Hydrogen-doped natural gas pipeline steel pipe risk evaluation method, system and terminal

Abstract

The application discloses a kind of hydrogen-doped natural gas pipeline steel pipe risk evaluation method, system and terminal, the weight of risk index is dynamically adjusted by weight adjustment function, i.e. the weight of failure possibility index and failure consequence index is adjusted from fixed value to dynamic value obtained according to hydrogen-doped ratio, pipe material and pipe operating pressure and other factors, and hydrogen-induced failure item is added when evaluating failure possibility. Fully consider the coupling of hydrogen and pipe material, pipe operating pressure and other factors, can evaluate the influence of hydrogen partial pressure on the risk of natural gas pipeline steel pipe. Compared with prior art, the risk of high-order high-pressure steel hydrogen-doped natural gas pipeline is evaluated.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of gas pipeline safety assessment technology, and in particular to a risk assessment method, system and terminal for steel pipes used in hydrogen-blended natural gas pipelines. Background Technology

[0002] Blending hydrogen into urban gas pipelines in a certain proportion is an important emission reduction technology. However, existing urban gas pipelines are designed and constructed based on the characteristics of natural gas, without considering the potential hydrogen embrittlement effects after blending. Urban gas pipelines can operate at pressures up to 4.0 MPa, with hydrogen blending ratios reaching up to 20%. At this pressure level and hydrogen content, defective pipes or welds may experience accelerated failure, increasing the likelihood of pipeline failure. Furthermore, leaks of natural gas blended with a certain proportion of hydrogen have different consequences than traditional natural gas leaks. Therefore, urban gas companies need to fully consider the risk impact of the combined effects of hydrogen and other factors on steel gas pipelines.

[0003] CN112819097A discloses a risk assessment method for hydrogen energy equipment in hydrogen refueling stations. This method takes into account the characteristics of hydrogen, but the assessment object is the equipment inside the station and is not applicable to high-pressure steel-made hydrogen-blended natural gas pipelines.

[0004] The existing risk management system for steel gas pipelines lacks a risk assessment method for high-pressure steel hydrogen-blended natural gas pipelines, resulting in operational risks associated with these pipelines.

[0005] Therefore, existing technologies need to be improved and enhanced. Summary of the Invention

[0006] The main objective of this invention is to provide a risk assessment method for steel pipelines used in hydrogen-blended natural gas pipelines, aiming to solve the problem of operational risks in high-pressure steel hydrogen-blended natural gas pipelines in the prior art.

[0007] To achieve the above objectives, the present invention provides a risk assessment method for steel pipelines used in hydrogen-doped natural gas pipelines, the method comprising:

[0008] Obtain the scores and undoped weights of various failure probability indicators related to failure probability;

[0009] Obtain the scores and undoped hydrogen weights for each failure consequence index related to the failure consequences;

[0010] Obtain the scores of hydrogen-induced failure indicators for gas pipelines; calculate the weights of hydrogen-induced failure indicators based on the gas pipeline material, pipeline operating pressure, and hydrogen doping ratio;

[0011] Based on the weighting adjustment function related to the gas pipeline material, pipeline operating pressure, and hydrogen doping ratio, the undoped weight of the failure probability index is adjusted to obtain the hydrogen-doped weight of each failure probability index.

[0012] Based on the weighting adjustment function related to the hydrogen doping ratio, the undoped weights of the failure consequence indicators are adjusted to obtain the hydrogen-doped weights of each failure consequence indicator.

[0013] The failure probability score is obtained based on the weights and scores of all failure probability indicators after hydrogen doping, as well as the scores and weights of hydrogen-induced failure indicators; the failure consequence score is obtained based on the weights and scores of all failure consequence indicators after hydrogen doping.

[0014] Based on the failure probability score and the failure consequence score, the risk assessment result is obtained and output.

[0015] Optionally, the failure probability index is divided into primary index and secondary index. The primary index includes hydrogen-induced failure and pipeline operation period corrosion and protection. The weight adjustment function corresponding to the secondary index is related to the weight of the hydrogen-induced failure index and the weight of the pipeline operation period corrosion and protection index after hydrogen doping and without hydrogen doping.

[0016] Optionally, the expression for the weight adjustment function corresponding to the secondary indicator is:

[0017]

[0018] Where q1 is the weight of the hydrogen-induced failure item, and q2 is the weight of the corrosion and protection item after hydrogen doping.

[0019] q2 represents the undoped hydrogen weight of the corrosion and protection index.

[0020] Optionally, the expression for calculating the weights of hydrogen-induced failure indicators based on the gas pipeline material, pipeline operating pressure, and hydrogen doping ratio is as follows:

[0021]

[0022] Where q1 is the weight of the hydrogen-induced failure index, K1 is the first coefficient related to the hydrogen embrittlement sensitivity index of the pipeline material, K2 is the second coefficient related to the pipeline operating pressure, and λ is the hydrogen doping ratio.

[0023] Optionally, the failure consequence index is divided into primary index and secondary index. The weight adjustment function corresponding to the secondary index is related to the cumulative weight of all primary indexes after hydrogen doping and the cumulative weight of all primary indexes without hydrogen doping.

[0024] Optionally, the primary indicators include: short-term hazard of the medium, maximum leakage of the medium, diffusivity of the medium, and population density; the expression for the weight adjustment function corresponding to the secondary indicators is:

[0025]

[0026] Where, p i p' represents the weight of the failure consequence index after hydrogen doping, and p′ represents the weight of the failure consequence index without hydrogen doping.

[0027] To achieve the above objectives, the present invention also provides a risk assessment system for steel pipelines used in hydrogen-doped natural gas pipelines, the system comprising:

[0028] The data module is used to obtain the scores and undoped weights of various failure probability indicators related to failure probability; and to obtain the scores and undoped weights of various failure consequence indicators related to failure consequences.

[0029] The hydrogen-induced failure module is used to obtain the scores of hydrogen-induced failure indicators for gas pipelines; and to calculate the weights of hydrogen-induced failure indicators based on the gas pipeline material, pipeline operating pressure, and hydrogen doping ratio.

[0030] The weight adjustment module is used to adjust the un-hydrogen-doped weights of failure probability indicators according to the weight adjustment function related to the gas pipeline material, pipeline operating pressure, and hydrogen doping ratio, so as to obtain the hydrogen-doped weights of each failure probability indicator; and to adjust the un-hydrogen-doped weights of failure consequence indicators according to the weight adjustment function related to the hydrogen doping ratio, so as to obtain the hydrogen-doped weights of each failure consequence indicator.

