Natural gas pipeline intrinsic safety evaluation method and system based on analytic hierarchy process

Abstract

The invention provides a natural gas pipeline intrinsic safety evaluation method based on an analytic hierarchy process, and the method comprises the steps: building a defect, pipe section, branch line and pipe network four-stage natural gas pipeline intrinsic safety evaluation system, the defect, pipe section, branch line and pipe network four-level natural gas pipeline intrinsic safety evaluation system comprises a defect risk early warning index calculation module, a pipe section risk early warning index calculation module, a branch line risk early warning index calculation module and a pipe network risk early warning index calculation module; the four-stage natural gas pipeline intrinsic safety evaluation system corresponds to a plurality of risk evaluation indexes; and obtaining current natural gas pipeline data, and based on the current natural gas pipeline data and the four-stage natural gas pipeline intrinsic safety evaluation system, performing intrinsic safety evaluation on the natural gas pipeline corresponding to the current natural gas pipeline data through an analytic hierarchy process. The invention further discloses a corresponding system, electronic equipment and a computer readable storage medium. The comprehensive risk value of the whole pipe network is obtained by constructing the four-stage natural gas pipeline intrinsic safety evaluation system.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to the technical field of pipeline safety evaluation, and in particular to a method and system for evaluating the intrinsic safety of a natural gas pipeline based on a hierarchy analysis method. Background Art

[0002] As the main mode of transportation of natural gas, by the end of 2020, the total length of long-distance oil and gas pipelines built in China had reached 144,000 kilometers, of which about 86,000 kilometers were natural gas pipelines. However, the existing natural gas pipelines are affected by factors such as third-party construction, natural disasters, pipeline defects, and welding restraint, and there are great risks to their inherent safety. Once leaks and explosions occur, they will not only cause serious economic losses to the company, but also seriously threaten the lives and property of surrounding residents. On June 13, 2021, a natural gas explosion occurred in Yanhu Community, Zhangwan District, Shiyan City, Hubei Province, trapping many people. On September 10, 2021, a petroleum gas leak and explosion occurred in Pulandian District, Dalian City, Liaoning Province due to pipeline corrosion, thinning and perforation, resulting in 9 deaths and 4 injuries. Therefore, in the context of the increasing natural gas production year by year, in order to avoid major natural gas safety accidents, a reasonable and comprehensive natural gas pipeline inherent safety evaluation method is urgently needed.

[0003] At present, the intrinsic safety evaluation methods applied to oil and gas pipelines mainly include index-based intrinsic safety evaluation methods, fuzzy theory-based intrinsic safety evaluation methods, and graphical intrinsic safety evaluation methods. Among them, index-based intrinsic safety evaluation methods include the Mond index evaluation method, prototype index method, i-safe method, EHS method, etc. The fuzzy theory-based intrinsic safety evaluation method is a safety evaluation method based on fuzzy theory. Graphical intrinsic safety evaluation methods include graphical methods. However, most of the existing risk assessment methods have problems such as incomplete indicators, complex calculation methods, and insufficient utilization of existing data. Summary of the invention

[0004] In order to overcome the deficiencies and shortcomings of the existing technology, a method and system for evaluating the intrinsic safety of natural gas pipelines based on the analytic hierarchy process is provided to construct a four-level intrinsic safety evaluation system for natural gas pipelines, including defects, pipe sections, branches and pipeline networks. The four-level intrinsic safety evaluation system for natural gas pipelines mainly includes defect risk warning index calculation, pipe section risk warning index calculation, branch line risk warning index calculation and pipeline network risk warning index calculation. The existing internal detection, external detection, constraint, elevation, pipeline body and other data are combined with the analytic hierarchy process to conduct risk value ranking analysis on pipeline defect risks, guide excavation verification and defect repair; the risk of pipe section is calculated at five levels, including ultra-high, high, relatively high, medium and low, covering third-party index, design index, misoperation index, pipeline operation index, defect index, high consequence area index and detection index; the risk of branch line is calculated at four levels, including high, relatively high, medium and low, covering five risk evaluation indicators, including constraint evaluation, high consequence area, repair and maintenance, defect detection and third-party damage; the comprehensive risk value of the entire pipeline network is obtained by calculating and accumulating the risk value of each branch line.

[0005] The first aspect of the present invention is to provide a method for evaluating the intrinsic safety of a natural gas pipeline based on a hierarchical analysis method, comprising:

[0006] S1, establishing a four-level natural gas pipeline intrinsic safety evaluation system for defects, pipe sections, branches and pipeline networks, wherein the four-level natural gas pipeline intrinsic safety evaluation system for defects, pipe sections, branches and pipeline networks includes a defect risk warning index calculation module, a pipe section risk warning index calculation module, a branch risk warning index calculation module and a pipeline network risk warning index calculation module; the four-level natural gas pipeline intrinsic safety evaluation system corresponds to multiple risk evaluation indicators;

[0007] S2, obtaining current natural gas pipeline data, and based on the current natural gas pipeline data and the four-level natural gas pipeline intrinsic safety evaluation system, performing an intrinsic safety evaluation on the natural gas pipeline corresponding to the current natural gas pipeline data through a hierarchical analysis method.

[0008] Preferably, the current natural gas pipeline data includes one or more of: in-pipeline detection data, out-pipeline detection data, constraint pipeline data, elevation pipeline data and pipeline body data.

