Oil and gas gathering pipeline failure risk quantification evaluation method and device

Abstract

This application discloses a method and apparatus for quantitatively evaluating the failure risk of oil and gas gathering and transportation pipelines, relating to the field of data processing. The method includes: dividing the pipeline under test into multiple first pipe segments; classifying multiple typical failure types into internal corrosion failure and other failures; for each first pipe segment, determining the basic risk values ​​for internal corrosion failure and other failures based on a preset risk scoring table, obtaining a first basic risk value and a second basic risk value; correcting the first basic risk value based on a risk correction factor, obtaining a corrected risk value; the risk correction factor is dynamically determined based on the risk of slug flow occurring in the pipe segment; determining the comprehensive risk value of the pipe segment based on the corrected risk value and the second basic risk value; and obtaining the failure risk assessment result of the pipeline under test based on the comprehensive risk value of each first pipe segment. The scheme provided by this application can improve the accuracy and reliability of the assessment results and enhance the generalization ability of the assessment system.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This application relates to the field of data processing, and in particular to a method and apparatus for quantitatively evaluating the failure risk of oil and gas gathering and transportation pipelines. Background Technology

[0002] Failure monitoring of oil and gas gathering and transportation pipelines is a key aspect of pipeline integrity and safety maintenance. In existing technologies, various risk factors can be quantified through expert scoring to obtain assessment results of failure risks, and risk items can also be predicted and statically assessed based on historical failure data. However, the methods used in existing technologies often have low accuracy and reliability due to excessive subjectivity or overly singular assessment perspectives.

[0003] Therefore, overcoming the aforementioned technical problems and defects has become a key issue that needs to be addressed. Summary of the Invention

[0004] To address the aforementioned technical issues, this application provides a method and apparatus for quantitatively evaluating the failure risk of oil and gas gathering and transportation pipelines, which can improve the accuracy and reliability of the evaluation results and enhance the generalization ability of the evaluation system.

[0005] According to one aspect of this application, a method for quantitatively evaluating the failure risk of oil and gas gathering and transportation pipelines is provided, the method comprising: Based on the attribute information of the pipeline under test, the pipeline under test is divided into multiple first pipe segments; the attribute information includes the structure and elevation changes of the pipeline under test. The pipeline under test is classified into several typical failure types to obtain internal corrosion failure and other failures; the several typical failure types are the failure types belonging to single risks among the historical failure types of the pipeline under test. For each first pipe segment, based on a preset risk scoring table, the basic risk values ​​for internal corrosion failure and other failures are determined, resulting in a first basic risk value and a second basic risk value. The risk scoring table is constructed based on the influencing factors associated with each preset failure type. The risk scoring table is configured with different scoring standards for each influencing factor, and the specific score for each influencing factor is determined based on the results of regular inspection and maintenance of the pipe segment. Based on the risk correction factor, the first basic risk value is corrected to obtain the corrected risk value; the risk correction factor is dynamically determined based on the risk of slug flow occurring in the first pipe segment. Based on the corrected risk value and the second basic risk value, the comprehensive risk value of the first pipe segment is determined; Based on the comprehensive risk value of each first pipe segment, the failure risk assessment result of the pipeline under test is obtained.

[0006] The method in the above scheme further includes: Based on the attribute information, the structural features of each first pipe segment are determined; Based on the structural features, at least one second pipe segment with slug flow risk is identified from the plurality of first pipe segments, and the other first pipe segments are designated as third pipe segments. For each second pipe segment, a corresponding risk correction factor is determined based on a preset basic correction factor; For each third pipe segment, the preset value is configured as the corresponding risk correction factor.

[0007] In the above scheme, the second pipe segment includes a Class I risk pipe segment, a Class II risk pipe segment, and a Class III risk pipe segment; the step of determining at least one second pipe segment with slug flow risk from the plurality of first pipe segments based on the structural characteristics, and designating the other first pipe segments as third pipe segments, includes: For each first pipe segment, based on the structural characteristics, it is determined whether the pipe type of the first pipe segment is a bend, and if the pipe type is a bend, the first pipe segment is regarded as a type of risk pipe segment. Based on the structural features, the attitude information of the first pipe segment is determined; the attitude information includes the tilt attitude and tilt angle of the first pipe segment. Based on the attitude information of the first pipe segment, determine whether the first pipe segment is a Class II risk pipe segment or a Class III risk pipe segment.