[0031] The evaluation results module is used to obtain a failure probability score based on the weights and scores of all failure probability indicators after hydrogen doping, as well as the scores and weights of hydrogen-induced failure indicators; to obtain a failure consequence score based on the weights and scores of all failure consequence indicators after hydrogen doping; and to obtain and output a risk assessment result based on the failure probability score and the failure consequence score.

[0032] Optionally, the expression for calculating the weights of hydrogen-induced failure item indicators based on the gas pipeline material, pipeline operating pressure, and hydrogen doping ratio in the hydrogen-induced failure item module is as follows:

[0033]

[0034] Where q1 is the weight of the hydrogen-induced failure index, K1 is the first coefficient related to the hydrogen embrittlement sensitivity index of the pipeline material, K2 is the second coefficient related to the pipeline operating pressure, and λ is the hydrogen doping ratio.

[0035] To achieve the above objectives, the present invention also provides a smart terminal, which includes a memory, a processor, and a risk assessment program for steel pipelines used in hydrogen-blended natural gas pipelines stored in the memory and executable on the processor. When the risk assessment program for steel pipelines used in hydrogen-blended natural gas pipelines is executed by the processor, it implements any of the steps of the aforementioned risk assessment method for steel pipelines used in hydrogen-blended natural gas pipelines.

[0036] To achieve the above objectives, the present invention also provides a computer-readable storage medium storing a risk assessment program for steel pipelines used in hydrogen-doped natural gas pipelines. When executed by a processor, the risk assessment program for steel pipelines used in hydrogen-doped natural gas pipelines implements any of the steps of the aforementioned risk assessment method for steel pipelines used in hydrogen-doped natural gas pipelines.

[0037] As can be seen from the above, this invention dynamically adjusts the weights of risk indicators through a weighting adjustment function. Specifically, the weights of the failure probability and failure consequence indicators are adjusted from fixed values ​​to dynamic values ​​obtained based on factors such as hydrogen blending ratio, pipeline material, and pipeline operating pressure. Furthermore, a hydrogen-induced failure term is added to the failure probability assessment. By fully considering the coupling of multiple factors such as hydrogen, pipeline material, and pipeline operating pressure, it can evaluate the impact of hydrogen partial pressure on the risk of steel natural gas pipelines. Compared with existing technologies, this invention improves the operational safety of high-pressure steel hydrogen-blended natural gas pipelines by conducting risk assessments on them. Attached Figure Description

[0038] To more clearly illustrate the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present invention, the drawings used in the description of the embodiments or the prior art will be briefly introduced below. Obviously, the drawings described below are only some embodiments of the present invention. For those skilled in the art, other drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without creative effort.

[0039] Figure 1 This is a flowchart illustrating an embodiment of the risk assessment method for steel pipes used in hydrogen-blended natural gas pipelines provided by the present invention.

[0040] Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram of the structure of the risk assessment device for hydrogen-blended natural gas pipeline steel pipe provided in an embodiment of the present invention;

[0041] Figure 3 This is a block diagram illustrating the internal structure of a smart terminal provided in an embodiment of the present invention. Detailed Implementation

[0042] In the following description, specific details such as particular system architectures and techniques are set forth for illustrative purposes and not for limitation, in order to provide a thorough understanding of the embodiments of the invention. However, those skilled in the art will understand that the invention can be implemented in other embodiments without these specific details. In other instances, detailed descriptions of well-known systems, apparatuses, circuits, and methods are omitted so as not to obscure the description of the invention with unnecessary detail.

[0043] It should be understood that, when used in this specification and the appended claims, the term "comprising" indicates the presence of the described features, integrals, steps, operations, elements and / or components, but does not exclude the presence or addition of one or more other features, integrals, steps, operations, elements, components and / or collections thereof.

[0044] It should also be understood that the terminology used in this specification is for the purpose of describing particular embodiments only and is not intended to limit the invention. As used in this specification and the appended claims, the singular forms “a,” “an,” and “the” are intended to include the plural forms unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.

[0045] It should also be further understood that the term "and / or" as used in this specification and the appended claims refers to any combination of one or more of the associated listed items and all possible combinations, and includes such combinations.

[0046] As used in this specification and the appended claims, the term "if" may be interpreted, depending on the context, as "when," "once," "in response to determination," or "in response to detection." Similarly, the phrases "if determined" or "if detected [the described condition or event]" may be interpreted, depending on the context, as meaning "once determined," "in response to determination," "once detected [the described condition or event]," or "in response to detection [the described condition or event]."

[0047] The technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are only a part of the embodiments of the present invention, and not all of the embodiments. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art without creative effort are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0048] Many specific details are set forth in the following description in order to provide a full understanding of the invention. However, the invention may also be practiced in other ways different from those described herein, and those skilled in the art can make similar extensions without departing from the spirit of the invention. Therefore, the invention is not limited to the specific embodiments disclosed below.

[0049] Each gas pipeline risk assessment method has a strict and clearly defined scope of application. Existing gas pipeline risk assessment methods either target unsuitable pressure levels, focus on station equipment rather than the pipeline network, or fail to consider the impact of hydrogen partial pressure on steel pipelines, making it impossible to conduct risk assessments for high-pressure steel hydrogen-blended natural gas pipelines.

[0050] Blending hydrogen into urban gas pipelines in a certain proportion is an important emission reduction technology. Therefore, it is necessary to develop corresponding risk assessment methods for graded control and differentiated management, considering factors such as different hydrogen blending ratios, defect types, corrosion levels, pipeline age, pipeline environment, medium operating pressure, and combustion heat radiation. This will provide technical support and decision-making reference for hydrogen blending in urban gas pipelines, improve the operational level of urban gas, and ensure a normal gas supply to safeguard people's livelihoods.

[0051] To address the current inability to conduct risk assessments on high-pressure steel-framed hydrogen-blended natural gas pipelines, this invention proposes a risk assessment method for such pipelines. This method is applicable to pressure variations ranging from 0.4 MPa to 4.0 MPa and hydrogen blending ratios ranging from 0% to 25%. Considering the coupling of multiple factors such as hydrogen, pipeline materials, and operating pressure, this invention modifies the traditional failure probability and failure consequence risk assessment methods established according to GB / T 27512-2011 "Risk Assessment Method for Buried Steel Pipelines." Specifically, a hydrogen-induced failure item is added to the failure probability risk assessment, and the weights of the failure probability and failure consequence indicators are adjusted from fixed values ​​to dynamic values ​​based on the hydrogen blending ratio, pipeline materials, and operating pressure. By fully considering the coupling of multiple factors such as hydrogen, pipeline materials, and operating pressure, this method can evaluate the impact of hydrogen partial pressure on the risk of steel-framed natural gas pipelines.