[0009] Preferably, S2 includes:

[0010] S21, performing risk value ranking analysis on pipeline defect risks based on the defect risk warning index calculation module and data alignment, and combining the ranking results with actual on-site excavation conditions to guide excavation verification and defect repair;

[0011] S22, calculating the pipe section risk warning index of the pipe section between the two valve chambers based on the pipe section risk warning index calculation module, and performing pipe section risk assessment based on the pipe section risk warning index, including: calculating the risk values ​​of the pipe section at five levels: ultra-high, high, relatively high, medium and low, covering the pipeline third-party damage index, pipeline design index, pipeline misoperation index, pipeline operation index, pipeline defect index, pipeline high consequence area index and pipeline detection index;

[0012] S23, performing branch line risk assessment based on the branch line risk warning index calculation module, including: using pipeline restraint assessment, high consequence area, repair and maintenance, defect detection, and third-party damage as branch line risk assessment indicators, and calculating the pipeline branch line risk warning index;

[0013] S24, based on the pipeline network risk warning index calculation module, cumulatively calculating the risk value of each branch line to obtain a comprehensive risk value of the entire pipeline network, including: comprehensively evaluating the risk situation of the entire line according to the pipeline risk index calculated for each branch line.

[0014] Preferably, the S21 includes:

[0015] (1) performing data alignment; the data targeted by the data alignment include pipeline internal inspection data, pipeline external inspection data, excavation data, cathodic protection data, external corrosion data, pipeline body data and third-party data;

[0016] (2) Analyzing the aligned data based on the overlap coefficient algorithm to identify the newly added defects and the growing defects to determine the active defects of the pipeline, and assigning 10 points to the detected active defects, 0 points to the non-growing defects, and 0 points to the newly added defects;

[0017] (3) Defect type analysis is performed based on the different impacts of different defects on the pipeline, and different defect types are assigned different scores.

[0018] (4) Defect size analysis is performed based on the different effects of different defect sizes on the pipeline, and different defect sizes are assigned different scores; among them, when the defect is detected as a crack and the defect size of internal metal loss or external metal loss is greater than or equal to 30%wt, the defect is determined to be excavated immediately in the excavation verification ranking;

[0019] (5) Analyze the defect locations based on their different impacts on the pipeline, and assign different scores to different defect locations;

[0020] (6) Analyze whether each defect meets the excavation conditions, including: for each defect, if it is found that the defect does not meet the excavation conditions, the defect will be included in the excavation verification sequence; according to the excavation sequence, the next defect that meets the excavation conditions should be postponed, and the defect that meets the excavation conditions should be excavated immediately on site;

[0021] (7) performing excavation verification sorting, including: comprehensively analyzing the newly added defects and the increased defects, defect types, defect sizes, defect locations, and information corresponding to whether the excavation conditions are met, adding up the scores corresponding to each defect situation to obtain a final defect risk score, and sorting the defects in order according to the defect risk scores, thereby obtaining the excavation verification sorting.

[0022] Preferably, the S22 includes:

[0023] (1) Determine whether there is an ultra-high risk value and perform corresponding processing; wherein the ultra-high risk value includes: an ultra-high risk situation occurs at the pipeline site, and the ultra-high risk situation includes: serious risks such as landslides and earthquakes; the corresponding processing is: the system does not need to calculate, and the system directly issues an alarm;

[0024] (2) Pre-calculating the risk value of the pipeline section, including: if the pipeline currently does not have the ultra-high risk value, then calculating according to the pipeline section risk assessment process, including: determining multiple influencing factors of multiple pipeline intrinsic safety early warning indexes, scoring the pipeline risk value according to the multiple influencing factors of each of the pipeline intrinsic safety early warning indexes, multiplying the pipeline risk values ​​corresponding to the multiple influencing factors by the corresponding weights and adding them up as a whole to obtain the pipeline section risk value;

[0025] (3) Perform high-risk value calculations and higher-risk value calculations, including:

[0026] For high risk value calculation, it includes: analyzing the risk value calculation results and counting the high risk values ​​in the risk scoring table. The definition principle of high risk value is: risk indicators with risk scores between 80 and 100 points. Immediate maintenance alarms are issued based on the statistical results, and emergency maintenance measures are given;

[0027] For the calculation of higher risk values, it includes: analyzing the risk value calculation results and counting the higher risk values ​​in the risk scoring table. The definition principle of higher risk values ​​is: risk indicators with risk scores between 60 and 80 points. According to the statistical results, an alarm is issued to join the maintenance sequence, and emergency maintenance instructions are given;

[0028] (4) Obtain an evaluation index based on the risk value of the pipeline section, and obtain an intrinsic safety warning index based on the analytic hierarchy process;

[0029] (5) Based on the intrinsic safety early warning index, it is determined whether an index alarm needs to be activated. If the index alarm is activated, a cause analysis is performed and a solution is proposed to correct the intrinsic safety early warning index. If the index alarm is not activated, a status detection is continuously performed. Thus, by summarizing the seven major indexes and analyzing the impact of the entire pipeline process, an intrinsic safety intelligent computing and analysis method integrating index alarm, cause analysis and solution is realized;

[0030] (6) Performing post-risk calculations, including: recalculating the risk value of the pipe section after processing the high risk value and the relatively high risk value, ensuring that the risk value of the entire pipe section is at a medium or low risk, ensuring that there are no high risk values ​​in all indicators, and paying special attention to the relatively high risk values ​​that have not been repaired.

[0031] Preferably, the precalculation of the risk value of the pipe section includes:

[0032] (A) Input pipeline related data, including pipeline internal inspection data, excavation data, cathodic protection data, external corrosion data, pipeline body data and third-party data;

[0033] (B) determining seven pipeline intrinsic safety early warning indexes based on relevant data of the input pipeline, wherein the seven pipeline intrinsic safety early warning indexes include pipeline third-party damage index, pipeline corrosion index, pipeline design index, pipeline misoperation index, pipeline accessory equipment index, pipeline operation index, and pipeline high consequence area index;

[0034] (C) respectively determining a plurality of influencing factors of the seven pipeline intrinsic safety early warning indexes, and scoring the pipeline risk value according to the plurality of influencing factors of each pipeline intrinsic safety early warning index;

[0035] (D) Multiplying the pipeline risk values ​​corresponding to the multiple influencing factors by the corresponding weights and adding them up as a whole to obtain the pipeline section risk value.

