CN112765805A - Polyethylene buried pipe risk evaluation method - Google Patents

Polyethylene buried pipe risk evaluation method Download PDF

Info

Publication number
CN112765805A
CN112765805A CN202110048410.3A CN202110048410A CN112765805A CN 112765805 A CN112765805 A CN 112765805A CN 202110048410 A CN202110048410 A CN 202110048410A CN 112765805 A CN112765805 A CN 112765805A
Authority
CN
China
Prior art keywords
pipeline
polyethylene
corrosion
score
pipe
Prior art date
Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
Pending
Application number
CN202110048410.3A
Other languages
Chinese (zh)
Inventor
赵建平
赵兴民
Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the list.)
Nanjing Tech University
Original Assignee
Nanjing Tech University
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Application filed by Nanjing Tech University filed Critical Nanjing Tech University
Priority to CN202110048410.3A priority Critical patent/CN112765805A/en
Publication of CN112765805A publication Critical patent/CN112765805A/en
Pending legal-status Critical Current

Links

Images

Classifications

    • G—PHYSICS
    • G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
    • G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
    • G06F30/00—Computer-aided design [CAD]
    • G06F30/20—Design optimisation, verification or simulation
    • G—PHYSICS
    • G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
    • G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
    • G06Q10/06—Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
    • G06Q10/063—Operations research, analysis or management
    • G06Q10/0635—Risk analysis of enterprise or organisation activities
    • G—PHYSICS
    • G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
    • G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
    • G06F2113/00—Details relating to the application field
    • G06F2113/14—Pipes
    • G—PHYSICS
    • G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
    • G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
    • G06F2119/00—Details relating to the type or aim of the analysis or the optimisation
    • G06F2119/02—Reliability analysis or reliability optimisation; Failure analysis, e.g. worst case scenario performance, failure mode and effects analysis [FMEA]
    • G—PHYSICS
    • G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
    • G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
    • G06F2119/00—Details relating to the type or aim of the analysis or the optimisation
    • G06F2119/04—Ageing analysis or optimisation against ageing
    • G—PHYSICS
    • G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
    • G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
    • G06F2119/00—Details relating to the type or aim of the analysis or the optimisation
    • G06F2119/14—Force analysis or force optimisation, e.g. static or dynamic forces

Abstract

The invention provides a polyethylene buried pipe risk evaluation method, which is based on GB/T27512 and aiming at the characteristics of polyethylene pipes, recalculates the scoring weight of the polyethylene pipes, increases failure factors and corresponding scoring rules, and provides a new failure possibility evaluation method. Firstly, acquiring design, installation and completion files of an evaluated pipeline, and surveying and excavating data of the pipeline along the way and on-site surveying and excavating; performing data sorting on all the influence factors, and preprocessing to complete a comprehensive inspection report; calculating the weight of the third-party damage, corrosion and aging, equipment (device) and personnel operation and intrinsic safety factors of the polyethylene pipe based on an analytic hierarchy process and an expert scoring method; dividing the evaluated pipelines, finishing scoring according to scoring rules, and calculating failure probability and failure result scoring according to the pipeline scoring result; and comprehensively calculating the risk value of each pipe section, and classifying the risk grade.

