数正态分布	1.534 4	0.308 8
裂纹长度	正态分布	39	8.3
裂纹深度	正态分布	1.4	0.28

单元	失效模式	可靠度
钢管单元	穿孔泄漏	1
	含缺陷钢管破裂	0.999 999
	第三方挖掘破坏	0.999 970
焊缝单元	环焊缝拉伸断裂	0.999 999

输气气流	R_T(1)	P_T(2)
1	1	0
2	0.998 113 000	0.001 887 00
3	0.994 779 000	0.005 221 00
4	0.999 826 000	0.000 174 00
5	0.999 999 091	0.000 000 91
6	0.999 925 091	0.000 074 91
7	0.999 925 091	0.000 074 91
8	0.999 999 994	0.000 000 01
9	0.994 749 994	0.005 250 01
10	0.999 893 994	0.000 106 01
11	0.999 999 443	0.000 000 56
12	0.999 911 443	0.000 088 56
13	0.999 965 443	0.000 034 56
14	0.999 999 996	0.000 000 00
15	0.999 565 996	0.000 434 00
16	0.999 999 181	0.000 000 82

系统失效最小割集	割集	失效概率	份额/%
B₂O₂	管段S1—S10、S27—S29失效	8.189 6×10^-7	82.907 2
B₂C₂V₂	管段S1—S10、S12—S13、S17—S18失效	1.714 3×10^-9	0.173 5
B₂E₂F₂	管段S1—S10、S14、S19失效	2.750 9×10^-11	0.002 8
B₂I₂J₂	管段S1—S10、S15、S20失效	1.050 1×10^-9	0.106 3
B₂L₂H₂	管段S1—S10、S16、S21失效	1.660 5×10^-7	16.810 2

多失效模式下天然气管网线路系统可靠性评估模型

Reliability assessment model of natural gas pipeline line system under multiple failure modes

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 13

参考文献 23

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	时统宇, 高艺, 王岩韬. 基于混合概率模型的飞机操纵系统故障风险评估[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2025, 35(2): 10-20.
[2]	房明, 张毅, 谭玥. 多因素耦合失效模式下地铁施工安全系统与管理模型[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2024, 34(5): 82-90.
[3]	李长俊, 曾江浩, 杨帆. 多失效模式与变量相关的管道失效概率预测[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2024, 34(5): 36-43.
[4]	孙志春, 宫广正, 张艳亮, 肖海平, 白翎, 闫卫东. 基于失效模式的电力企业事故分析系统构建[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(S1): 1-7.
[5]	杜修力, 曹秀秀, 钟紫蓝, 侯本伟, 王威. 考虑多失效模式的桩-土结构体系稳健性设计[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(6): 23-30.
[6]	王慧, 赵国超, 宋宇宁, 金鑫. 基于改进的威布尔分布的液压支架可靠性评估方法[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2018, 28(5): 99-104.
[7]	牟能冶, 邱忠权. 基于FMEA与ELECTRE-III的CTCS-3风险评估研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2018, 28(4): 163-168.
[8]	朱江洪, 李国芳, 王睿, 李延来. 地铁列车非正常停车FMEA风险评估[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2017, 27(2): 145-150.
[9]	王锴，徐皑冬，王宏. 基于差异化设计技术的安全仪表系统共因失效分析方法研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2013, 23(3): 91-.
[10]	邓勇亮，李启明，陆莹，宋亮亮. 城市地铁网络系统的物理脆弱性研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2013, 23(10): 76-.
[11]	徐长航，陈习，朱渊，孙晓平. 基于GO法的LNG接收站气化外输系统可靠性分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2013, 23(1): 61-.
[12]	徐格宁，李银德，杨恒，左荣荣. 基于贝叶斯网络的汽车起重机液压系统的可靠性评估[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2011, 21(5): 90-.
[13]	郑晶晶，张钦礼，王新民，王贤来. 充填管道系统失效模式与影响分析(FMEA)及失效影响模糊评估[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2009, 19(6): 166-.
[14]	杨瑞刚，徐格宁. 影响大型复杂机械钢结构系统可靠性的因素分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2007, 17(11): 16-.
[15]	周荣义，黎忠文. 地铁工程建设施工危险辨识与施工坍塌事故应急预案的探讨[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2005, 15(12): 93-.