[0036] Preferably, the S23 includes:

[0037] (1) Five branch line risk assessment indicators are set at the criterion level, including: pipeline constraint assessment, high consequence area, repair and maintenance, defect detection and third-party damage; the pipeline constraint assessment is characterized by the number of high-constraint welds of the branch line as a risk assessment indicator; the high consequence area is characterized by the high consequence area situation of the branch line location as a risk assessment indicator; the repair and maintenance is characterized by the repair and maintenance of defects and equipment at the branch line location as a risk assessment indicator; the defect detection is characterized by whether the defect detection is carried out on schedule, whether the detection is compliant and whether the result is usable as a risk assessment indicator; the third-party damage is characterized by whether there is occupation, construction and gas theft as a risk assessment indicator; and the high risk score of the five branch line risk assessment indicators is 80-100, the high risk score is 60-80, the medium risk score is 40-60, and the low risk score is 0-40;

[0038] (2) In the target layer setting, calculate the pipeline branch risk warning index.

[0039] The second aspect of the present invention is to provide a natural gas pipeline intrinsic safety assessment system based on the analytic hierarchy process, which is used to implement the method of the first aspect, comprising:

[0040] A safety evaluation system establishment module (101) is used to establish a four-level natural gas pipeline intrinsic safety evaluation system for defects, pipe sections, branches and pipeline networks, wherein the four-level natural gas pipeline intrinsic safety evaluation system for defects, pipe sections, branches and pipeline networks comprises a defect risk warning index calculation module, a pipe section risk warning index calculation module, a branch line risk warning index calculation module and a pipeline network risk warning index calculation module; the four-level natural gas pipeline intrinsic safety evaluation system corresponds to a plurality of risk evaluation indicators;

[0041] The intrinsic safety evaluation module (102) is used to obtain current natural gas pipeline data, and based on the current natural gas pipeline data and the four-level natural gas pipeline intrinsic safety evaluation system, perform an intrinsic safety evaluation on the natural gas pipeline corresponding to the current natural gas pipeline data by using a hierarchical analysis method.

[0042] Beneficial effects of the method and system of the present invention:

[0043] (1) Based on the concept of big data, a four-level natural gas pipeline intrinsic safety evaluation system was developed for the problem of pipeline intrinsic safety evaluation during the operation period, including defects, pipe sections, branches, and pipeline networks. An intrinsic safety status evaluation index suitable for pipelines during the operation period was constructed to reasonably give the current risk status of the natural gas pipeline network and guide subsequent maintenance work, so as to better guide the investment of pipeline maintenance resources and improve economic benefits and execution efficiency.

[0044] (2) The evaluation method proposed in the present invention has detailed indicators and clear classification. In terms of defects, it gives a risk hazard level ranking to guide excavation verification. At the same time, the setting of ultra-high risk values ​​in the pipe section risk assessment ensures the rapid response of the risk assessment system to emergencies.

[0045] Based on the following detailed description of specific embodiments of the present invention in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, those skilled in the art will become more aware of the above and other objects, advantages and features of the present invention. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0046] Hereinafter, some specific embodiments of the present invention will be described in detail in an exemplary and non-limiting manner with reference to the accompanying drawings. The same reference numerals in the accompanying drawings indicate the same or similar components or parts. It should be understood by those skilled in the art that these drawings are not necessarily drawn to scale. The objects and features of the present invention will become more apparent in view of the following description in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, in which:

[0047] Figure 1 The figure is a flow chart of a method for evaluating the intrinsic safety of a natural gas pipeline based on the analytic hierarchy process according to an embodiment of the present invention.

[0048] Figure 2 A defect risk assessment flow chart according to an embodiment of the present invention;

[0049] Figure 3 Schematic diagram of the flow chart of the calculation equation of the risk warning index of a pipe section according to an embodiment of the present invention;

[0050] Figure 4 1. It is a schematic diagram of a flow chart of a method for precalculating risks of a pipe section according to an embodiment of the present invention;

[0051] Figure 5 1. It is a flow chart of a method for calculating a branch line risk warning index according to an embodiment of the present invention;

[0052] Figure 6 1. A schematic diagram of a method for calculating a pipeline network risk warning index according to an embodiment of the present invention;

[0053] Figure 7 This is a diagram of the architecture of a natural gas pipeline intrinsic safety assessment system based on the analytic hierarchy process according to an embodiment of the present invention;

[0054] Figure 8 FIG. 4 is a structural diagram of an electronic device according to an embodiment of the present invention. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0055] In order to better understand the above technical solution, the above technical solution will be described in detail below in conjunction with the accompanying drawings and specific implementation methods.

[0056] Embodiment 1

[0057] like Figure 1 As shown, this embodiment provides a natural gas pipeline intrinsic safety assessment method based on the analytic hierarchy process, including:

[0058] S1, establishing a four-level natural gas pipeline intrinsic safety evaluation system for defects, pipe sections, branches and pipeline networks, wherein the four-level natural gas pipeline intrinsic safety evaluation system for defects, pipe sections, branches and pipeline networks includes a defect risk warning index calculation module, a pipe section risk warning index calculation module, a branch risk warning index calculation module and a pipeline network risk warning index calculation module; the four-level natural gas pipeline intrinsic safety evaluation system corresponds to multiple risk evaluation indicators;

[0059] S2, obtaining current natural gas pipeline data, and based on the current natural gas pipeline data and the four-level natural gas pipeline intrinsic safety evaluation system, performing an intrinsic safety evaluation on the natural gas pipeline corresponding to the current natural gas pipeline data through a hierarchical analysis method.