Description

Polyethylene buried pipe risk evaluation method
Technical Field
The invention relates to the field of risk assessment of fuel gas and oil pipelines, in particular to a risk evaluation method of a polyethylene buried pipe.
Background
After the conversion from coal to petroleum is completed, the energy consumption structure is developing towards new energy sources such as high-efficiency, clean, low-carbon or carbon-free natural gas, nuclear energy, solar energy, wind energy, hydrogen energy and the like. Polyethylene Pipe (PE) has the advantages of good corrosion resistance, toughness, light weight, convenience in transportation and the like, and is a well-known green pipeline. The method is widely applied to the fields of oil and gas transportation and water supply and drainage, and is gradually applied to transportation of cooling water of nuclear power plants in recent years. At present, the polyethylene pipe is widely applied to the field of gas and has wide market prospect. Statistical data at the beginning of the century shows that the popularity of polyethylene gas pipelines in Europe, Japan, America and other foreign developed countries exceeds 92 percent, gradually replaces the use of steel pipes for oil and gas transmission, leads the environment-friendly trend of replacing steel with plastic, and makes great contribution to the energy conservation, emission reduction and environmental protection career of China.
At present, China has a plurality of large-scale natural gas engineering projects, and the development of the engineering projects provides opportunities for the development of urban gas pipelines and connection technologies thereof in China. However, various defects are inevitably generated in the process of manufacturing, transporting, installing and using the pipeline. These drawbacks, on the one hand, affect the normal transportation of natural gas and, on the other hand, create a great safety risk for the inhabitants in the vicinity. The town gas pipeline networks are laid in densely populated areas, and the safe operation of the pipelines is related to the personal safety and property safety of millions of residents. A reasonable and accurate risk evaluation model is very important for safe use of the pipeline. According to the basic principle of risk assessment, the method is used for comprehensively assessing the risk degree of the PE pipeline under the actual use condition and environment of the PE pipeline from the aspects of the possibility of accidents and accident consequences, and is a semi-quantitative risk assessment method suitable for engineering practice. The method is mainly used for risk assessment of buried polyethylene pipelines and provides a method for risk assessment of buried polyethylene pipelines in feasibility demonstration stages, design review stages and completion delivery stages.
Disclosure of Invention
The purpose of the invention is as follows: in order to solve the technical problems existing in the background technology, the invention provides a new failure possibility evaluation method based on GB/T27512 and aiming at the characteristics of polyethylene pipes, recalculating the polyethylene pipe line scoring weight, and increasing failure factors and corresponding scoring rules. The invention particularly provides a risk evaluation method for a polyethylene buried pipe, which can realize the joint use evaluation of a polyethylene gas pipe. The invention comprises the following steps:
step 1, acquiring data of an evaluated pipeline;
step 2, preprocessing data, and summarizing the data to obtain a comprehensive inspection report;
step 3, calculating the weight of the third-party damage, corrosion and aging, equipment and personnel operation and intrinsic safety factors of the polyethylene pipe, and establishing a polyethylene pipe corrosion and aging scoring rule;
step 4, dividing the polyethylene pipelines along the way according to the comprehensive inspection report obtained in the step 2; grading is finished according to GB/T27512 and a supplementary corrosion aging grading rule;
step 5, calculating failure probability and failure result scores according to the scoring results in the step 4;
and 6, comprehensively calculating the risk value of each pipe section, and classifying the risk grade.
The step 1 comprises the following steps: and acquiring data of the evaluated pipeline, including a pipeline design file, an installation file, a use file and data of the line patrol record.
The pretreatment comprises the following steps: the data obtained in the step 1 are collated, and corrosion life prediction and operation stress check are carried out; the detailed calculation method is shown in TSG D7003-2010.
The comprehensive inspection report includes: according to the TSG D7003-2010 verification rule, the content comprises: the method comprises the steps of annual inspection conclusion of long-distance (oil and gas) pipelines, data examination, macroscopic inspection, laying environment investigation, non-excavation detection of an anti-corrosion (heat preservation) layer, excavation wall thickness inspection of polyethylene pipelines, cross-domain crossing section inspection, geological condition inspection and safety protection device inspection.
The step 3 comprises the following steps:
constructing a judgment matrix for pairwise comparison of the evaluation problem factors, taking 9 integers from 1 to 9 as a factor to be compared with the scale of the relative importance of another factor index, wherein the scale is defined as follows:
if both factors are equally important, the scale is 1;
if one factor is slightly more important than the other, the scale is 3;
if one factor is significantly more important than the other, the scale is 5;
if one factor is more important than the other, the scale is 7;
if one factor is extremely important over the other, the scale is 9;
2. 4, 6, and 8 represent the median values of the above-described adjacent judgments;
if the factor i is compared with the factor j, the scale is aijThen the factor j is compared with the factor i to obtain the scale
Figure BDA0002898304580000021
For the evaluation problem with n factors, a judgment matrix A is obtained by comparing the following two factors:
A＝(aij)n×n)
after a judgment matrix is obtained, calculating the product M of each row of elements of the judgment matrixiAnd MiRoot of cubic (n times)
Figure BDA0002898304580000031
Figure BDA0002898304580000032
WiObtaining the feature vector after the maximum feature value normalization for the corresponding weights of n different factors, namely the weight vector WT＝(W1,W1,W3,W4)：
Figure BDA0002898304580000033