[0008] In the above scheme, determining whether the first pipe segment is a Class II or Class III risk pipe segment based on the attitude information of the first pipe segment includes: Determine whether the first pipe segment meets the requirements of an upward tilt and an tilt angle greater than a preset tilt angle threshold. If it does, then the first pipe segment is determined to be a Class II risk pipe segment. Determine whether the first pipe segment meets the condition of a downward tilt and whether its downstream pipe segment is a Class II risk pipe segment. If it does, then determine that the first pipe segment is a Class III risk pipe segment.

[0009] In the above scheme, determining the corresponding risk correction factor based on the preset basic correction factor includes: Based on the pipe segment type of the second pipe segment, the corresponding basic correction factor is obtained from the preset base configuration table; Based on the impact of the second pipeline segment's transportation conditions on the pipeline, the basic correction factor is adjusted to obtain the corresponding risk correction factor.

[0010] In the above scheme, adjusting the basic correction factor based on the impact of the second pipeline segment's transportation conditions on the pipeline to obtain the corresponding risk correction factor includes: Based on the task information of the current conveying task performed by the second pipe segment, the change in the flow rate of the conveying medium in the corresponding pipe segment is determined to obtain the operating condition information; when the flow rate of the conveying medium increases, the risk correction factor increases accordingly. Based on the aforementioned operating condition information, the current dynamic operating condition coefficient of the second pipe section is determined; Based on the basic correction factor and the dynamic operating condition coefficient, the corresponding risk correction factor is determined.

[0011] The method in the above scheme further includes: Based on the historical failure data of the pipeline under test, the distribution of each preset failure type among multiple preset failure types is determined to obtain failure distribution information; Based on the failure distribution information, several typical failure types belonging to a single risk are determined from the various preset failure types.

[0012] In the above scheme, determining multiple typical failure types belonging to a single risk from the multiple preset failure types based on the failure distribution information includes: For each preset failure type, based on the failure distribution information, the proportion of the preset failure type is determined to obtain first proportion information; Based on the historical failure data, the resource loss caused by each failure is determined, and the impact coefficient of each failure is obtained. Based on the impact coefficient of each failure, the first proportion information is corrected to obtain the corresponding second proportion information; Based on the second proportion information of each preset failure type, multiple typical failure types belonging to a single risk are determined from the multiple preset failure types.

[0013] In the above scheme, determining multiple typical failure types belonging to a single risk from the multiple preset failure types based on the second proportion information of each preset failure type includes: Based on all the second proportion information, at least one candidate failure type whose proportion exceeds the first proportion threshold is determined from the multiple preset failure types; Determine whether the total proportion of all candidate failure types exceeds the second proportion threshold. If it does, determine that the candidate failure type belongs to a single risk and use the candidate failure type as a typical failure type.

[0014] According to another aspect of this application, a device for quantitatively evaluating the failure risk of oil and gas gathering and transportation pipelines is provided. This device includes a classification unit, a first processing unit, a second processing unit, and a correction unit: wherein... A classification unit is used to divide the pipeline under test into multiple first pipe segments based on the attribute information of the pipeline under test; the attribute information includes the structure and elevation changes of the pipeline under test; and to classify multiple typical failure types of the pipeline under test to obtain internal corrosion failure and other failures; the multiple typical failure types are failure types belonging to single risks among the historical failure types of the pipeline under test. The first processing unit is used to determine the basic risk values ​​of internal corrosion failure and other failures for each first pipe segment based on a preset risk scoring table, and obtain the first basic risk value and the second basic risk value respectively. The risk scoring table is constructed according to the influence factors associated with each preset failure type. The risk scoring table is configured with different scoring standards for each influence factor, and the specific score of each influence factor is determined based on the results of regular inspection and maintenance of the pipe segment. The correction unit is used to correct the first basic risk value based on the risk correction factor to obtain the corrected risk value; the risk correction factor is dynamically determined based on the risk of slug flow occurring in the first pipe segment. The second processing unit is used to determine the comprehensive risk value of the first pipe segment based on the corrected risk value and the second basic risk value; and to obtain the failure risk assessment result of the pipeline under test based on the comprehensive risk value of each first pipe segment.

