基于尖锥网络分析法的管道风险评价研究

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2017.07.016

中国安全科学学报 ›› 2017, Vol. 27 ›› Issue (7): 88-93.doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2017.07.016

基于尖锥网络分析法的管道风险评价研究

柴强飞, 肖忠东教授, 高竟喆, 孙嘉楠, 李洁琳

西安交通大学管理学院,陕西西安 710049

收稿日期:2017-03-17 修回日期:2017-05-14 发布日期:2020-11-26
作者简介:柴强飞 (1993—),男,山西运城人,博士研究生,研究方向为风险管理与运营管理。E-mail:qf0526@163.com。
基金资助:
国家科技支撑计划项目(2015BAK16B02)。

A Cone-ANP-based risk assessment study of pipeline

CHAI Qiangfei, XIAO Zhongdong, GAO Jingzhe, SUN Jianan, LI Jielin

School of Management, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an Shaanxi 710049, China

Received:2017-03-17 Revised:2017-05-14 Published:2020-11-26

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 为更全面准确识别管道风险,提高管道运行的安全水平,用尖锥网络分析法(Cone-ANP),从管道全生命周期角度,分析管道完整性风险评价体系构成,构建风险评价指标的Cone-ANP结构并求取各指标权重,最后将其结果与传统ANP法进行对比分析。研究结果表明:管道风险因素存在于管道全生命周期的各个阶段;监督力度和高后果区识别是影响管道完整性风险的重要因素;在全生命周期视角下,腐蚀所占权重较低。用Cone-ANP法求取的管道风险评价指标权重更为客观合理。

关键词: 油气管道, 管道完整性, 风险评价, 尖锥网络分析法(Cone-ANP), 全生命周期

Abstract: In order to identify precisely and comprehensively pipeline risk factors and improve the safety level of pipeline running, the composition of pipeline integrity risk assessment system was analyzed from the perspective of life cycle, Cone-ANP analysis structure of pipeline risk assessment indexes was constructed and weights of the indexes were obtained by using Cone-ANP. In the last, the results were compared with those obtained by using traditional ANP. The results show that pipeline risk factors exist in every phase of its life cycle,that supervision and serious consequence identification are two factors affecting significantly pipeline integrity, and that in the perspective of life cycle, the weight of corrosion is low, and the weights of assessment indexes obtained by using Cone-ANP method are more objective and reasonable.

Key words: oil and gas pipeline, pipeline integrity, risk assessment, Cone-ANP, life cycle

中图分类号:

X913.4

柴强飞, 肖忠东, 高竟喆, 孙嘉楠, 李洁琳. 基于尖锥网络分析法的管道风险评价研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2017, 27(7): 88-93.

CHAI Qiangfei, XIAO Zhongdong, GAO Jingzhe, SUN Jianan, LI Jielin. A Cone-ANP-based risk assessment study of pipeline[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2017, 27(7): 88-93.