According to the relative importance degree of every two elements at the same level, comparing the relative importance degrees of third-party damage, corrosion and aging, equipment and personnel operation and intrinsic safety, and constructing the following judgment matrix by adopting expert scoring according to a 1-9 level scale method:
Figure BDA0002898304580000034
calculating and judging eigenvector W after normalization of maximum eigenvalue of matrixTThe weight of the polyethylene pipe is 0.38, 0.22, 0.10 and 0.30 for the three-party damage, corrosion and aging, equipment and personnel operation and intrinsic safety of the polyethylene pipe, respectively.
And 4, dividing the polyethylene pipeline along the way according to the comprehensive inspection report obtained in the step 2 and the crossing, laying environment, pipeline specification and material of the pipeline, wherein when the pipeline crosses rivers, roads and viaducts, and the material and specification of the pipeline change, the pipeline is divided into new pipeline sections.
In step 4, when the polyethylene pipeline passes through rivers, highways and viaducts, the pipeline section is divided into three sections: one side of a river, a highway and a viaduct; crossing sections of rivers, highways and viaducts; rivers, highways and the other side of the viaduct.
When the polyethylene pipeline specification changes, including the wall thickness change and the diameter change of the pipe, the pipe needs to be divided into new pipe sections.
When the quality of the polyethylene pipe wire changes, namely the quality of the subsequent polyethylene pipe wire is different from the current quality, the subsequent polyethylene pipe wire needs to be divided into new pipe sections, and the common polyethylene materials comprise PE60, PE80 and PE 100. Step 4 comprises the following steps: the polyethylene pipe material attribute, the corrosion mechanism and the aging characteristic are considered, a judgment matrix is constructed through hierarchical analysis and expert scoring to calculate the weight, and a scoring detailed rule table is perfected. See table 1 for details.
TABLE 1
Figure BDA0002898304580000041
Figure BDA0002898304580000051
The step 5 comprises the following steps: failure consequence score C and third party damage score S1Corrosion and aging score S2Equipment and personnel operation score S3Intrinsic safety score S4And (4) obtaining failure probability score S according to the weight obtained by calculation in the step (3) and the scoring result obtained in the step (4) through judgment and collection:
S＝100-(0.38S1+0.22S2+0.10S3+0.30S4)。
the step 6 comprises the following steps: calculating the risk value R of the pipe section according to the following formula:
R＝C×S，
the score calculated from R divides each polyethylene pipeline segment risk rating as follows:
if R ∈ [0, 3600), the risk level is a low risk absolute level.
If R ∈ [ 3600, 7800), then the risk level is an intermediate risk absolute level.
If R ∈ [ 7800, 12600), then the risk level is a higher absolute level of risk.
If R ∈ [ 12600, 15000 ], then the risk level is a high risk absolute level.
Has the advantages that:
1. the method is a risk evaluation method for a special pipe polyethylene gas pipeline, and is based on GB/T27512 according to an analytic hierarchy process, a judgment matrix is constructed by adopting expert scoring, and the weight of failure factors of each part of the polyethylene pipe is determined
2. In the failure possibility scoring, the fine scoring rules of the corrosion and aging parts are revised again, and the corrosion damage, the biological corrosion and the aging of the second-level factors and the corresponding third-level and fourth-level factors are determined according to the analytic hierarchy process. Considering 17 factors about corrosion and damage, qualitatively determining weak links of failure of the polyethylene pipe in the service process.
3. The method is a semi-quantitative risk assessment method suitable for engineering practice, fills in the blank of polyethylene pipeline risk assessment, and is easy for engineering practice operation.
Drawings
The foregoing and/or other advantages of the invention will become further apparent from the following detailed description of the invention when taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings.
FIG. 1 is a flow chart of the method of the present invention.
FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram of a sub-hierarchical analysis method for analyzing corrosion and aging failure factors of polyethylene pipes according to an embodiment of the present invention.
Detailed Description
As shown in fig. 1, the invention provides a risk evaluation method for a polyethylene buried pipe, which comprises the following steps: when the failure possibility evaluation is carried out by adopting the correction model, the correction model aiming at specific situations is determined on the basis of a general model by aiming at the evaluated pipeline and combining local pipeline accident statistical data and expert opinions in the aspects of design, installation, use, inspection and the like, the weights of the scoring items and the scoring items are determined, the normalization processing is carried out, the weights of third-party damage, corrosion and aging, equipment (devices) and personnel operation and intrinsic safety quality are all 100, and the weight of each scoring item is equal to the sum of the weights of each sub-scoring item obtained by decomposing the scoring item. Scoring according to the corrected model, and respectively determining the third party damage score S1Corrosion and aging score S2Equipment and personnel operation score S3Intrinsic safety quality score S4The failure likelihood score S is calculated according to the following formula:
S＝100-(a1S1+a2S2+a3S3+a4S4) (1)
in the formula:
a1: for loss of use phaseCorrecting coefficients of third party damage scores in the effectiveness probability score correction model;
a2: a correction factor for correcting the corrosion score in the model for the failure likelihood score of the in-use phase;
a3: correcting the correction coefficient of the equipment (device) and personnel operation scores in the model according to the failure possibility scores of the using stage;
a4: modifying coefficients for the intrinsic safety quality score in the modified model for the failure likelihood score for the in-use phase;
a1+a2+a3+a4＝1 (2)
the scoring term weights that it recommends are used here. Such as the above formula.
The failure likelihood score S should be adjusted to 100 points if the following are present in the evaluated section:
a) the pipe component does not meet the design requirements;
b) the working pressure exceeds the design pressure;
c) the measured minimum wall thickness is lower than the required minimum wall thickness of the pipeline;
d) contains hot melt defects and hot melt defects that do not pass the safety assessment according to CJJ 63-2008;
