Risk ranking of oil and gas pipeline based on improved cloud model-FMEA

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.05.1069

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to solve the problems of inaccurate failure priority ranking and excessively subjective risk evaluation in traditional FMEA, a risk evaluation method of oil and gas pipeline failure modes based on a hybrid weights-cloud model was proposed. Firstly, the failure modes and causes of oil and gas pipelines were investigated and analyzed, and the systematic FMEA mode was constructed. Then an expert evaluation opinion processing method was proposed based on the cloud model and the hybrid weight method. The game theory was introduced to reduce the subjectivity and randomness of the evaluation results. Finally, VIKOR was used to rank the risk of each failure mode. The feasibility and accuracy of this method was verified by comparing with the traditional FMEA method. The results show that the method can comprehensively assess the risk factors of pipeline sections, quantify the risk values of different pipeline sections and identify the most important failure modes of the same pipeline section, realizing the effective positioning of pipeline high-risk areas and the ranking of the risk factors of pipeline sections.

Key words: cloud model, failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA), oil and gas pipelines, risk ranking, game theory, vise kriterijumski optimizacioni racun (VIKOR)

CLC Number:

X913.4安全系统工程

WANG Dongying, CHEN Xiaoping, LIU Quan, ZHAO Tianhao, YAN Xu. Risk ranking of oil and gas pipeline based on improved cloud model-FMEA[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(5): 61-68.