[0060] As a preferred implementation, the current natural gas pipeline data includes: one or more of pipeline internal detection data, pipeline external detection data, constraint pipeline data, elevation pipeline data and pipeline body data.

[0061] As a preferred embodiment, the S2 includes:

[0062] S21, performing risk value ranking analysis on pipeline defect risks based on the defect risk warning index calculation module and data alignment, and combining the ranking results with actual on-site excavation conditions to guide excavation verification and defect repair;

[0063] like Figure 2 The defect risk assessment flow chart is shown. As a preferred implementation, S21 includes:

[0064] (1) performing data alignment; the data targeted by the data alignment include pipeline internal inspection data, pipeline external inspection data, excavation data, cathodic protection data, external corrosion data, pipeline body data and third-party data;

[0065] In this embodiment, data alignment refers to the alignment analysis of two or more rounds of internal inspection data, and statistical analysis of the alignment results to count the growth defects, non-growth defects, new defects, valve changes, magnetic box changes and weld changes, thereby providing data support for the subsequent identification of new and growing defects.

[0066] (2) Analyze the aligned data based on the overlap coefficient algorithm to identify the newly added defects and the growing defects to determine the active defects of the pipeline, and assign 10 points to the detected active defects, 0 points to the non-growing defects, and 0 points to the newly added defects.

[0067] (3) Analyze defect types based on the different impacts of different defects on pipelines, and assign different scores to different defect types;

[0068] (4) Defect size analysis is performed based on the different effects of different defect sizes on the pipeline, and different defect sizes are assigned different scores; among them, when the defect is detected as a crack and the defect size of internal metal loss or external metal loss is greater than or equal to 30%wt, the defect is determined to be excavated immediately in the excavation verification ranking;

[0069] (5) Analyze the defect locations based on their different impacts on the pipeline, and assign different scores to different defect locations;

[0070] (6) Analyze whether each defect meets the excavation conditions, including: for each defect, if it is found that the defect does not meet the excavation conditions, the defect will be included in the excavation verification sequence; according to the excavation sequence, the next defect that meets the excavation conditions should be postponed, and the defect that meets the excavation conditions should be excavated immediately on site;

[0071] (7) performing excavation verification sorting, including: comprehensively analyzing the newly added defects and the increased defects, defect types, defect sizes, defect locations, and information corresponding to whether the excavation conditions are met, adding up the scores corresponding to each defect situation to obtain a final defect risk score, and sorting the defects in order according to the defect risk scores, thereby obtaining the excavation verification sorting and improving the accuracy, precision, and efficiency of excavation verification.

[0072] S22, calculating the pipe section risk warning index of the pipe section between the two valve chambers based on the pipe section risk warning index calculation module, and performing pipe section risk assessment based on the pipe section risk warning index, including: calculating the risk values ​​of the pipe section at five levels: ultra-high, high, relatively high, medium and low, covering the pipeline third-party damage index, pipeline design index, pipeline misoperation index, pipeline operation index, pipeline defect index, pipeline high consequence area index and pipeline detection index;

[0073] like Figure 3 The figure shows a schematic diagram of the calculation process of the pipeline risk warning index. As a preferred implementation, the S22 includes:

[0074] (1) Determine whether there is an ultra-high risk value and perform corresponding processing; wherein the ultra-high risk value includes: an ultra-high risk situation occurs at the pipeline site, and the ultra-high risk situation includes: serious risks such as landslides and earthquakes; the corresponding processing is: the system does not need to calculate, and the system directly issues an alarm;

[0075] (2) Pre-calculate the risk value of the pipeline section, such as Figure 4The figure shows a schematic diagram of the pre-calculation of the pipeline risk, including: if the pipeline does not currently have the ultra-high risk value, then the calculation is performed according to the pipeline risk assessment process, including: determining multiple influencing factors of multiple pipeline intrinsic safety early warning indexes, scoring the pipeline risk value according to the multiple influencing factors of each of the pipeline intrinsic safety early warning indexes, multiplying the pipeline risk values ​​corresponding to the multiple influencing factors with the corresponding weights and adding them up as a whole to obtain the pipeline risk value, including:

[0076] (A) Input pipeline related data, including pipeline internal inspection data, excavation data, cathodic protection data, external corrosion data, pipeline body data and third-party data;

[0077] (B) determining seven pipeline intrinsic safety early warning indexes based on relevant data of the input pipeline, wherein the seven pipeline intrinsic safety early warning indexes include pipeline third-party damage index, pipeline corrosion index, pipeline design index, pipeline misoperation index, pipeline accessory equipment index, pipeline operation index, and pipeline high consequence area index;

[0078] (C) respectively determining a plurality of influencing factors of the seven pipeline intrinsic safety early warning indexes, and scoring the pipeline risk value according to the plurality of influencing factors of each pipeline intrinsic safety early warning index;

[0079] (D) Multiplying the pipeline risk values ​​corresponding to the multiple influencing factors by the corresponding weights and adding them up as a whole to obtain the pipeline section risk value.

[0080] The flow chart of the method for precalculating the risk value of a pipe segment is as follows: Figure 4 shown.

[0081] like Figure 4 As shown in the figure, it is an example of the calculation of the third-party index. First, the three items of pipeline riverbed elevation, pipeline external reinforcement measures, and pipeline external waterproof reinforcement measures under the cross-river influencing factors in the third-party damage index are scored. The scoring principle is to score from 0 to 100 points according to the risk level, and multiply the assigned score by the corresponding weight (the weight is obtained by the hierarchical analysis method) to obtain the branch across the river. Similarly, the scores of ground activity level and malicious damage are obtained. And the scores are multiplied by the corresponding weight (the weight is obtained by the hierarchical analysis method) to obtain the final score of the third-party index. Similarly, the scores of design index, misoperation index, pipeline operation index, defect index, high consequence area index, and detection index are obtained, and the scores are multiplied by the corresponding weight (the weight is obtained by the hierarchical analysis method). The final value is the final risk warning index of the pipe section.