e) safety protection devices and measures do not meet the design requirements.
Because the third party of PE pipe destroys, the weight of corrosion and aging is different from the steel pipe, therefore adopt the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) that uses more extensively at present to confirm the weight set, its concrete method is:
1) firstly, a hierarchical structure of the evaluated problem is established, all the composition factors of the evaluated problem are divided into a plurality of groups according to the respective attributes and the influence degree on the evaluated problem, and different groups are in different hierarchies. The establishment of the hierarchical structure requires comprehensive evaluation, because the importance of the member indexes in the evaluation problem is not evaluated by a decision maker, and the evaluation results of each evaluation expert must be integrated.
2) Constructing a judgment matrix for pairwise comparison of the evaluation problem factors, taking 9 integers from 1 to 9 as a factor to be compared with the scale of the relative importance of another factor index, wherein the scale is defined as follows:
a) both factors are equally important, the scale is 1;
b) one factor is slightly more important than the other, the scale is 3;
c) one factor is significantly more important than the other, the scale is 5;
d) one factor is more important than the other, the scale is 7;
e) one factor is extremely important over the other, the scale is 9;
2. 4, 6, and 8 represent the median values of the above-described adjacent judgments.
If the factor i is compared with the factor j, the scale is aijThen the factor j is compared with the factor i to obtain the scale
Figure BDA0002898304580000071
For the evaluation problem with n factors, a pairwise comparison judgment matrix A can be obtained:
A＝(aij)n×n (3)
after a judgment matrix is obtained, calculating the product M of each row of elements of the judgment matrixiAnd MiRoot of cubic (n times)
Figure BDA0002898304580000072
Figure BDA0002898304580000073
WiCorresponding weights of n different factors can obtain a feature vector after the maximum feature value is normalized, namely a weight vector WT＝(W1,W1,W3,W4)
Figure BDA0002898304580000081
In order to check the reasonableness of the feature vectors, the resulting decision matrix should have consistency. The process of checking the consistency of the decision matrix is as follows, calculating the maximum eigenvalue λ of the decision matrixmax：
Figure BDA0002898304580000082
Defining a consistency index CI and an average random consistency index RI:
Figure BDA0002898304580000083
for the 1-9 th order judgment matrix, Satty gives the value of RI.
The average random consistency index RI is shown in Table 2
TABLE 2
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
RI 0 0 0.58 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45
Defining a consistency ratio:
Figure BDA0002898304580000084
it is generally accepted that when CR < 0.1, the matrix is judged to be consistent.
And (3) constructing a judgment matrix by adopting expert scoring according to the relative importance degree of every two elements in the same layer by referring to a 1-9 level scaling method.
Judging a matrix:
Figure BDA0002898304580000085
the weights of the four factors of third party damage, corrosion and aging, equipment (device) and personnel operation and intrinsic safety are W ═ 0.38, 0.22, 0.10 and 0.30]. The consistency ratio c.r. is 0.0169 and is less than 0.1, and when the failure probability S score is adopted, the score is approximately given according to the weight of the above-mentioned given score, and the third-party damage score S is respectively given1Corrosion and aging score S2Equipment and personnel operation score S3Intrinsic safety score S4. The modified formula is as follows:
S＝100-(0.38S1+0.22S2+0.10S3+0.30S4) (9)
the corrosion and aging score S2 obtained by Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) includes three factors of corrosion damage, biological corrosion and aging, according to the requirements of analytic hierarchy process, the indexes related to decision are divided into target layer, criterion layer, scheme layer and other layers, which are respectively expressed as S2, B and C, and three-layer AHP model is determined, as shown in FIG. 2. And (3) constructing a judgment matrix by adopting expert scoring according to the 'relative importance degree' of every two elements at the same level by referring to a '1-9 level scaling method', and calculating by using a VB program to obtain each index result.
Determination matrix of S2:
Figure BDA0002898304580000091
the weight calculation result is: (0.25,0.55,0.20).
B1 decision matrix:
Figure BDA0002898304580000092
the weight calculation result is: (0.2,0.2,0.2,0.4).
B2 decision matrix:
Figure BDA0002898304580000093
the weight calculation result is: (0.667,0.333).
B3 decision matrix:
Figure BDA0002898304580000094
the weight calculation result is: (0.5,0.25,0.25).
The index weight is determined according to the above results, and the calculation results show that the consistency of the matrix is acceptable when the C.R. of each matrix is less than 0.1.
The Polyethylene (PE) buried pipe risk evaluation model comprises the following steps:
the method comprises the following steps: the polyethylene pipes evaluated were subjected to a full test.
Step two: the method for examining the polyethylene pipeline data to complete the data examination report mainly comprises the following steps: design specification, completion acceptance specification, commissioning date, pipeline start and stop positions, pipeline length, design temperature, design pressure, pipeline specification, working medium, anticorrosive coating, safety management data, technical file data, operating condition data, last inspection report review and the like.
Step three: the polyethylene pipeline macroscopic inspection mainly comprises the following steps: pipeline position and direction, ground warning device, protective belt, ground leakage condition, hydraulic protection measures, electrical performance test and the like.
Step four: the polyethylene pipeline laying environment investigation method mainly comprises the following steps: the grade of the area where the pipeline is located, the environmental condition, the river crossing condition, the pipe exposing condition, the ground activity degree, the surrounding alternating current wires, the surrounding highway condition, the condition of other pipelines around the pipeline, the deep root plant in the pipeline protection zone and the house pressure pipe condition description;