[0052] Exemplary methods

[0053] This invention provides a risk assessment method for steel pipes used in hydrogen-blended natural gas pipelines, deployed on a smart terminal, for assessing the risk of hydrogen blending in two city natural gas pipeline networks. Pipeline network 1 is a high-pressure city gas pipeline using X65 pipe material, with a maximum operating pressure of 4.0 MPa and a hydrogen blending ratio of 20. Pipeline network 2 is a medium-pressure city gas pipeline using X42 pipe material, with a maximum operating pressure of 0.8 MPa and a hydrogen blending ratio of 15.

[0054] Specifically, such as Figure 1 As shown, the above risk assessment method specifically includes the following steps:

[0055] Step S100: Obtain the scores and undoped weights of various failure probability indicators related to failure probability;

[0056] Step S200: Obtain the scores and undoped hydrogen weights of various failure consequence indicators related to failure consequences;

[0057] Specifically, based on the national standard GB / T 27512-2011 "Risk Assessment Method for Buried Steel Pipelines", various failure probability indicators related to the possibility of failure and failure consequence indicators related to the consequences of failure can be determined.

[0058] The failure probability indicators mainly include: corrosion and protection indicators during pipeline operation; external interference indicators during pipeline operation; natural force damage indicators during pipeline operation; materials, manufacturing, and construction indicators during pipeline operation; operation and maintenance indicators during pipeline operation; and other causes indicators during pipeline operation. The risk factors considered for the corrosion and protection indicators during pipeline operation include: pipe age, type of anti-corrosion coating, external corrosion defects, internal corrosion defects, soil corrosivity, overall quality of the anti-corrosion coating, points of damage to the anti-corrosion coating, and cathodic protection system; the risk factors considered for the external interference indicators during pipeline operation include: pipeline patrol, pipeline burial depth, activity level (within and outside the control area), pipeline marking, illegal encroachment, public education, and protection of ground facilities (valve chambers); the risk factors considered for the natural force damage indicators during pipeline operation include: urban ground subsidence, geological disaster sensitive points, and protective measures; the risk factors considered for the materials, manufacturing, and construction indicators during pipeline operation include: abnormal welds, pipeline deformation and misalignment, special construction sections (pipe jacking, directional drilling, large-scale excavation, crossing, shield tunneling), and insufficient horizontal clearance; the risk factors considered for the operation and maintenance indicators during pipeline operation include: SCADA system, valve chamber system, and employee training; the risk factors considered for other reasons during pipeline operation include: pipeline relocation, etc.

[0059] In the existing technology, the calculation formula for the failure probability risk assessment established according to GB / T 27512-2011 "Risk Assessment Method for Buried Steel Pipelines" is: S′=100-(q′2S′2+q′3S′3+q′4S′4+q′5S′5+q′6S′6+q′7S′7), Wherein, q′2 represents the undoped weight of the corrosion and protection index during pipeline operation; q′3 represents the undoped weight of the external disturbance index during pipeline operation; q′4 represents the undoped weight of the natural force damage index during pipeline operation; q′5 represents the undoped weight of the materials, manufacturing, and construction index during pipeline operation; q′6 represents the undoped weight of the operation and maintenance index during pipeline operation; and q′7 represents the undoped weight of the other causes index during pipeline operation. S′2 represents the score for the corrosion index during pipeline operation; S′3 represents the score for the external disturbance index during pipeline operation; S′4 represents the score for the natural force damage index during pipeline operation; S′5 represents the score for the materials, manufacturing, and construction index during pipeline operation; S′6 represents the score for the operation and maintenance index during pipeline operation; and S′7 represents the score for the other causes index during pipeline operation.

[0060] Among them, the failure consequences indicators mainly include: short-term hazards of the medium, maximum leakage of the medium, diffusivity of the medium, population density, environment along the pipeline, cause of leakage, and impact of supply interruption on downstream areas.

[0061] In the existing technology, the calculation formula for the failure consequence risk assessment established according to GB / T 27512-2011 "Risk Assessment Method for Buried Steel Pipelines" is: C′=100-(p′1C′1+p′2C′2+p′3C′3+p′4C′4+p′5C′5+p′6C′6+p′7C′7), Where p′1 is the undoped weight of the short-term hazard item of the medium; p′2 is the undoped weight of the maximum leakage rate item of the medium; p′3 is the undoped weight of the diffusivity item of the medium; p′4 is the undoped weight of the population density item of the medium; p′5 is the undoped weight of the environmental item along the pipeline; p′6 is the undoped weight of the leakage cause item ...

[0062] The scores for each failure probability indicator, the weight of non-hydrogen doping, and the scores for each failure consequence indicator, as well as the weight of non-hydrogen doping, are determined based on existing gas pipeline operation experience or statistical data.

[0063] In this embodiment, the weights and scores of the failure probability index for pipeline No. 1 without hydrogen doping, and the weights and scores of the failure consequences index without hydrogen doping, are shown in Tables 1 to 4:

[0064] Table 1. Non-hydrogen-doped weights of failure probability indicators for Pipeline No. 1

[0065] Weighting Items <![CDATA[q’2]]> <![CDATA[q’3]]> <![CDATA[q’4]]> <![CDATA[q’5]]> <![CDATA[q’6]]> <![CDATA[q’7]]> Value 0.25 0.35 0.10 0.15 0.10 0.05

[0066] Table 2. Scores of the failure probability index for pipeline No. 1

[0067] Scoring Items <![CDATA[S’2]]> <![CDATA[S’3]]> <![CDATA[S’4]]> <![CDATA[S’5]]> <![CDATA[S’6]]> <![CDATA[S’7]]> Value 70 90 100 90 90 100

[0068] Table 3. Non-hydrogen-doped weights of failure consequence indicators for Pipeline No. 1

[0069] Weighting Items <![CDATA[p’1]]> <![CDATA[p’2]]> <![CDATA[p’3]]> <![CDATA[p’4]]> <![CDATA[p’5]]> <![CDATA[p’6]]> <![CDATA[p’7]]> Value 0.24 0.15 0.07 0.05 0.15 0.10 0.24

[0070] Table 4. Scores of Failure Consequence Indicators for Pipeline No. 1

[0071] Scoring Items <![CDATA[C’1]]> <![CDATA[C’2]]> <![CDATA[C’3]]> <![CDATA[C’4]]> <![CDATA[C’5]]> <![CDATA[C’6]]> <![CDATA[C’7]]> Value 0 20 80 75 65 30 90