[0082] (3) Perform high-risk value calculations and higher-risk value calculations, including:

[0083] For high risk value calculation, it includes: analyzing the risk value calculation results and counting the high risk values ​​in the risk scoring table. The definition principle of high risk value is: risk indicators with risk scores between 80 and 100 points. Immediate maintenance alarms are issued based on the statistical results, and emergency maintenance measures are given;

[0084] For the calculation of higher risk values, it includes: analyzing the risk value calculation results and counting the higher risk values ​​in the risk scoring table. The definition principle of higher risk values ​​is: risk indicators with risk scores between 60 and 80 points. According to the statistical results, an alarm is issued to join the maintenance sequence, and emergency maintenance instructions are given;

[0085] (4) Obtain an evaluation index based on the risk value of the pipeline section, and obtain an intrinsic safety warning index based on the analytic hierarchy process;

[0086] (5) Based on the intrinsic safety early warning index, it is determined whether an index alarm needs to be activated. If the index alarm is activated, a cause analysis is performed and a solution is proposed to correct the intrinsic safety early warning index. If the index alarm is not activated, a status detection is continuously performed. Thus, by summarizing the seven major indexes and analyzing the impact of the entire pipeline process, an intrinsic safety intelligent computing and analysis method integrating index alarm, cause analysis and solution is realized;

[0087] (6) Performing post-risk calculations, including: recalculating the risk value of the pipe section after processing the high risk value and the relatively high risk value, ensuring that the risk value of the entire pipe section is at a medium or low risk, ensuring that there are no high risk values ​​in all indicators, and paying special attention to the relatively high risk values ​​that have not been repaired.

[0088] S23, performing branch line risk assessment based on the branch line risk warning index calculation module, including: taking pipeline restraint assessment, high consequence area, repair and maintenance, defect detection, and third-party damage as branch line risk assessment indicators, and calculating the pipeline branch line risk warning index.

[0089] The schematic diagram of branch line risk warning index calculation is as follows: Figure 5 The S23 includes:

[0090] (1) Five branch line risk assessment indicators are set at the criterion level, including: pipeline constraint assessment, high consequence area, repair and maintenance, defect detection and third-party damage; the pipeline constraint assessment is characterized by the number of high-constraint welds in the branch line as a risk assessment indicator; the high consequence area is characterized by the high consequence area situation at the branch line location as a risk assessment indicator; the repair and maintenance is characterized by the repair and maintenance of defects and equipment at the branch line location as a risk assessment indicator; the defect detection is characterized by whether the defect detection is carried out on schedule, whether the detection is compliant and whether the result is usable as a risk assessment indicator; the third-party damage is characterized by whether there is occupation, construction and gas theft as a risk assessment indicator; and the five branch line risk assessment indicators have a high risk score of 80-100, a relatively high risk score of 60-80, a medium risk score of 40-60 and a low risk score of 0-40. (In this embodiment, the five indicators are 85, 75, 20, 85 and 50 points respectively)

[0091] (2) In the target layer setting, calculate the pipeline branch risk warning index.

[0092] S24, based on the pipeline network risk warning index calculation module, cumulatively calculating the risk value of each branch line to obtain a comprehensive risk value of the entire pipeline network, including: comprehensively evaluating the risk situation of the entire line according to the pipeline risk index calculated for each branch line.

[0093] The schematic diagram of pipeline network risk warning index calculation is as follows: Figure 6 The branch line risk is calculated at four levels: high, relatively high, medium, and low, covering five risk assessment indicators: constraint assessment, high consequence area, repair and maintenance, defect detection, and third-party damage. The comprehensive risk value of the entire pipeline network is obtained by calculating and accumulating the risk value of each branch line.

[0094] As a preferred implementation, the risk assessment index setting method of S1 includes:

[0095] (1) Calculate the weights of the secondary factors through the analytic hierarchy process;

[0096] (2) Calculate the third-level weight value according to the weight value of the second-level factor according to its importance;

[0097] (3) This process continues in this way until the weight of the last level of factors is calculated.

[0098] Each indicator in the early warning index table has a different status and role in the "early warning target", that is, each indicator has a different proportion in the comprehensive evaluation, and this proportion is called the "weight value". The "weight value" can be set by the "relative importance correlation level calculation method" (this method has high reliability and small error). The positive and negative inverse judgment matrix 1 to 9 scales are selected as the basis for constructing the judgment matrix of each influencing indicator, as shown in Table 1 relative importance level table.

[0099] Table 1

[0100]

[0101] According to the data in Table 1, a judgment matrix is ​​constructed, as shown in Table 2, a comparison table of the relative importance of early warning indicators:

[0102] Table 2

[0103] index Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 … … Q Q1 <![CDATA[a 11 ]]> <![CDATA[a 12 ]]> <![CDATA[a 13 ]]> <![CDATA[a 14 ]]> <![CDATA[a 15 ]]> <![CDATA[a 1m ]]> Q2 <![CDATA[a 21 ]]> <![CDATA[a 22 ]]> <![CDATA[a 23 ]]> <![CDATA[a 24 ]]> <![CDATA[a 25 ]]> <![CDATA[a 2m ]]> Q3 <![CDATA[a 31 ]]> <![CDATA[a 32 ]]> <![CDATA[a 33 ]]> <![CDATA[a 34 ]]> <![CDATA[a 35 ]]> <![CDATA[a 3m ]]> Q4 <![CDATA[a 41 ]]> <![CDATA[a 42 ]]> <![CDATA[a 43 ]]> <![CDATA[a 44 ]]> <![CDATA[a 45 ]]> <![CDATA[a 4m ]]> Q5 <![CDATA[a 51 ]]> <![CDATA[a 52 ]]> <![CDATA[a 53 ]]> <![CDATA[a 54 ]]> <![CDATA[a 55 ]]> <![CDATA[a 5m ]]> … Q <![CDATA[a m1 ]]> <![CDATA[a m2 ]]> <![CDATA[a m3 ]]> <![CDATA[a m4 ]]> <![CDATA[a m5 ]]> <![CDATA[a mm ]]>