step five: to anticorrosive (heat preservation) layer not excavation detection, mainly include: the method comprises the following steps of (1) schematically representing the position of a pipeline, recording the burial depth of the pipeline, the relative position and the surrounding environment of the pipeline, and grading an outer anticorrosive layer of the pipeline;
step six: to polyethylene pipeline excavation inspection, include: surveying topography, soil, plant roots, corrosive environment, inspecting a covering layer, detecting a polyethylene pipe body, inspecting the quality of a hot-melt joint or a capacitor joint, measuring the wall thickness of the pipe, measuring the wall thickness of a bent pipe and the like;
step seven: according to the inspection results of the six steps, the polyethylene pipeline along the way is segmented according to the pipeline trend, the laying environment, the pipeline specification, the material and the like, and the third-party damage factor score S is completed according to GB/T275121Equipment and personnel operation score S3Intrinsic safety factor score S4Scoring the probability of failure, and referring to Table 1, completing the corrosion damage and aging score S2The probability of failure is scored. S is calculated according to equation (8):
S＝100-(0.38S1+0.22S2+0.10S3+0.30S4) (10)
step eight: according to the detection contents from the first step to the seventh step, finishing the scoring of the failure consequence, wherein the specific scoring weight and score refer to GB/T27512, and finishing the scoring C of the failure consequence of each segment
Step nine: and calculating a risk value according to a formula () according to the failure possibility score S and the failure consequence score C obtained in the eighth step and the ninth step.
R＝S×C (11)
Dividing each polyethylene pipeline section risk grade according to a-d according to the score calculated by R
a) Low absolute grade of risk:
if R ∈ [0, 3600), the risk level is a low risk absolute level.
b) Absolute grade of intermediate risk:
if R ∈ [ 3600, 7800), then the risk level is an intermediate risk absolute level.
c) Higher absolute level of risk:
if R ∈ [ 7800, 12600), then the risk level is a higher absolute level of risk.
d) Absolute grade of high risk:
if R ∈ [ 12600, 15000 ], then the risk level is a high risk absolute level.
Example 1
The method for evaluating the risk of a certain polyethylene pipeline comprises the following specific steps:
the method comprises the following steps: in the initial stage of risk assessment, polyethylene pipelines need to be designed, installed and used as materials to be collected and summarized, and a comprehensive inspection report is completed according to the first step to the sixth step, so that data support is provided for a scoring link.
Step two: the method for examining the polyethylene pipeline data to complete the data examination report mainly comprises the following steps: design specification, completion acceptance specification, commissioning date, pipeline start and stop positions, pipeline length, design temperature, design pressure, pipeline specification, working medium, anticorrosive coating, safety management data, technical file data, operating condition data, last inspection report review and the like.
Step three: the polyethylene pipeline macroscopic inspection mainly comprises the following steps: pipeline position and direction, ground warning device, protective belt, ground leakage condition, hydraulic protection measures, electrical performance test and the like.
Step four: the polyethylene pipeline laying environment investigation method mainly comprises the following steps: the grade of the area where the pipeline is located, the environmental condition, the river crossing condition, the pipe exposing condition, the ground activity degree, the surrounding alternating current wires, the surrounding highway condition, the condition of other pipelines around the pipeline, the deep root plant in the pipeline protection zone and the house pressure pipe condition description;
step five: to anticorrosive (heat preservation) layer not excavation detection, mainly include: the method comprises the following steps of (1) schematically representing the position of a pipeline, recording the burial depth of the pipeline, the relative position and the surrounding environment of the pipeline, and grading an outer anticorrosive layer of the pipeline;
step six: to polyethylene pipeline excavation inspection, include: surveying topography, soil, plant roots, corrosive environment, inspecting a covering layer, detecting a polyethylene pipe body, inspecting the quality of a hot-melt joint or a capacitor joint, measuring the wall thickness of the pipe, measuring the wall thickness of a bent pipe and the like;
step seven: dividing the pipeline into 2 pipe sections according to the pipeline trend, the laying environment, the pipeline specification and the material according to the field survey along the pipeline, scoring according to the GB/T27512 scoring rule and the analysis result of the pipe sections, and finishing the third party damage S1Equipment and personnel operation S3Intrinsic safety factor S4Rating probability of failure, corrosion and aging S2Referring to table 1, the scoring results are shown in table 3, table 4:
TABLE 3
Figure BDA0002898304580000111
TABLE 4
Figure BDA0002898304580000121
Step eight: scoring the divided pipe segment failure outcomes according to GB/T27512, the summary results are shown in Table 5:
TABLE 5
Figure BDA0002898304580000122
Calculating a failure probability S according to the formula (8) based on the weight analysis:
S＝100-(0.38S1+0.22S2+0.10S3+0.30S4
step nine: and (4) calculating a risk value according to the formula (10) according to the failure possibility score S and the failure consequence score C obtained in the step eight and the step nine. The calculation results are shown in Table 6:
TABLE 6
Pipe section Using the failure probability score S Failure consequence score evaluation result C In-use risk value R
1 31.74 105 3332.70
2 36.86 101 3722.86
And (4) dividing the risk grade according to the risk value R, wherein in the pipe section 1, R belongs to [0, 3600), and then the risk grade is a low-risk absolute grade. In pipe segment 2, R ∈ [ 3600, 7800), the risk level is an intermediate risk absolute level.
The invention provides a method for evaluating risk of polyethylene buried pipes, and a plurality of methods and ways for implementing the technical scheme, and the above description is only a preferred embodiment of the invention, and it should be noted that, for those skilled in the art, a plurality of improvements and decorations can be made without departing from the principle of the invention, and these improvements and decorations should also be regarded as the protection scope of the invention. All the components not specified in the present embodiment can be realized by the prior art.