参考文献

[1] 中华人民共和国国家统计局. 中国统计年鉴[M].北京:中国统计出版社, 2015:619.
[2] BRITO A J, ALMEIDA A T D. Multi-attribute risk assessment for risk ranking of natural gas pipelines [J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2009, 94(2):187-198.
[3] 张强, 程万洲, 杨玉锋, 等. 多层次灰色综合评价法在管道风险评价中的应用[J]. 地质科技情报, 2016, 35(2):126-128.
ZHANG Qiang, CHENG Wanzhou, YANG Yufeng, et al. Application of multihierarchy synthetic grey comprehensive evaluation in pipeline risk assessment[J].Geological Science and Technology Information, 2016, 35(2):126-128.
[4] 许谨, 邵必林, 吴琼. 肯特法在长输管道安全评价中的改进研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2014, 24(1):109-112.
XU Jin, SHAO Bilin, WU Qiong.Improvement of Kent method for evaluation oflong-distance pipeline risk[J].China Safety Science Journal,2014, 24(1):109-112.
[5] 单克, 帅健, 张思弘. 基于修正因子的油气管道失效概率评估[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2016, 26(1):87-93.
SHAN Ke, SHUAI Jian, ZHANG Sihong.Adjustment factors based assessment of oil and gas pipelines failure probability[J].China Safety Science Journal, 2016, 26(1):87-93.
[6] ALJAROUDI A, KHAN F, AKINTURK A, et al. Risk assessment of offshore crude oil pipeline failure[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2015, 37:101-109.
[7] HAYES J. Lessons for effective integrity management from the San Bruno pipeline rupture[J]. Process Safety Progress, 2015, 34(2):202-206.
[8] 付建华, 王毅辉, 李又绿, 等. 油气管道全生命周期安全环境风险管理[J]. 天然气工业,2013, 33(12):138-143.
FU Jianhua, WANG Yihui, LI Youlyu, et al. Environment and safety risk management of oil and gas pipelines in their life cycle[J]. Natural Gas Industry,2013, 33(12):138-143.
[9] 李春好, 陈维峰, 苏航, 等. 尖锥网络分析法[J]. 管理科学学报, 2013, 16(10):11-24.
LI Chunhao, CHEN Weifeng, SU Hang, et al.Cone-ANP: a new theoretical method of analytic network process based on the cone network[J].Journal of Management Sciences in China, 2013, 16(10):11-24.
[10] GB32167—2015,油气输送管道完整性管理规范[S].
GB32167-2015,Oil and gas pipeline integrity management specification[S].
[11] 董绍华. 管道完整性管理体系与实践[M]. 北京:石油工业出版社, 2009:1-12.
[12] KISHAWY H A, GABBAR H A. Review of pipeline integrity management practices[J]. International Journal of Pressure Vessels & Piping, 2010, 87(7):373-380.
[13] 张吉军, 姜一, 卢虹林. 尖锥网络分析的一般性结构及其权重计算方法[J].系统工程, 2015, 33(9):138-141.
ZHANG Jijun, JIANG Yi, LU Honglin. The general structure and the weight calculation method of cone-ANP[J].Systems Engineering, 2015, 33(9):138-141.
[14] 李秀美, 陈国明, 朱红卫, 等. 老龄油气管道安全寿命综合评估方法研究[J]. 工业安全与环保, 2016, 42(8):39-43.
LI Xiumei, CHEN Guoming, ZHU Hongwei, et al. A comprehensive safety life evaluation method of aging oil and gas pipeline[J]. Industrial Safety and Environmental Protection, 2016, 42(8):39-43.
[15] Pipeline incident 20 year trends [DB/OL]. [2016-12-17].http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/library/data-stats/pipelineincidenttrends.

基于尖锥网络分析法的管道风险评价研究

A Cone-ANP-based risk assessment study of pipeline

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]	张新生, 常潆戈. 基于FA-BAS-ELM的海洋油气管道外腐蚀速率预测^*[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(2): 99-106.
[2]	陈圣迪, 葛晓婉, 赵晓晨, 陆键, 邢莹莹. 山区二级公路运营期常态交通风险评价^*[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(2): 176-183.
[3]	阎红巧, 陈怡玥, 田琨, 胡瑾秋, 冒亚明, 周靖桐. 企业安全生产关键指标体系与风险评价模型^*[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(9): 21-28.
[4]	朱豪豪, 郭海林, ZHUMAKELDI A. 外力作用下管道内表面缺陷处裂纹扩展研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(3): 66-72.
[5]	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.
[6]	任乐峰, 孟祥坤, 陈国明. 滩海油气管道泄漏风险演化与评估[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(1): 159-164.
[7]	郑晓波. 基于AHP的铁路信息系统风险评价指标体系[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(S1): 139-145.
[8]	李新宏, 韩子月, 卢才武, 赵江平. 老龄城镇油气管道失效风险评价方法[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(2): 93-98.
[9]	许素睿. 燃煤电厂生产性粉尘健康风险评价[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(2): 152-157.
[10]	马爱迪, 岳忠, 孙宝平, 陈大伟. 基于改进组合赋权法的建筑火灾保险费率研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(11): 134-140.
[11]	孙威, 韦善阳, 田筱, 许石青, 石美. 贵州少数民族村寨火灾风险综合评价[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(10): 126-133.
[12]	王剑辉, 邓伟, 夏正洪, 万健. 运输航空飞行安全风险评价方法[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2019, 29(12): 110-116.
[13]	申玲, 唐晔文, 牟月. 基于Cloud-BN的装配式住宅构件吊装安全评价[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2019, 29(10): 147-153.
[14]	闫放, 张舒, 许开立. 化工危险源定量保护层分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2019, 29(1): 100-105.
[15]	梁政. 铁路规划与设计生态风险评价指标体系研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2018, 28(S1): 161-165.