[0072] In this embodiment, the weights and scores of the failure probability index (without hydrogen doping) and the failure consequence index (without hydrogen doping) of pipeline No. 2 are shown in Tables 5 to 8:

[0073] Table 5. Non-hydrogen-doped weights of failure probability indicators for Pipeline No. 2

[0074] Weighting Items <![CDATA[q’2]]> <![CDATA[q’3]]> <![CDATA[q’4]]> <![CDATA[q’5]]> <![CDATA[q’6]]> <![CDATA[q’7]]> Value 0.25 0.35 0.10 0.15 0.10 0.05

[0075] Table 6. Scores of the failure probability index for pipeline No. 2

[0076] Scoring Items <![CDATA[S’2]]> <![CDATA[S’3]]> <![CDATA[S’4]]> <![CDATA[S’5]]> <![CDATA[S’6]]> <![CDATA[S’7]]> Value 65 60 90 90 75 100

[0077] Table 7. Non-hydrogen-doped weights of failure consequence indicators for Pipeline No. 2

[0078] Weighting Items <![CDATA[p’1]]> <![CDATA[p’2]]> <![CDATA[p’3]]> <![CDATA[p’4]]> <![CDATA[p’5]]> <![CDATA[p’6]]> <![CDATA[p’7]]> Value 0.24 0.15 0.07 0.05 0.15 0.10 0.24

[0079] Table 8. Scores of failure consequence indicators for Pipeline No. 2

[0080] Scoring Items <![CDATA[C’1]]> <![CDATA[C’2]]> <![CDATA[C’3]]> <![CDATA[C’4]]> <![CDATA[C’5]]> <![CDATA[C’6]]> <![CDATA[C’7]]> Value 0 80 80 75 20 30 90

[0081] Step S300: Obtain the scores of hydrogen-induced failure indicators for the gas pipeline; calculate the weights of hydrogen-induced failure indicators based on the gas pipeline material, pipeline operating pressure, and hydrogen doping ratio;

[0082] Specifically, in hydrogen-blended natural gas pipelines, the hydrogen blending ratio (λ) is a variable, typically set between 0% and 20% depending on the process. Due to the addition of hydrogen, the pipeline can experience hydrogen-induced failures directly related to hydrogen. Risk factors associated with hydrogen-induced failures include hydrogen embrittlement, hydrogen-induced cracking, hydrogen-induced blistering, decarburization, and hydrogen corrosion.

[0083] The scores for hydrogen-induced failure indicators are determined based on pipeline inspection results, including internal pipeline testing. Specific scoring rules are determined by each city gas operator according to their company's actual situation. The weights of the hydrogen-induced failure indicators are calculated based on the gas pipeline material, operating pressure, and hydrogen blending ratio. The specific calculation expression is as follows:

[0084]

[0085] Where q1 is the weight of the hydrogen-induced failure index, K1 is the first coefficient related to the hydrogen embrittlement sensitivity index of the pipeline material, K2 is the second coefficient related to the pipeline operating pressure, and λ is the hydrogen doping ratio.

[0086] For steel commonly used in urban gas pipelines, the first coefficient K1 corresponds to the steel grade. The first coefficient K1 and the second coefficient K2 are selected according to Tables 9 and 10 respectively.

[0087] Table 9. Selection of K1 values

[0088] Steel grade X42 X46 X52 X56 X60 X65 X70 K1 0.93 0.87 0.8 0.73 0.67 0.6 0.53

[0089] Table 10. Selection of K2 values

[0090] Pipeline operating pressure P (MPa) P≤0.8 0.8＜P≤1.6 1.6＜P≤2.5 2.5＜P≤4 K2 0.24 0.22 0.20 0.18

[0091] In this embodiment, the No. 1 city gas high-pressure pipeline uses X65 pipe material, and the maximum pipeline operating pressure is 4.0 MPa. Therefore, K1 is taken as 0.6 and K2 as 0.18. According to Formula 1, the weight q1 of the hydrogen-induced failure index is calculated to be 0.31. Based on the detection results of the pipeline, the defects such as cracks and blistering are comprehensively evaluated, and the score of the hydrogen-induced failure index is 75.

[0092] Pipeline No. 2 is a medium-pressure urban gas pipeline, using X42 pipe material. The maximum operating pressure of the pipeline is 0.8 MPa, therefore K1 is taken as 0.93 and K2 as 0.24. The weight q1 of the hydrogen-induced failure index is calculated to be 0.03 according to Formula 1. Based on the inspection results inside the pipeline, and comprehensively evaluating defects such as cracks and blistering, the score of the hydrogen-induced failure index is 65.

[0093] Step S400: Adjust the weights of the failure probability indicators without hydrogen doping according to the weight adjustment function related to the gas pipeline material, pipeline operating pressure, and hydrogen doping ratio, and obtain the weights of each failure probability indicator after hydrogen doping.

[0094] Specifically, in hydrogen-blended natural gas pipelines, the addition of hydrogen indirectly couples with the pipeline material and operating pressure, affecting the corrosion rate or the hazardous area after a leak, thus influencing the pipeline's risk assessment. Therefore, this invention adjusts the weight of the non-hydrogen-blended failure probability index according to a weighting adjustment function. The weighting adjustment function for each failure probability index is directly or indirectly related to the gas pipeline material, operating pressure, and hydrogen blending ratio.

[0095] This embodiment first divides the failure probability indicators into primary and secondary indicators based on their importance. Primary indicators include hydrogen-induced failure and pipeline operation corrosion and protection; the rest are secondary indicators. The weight adjustment functions for the primary indicators are directly related to the gas pipeline material, pipeline operating pressure, and hydrogen doping ratio. The weight adjustment functions for the secondary indicators are indirectly related to the gas pipeline material, pipeline operating pressure, and hydrogen doping ratio, specifically related to the weight of the hydrogen-induced failure indicator and the weight of the pipeline operation corrosion and protection indicator after hydrogen doping and without hydrogen doping.