Claims (9)

1. A risk evaluation method for a polyethylene buried pipe is characterized by comprising the following steps:
step 1, acquiring data of an evaluated pipeline;
step 2, preprocessing data, and summarizing the data to obtain a comprehensive inspection report;
step 3, calculating the weight of the third-party damage, corrosion and aging, equipment and personnel operation and intrinsic safety factors of the polyethylene pipe, and establishing a polyethylene pipe corrosion and aging scoring rule;
step 4, dividing the polyethylene pipelines along the way according to the comprehensive inspection report obtained in the step 2; grading is finished according to GB/T27512 and a supplementary corrosion aging grading rule;
step 5, calculating failure probability and failure result scores according to the scoring results in the step 4;
and 6, comprehensively calculating the risk value of each pipe section, and classifying the risk grade.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein step 1 comprises: and acquiring data of the evaluated pipeline, including a pipeline design file, an installation file, a use file and data of the line patrol record.
3. The method according to claim 2, wherein in step 2, the pre-processing comprises: the data obtained in the step 1 are collated, and corrosion life prediction and operation stress check are carried out;
the comprehensive inspection report includes: according to the TSG D7003-2010 verification rule, the content comprises: the method comprises the steps of annual inspection conclusion of long-distance pipelines, data examination, macroscopic inspection, laying environment investigation, non-excavation detection of an anticorrosive coating, inspection of excavation wall thickness of polyethylene pipelines, inspection of cross-domain sections, geological condition inspection and safety protection device inspection.
4. The method of claim 3, wherein step 3 comprises:
constructing a judgment matrix for pairwise comparison of the evaluation problem factors, taking 9 integers from 1 to 9 as a factor to be compared with the scale of the relative importance of another factor index, wherein the scale is defined as follows:
if both factors are equally important, the scale is 1;
if one factor is slightly more important than the other, the scale is 3;
if one factor is significantly more important than the other, the scale is 5;
if one factor is more important than the other, the scale is 7;
if one factor is extremely important over the other, the scale is 9;
2. 4, 6, and 8 represent the median values of the above-described adjacent judgments;
if the factor i is compared with the factor j, the scale is aijThen the factor j is compared with the factor i to obtain the scale
Figure FDA0002898304570000011
For the evaluation problem with n factors, a judgment matrix A is obtained by comparing the following two factors:
A＝(aij)n×n)
after a judgment matrix is obtained, calculating the product M of each row of elements of the judgment matrixiAnd MiRoot of cubic (n times)
Figure FDA0002898304570000021
Figure FDA0002898304570000022
WiObtaining the feature vector after the maximum feature value normalization for the corresponding weights of n different factors, namely the weight vector WT＝(W1,W2,W3,W4)：
Figure FDA0002898304570000023
According to the relative importance degree of every two elements at the same level, comparing the relative importance degrees of third-party damage, corrosion and aging, equipment and personnel operation and intrinsic safety, and constructing the following judgment matrix by adopting expert scoring according to a 1-9 level scale method:
Figure FDA0002898304570000024
calculating and judging eigenvector W after normalization of maximum eigenvalue of matrixTThe weight of the polyethylene pipe is 0.38, 0.22, 0.10 and 0.30 for the three-party damage, corrosion and aging, equipment and personnel operation and intrinsic safety of the polyethylene pipe, respectively.
5. The method of claim 4, wherein in step 4, the polyethylene pipeline is divided according to the pipeline crossing, laying environment, pipeline specification and material according to the comprehensive inspection report obtained in step 2, and when the polyethylene pipeline crosses rivers, roads and viaducts, and the material and specification are changed, the polyethylene pipeline is divided into new pipe sections.
6. The method of claim 5, wherein in step 4, when the polyethylene pipeline passes through a river, a road or a viaduct, the pipeline is divided into three sections, which are: one side of a river, a highway and a viaduct; crossing sections of rivers, highways and viaducts; rivers, highways and the other side of the viaduct;
when the specification of the polyethylene pipeline changes, including the wall thickness change and the diameter change of the pipe, the polyethylene pipeline needs to be divided into new pipe sections;
when the polyethylene pipe line material quality changes, namely the subsequent polyethylene pipe line material quality is different from the current one, the polyethylene pipe line material needs to be divided into new pipe sections.
7. The method of claim 6, wherein in step 4, the polyethylene pipe material properties, corrosion mechanism and aging characteristics are considered, and the weight is calculated through hierarchical analysis and expert scoring construction judgment matrix, so as to perfect a corrosion and aging scoring detailed rule table, wherein the scoring detailed rule table comprises the following contents:
