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

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.09.2040

Abstract

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

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.

Figures/Tables 14

Fig.1

Fig.2

Tab.1

Fig.3

Tab.2

Fig.4

Tab.3

Tab.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

Fig.7

Tab.5

Fig.8

Tab.6

References 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)