[0096] Compared to existing failure probability risk assessment methods, this embodiment adds a hydrogen-induced failure term when assessing the failure probability risk. The formula for calculating the failure probability score is: S = 100 - (q1S1 + q2S2 + q3S3 + q4S4 + q5S5 + q6S6 + q7S7),

[0097] Where q1 is the weight of the hydrogen-induced failure index, q2 represents the weight of the corrosion and protection indicators during pipeline operation after hydrogen doping. q′2 represents the undoped weight of the corrosion and protection indicators during pipeline operation; λ represents the hydrogen doping ratio; K1 is the first coefficient; and K2 is the second coefficient. q3 represents the weighting adjustment function for corrosion and protection indicators during pipeline operation; q3 represents the weighting of external disturbance indicators during pipeline operation after hydrogen doping. q′3 represents the undoped weight of the external disturbance item; q4 represents the doped weight of the natural force damage item during pipeline operation. q′4 represents the undoped weight of the natural force damage indicator; q5 represents the hydrogen-doped weight of the pipeline operation phase materials, manufacturing, and construction indicators. q′5 represents the un-hydrogenated weight of the materials, manufacturing, and construction indicators; q6 represents the hydrogen-added weight of the pipeline operation and maintenance indicators. q′6 represents the weight of the operation and maintenance item without hydrogen doping; q7 represents the weight of the other factors item during pipeline operation after hydrogen doping. q′7 represents the weight of the "Other Causes" indicator without hydrogen doping. S1 is the score for the hydrogen-induced failure indicator during pipeline operation; S2 is the score for the corrosion indicator during pipeline operation; S3 is the score for the external disturbance indicator during pipeline operation; S4 is the score for the natural force damage indicator during pipeline operation; S5 is the score for the materials, manufacturing, and construction indicator during pipeline operation; S6 is the score for the operation and maintenance indicator during pipeline operation; and S7 is the score for the "Other Causes" indicator during pipeline operation. The scores for each of the above failure probability indicators are the same as the scores without hydrogen doping.

[0098] Based on the above, we can see that the weight adjustment functions for the secondary indicators are the same, and the specific expression is:

[0099]

[0100] Where q1 is the weight of the hydrogen-induced failure index, q2 is the weight of the corrosion and protection index after hydrogen doping, and q′2 is the weight of the corrosion and protection index without hydrogen doping.

[0101] After adjustment by the weighting function, the hydrogen-doped weights of the failure probability index of pipeline No. 1 in this embodiment are shown in Table 11.

[0102] Table 11. Weights of failure probability indicators for Pipeline No. 1 after hydrogen doping

[0103] Weighting Items q1 q2 q3 q4 q5 q6 q7 Value 0.31 0.30 0.18 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.03

[0104] After adjustment by the weighting function, the hydrogen-doped weights of the failure probability index of pipeline No. 2 in this embodiment are shown in Table 12.

[0105] Table 12. Weights of failure probability indicators for pipeline No. 2 after hydrogen doping

[0106] Weighting Items q1 q2 q3 q4 q5 q6 q7 Value 0.03 0.27 0.33 0.09 0.09 0.14 0.05

[0107] As can be seen from Tables 1, 5, 11 and 12, when the hydrogen doping ratio is taken as a variable, the weight of the failure probability index after hydrogen doping is different from that without hydrogen doping. It is not a fixed value; rather, it is a dynamic value affected by parameters such as pipeline material, pipeline operating pressure and hydrogen doping ratio.

[0108] Step S500: Adjust the undoped weight of the failure consequence index according to the weight adjustment function related to the hydrogen doping ratio to obtain the hydrogen doping weight of each failure consequence index.

[0109] Specifically, when scoring the risk of failure consequences, the calculation formula for the failure consequence score in this embodiment is: C = 100 - (p1C1 + p2C2 + p3C3 + p4C4 + p5C5 + p6C6 + p7C7), The failure consequence indicators are the same as those in existing failure consequence scoring methods. The difference is that the weights of the failure consequence indicators in this embodiment are dynamically adjusted according to the weight adjustment function, and are not fixed values.

[0110] In the above formula, p1 is the weight of the short-term hazard item of the medium after hydrogen doping. K3 is an empirical coefficient, which is typically taken as 8.75 × 10⁻⁶. -3 p′1 represents the undoped weight of the short-term hazard item of the medium; p2 represents the doped weight of the maximum leakage item of the medium. K4 is an empirical coefficient, which is usually taken as 1.35 × 10⁻⁶. -2 p′2 represents the undoped weight of the maximum leakage rate of the medium; p3 represents the doped weight of the diffusivity of the medium. K5 is an empirical coefficient, which is usually taken as 1.77 × 10⁻⁶. -2 p′3 represents the undoped weight of the media diffusivity index; p4 represents the doped weight of the population density index. Where K6 is an empirical coefficient, which can usually be taken as 2.14 × 10⁻⁶. -2 p′4 represents the undoped weight of the population density indicator; p5 represents the doped weight of the environmental indicator along the route. p′5 represents the undoped weight of environmental indicators along the pipeline; p6 represents the doped weight of indicators related to leakage causes. p′6 represents the undoped weight of the leakage cause index; p7 represents the doped weight of the supply disruption impact on downstream industries index. p′7 represents the weighting of the non-hydrogen-doped index for the impact of supply disruption on downstream users; C1 represents the score for the short-term hazard index; C2 represents the score for the maximum leakage rate index; C3 represents the score for the diffusivity index; C4 represents the score for the population density index; C5 represents the score for the environmental impact index along the pipeline; C6 represents the score for the cause of leakage index; and C7 represents the score for the impact of supply disruption on downstream users. The scores for all the above failure consequence indexes are the same as those for the non-hydrogen-doped index.

[0111] This embodiment not only classifies the failure probability indicators during the failure probability risk assessment, but also further divides the failure consequence indicators into primary and secondary indicators when evaluating the failure consequences. The primary indicators include: short-term hazard of the medium, maximum leakage of the medium, diffusivity of the medium, and population density; the rest are secondary indicators. The weight adjustment function corresponding to the secondary indicators is related to the cumulative value of the weights of all primary indicators after hydrogen doping and the cumulative value of the weights without hydrogen doping. The specific expression is as follows:

[0112]

[0113] Where, p ip' represents the weight of the failure consequence index after hydrogen doping, and p′ represents the weight of the failure consequence index without hydrogen doping.

[0114] After adjustment by the weighting function, the weights of the failure consequence index of pipeline No. 1 in this embodiment after hydrogen doping are shown in Table 13.

[0115] Table 13. Weights of failure consequence indicators for Pipeline No. 1 after hydrogen doping

[0116] Weighting Items p1 p2 p3 p4 p5 p6 p7 Value 0.29 0.20 0.05 0.15 0.04 0.11 0.17

[0117] After adjustment by the weighting function, the weights of the failure consequence index of pipeline No. 2 in this embodiment after hydrogen doping are shown in Table 14.

[0118] Table 14. Weights of failure consequence indicators for pipeline No. 2 after hydrogen doping

[0119] Weighting Items p1 p2 p3 p4 p5 p6 p7 Value 0.27 0.18 0.05 0.14 0.04 0.12 0.19

[0120] Step S600: Obtain the failure probability score based on the weights and scores of all failure probability indicators after hydrogen doping, as well as the scores and weights of hydrogen-induced failure indicators; obtain the failure consequence score based on the weights and scores of all failure consequence indicators after hydrogen doping.