[0104] Let the judgment matrix be A: A = [a ij ] n×m

[0105] The weight calculation method adopts the "sum-product method", and the specific steps are as follows:

[0106] (1) Perform column normalization on A, as shown in formula (1):

[0107]

[0108] (2) Add the normalized values ​​of each row to obtain the sum vector, which is a column vector as shown in formula (2):

[0109]

[0110] W i is the weight of each influencing factor, where (Normalization principle).

[0111] (3) Calculate the maximum eigenvalue of the matrix.

[0112] First calculate AW i , get a column vector, and then put AW i With W i The sum of the corresponding values ​​divided by m can be used to obtain the maximum characteristic root, as shown in formula (3).

[0113]

[0114] (4) Perform consistency check:

[0115] The consistency test is to test the reliability of the judgment matrix. The construction of the judgment matrix is ​​determined by the scoring method, so it has a certain degree of subjectivity and may have a certain error with the theoretical comparison matrix. The consistency test is to test the degree of error, so as to determine whether the established judgment matrix has satisfactory consistency. The expression of the consistency index is shown in formula (4):

[0116]

[0117] Where: CI is the consistency index, which means λ max The relative error with m.

[0118] The consistency ratio is expressed as shown in formula (5):

[0119]

[0120] Where: CR is the consistency ratio; RI is the average consistency index, which can be found from the average random consistency index in Table 3. If the consistency ratio RI is less than 0.1, it is considered that the relative importance comparison matrix has good consistency. If the consistency ratio RI is greater than 0.1, the relative importance comparison matrix needs to be readjusted and the above calculations need to be performed until satisfactory consistency is achieved.

[0121] Table 3

[0122] Degree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 RI 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.89 1.12 1.26 1.36 1.45 1.45

[0123] The risk assessment index and calculation formula of the present invention are shown in Table 4 below: Risk values ​​and weights of pipe segment risk assessment.

[0124] Table 4

[0125]

[0126]

[0127]

[0128]

[0129] The calculation criteria for pipeline segment risk assessment are as follows:

[0130] Third-party index: [((D1×w1+D2×w2+D3×w3)×b1)+((D4×w4+D5×w5+D6×w6)×b2)+((D7×w7+D8×w8+D9×w9)×b3)]×a1

[0131] Design index: [((D 10 × 10 +D 11 × 11 )×b4)+((D 12 × 12 +D 13 × 13 )×b5)+((D 14 × 14 +D 15 × 15 +D 16 × 16)×b6)+((D17×w17+D 18 × 18 +D 19 × 19 +D 20 × 21 )×b7)]×a2

[0132] Misoperation index: [((D 21 × 21 +D 22 × 22 +D 23 × 23 )×b8)+((D 24 × 24 +D 25 × 25 +D 26 × 26 +D 27 × 27 +D 28 × 28 +D 29 × 29 )×b9)+((D 30 × 30 +D 31 × 31 +D 32 × 32 +D 33 × 33 )×b 10 )]×a3

[0133] Pipeline operation index: [((D 34 × 34 +D 35 × 35 )×b 11 )+((D 36 × 36 +D 37 × 37 )×b 12 )+((D 38 × 38 +D 39 × 39 +D 40 × 40 +D 41 × 41 )×b 13 )]×a4

[0134] Defect index: [((D 42 × 42 +D 43 × 43+D 44 × 44 +D 45 × 45 +D 46 × 46 +D 47 × 47 +D 48 × 48 +D 49 × 49 +D 50 × 50 +D 51 × 51 )×b 14 )+((D 52 × 52 +D 53 × 53 +D 54 × 54 +D 55 × 55 +D 56 × 56 +D 57 × 57 )×b 15 )]×a5

[0135] High consequence area index: [((D 58 × 58 +D 59 × 59 )×b 16 )+((D 60 × 60 +D 61 × 61 )×b 17 )+((D 62 × 62 +D 63 × 63 )×b 18 )+(D 64 × 64 +D 65 × 65 )×b 19 )]×a6

[0136] Detection index: [((D 66 × 66 +D 67 × 67 +D 68 × 68 )×b 20 )+((D 69 × 69 +D 70 ×70 )×b 21 )+(D 71 × 71 +D 72 × 72 )×b 22 )]×a7

[0137] Risk index = third-party index + design index + misoperation index + pipeline operation index + defect index + high consequence area index + detection index.

[0138] When the indicator is input as a high risk indicator, a maintenance reminder after the alarm is triggered, and corresponding maintenance suggestions are provided. Table 5 of this embodiment shows a maintenance instruction table after the ultra-high risk indicator alarm.

[0139] Table 5

[0140]

[0141]

[0142] Embodiment 2

[0143] like Figure 7 As shown, this embodiment provides a natural gas pipeline intrinsic safety assessment system based on hierarchical analysis method, which is used to implement the method of embodiment 1, including:

[0144] A safety evaluation system establishment module (101) is used to establish a four-level natural gas pipeline intrinsic safety evaluation system for defects, pipe sections, branches and pipeline networks, wherein the four-level natural gas pipeline intrinsic safety evaluation system for defects, pipe sections, branches and pipeline networks comprises a defect risk warning index calculation module, a pipe section risk warning index calculation module, a branch line risk warning index calculation module and a pipeline network risk warning index calculation module; the four-level natural gas pipeline intrinsic safety evaluation system corresponds to a plurality of risk evaluation indicators;

[0145] The intrinsic safety evaluation module (102) is used to obtain current natural gas pipeline data, and based on the current natural gas pipeline data and the four-level natural gas pipeline intrinsic safety evaluation system, perform an intrinsic safety evaluation on the natural gas pipeline corresponding to the current natural gas pipeline data by using a hierarchical analysis method.

