Quantitative risk analysis on failure of submarine pipeline leakage based on FDHHFLTS-BN

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.01.1247

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to prevent the leakage failure of submarine pipelines, a FDHHFLTS-BN risk analysis method based on FDHHFLTS and BN was proposed to study the probability and key factors of the leakage failure of submarine pipelines. BN was transformed from the fault tree model, and then experts evaluated the probability of basic events according to FDHHFLTS. The best-worst method (BWM) was used to determine the weights of experts, and SAM was used to aggregate the opinions of experts. Finally, based on the constructed Bayesian network model, the probability of accident occurrence was obtained through forward reasoning. Also, the posterior probability was obtained through backward reasoning, and sensitivity was analyzed. Applying the method for the example analysis, the results show that the probability value of the leakage accident of the analyzed submarine pipeline is P=6.20×10^-3. Through sensitivity analysis, construction defect of weld-seam, construction defect of material, and fishing gear interaction can be identified as the key factors for the accident.

Key words: free double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set (FDHHFLTS), Bayesian network(BN), submarine pipeline leakage, risk analysis, similarity aggregation method(SAM)

CLC Number:

X937

LIU Fupeng, YANG Jiu, WU Shibo, XU Lixin. Quantitative risk analysis on failure of submarine pipeline leakage based on FDHHFLTS-BN[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(1): 166-170.

Figures/Tables 6

Fig.1

Tab.1

Fig.2

Tab.2

Evaluation results

基本事件	FPS	FFP	基本事件	FPS	FFP
$X 1$	0.607 2	1.09×10^-3	$X 13$	0.504 9	3.35×10^-4
$X 2$	0.614 5	1.18×10^-3	$X 14$	0.257 0	1.93×10^-5
$X 3$	0.460 6	2.01×10^-4	$X 15$	0.754 5	5.92×10^-3
$X 4$	0.536 1	4.79×10^-4	$X 16$	0.160 2	6.32×10^-6
$X 5$	0.485 9	2.69×10^-4	$X 17$	0.670 6	2.26×10^-3
$X 6$	0.446 1	1.70×10^-4	$X 18$	0.314 0	3.72×10^-5
$X 7$	0.460 6	2.01×10^-4	$X 19$	0.582 1	8.14×10^-4
$X 8$	0.475 4	2.38×10^-4	$X 20$	0.597 5	9.71×10^-4
$X 9$	0.696 7	3.05×10^-3	$X 21$	0.472 5	2.30×10^-4
$X 10$	0.340 1	5.02×10^-5	$X 22$	0.562 4	6.49×10^-4
$X 11$	0.561 4	6.41×10^-4	$X 23$	0.712 5	3.65×10^-3
$X 12$	0.318 3	3.91×10^-5	$X 24$	0.205 9	1.07×10^-5

Tab.2

Tab.3

Fig.3

References 10

[1]	张新生, 蔡宝泉. 基于改进随机森林模型的海底管道腐蚀预测[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(8): 69-74. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2021.08.010
	ZHANG Xinsheng, CAI Baoquan. Corrosion prediction of submarine pipelines based on improved random forest model[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(8): 69-74. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2021.08.010
[2]	LI Xinhong, CHEN Guoming, JIANG Shengyu, et al. Developing a dynamic model for risk analysis under uncertainty: case of third-party damage on subsea pipelines[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2018, 54: 289-302. doi: 10.1016/j.jlp.2018.05.001
[3]	LI Xinhong, ZHANG Yi, ABBASSI R, et al. Probabilistic fatigue failure assessment of free spanning subsea pipeline using dynamic Bayesian network[J]. Ocean Engineering, 2021, 234:DOI:10.1016/J.OCEANENG.2021.109323.
[4]	SULAIMAN N S A, TAN H, ZARDASTI L, et al. Integration of Bayesian network with fuzzy analytical hierarchy process for determining the pipeline conditions[J]. Process Safety Progress, 2022, 41: S187-S196.
[5]	ZAREI E, KHAKZAD N, COZZANI V. Safety analysis of process systems using fuzzy Bayesian network (FBN)[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2019, 57:7-16. doi: 10.1016/j.jlp.2018.10.011
[6]	MONTSERRAT-ADELL J, XU Zeshui, GOU Xunjie, et al. Free double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets: an application on ranking alternatives in GDM[J]. Information Fusion, 2019, 47: 45-59. doi: 10.1016/j.inffus.2018.07.002
[7]	LUO Chao, JU Yanbing, DONG Peiwu, et al. Risk assessment for PPP waste-to-energy incineration plant projects in China based on hybrid weight methods and weighted multigranulation fuzzy rough sets[J]. Sustainable Cities and Society, 2021, 74:DOI:10.1016/J.SCS.2021.103120.
[8]	GUO Xiaoxue, JI Jie, KHAN F, et al. Fuzzy Bayesian network based on an improved similarity aggregation method for risk assessment of storage tank accident[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2021, 149: 817-830. doi: 10.1016/j.psep.2021.03.017
[9]	LI Xinhong, CHEN Guoming, ZHU Hongwei, et al. Quantitative risk analysis on leakage failure of submarine oil and gas pipelines using Bayesian network[J]. Transactions of The Institution of Chemical Engineers. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, Part B, 2016, 103: 163-173. doi: 10.1016/j.psep.2016.06.006
[10]	LI Xinhong, HAN Ziyue, YAZDI M, et al. A CRITIC-VIKOR based robust approach to support risk management of subsea pipelines[J]. Applied Ocean Research, 2022, 124:DOI:10.1016/J.APOR.2022.103187.