[0121] Step S700: Obtain and output the risk assessment results based on the failure probability score and failure consequence score.

[0122] Specifically, according to the calculation formula for failure probability risk assessment: S=100-(q1S1+q2S2+q3S3+q4S4+q5S5+q6S6+q7S7), the failure probability score is obtained by substituting the weight of hydrogen doping of the failure probability index, the score of the failure probability index, the weight of hydrogen-induced failure index, and the score of hydrogen-induced failure index. According to the calculation formula for failure consequence risk assessment: C=100-(p1C1+p2C2+p3C3+p4C4+p5C5+p6C6+p7C7), the failure consequence score is obtained by substituting the weight of hydrogen doping of the failure consequence index and the score of the failure consequence index.

[0123] The following are the failure probability score and failure consequence score of pipeline No. 1 without hydrogen addition, calculated in this embodiment:

[0124] Failure probability score without hydrogen doping

[0125] Failure probability score after hydrogen doping

[0126] Failure Consequence Score without Hydrogen Doping

[0127] Failure probability score after hydrogen doping

[0128] The data above shows that, due to the high pressure and high grade of steel used in Pipeline No. 1, the hydrogen blending ratio is also relatively high, resulting in a larger weight for the hydrogen-induced failure item (q1 = 0.31). After adjusting the weighting of the hydrogen blending and re-evaluating, the failure probability increased from 13.5 to 24.6, which is consistent with the basic principle of the impact of hydrogen blending on high-pressure natural gas pipelines. The failure consequence increased from 54.6 to 59.6, reflecting the characteristic that at a 20% hydrogen blending ratio, the hydrogen-blended natural gas burns faster and has more severe failure consequences.

[0129] The following are the failure probability score and failure consequence score of pipeline No. 2 without hydrogen addition, calculated in this embodiment:

[0130] Failure probability score without hydrogen doping

[0131] Failure probability score after hydrogen doping

[0132] Failure Consequence Score without Hydrogen Doping

[0133] Failure probability score after hydrogen doping

[0134] Analysis of the above data reveals that, due to the medium-pressure, low-grade steel used in Pipeline No. 2 and its moderate hydrogen doping ratio, the weight of the hydrogen-induced failure term is small, with q1 being 0.03, indicating a minimal impact of hydrogen on the pipeline's hydrogen embrittlement. After adjusting the hydrogen doping weight and re-evaluating, the failure probability increased from 28.5% to 28.9%, a very small impact; the failure consequence increased from 47.8% to 49.0%, also a very small impact. This aligns with the basic judgment in the literature that hydrogen doping ratios below 20% have a minimal impact on medium-pressure transmission and distribution systems.

[0135] After obtaining the failure probability score and failure consequence score, these scores can be directly output. Alternatively, based on the ALARP rule's description of risk tolerance, and referring to the GB / T 27921-2011 "Risk Management Risk Assessment Technology" standard, a unified risk level judgment standard limit can be set according to whether the risk is acceptable. All types of emergencies should uniformly output risk assessment scores according to the threshold (0, 100), and based on whether the risk is acceptable, be divided into four levels from highest to lowest: major risk, relatively high risk, general risk, and low risk, represented by red, orange, yellow, and blue colors respectively, and risk thresholds for each level should be determined.

[0136] In summary, this embodiment considered factors such as different hydrogen blending ratios, defect types, corrosion levels, pipeline age, pipeline environment, medium operating pressure, and combustion heat radiation, and proposed a differentiated risk assessment method to achieve risk assessment for high-pressure steel-framed hydrogen-blended natural gas pipelines. This provides technical support and decision-making reference for hydrogen blending in urban gas pipeline networks, improves the operational level of urban gas, and ensures normal gas supply to safeguard people's livelihoods.

[0137] Exemplary device

[0138] like Figure 2 As shown, corresponding to the risk assessment method for steel pipelines used in hydrogen-blended natural gas pipelines, this embodiment of the invention also provides a risk assessment system for steel pipelines used in hydrogen-blended natural gas pipelines, the risk assessment system comprising:

[0139] Data module 600 is used to obtain the scores and undoped weights of various failure probability indicators related to failure probability; and to obtain the scores and undoped weights of various failure consequence indicators related to failure consequences.

[0140] The hydrogen-induced failure module 610 is used to obtain the scores of hydrogen-induced failure indicators for gas pipelines; and to calculate the weights of hydrogen-induced failure indicators based on the gas pipeline material, pipeline operating pressure, and hydrogen doping ratio.

[0141] The weight adjustment module 620 is used to adjust the un-hydrogen-doped weight of the failure probability index according to the weight adjustment function related to the gas pipeline material, pipeline operating pressure, and hydrogen doping ratio, so as to obtain the hydrogen-doped weight of each failure probability index; and to adjust the un-hydrogen-doped weight of the failure consequence index according to the weight adjustment function related to the hydrogen doping ratio, so as to obtain the hydrogen-doped weight of each failure consequence index.

[0142] The evaluation result module 630 is used to obtain a failure probability score based on the weights and scores of all failure probability indicators after hydrogen doping and the scores and weights of hydrogen-induced failure indicators; to obtain a failure consequence score based on the weights and scores of all failure consequence indicators after hydrogen doping; and to obtain and output a risk assessment result based on the failure probability score and the failure consequence score.

[0143] Optionally, the expression for calculating the weights of hydrogen-induced failure item indicators based on the gas pipeline material, pipeline operating pressure, and hydrogen doping ratio in the hydrogen-induced failure item module 610 is as follows:

[0144]

[0145] Where q1 is the weight of the hydrogen-induced failure index, K1 is the first coefficient related to the hydrogen embrittlement sensitivity index of the pipeline material, K2 is the second coefficient related to the pipeline operating pressure, and λ is the hydrogen doping ratio.

[0146] In this embodiment, the risk assessment system for the steel pipeline of the hydrogen-blended natural gas pipeline can refer to the corresponding description in the risk assessment method for the steel pipeline of the hydrogen-blended natural gas pipeline, and will not be repeated here.