first order factors include corrosion damage, biological erosion, aging;
corrosion damage includes four secondary factors: ultraviolet corrosion, medium corrosion, soil corrosion and stress corrosion;
bioerosion involves two secondary factors: termite attack, microbial attack;
aging involves three secondary factors: composition and formulation, ambient temperature and pipeline pressure;
ultraviolet corrosion includes two tertiary factors: a buried section and a crossing section;
the score of ultraviolet corrosion of the buried section is 5 points;
the spanning segment includes two four-level factors: the position characteristics of the spanning section and the structure characteristics of the spanning section;
for the position characteristics of the spanning section, if the position characteristics are positioned at the interface of water and air, the position characteristics are 0 min; 1 point if it is located at the interface of soil and air; if the device is positioned in the air, the score is 3;
for the structural characteristics of the spanning section, if the sleeve is additionally arranged, the score is 0; 1 point if there is a support or hanger; if the situation does not exist, the score is 2;
for medium corrosion, if the conveying medium is a substance containing benzene, the conveying medium is 0 min; if the conveying medium does not contain benzene substances, the score is 5;
for soil corrosion, if the soil contains strong oxidizing acid, the soil is divided into 0 point; if the soil does not contain strong oxidizing acid, the soil is divided into 5 points;
stress corrosion includes two tertiary factors: pipeline stress, pipe defects;
for the pipeline stress, if the pipeline stress is greater than 50% SMYS, the pipeline stress is 1 minute; if the pipeline stress is between 30% SMYS and 50% SMYS, the pipeline stress is 3 minutes; if the pipeline stress is less than 30% SMYS, the pipeline stress is 5 minutes;
for the pipe defects, if the defects of hot melting and thermoelectric welding exist, the score is 0; if the defects of hot melting and thermoelectric welding do not exist, the score is 5;
termite attack includes four tertiary factors: the material of the pipeline, the brightness of the periphery, the existence of a suitable nesting structure and a protective measure;
for the material of the pipeline, if the pipeline is additionally provided with a steel sleeve, the material is divided into 0 minute; if the pipeline is not provided with a steel sleeve, the number is 10 minutes;
for the brightness of the surrounding, if mountain, tree, grassland exist around, it is 0 point; if there is no mountain, tree, grassland around, it is 10 points;
for a suitable nesting structure, 0 points if there are wet holes and gaps in the ground; 10 points if there are no wet holes and gaps underground;
for the protection measure, if the measure for preventing the corrosion of the termites exists, the score is 0; 5 points if no termite resistance measure is available;
microbial erosion includes two tertiary factors: proper environment and protection measures exist;
for the existence of a suitable environment, if the content of organic matters in the soil is high, the content is 0 min; if the content of organic matters in the soil is low, the score is 15;
for the protection measure, if the measure for preventing the microbial corrosion exists, the score is 0; 5 points if no measures against microbial attack are available;
the composition and formula include two tertiary factors: polymer composition, polymer phase;
for the polymer component, 0 min if the polyethylene material of the pipe contains impurities; a score of 5 if the polyethylene material of the pipe is substantially free of impurities;
for the polymer phase, if the polyethylene is in the viscous state, the molecular weight is 0 min; if the polyethylene is in a high elastic state, the polyethylene is divided into 3 points; if the polyethylene is in a crystalline state, the score is 5;
for ambient temperature, 0 min if there is a thermal pipe around the pipe; if no thermal pipeline exists around the pipeline, the number is 5;
for the pipeline pressure, if the pipeline operating pressure is 1.25MPa or 1.6MPa, it is 1 minute; if the pipeline operating pressure is 0.8MPa or 1.0MPa, the pipeline operating pressure is 3 minutes; if the pipeline operating pressure is 0.4MPa or 0.6MPa, it is 5 minutes.
8. The method of claim 7, wherein step 5 comprises: failure consequence score C and third party damage score S1Corrosion and aging score S2Equipment and personnel operation score S3Intrinsic safety score S4And (4) obtaining failure probability score S according to the weight obtained by calculation in the step (3) and the scoring result obtained in the step (4) through judgment and collection:
S＝100-(0.38S1+0.22S2+0.10S3+0.30S4)。
9. the method of claim 8, wherein step 6 comprises: calculating the risk value R of the pipe section according to the following formula:
R＝C×S，
the score calculated from R divides each polyethylene pipeline segment risk rating as follows:
if R is in the range of [0, 3600), the risk level is a low risk absolute level;
if R is in the range of 3600, 7800), the risk level is an intermediate risk absolute level;
if R ∈ [ 7800, 12600), then the risk level is a higher absolute level of risk;
if R ∈ [ 12600, 15000 ], then the risk level is a high risk absolute level.
CN202110048410.3A 2021-01-14 2021-01-14 Polyethylene buried pipe risk evaluation method Pending CN112765805A (en)