[0146] The present invention also provides a memory storing a plurality of instructions, wherein the instructions are used to implement the method as in the first embodiment.

[0147] like Figure 8 As shown, the present invention also provides an electronic device, including a processor 301 and a memory 302 connected to the processor 301, the memory 302 stores a plurality of instructions, and the instructions can be loaded and executed by the processor so that the processor can execute the method as in the first embodiment.

[0148] Although preferred embodiments of the present invention have been described, additional changes and modifications may be made to these embodiments by those skilled in the art once the basic inventive concepts are known. Therefore, the appended claims are intended to be interpreted as including the preferred embodiments and all changes and modifications that fall within the scope of the present invention. Obviously, those skilled in the art may make various changes and modifications to the present invention without departing from the spirit and scope of the present invention. Thus, if these modifications and variations of the present invention fall within the scope of the claims of the present invention and their equivalents, the present invention is also intended to include these modifications and variations.

Claims

1. A method for evaluating the intrinsic safety of natural gas pipelines based on the analytic hierarchy process, characterized in that: include: S1, establishing a four-level natural gas pipeline intrinsic safety evaluation system for defects, pipe sections, branches and pipeline networks, wherein the four-level natural gas pipeline intrinsic safety evaluation system for defects, pipe sections, branches and pipeline networks includes a defect risk warning index calculation module, a pipe section risk warning index calculation module, a branch line risk warning index calculation module and a pipeline network risk warning index calculation module; The four-level natural gas pipeline intrinsic safety assessment system corresponds to multiple risk assessment indicators; S2, obtaining current natural gas pipeline data, and based on the current natural gas pipeline data and the four-level natural gas pipeline intrinsic safety evaluation system, performing an intrinsic safety evaluation on the natural gas pipeline corresponding to the current natural gas pipeline data through a hierarchical analysis method.

2. A method for evaluating the intrinsic safety of a natural gas pipeline based on the analytic hierarchy process according to claim 1, characterized in that: The current natural gas pipeline data includes one or more of: in-pipeline detection data, out-pipeline detection data, constraint pipeline data, elevation pipeline data and pipeline body data.

3. A method for evaluating the intrinsic safety of a natural gas pipeline based on the analytic hierarchy process according to claim 2, characterized in that: The S2 includes: S21, performing risk value ranking analysis on pipeline defect risks based on the defect risk warning index calculation module and data alignment, and combining the ranking results with actual on-site excavation conditions to guide excavation verification and defect repair; S22, calculating the pipe section risk warning index of the pipe section between the two valve chambers based on the pipe section risk warning index calculation module, and performing pipe section risk assessment based on the pipe section risk warning index, including: calculating the risk values ​​of the pipe section at five levels: ultra-high, high, relatively high, medium and low, covering the pipeline third-party damage index, pipeline design index, pipeline misoperation index, pipeline operation index, pipeline defect index, pipeline high consequence area index and pipeline detection index; S23, performing branch line risk assessment based on the branch line risk warning index calculation module, including: using pipeline restraint assessment, high consequence area, repair and maintenance, defect detection, and third-party damage as branch line risk assessment indicators, and calculating the pipeline branch line risk warning index; S24, based on the pipeline network risk warning index calculation module, cumulatively calculating the risk value of each branch line to obtain a comprehensive risk value of the entire pipeline network, including: comprehensively evaluating the risk situation of the entire line according to the pipeline risk index calculated for each branch line.

4. A method for evaluating the intrinsic safety of a natural gas pipeline based on the analytic hierarchy process according to claim 3, characterized in that: The S21 includes: (1) performing data alignment; the data targeted by the data alignment include pipeline internal inspection data, pipeline external inspection data, excavation data, cathodic protection data, external corrosion data, pipeline body data and third-party data; (2) Analyzing the aligned data based on the overlap coefficient algorithm to identify the newly added defects and the growing defects to determine the active defects of the pipeline, and assigning 10 points to the detected active defects, 0 points to the non-growing defects, and 0 points to the newly added defects; (3) Defect type analysis is performed based on the different impacts of different defects on the pipeline, and different defect types are assigned different scores. (4) Defect size analysis is performed based on the different effects of different defect sizes on the pipeline, and different defect sizes are assigned different scores; among them, when the defect is detected as a crack and the defect size of internal metal loss or external metal loss is greater than or equal to 30%wt, the defect is determined to be excavated immediately in the excavation verification ranking; (5) Analyze the defect locations based on their different impacts on the pipeline, and assign different scores to different defect locations; (6) Analyze whether each defect meets the excavation conditions, including: for each defect, if it is found that the defect does not meet the excavation conditions, the defect will be included in the excavation verification sequence; according to the excavation sequence, the next defect that meets the excavation conditions should be postponed, and the defect that meets the excavation conditions should be excavated immediately on site; (7) performing excavation verification sorting, including: comprehensively analyzing the newly added defects and the increased defects, defect types, defect sizes, defect locations, and information corresponding to whether the excavation conditions are met, adding up the scores corresponding to each defect situation to obtain a final defect risk score, and sorting the defects in order according to the defect risk scores, thereby obtaining the excavation verification sorting.