[0147] Based on the above embodiments, the present invention also provides a smart terminal, the principle block diagram of which can be as follows: Figure 3 As shown. The aforementioned intelligent terminal includes a processor, memory, network interface, and display screen connected via a system bus. The processor provides computing and control capabilities. The memory includes a non-volatile storage medium and internal memory. The non-volatile storage medium stores an operating system and a risk assessment program for hydrogen-blended natural gas pipeline steel pipes. The internal memory provides an environment for the operation of the operating system and the risk assessment program for hydrogen-blended natural gas pipeline steel pipes stored in the non-volatile storage medium. The network interface of the intelligent terminal is used for communication with external terminals via a network connection. When the risk assessment program for hydrogen-blended natural gas pipeline steel pipes is executed by the processor, it implements the steps of any of the aforementioned risk assessment methods for hydrogen-blended natural gas pipeline steel pipes. The display screen of the intelligent terminal can be an LCD screen or an e-ink screen.

[0148] Those skilled in the art will understand that Figure 3 The block diagram shown is merely a partial structural diagram related to the present invention and does not constitute a limitation on the smart terminal to which the present invention is applied. A specific smart terminal may include more or fewer components than those shown in the figure, or combine certain components, or have different component arrangements.

[0149] In one embodiment, a smart terminal is provided, the smart terminal including a memory, a processor, and a risk assessment program for hydrogen-blended natural gas pipeline steel pipes stored in the memory and executable on the processor. When the risk assessment program for hydrogen-blended natural gas pipeline steel pipes is executed by the processor, it performs the following operation instructions:

[0150] Obtain the scores and undoped weights of various failure probability indicators related to failure probability;

[0151] Obtain the scores and undoped hydrogen weights for each failure consequence index related to the failure consequences;

[0152] Obtain the scores of hydrogen-induced failure indicators for gas pipelines; calculate the weights of hydrogen-induced failure indicators based on the gas pipeline material, pipeline operating pressure, and hydrogen doping ratio;

[0153] Based on the weighting adjustment function related to the gas pipeline material, pipeline operating pressure, and hydrogen doping ratio, the undoped weight of the failure probability index is adjusted to obtain the hydrogen-doped weight of each failure probability index.

[0154] Based on the weighting adjustment function related to the hydrogen doping ratio, the undoped weights of the failure consequence indicators are adjusted to obtain the hydrogen-doped weights of each failure consequence indicator.

[0155] The failure probability score is obtained based on the weights and scores of all failure probability indicators after hydrogen doping, as well as the scores and weights of hydrogen-induced failure indicators; the failure consequence score is obtained based on the weights and scores of all failure consequence indicators after hydrogen doping.

[0156] Based on the failure probability score and the failure consequence score, the risk assessment result is obtained and output.

[0157] Optionally, the failure probability index is divided into primary index and secondary index. The primary index includes hydrogen-induced failure and pipeline operation period corrosion and protection. The weight adjustment function corresponding to the secondary index is related to the weight of the hydrogen-induced failure index and the weight of the pipeline operation period corrosion and protection index after hydrogen doping and without hydrogen doping.

[0158] Optionally, the expression for the weight adjustment function corresponding to the secondary indicator is:

[0159]

[0160] Where q1 is the weight of the hydrogen-induced failure item, and q2 is the weight of the corrosion and protection item after hydrogen doping.

[0161] q2 represents the undoped hydrogen weight of the corrosion and protection index.

[0162] Optionally, the expression for calculating the weights of hydrogen-induced failure indicators based on the gas pipeline material, pipeline operating pressure, and hydrogen doping ratio is as follows:

[0163]

[0164] Where q1 is the weight of the hydrogen-induced failure index, K1 is the first coefficient related to the hydrogen embrittlement sensitivity index of the pipeline material, K2 is the second coefficient related to the pipeline operating pressure, and λ is the hydrogen doping ratio.

[0165] Optionally, the failure consequence index is divided into primary index and secondary index. The weight adjustment function corresponding to the secondary index is related to the cumulative weight of all primary indexes after hydrogen doping and the cumulative weight of all primary indexes without hydrogen doping.

[0166] Optionally, the primary indicators include: short-term hazard of the medium, maximum leakage of the medium, diffusivity of the medium, and population density; the expression for the weight adjustment function corresponding to the secondary indicators is:

[0167]

[0168] Where, p i p' represents the weight of the failure consequence index after hydrogen doping, and p′ represents the weight of the failure consequence index without hydrogen doping.

[0169] This invention also provides a computer-readable storage medium storing a risk assessment program for steel pipelines used in hydrogen-doped natural gas pipelines. When executed by a processor, the risk assessment program implements the steps of any of the risk assessment methods for steel pipelines used in hydrogen-doped natural gas pipelines provided in this invention.

[0170] It should be understood that the sequence number of each step in the above embodiments does not imply the order of execution. The execution order of each process should be determined by its function and internal logic, and should not constitute any limitation on the implementation process of the embodiments of the present invention.

[0171] Those skilled in the art will clearly understand that, for the sake of convenience and brevity, the above-described division of functional units and modules is merely an example. In practical applications, the above functions can be assigned to different functional units and modules as needed, that is, the internal structure of the above device can be divided into different functional units or modules to complete all or part of the functions described above. The functional units and modules in the embodiments can be integrated into one processing unit, or each unit can exist physically separately, or two or more units can be integrated into one unit. The integrated unit can be implemented in hardware or as a software functional unit. Furthermore, the specific names of the functional units and modules are only for easy differentiation and are not intended to limit the scope of protection of this invention. The specific working process of the units and modules in the above system can be referred to the corresponding process in the foregoing method embodiments, and will not be repeated here.

[0172] In the above embodiments, the descriptions of each embodiment have different focuses. For parts that are not described in detail or recorded in a certain embodiment, please refer to the relevant descriptions of other embodiments.

[0173] Those skilled in the art will recognize that the units and algorithm steps of the various examples described in conjunction with the embodiments disclosed herein can be implemented in electronic hardware, or a combination of computer software and electronic hardware. Whether these functions are implemented in hardware or software depends on the specific application and design constraints of the technical solution. Those skilled in the art can use different methods to implement the described functions for each specific application, but such implementations should not be considered beyond the scope of this invention.

[0174] In the embodiments provided by this invention, it should be understood that the disclosed apparatus / terminal devices and methods can be implemented in other ways. For example, the apparatus / terminal device embodiments described above are merely illustrative. For instance, the division of the above modules or units is merely a logical functional division, and in actual implementation, it can be divided in other ways. For example, multiple units or components can be combined or integrated into another system, or some features can be ignored or not executed.

[0175] If the integrated modules / units described above are implemented as software functional units and sold or used as independent products, they can be stored in a computer-readable storage medium. Based on this understanding, all or part of the processes in the methods of the above embodiments can also be implemented by a computer program instructing related hardware. The computer program can be stored in a computer-readable storage medium, and when executed by a processor, it can implement the steps of the various method embodiments described above. The computer program includes computer program code, which can be in the form of source code, object code, executable files, or certain intermediate forms. The computer-readable medium can include: any entity or device capable of carrying the computer program code, recording media, USB flash drives, portable hard drives, magnetic disks, optical disks, computer memory, read-only memory (ROM), random access memory (RAM), electrical carrier signals, telecommunication signals, and software distribution media, etc. It should be noted that the content included in the computer-readable storage medium can be appropriately increased or decreased according to the requirements of legislation and patent practice in the jurisdiction.