Priority Applications (1)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
CN202110048410.3A CN112765805A (en) 2021-01-14 2021-01-14 Polyethylene buried pipe risk evaluation method

Applications Claiming Priority (1)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
CN202110048410.3A CN112765805A (en) 2021-01-14 2021-01-14 Polyethylene buried pipe risk evaluation method

Publications (1)

Publication Number Publication Date
CN112765805A true CN112765805A (en) 2021-05-07

Family

ID=75700514

Family Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
CN202110048410.3A Pending CN112765805A (en) 2021-01-14 2021-01-14 Polyethylene buried pipe risk evaluation method

Country Status (1)

Country Link
CN (1) CN112765805A (en)

Cited By (2)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
CN113379280A (en) * 2021-06-24 2021-09-10 南宁师范大学 Method and system for judging risks of buried high-molecular polyethylene pipeline for gas
CN114791056A (en) * 2022-03-29 2022-07-26 江苏省特种设备安全监督检验研究院 Buried PE pipe mobile intelligent detection method based on 5G and GPS technologies

Citations (3)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US20060129338A1 (en) * 2003-12-11 2006-06-15 Turley Richard D Pipeline integrity management process
CN102799766A (en) * 2012-06-19 2012-11-28 常州大学 City gas pipeline risk rank quantitative assessment method and application thereof
CN109146293A (en) * 2018-08-28 2019-01-04 常州大学 One kind being based on the Municipal Gas Pipeline Risk Assessment Technique method of " five scaling laws "

Patent Citations (3)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US20060129338A1 (en) * 2003-12-11 2006-06-15 Turley Richard D Pipeline integrity management process
CN102799766A (en) * 2012-06-19 2012-11-28 常州大学 City gas pipeline risk rank quantitative assessment method and application thereof
CN109146293A (en) * 2018-08-28 2019-01-04 常州大学 One kind being based on the Municipal Gas Pipeline Risk Assessment Technique method of " five scaling laws "

Non-Patent Citations (3)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Title
余建星, 雷威: "埋地输油管道腐蚀风险分析方法研究", 油气储运, no. 02 *
王新华;屈安;徐永亮;何仁洋;孟涛;: "城镇燃气聚乙烯管道系统脆弱性评估技术", 地质科技情报, no. 02 *
王新华;徐永亮;屈安;孟涛;何仁洋;: "城镇燃气聚乙烯管道失效风险等级评定方法研究", 压力容器, no. 12 *

Cited By (2)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
CN113379280A (en) * 2021-06-24 2021-09-10 南宁师范大学 Method and system for judging risks of buried high-molecular polyethylene pipeline for gas
CN114791056A (en) * 2022-03-29 2022-07-26 江苏省特种设备安全监督检验研究院 Buried PE pipe mobile intelligent detection method based on 5G and GPS technologies

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
CN112765805A (en) Polyethylene buried pipe risk evaluation method
CN107862156A (en) A kind of land oil pipeline target reliability degree based on risk determines method
CN112036734B (en) Tunnel main body structure health state evaluation and maintenance strategy determination method
CN105975678B (en) A kind of oil-gas pipeline Prediction model for residual strength method based on parameterized model
CN106932334A (en) The Forecasting Methodology of Oil and gas station process pipe extent of corrosion
CN103927604A (en) Oil gas pipeline integrity data technology implementation method
CN112862318A (en) Oilfield pipeline corrosion risk calculation method, system, equipment and readable storage medium
CN112016857B (en) Polyethylene pipeline earthquake vulnerability assessment method based on cloud theory
Ma et al. Risk evaluation for maxi horizontal directional drilling crossing projects
Aleksander G et al. Predicting Service Life of Polyethylene Pipes under Crack Expansion using
CN114565257A (en) Oil-gas parallel pipeline risk evaluation method and management and control method
Shen et al. Fuzzy comprehensive safety evaluation of pipeline disaster in China-Russia crude oil permafrost region based on improved analytic hierarchy process-entropy weight method
Miao et al. Risk analysis for the urban buried gas pipeline with fuzzy comprehensive assessment method
Fu et al. Reliability based failure assessment of deteriorated cast iron pipes lined with polymeric liners
Zhang et al. Failure Analysis of X90 Pipeline Steel under Microbial Corrosion Environment
Lu et al. A New Risk Assessment Model to Check Safety Threats to Long-Distance Pipelines
Koposovs et al. Technical condition assessment framework for steel underground gas distribution pipelines in Latvia
Lopez Vega Analysis and modelling of leaks in the Auckland water distribution system
Wu et al. Research on security assessment model of water supply system based on leakage control
Starkova et al. Research on factors affecting the operational reliability of water and sewer utility networks
Shannon et al. Lining selection tools for relining water pipes with cured-in-place pipe and spray liners
Lijuan et al. Leakage prediction model based on RBF neural network
An et al. An improved method of estimation for risk loss cost in natural gas network layout optimization
Hu et al. Managing Uncertainty when Assessing External Corrosion of a Buried Oil Pipeline Segment
Li et al. Constructing an Efficient Health Assessment Model for Drainage Network to Evaluate the Drainage Network in Zone A of Zhenjiang City

Legal Events

Date Code Title Description
PB01 Publication
PB01 Publication
SE01 Entry into force of request for substantive examination
SE01 Entry into force of request for substantive examination