Figures/Tables 10

Fig.1

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Fig.2

Table 7

Table 8

References 23

[1]	李新民. 管道局50年:铺设管道绕地球4周[N]. 经济参考报, 2023-08-07(007).
[2]	宁双生. 基于模糊FMECA的管道输油泵安全风险评价[J]. 安全, 2020, 41(8):13-19.
	NING Shuangsheng. Safety assessment of pipeline oil pump based on fuzzy FMECA[J]. Safety & Security, 2020, 41(8): 13-19.
[3]	YU Jianxing, WU Shibo, CHEN Haicheng, et al. Risk assessment of submarine pipelines using modified FMEA approach based on cloud model and extended VIKOR method[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2021, 155: 555-574.
[4]	单克. 基于数据统计及情景模拟的燃气管道定量风险评价方法研究[D]. 北京: 中国石油大学(北京), 2019.
	SHAN Ke. Research on quantitative risk assessment method of gas pipeline based on data statistics and scenario simulation[D]. Beijing: China University of Petroleum, Beijing, 2019.
[5]	张鹏, 彭杨. 考虑随机变量相关性的腐蚀管道失效概率[J]. 石油学报, 2016, 37(10):1293-1301. doi: 10.7623/syxb201610010
	ZHANG Peng, PENG Yang. Failure probability of corroded pipeline considering random variables correlation[J]. Acta Petrolei Sinica, 2016, 37(10): 1293-1301. doi: 10.7623/syxb201610010
[6]	帅健, 单克. 基于失效数据的油气管道定量风险评价方法[J]. 天然气工业, 2018, 38(9):129-138.
	SHUAI Jian, SHAN Ke. A quantitative risk assessment method for oil and gas pipelines based on failure data[J]. Natural Gas Industry, 2018, 38(9): 129-138.
[7]	周亚薇, 张振永, 田姗姗. 地区等级升级后的天然气管道定量风险评价技术[J]. 天然气工业, 2018, 38(2):112-118.
	ZHOU Yawei, ZHANG Zhenyong, TIAN Shanshan. Quantitative risk assessment of the natural gas pipelines in upgraded areas[J]. Natural Gas Industry, 2018, 38(2): 112-118.
[8]	万昔超, 殷伟量, 孙鹏, 等. 基于云模型的暴雨洪涝灾害风险分区评价[J]. 自然灾害学报, 2017, 26(4):77-83.
	WAN Xichao, YIN Weiliang, SUN Peng, et al. Risk division assessment of rainstorm-flood disasters based on cloud model[J]. Journal of Natural Disasters, 2017, 26(4): 77-83.
[9]	韩峰, 刘志博, 尹文华, 等. 基于二维云模型的沙漠高速公路生态风险评价及优选研究[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2023, 23(10):3774-3783.
	HAN Feng, LIU Zhibo, YIN Wenhua, et al. Ecological risk evaluation and optimum selection of desert expressway schemes based on 2-D cloud model[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2023, 23(10): 3774-3783.
[10]	张鹏, 游亚菲, 王璟, 等. 基于多维云模型的埋地并行油气管道风险评价研究[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2022, 18(7):149-156.
	ZHANG Peng, YOU Yafei, WANG Jing, et al. Research on risk assessment of buried parallel oil and gas pipelines based on multi-dimensional cloud model[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2022, 18(7): 149-156.
[11]	唐直帆, 祝文化, 文超, 等. 基于云模型的扩机工程进水口基坑施工风险评价[J]. 武汉理工大学学报, 2023, 45(10):98-103.
	TANG Zhifan, ZHU Wenhua, WEN Chao, et al. Construction risk evaluation of expansion engineering inlet pit based on cloud model[J]. Journal of Wuhan University of Technology, 2023, 45(10): 98-103.
[12]	吕军. 基于云模型的洪涝灾害风险评价与风险管理研究:以巢湖流域为例[D]. 芜湖: 安徽师范大学, 2019.
	LYU Jun. Study on risk assessment and risk management of flood disaster based on cloud model: taking Chaohu basin as an example[D]. Wuhu: Anhui Normal University, 2019.
[13]	李德毅. 知识表示中的不确定性[J]. 中国工程科学, 2000, 2(10):73-79.
	LI Deyi. Uncertainty in knowledge representation[J]. Engineering Science, 2000, 2(10) :73-79.
[14]	王康, 董四辉. 轨道交通车辆系统安全评价云模型[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2019, 29(9):51-56. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.09.008
	WANG Kang, DONG Sihui. Research on cloud model for safety evaluation of rail transit vehicle system[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2019, 29(9): 51-56. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.09.008
[15]	蔡逸伦, 阳富强, 朱伟方, 等. 化工工艺本质安全评价的云模型及应用[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2018, 28(6):116-121. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2018.06.020
	CAI Yilun, YANG Fuqiang, ZHU Weifang, et al. Cloud model for assessing inherent safety assessment of chemical process and its application[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2018, 28(6): 116-121. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2018.06.020
[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 mode[J]. Computer Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 2012, 18(12): 2792-2797.
[17]	HASSAN S, WANG Jin, KONTAVAS C, et al. Modified FMEA hazard identification for cross-country petroleum pipeline using fuzzy rule base and approximate reasoning[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2022, 74: DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2021.104616.
[18]	范成伟, 明杏芬, 付小红, 等. 基于博弈论-后悔理论的装配式建筑施工安全风险评估模型研究[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2022, 22(3):1132-1139.
	FAN Chengwei, MING Xingfen, FU Xiaohong, et al. Research on safety risk assessment of prefabricated buildings based on game theory-regret theory[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2019, 22(3): 1132-1139.
[19]	李鹤林. 油气管道失效控制技术[J]. 油气储运, 2011, 30(6):401-410,393.
	LI Helin. Failure control technique of oil & gas pipeline[J]. Oil and Gas Storage and Transportation, 2011, 30(6): 401-410, 393.
[20]	刘国志, 彭英伟, 伍东, 等. 天然气管道失效分析与防范对策[J]. 安全与环境工程, 2012, 19(3):100-104.
	LIU Guozhi, PENG Yingwei, WU Dong, et al. Natural gas pipeline failure analysis and precautions[J]. Safety and Environmental Engineering, 2012, 19(3): 100-104.
[21]	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.
[22]	单克, 帅健, 杨光, 等. 美国油气管道基本失效概率评估方法及启示[J]. 油气储运, 2020, 39(5):530-535.
	SHAN Ke, SHUAI Jian, YANG Guang, et al. Evaluation method for basic failure probability of oil and gas pipeline based on accident statistics in the United States and enlightenments[J]. Oil and Gas Storage and Transportation, 2020, 39(5): 530-535.
[23]	METE S, SERIN F, OZ E N, et al. A decision-support system based on Pythagorean fuzzy VIKOR for occupational risk assessment of a natural gas pipeline construction[J]. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 2019, 71: DOI: 10.1016/j.jngse.2019.102979.

序号	失效模式	失效原因	失效后果
1	变形	地质运动、土壤湿陷、洪水冲刷等外力作用导致管道发生弯曲变形	过量的弯曲变形将导致管体对裂纹的止裂能力下降,增大失效风险甚至造成管壁断裂
2	断裂	第三方破坏、施工缺陷、泥石流,塌方等自然灾害引起管道断裂失效	介质泄漏,引发火灾、爆炸、人员中毒等事故
3	结构失稳	由管段的温度急剧变化、沟底局部凸起或发生土壤沉降等引发	发生断裂或开焊,造成管道内原介质大量外溢,污染周围环境,造成经济损失
4	表面损伤	第三方破坏、施工缺陷、自然灾害、腐蚀等造成管道表面金属损伤	由于外力或腐蚀导致金属表面损伤,易引起泄漏,导致火灾、爆炸等,造成人员伤亡
5	腐蚀穿孔	由于管内酸性介质腐蚀、流体冲蚀、大气、土壤等环境因素,造成局部管壁减薄,发生穿孔泄漏	局部腐蚀小孔泄漏,导致池火、喷射火的发生