符号	节点事件	符号	节点事件
T	海底管道泄漏失效	X₆	坠物撞击
A₁	外部因素	X₇	锚固
A₂	内部因素	X₈	渔具作用
B₁	腐蚀	X₉	人为打孔盗油
B₂	外部负载	X₁₀	海上施工
B₃	出现悬跨	X₁₁	设计埋深不足
B₄	自然灾害	X₁₂	操作埋深不足
B₅	材料缺陷	X₁₃	处理不及时
B₆	焊缝缺陷	X₁₄	强流和强波
B₇	辅助设备故障	X₁₅	海底土易被侵蚀
C₁	内部腐蚀	X₁₆	海底地震
C₂	外部腐蚀	X₁₇	海底运动
C₃	埋深不足	X₁₈	台风
C₄	环境条件恶劣	X₁₉	材料设计缺陷
X₁	未清除腐蚀气体和杂质	X₂₀	材料施工缺陷
X₂	未添加缓蚀剂	X₂₁	焊缝设计缺陷
X₃	未定期清管	X₂₂	焊缝施工缺陷
X₄	防腐涂层失效	X₂₃	辅助设备老化
X₅	阴极防蚀失效	X₂₄	辅助设备设计缺陷

方法	文中方法		未采用SAM的 FDHHFLTS方法		采用SAM的梯形模糊数方法		条件概率表仅通过“与/或” 逻辑门转化得到的采用 SAM的FDHHFLTS方法
事故概率	6.20×10^-3		6.05×10^-3		4.96×10^-3		1.55×10^-2
后验概率较大因素排序	X₂₃	2.49×10^-1	X₂₃	2.50×10^-1	X₉	2.41×10^-1	X₂₃	2.36×10^-1
	X₉	2.08×10^-1	X₉	2.01×10^-1	X₁₉	1.40×10^-1	X₉	1.97×10^-1
	X₁₇	1.54×10^-1	X₁₇	9.87×10^-2	X₂₃	1.23×10^-1	X₁₇	1.46×10^-1
	X₂₀	6.64×10^-2	X₁₉	9.73×10^-2	X₁	1.17×10^-1	X₂	7.63×10^-2

[1]	SUN Yilin, ZHENG Xiaoqiang, LIU Xianfeng, HE Yanyan, WANG Ye. Analysis of gas pipeline leakage and explosion accident based on AcciMap model [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(7): 140-146.
[2]	WU Haitao, LIU Yue, DU Huimin. Research on model of subway operation accident's cause under small sample condition [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(3): 134-140.
[3]	CHEN Chen, CHENG Jia, DOU Zhiping. Safety assessment of existing escalators and moving walks [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(2): 103-109.
[4]	MA Gang, XU Xiaonan, GUO Xiaofang, ZHANG Zhizhen, XU Zihao. Scenario deduction of fire accidents in electroplating enterprises based on Bayesian network [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(2): 202-208.
[5]	ZHANG Bingjian, SU Qin, LIU Hailong. Human error analysis for unsafe events of cloud ERP based on FTA-BN [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(2): 38-47.
[6]	QIN Rongshui, SHI Chenchen, CHEN Chao, LAN Meng, LIU Xiaoyong, XIAO Junfeng. Risk analysis on fire accident of urban commercial complex based on fuzzy Bayesian network [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(12): 176-182.
[7]	WANG Jinjiang, GUAN Pengting, CHEN Zhuo, GE Weifeng, JU Qian. Intelligent warning of risk during maintenance operations based on deep learning [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(10): 16-22.
[8]	LIU Yi, QIAN Jing, FAN Weicheng. Rise of precision: a review of emergency risk analysis methodology [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(9): 1-10.
[9]	ZHAO Jianwei, XIE Lei, YANG Yang, HU Xinyuan, OU Changkui, ZENG Rong. An ISM-BN based research on navigation risk factors of inland waterway vessels [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(8): 37-44.
[10]	LIU Jiahao, YU Yang, ZHANG Zhenxing, YU Jianxing, WANG Weiwei, FU Yiqin. Risk assessment method of risers based on two-dimensional cloud model and BN [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(5): 147-154.
[11]	YANG Yue, MA Bokai, CAO Yuxuan. Human error risk analysis based on foreign unsafe events in air traffic management [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(12): 38-45.
[12]	HAN Peng, WANG Jun, WANG Qi, ZHAO Yifei. Study on air traffic control risks of aircraft flight test activities based on flight profile [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(1): 149-156.
[13]	HU Yunpin, LI Chao, LI Zongliang, YANG Daohe. IHFACS-BN safety assessment model for large-span steel structure construction and its application [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(8): 147-154.
[14]	HUA Junjie, SHEN Mandui, SONG Xiansheng. Study on comparison of leak frequency sources in chemical plants [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(3): 35-40.
[15]	GAO Han, DUO Yili, SUN Tie, WANG Zhirong, GUO Pinkun. Dynamic risk analysis of gasifier overtemperature scenario based on DBT-DBN [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(3): 73-81.