[0176] The above-described embodiments are only used to illustrate the technical solutions of the present invention, and are not intended to limit it. Although the present invention has been described in detail with reference to the foregoing embodiments, those skilled in the art should understand that modifications can still be made to the technical solutions described in the foregoing embodiments, or equivalent substitutions can be made to some of the technical features. Such modifications or substitutions do not mean that the essence of the corresponding technical solutions deviates from the spirit and scope of the technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention, and should all be included within the protection scope of the present invention.

Claims

1. A risk assessment method for steel pipelines used in hydrogen-blended natural gas pipelines, characterized in that, The method includes: Obtain the scores and undoped weights of various failure probability indicators related to failure probability; Obtain the scores and undoped hydrogen weights for each failure consequence index related to the failure consequences; Obtain the scores of hydrogen-induced failure indicators for gas pipelines; calculate the weights of hydrogen-induced failure indicators based on the gas pipeline material, pipeline operating pressure, and hydrogen doping ratio; Based on the weighting adjustment function related to the gas pipeline material, pipeline operating pressure, and hydrogen doping ratio, the undoped weight of the failure probability index is adjusted to obtain the hydrogen-doped weight of each failure probability index. Based on the weighting adjustment function related to the hydrogen doping ratio, the undoped weights of the failure consequence indicators are adjusted to obtain the hydrogen-doped weights of each failure consequence indicator. The failure probability score is obtained based on the weights and scores of all failure probability indicators after hydrogen doping, as well as the scores and weights of hydrogen-induced failure indicators; the failure consequence score is obtained based on the weights and scores of all failure consequence indicators after hydrogen doping. Based on the failure probability score and the failure consequence score, the risk assessment result is obtained and output; The expression for calculating the weights of hydrogen-induced failure indicators based on the gas pipeline material, pipeline operating pressure, and hydrogen blending ratio is as follows: ， in, The weights of the hydrogen-induced failure index, The first coefficient related to the hydrogen embrittlement sensitivity index of the pipeline material. The second coefficient is related to the pipeline operating pressure, and λ is the hydrogen doping ratio.

2. The risk assessment method for steel pipelines used in hydrogen-blended natural gas pipelines as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The failure probability index is divided into primary index and secondary index. The primary index includes hydrogen-induced failure and pipeline operation period corrosion and protection. The weight adjustment function corresponding to the secondary index is related to the weight of the hydrogen-induced failure index and the weight of the pipeline operation period corrosion and protection index after hydrogen doping and without hydrogen doping.

3. The risk assessment method for steel pipelines used in hydrogen-blended natural gas pipelines as described in claim 2, characterized in that, The expression for the weight adjustment function corresponding to the secondary indicator is: ， in, The weights of the hydrogen-induced failure index, The weighting of the corrosion and protection indicators after hydrogen doping. The undoped hydrogen weighting is used for the corrosion and protection indicators.

4. The risk assessment method for steel pipelines used in hydrogen-blended natural gas pipelines as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The failure consequence indicators are divided into primary indicators and secondary indicators. The weight adjustment function corresponding to the secondary indicators is related to the cumulative value of the weights of all primary indicators after hydrogen doping and the cumulative value of the weights without hydrogen doping.

5. The risk assessment method for steel pipelines used in hydrogen-blended natural gas pipelines as described in claim 4, characterized in that, The primary indicators include: short-term hazard of the medium, maximum leakage rate of the medium, diffusivity of the medium, and population density; the expression for the weight adjustment function corresponding to the secondary indicators is: in, The weighting of hydrogen doping as an indicator of failure consequences. The undoped hydrogen weight is used as an indicator of failure consequences.

6. A risk assessment system for steel pipelines used in hydrogen-blended natural gas pipelines, characterized in that, The system includes: The data module is used to obtain the scores and undoped weights of various failure probability indicators related to failure probability; and to obtain the scores and undoped weights of various failure consequence indicators related to failure consequences. The hydrogen-induced failure module is used to obtain the scores of hydrogen-induced failure indicators for gas pipelines; and to calculate the weights of hydrogen-induced failure indicators based on the gas pipeline material, pipeline operating pressure, and hydrogen doping ratio. The weight adjustment module is used to adjust the un-hydrogen-doped weights of failure probability indicators according to the weight adjustment function related to the gas pipeline material, pipeline operating pressure, and hydrogen doping ratio, so as to obtain the hydrogen-doped weights of each failure probability indicator; and to adjust the un-hydrogen-doped weights of failure consequence indicators according to the weight adjustment function related to the hydrogen doping ratio, so as to obtain the hydrogen-doped weights of each failure consequence indicator. The evaluation results module is used to obtain the failure probability score based on the weights and scores of all failure probability indicators after hydrogen doping and the scores and weights of hydrogen-induced failure indicators; to obtain the failure consequence score based on the weights and scores of all failure consequence indicators after hydrogen doping; and to obtain and output the risk assessment result based on the failure probability score and the failure consequence score. The expression for calculating the weights of hydrogen-induced failure item indicators based on the gas pipeline material, pipeline operating pressure, and hydrogen doping ratio in the hydrogen-induced failure item module is as follows: ， in, The weights of the hydrogen-induced failure index, The first coefficient related to the hydrogen embrittlement sensitivity index of the pipeline material. The second coefficient is related to the pipeline operating pressure, and λ is the hydrogen doping ratio.

7. A smart terminal, characterized in that, The intelligent terminal includes a memory, a processor, and a risk assessment program for steel pipelines used in hydrogen-blended natural gas pipelines, which is stored in the memory and can run on the processor. When the risk assessment program for steel pipelines used in hydrogen-blended natural gas pipelines is executed by the processor, it implements the steps of the risk assessment method for steel pipelines used in hydrogen-blended natural gas pipelines as described in any one of claims 1-5.

8. A computer-readable storage medium, characterized in that, The computer-readable storage medium stores a risk assessment program for steel pipelines used in hydrogen-blended natural gas pipelines. When the risk assessment program for steel pipelines used in hydrogen-blended natural gas pipelines is executed by a processor, it implements the steps of the risk assessment method for steel pipelines used in hydrogen-blended natural gas pipelines as described in any one of claims 1-5.

Images