风险等级	失效可能性(失效概率)描述	后果严重度	探测度/%	云标度
低风险L	液体管道:[(0,1.29次/(10³km·a)];输气集气管道:[(0,2.17次/(10⁴km·a)]; 配气管道:[(0,4.08次/(10⁵km·a)]	极小损失	(85, 100]	(0.390, 0.064,0.008)
中风险M	液体管道:[1.29次/(10³km·a),4.58次/(10⁴km·a)];输气集气管道:[2.17次/(10⁴km·a),1.41次/(10⁴ km·a)];配气管道:[4.08次/(10⁵km·a),2.38次/(10⁵ km·a)]	管道表面损伤石油或气体事件	(65, 85]	(0.5, 0.309,0.005)
高风险H	液体管道:[4.58次/(10⁴km·a),9.09次/(10⁶km·a)];输气集气管道:[1.41次/(10⁴km·a),9.79次/(10⁶km·a)];配气管道:[2.38次/(10⁵km·a),1.11次/(10⁵km·a)]	①致死或受伤入院;②损失超过5万美元;③液体表面损伤导致火灾或结构失稳	(25, 65]	(0.691, 0.064,0.008)
极高风险VH	液体管道:[9.09次/(10⁶km·a),+∞];输气集气管道:[9.79次/(10⁶km·a),+∞];配气管道:[1.11次/(10⁵km·a),+∞]	导致人员死亡或受伤入院的管道事故	(0, 25]	(1,0.1, 0.013)

管段	壁厚/ mm	内压/ MPa	外径/ mm	缺陷深度/mm		缺陷长度/mm		焊缝缺陷深度/mm		焊缝缺陷长/mm
管段	壁厚/ mm	内压/ MPa	外径/ mm	均值	标准差	均值	标准差	均值	标准差	均值	标准差
1	7.1	6.4	660	1.81	0.36	15	10.5	1.4	0.28	123	26.21
2	10.3	6.4	660	2.35	0.47	22	15.4	1.4	0.28	51	10.87
3	8.7	6.4	660	1.64	0.33	24	16.8	1.4	0.28	39	8.31
4	7.1	6.4	660	1.31	0.26	30	21.0	1.4	0.28	167	35.59
5	12.7	6.4	660	2.00	0.40	16	11.2	1.4	0.28	151	32.18
6	10.3	6.4	660	2.35	0.47	17	11.9	1.4	0.28	75	15.98
7	18.4	12	1 016	2.81	0.56	26	18.2	1.4	0.28	160	34.10
8	26.4	10	1 016	3.50	0.70	22	15.4	1.4	0.28	32	6.82
9	22	10	1 016	2.80	0.56	16	11.2	1.4	0.28	142	30.26
10	26.4	10	1 016	5.09	1.02	25	17.5	1.4	0.28	42	8.95
11	14.6	10	1 016	2.79	0.56	17	11.9	1.4	0.28	43	9.16
12	17.5	10	1 016	2.35	0.47	40	28.0	1.4	0.28	170	36.23

失效模式	专家1			专家2			专家3			专家4			专家5
失效模式	S	O	D	S	O	D	S	O	D	S	O	D	S	O	D
断裂	L	VH	VH	VH	VH	VH	H	VH	M	H	H	VH	VL	VH	H
变形	H	H	VL	H	L	L	VL	H	VL	L	VH	H	VL	H	H
结构失稳	H	VL	H	VH	L	H	H	L	H	H	H	H	H	L	L
表面损伤	L	H	H	L	VH	H	L	H	H	VL	L	H	L	VL	VL
腐蚀穿孔	VL	VH	L	H	H	L	VH	H	L	VL	L	H	VH	H	L

失效模式	D	O	S
变形	(0.338,0.036,0.004)	(0.676,0.032,0.004)	(0.338,0.036,0.004)
结构失稳	(0.614,0.028,0.003)	(0.323,0.032,0.004)	(0.752,0.032,0.004)
表面损伤	(0.552,0.032,0.004)	(0.538,0.036,0.004)	(0.247,0.032,0.004)
腐蚀	(0.385,0.028,0.003)	(0.676,0.032,0.004)	(0.538,0.043,0.005)
断裂	(0.838,0.072,0.004)	(0.938,0.043,0.005)	(0.538,0.036,0.004)