5. A method for evaluating the intrinsic safety of a natural gas pipeline based on the analytic hierarchy process according to claim 4, characterized in that: The S22 includes: (1) Determine whether there is an ultra-high risk value and perform corresponding processing; wherein the ultra-high risk value includes: an ultra-high risk situation occurs at the pipeline site, and the ultra-high risk situation includes: serious risks such as landslides and earthquakes; the corresponding processing is: the system does not need to calculate, and the system directly issues an alarm; (2) Pre-calculating the risk value of the pipeline section, including: if the pipeline currently does not have the ultra-high risk value, then calculating according to the pipeline section risk assessment process, including: determining multiple influencing factors of multiple pipeline intrinsic safety early warning indexes, scoring the pipeline risk value according to the multiple influencing factors of each of the pipeline intrinsic safety early warning indexes, multiplying the pipeline risk values ​​corresponding to the multiple influencing factors by the corresponding weights and adding them up as a whole to obtain the pipeline section risk value; (3) Perform high-risk value calculations and higher-risk value calculations, including: For high risk value calculation, it includes: analyzing the risk value calculation results and counting the high risk values ​​in the risk scoring table. The definition principle of high risk value is: risk indicators with risk scores between 80 and 100 points. Immediate maintenance alarms are issued based on the statistical results, and emergency maintenance measures are given; For the calculation of higher risk values, it includes: analyzing the risk value calculation results and counting the higher risk values ​​in the risk scoring table. The definition principle of higher risk values ​​is: risk indicators with risk scores between 60 and 80 points. According to the statistical results, an alarm is issued to join the maintenance sequence, and emergency maintenance instructions are given; (4) Obtain an evaluation index based on the risk value of the pipeline section, and obtain an intrinsic safety early warning index based on the analytic hierarchy process; (5) Based on the intrinsic safety early warning index, it is determined whether an index alarm needs to be activated. If the index alarm is activated, a cause analysis is performed and a solution is proposed to correct the intrinsic safety early warning index. If the index alarm is not activated, a status detection is continuously performed. Thus, by summarizing the seven major indexes and analyzing the impact of the entire pipeline process, an intrinsic safety intelligent computing and analysis method integrating index alarm, cause analysis and solution is realized; (6) Performing post-risk calculations, including: recalculating the risk value of the pipe section after processing the high risk value and the relatively high risk value, ensuring that the risk value of the entire pipe section is at a medium or low risk, ensuring that there are no high risk values ​​in all indicators, and paying special attention to the relatively high risk values ​​that have not been repaired.

6. A method for evaluating the intrinsic safety of a natural gas pipeline based on the analytic hierarchy process according to claim 5, characterized in that: The precalculation of the risk value of the pipe section includes: (A) Input pipeline related data, including pipeline internal inspection data, excavation data, cathodic protection data, external corrosion data, pipeline body data and third-party data; (B) determining seven pipeline intrinsic safety early warning indexes based on relevant data of the input pipeline, wherein the seven pipeline intrinsic safety early warning indexes include pipeline third-party damage index, pipeline corrosion index, pipeline design index, pipeline misoperation index, pipeline accessory equipment index, pipeline operation index, and pipeline high consequence area index; (C) respectively determining a plurality of influencing factors of the seven pipeline intrinsic safety early warning indexes, and scoring the pipeline risk value according to the plurality of influencing factors of each pipeline intrinsic safety early warning index; (D) Multiplying the pipeline risk values ​​corresponding to the multiple influencing factors by the corresponding weights and adding them up as a whole to obtain the pipeline section risk value.

7. A method for evaluating the intrinsic safety of a natural gas pipeline based on the analytic hierarchy process according to claim 6, characterized in that: The S23 includes: (1) Five branch line risk assessment indicators are set at the criterion level, including: pipeline constraint assessment, high consequence area, repair and maintenance, defect detection and third-party damage; the pipeline constraint assessment is characterized by the number of high-constraint welds of the branch line as a risk assessment indicator; the high consequence area is characterized by the high consequence area situation of the branch line location as a risk assessment indicator; the repair and maintenance is characterized by the repair and maintenance of defects and equipment at the branch line location as a risk assessment indicator; the defect detection is characterized by whether the defect detection is carried out on schedule, whether the detection is compliant and whether the result is usable as a risk assessment indicator; the third-party damage is characterized by whether there is occupation, construction and gas theft as a risk assessment indicator; and the high risk score of the five branch line risk assessment indicators is 80-100, the high risk score is 60-80, the medium risk score is 40-60, and the low risk score is 0-40; (2) In the target layer setting, calculate the pipeline branch risk warning index.

8. A natural gas pipeline intrinsic safety evaluation system based on hierarchical analysis method, used to implement the evaluation method described in any one of claims 1 to 7, characterized in that: include: A safety evaluation system establishment module (101) is used to establish a four-level natural gas pipeline intrinsic safety evaluation system for defects, pipe sections, branches and pipeline networks, wherein the four-level natural gas pipeline intrinsic safety evaluation system for defects, pipe sections, branches and pipeline networks includes a defect risk warning index calculation module, a pipe section risk warning index calculation module, a branch line risk warning index calculation module and a pipeline network risk warning index calculation module; The four-level natural gas pipeline intrinsic safety assessment system corresponds to multiple risk assessment indicators; The intrinsic safety evaluation module (102) is used to obtain current natural gas pipeline data, and based on the current natural gas pipeline data and the four-level natural gas pipeline intrinsic safety evaluation system, perform an intrinsic safety evaluation on the natural gas pipeline corresponding to the current natural gas pipeline data by using a hierarchical analysis method.

9. An electronic device, characterized in that: The method comprises a processor and a memory, wherein the memory stores a plurality of instructions, and the processor is used to read the instructions and execute the method according to any one of claims 1 to 6.

10. A computer-readable storage medium, characterized in that: The computer-readable storage medium stores a plurality of instructions, and the plurality of instructions can be read by a processor to execute the method according to any one of claims 1 to 6.

Images