[0015] The method and apparatus for quantitatively evaluating the failure risk of oil and gas gathering and transportation pipelines provided in this application divide the gathering and transportation pipeline into multiple pipe segments, enabling individual analysis of each segment. Because it fully considers the unique structural characteristics of each segment and its associated failure causes, it can more accurately extract the failure characteristics of local areas compared to analyzing the entire unit as a whole, thereby improving the accuracy and reliability of the overall pipeline risk assessment results and enhancing the generalization ability of the evaluation model. Furthermore, by introducing the influence of slug flow on internal corrosion and using risk correction factors to individually correct the internal corrosion risk, the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the influencing factors of internal corrosion can be improved. This allows the assessment results of internal corrosion failure risk to more comprehensively reflect the actual results, thus improving the accuracy and reliability of the internal corrosion failure risk assessment results. Simultaneously, when calculating the comprehensive risk based on the risk values ​​of various failure types, it can also improve the accuracy of the overall failure assessment results of the gathering and transportation pipeline, thereby achieving optimization of the failure risk assessment method from point to surface.

[0016] It should be understood that the above general description and the following detailed description are exemplary and explanatory only, and do not limit this application. Attached Figure Description

[0017] The accompanying drawings, which are incorporated in and form part of this specification, illustrate embodiments consistent with this application and, together with the description, serve to explain the principles of this application, and do not constitute an undue limitation of this application.

[0018] Figure 1 A schematic diagram of a method for quantitatively evaluating the failure risk of oil and gas gathering and transportation pipelines provided in this application embodiment; Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram of the process for determining the risk correction factor in the method for quantitatively evaluating the failure risk of oil and gas gathering and transportation pipelines in the embodiments of this application; Figure 3 This is a schematic diagram of a device for quantitatively evaluating the failure risk of an oil and gas gathering and transportation pipeline, provided in an embodiment of this application. Detailed Implementation

[0019] The technical solutions of the embodiments of this application will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are only some embodiments of this application, and not all embodiments. Based on the embodiments of this application, all other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art without creative effort are within the scope of protection of this application.

[0020] This application provides a method for quantitatively evaluating the failure risk of oil and gas gathering and transportation pipelines, such as... Figure 1 As shown, the method may include S101 to S106; S101 to S106 will be described in detail below with reference to specific embodiments.

[0021] S101: Based on the attribute information of the pipeline under test, the pipeline under test is divided into multiple first pipe segments; the attribute information includes the structure and elevation changes of the pipeline under test.

[0022] In practical applications, dividing points can be configured based on structural and elevation changes of the pipeline under test. For example, dividing points can be configured based on characteristics such as changes in material, pipe diameter, wall thickness, and pipe direction. Then, the pipeline under test can be divided into multiple pipe segments, i.e., the first pipe segment, according to the dividing points.

[0023] S102: Classify the multiple typical failure types of the pipeline under test to obtain internal corrosion failure and other failures; the multiple typical failure types are the failure types belonging to single risks among the historical failure types of the pipeline under test.

[0024] In practical applications, typical single-risk failure types can be determined first based on historical failure data, that is, typical failure types can be determined.

[0025] Based on this, in one embodiment, the method may further include: Based on the historical failure data of the pipeline under test, the distribution of each preset failure type among multiple preset failure types is determined to obtain failure distribution information; Based on the failure distribution information, several typical failure types belonging to a single risk are determined from the various preset failure types.

[0026] In practical applications, the preset failure types can be pre-configured based on historical failure data and expert advice. Specifically, they can include internal corrosion, external corrosion, fatigue failure, creep failure, stress corrosion cracking, mechanical damage failure, etc.

[0027] In practical applications, the number of times each preset failure type occurs can be determined based on the historical failure data of the pipeline under test, thereby obtaining the proportion of each failure type in all failure events and obtaining failure distribution information.

[0028] In practical applications, the failure types with higher frequency of occurrence can be selected as candidates for judging single-risk failure types based on the proportion of each preset failure type. In order to comprehensively measure the actual impact of each failure type and improve the monitoring priority of key types with greater impact, the degree of economic impact of each failure type can be introduced into the calculation of the proportion.

[0029] Based on this, in one embodiment, determining multiple typical failure types belonging to a single risk from the multiple preset failure types based on the failure distribution information may include: For each preset failure type, based on the failure distribution information, the proportion of the preset failure type is determined to obtain first proportion information; Based on the historical failure data, the resource loss caused by each failure is determined, and the impact coefficient of each failure is obtained. Based on the impact coefficient of each failure, the first proportion information is corrected to obtain the corresponding second proportion information; Based on the second proportion information of each preset failure type, multiple typical failure types belonging to a single risk are determined from the multiple preset failure types.

[0030] In practical applications, historical failure data can be used to determine the actual economic losses caused by each failure. Loss categories can include downtime, maintenance costs, environmental impact, etc. Then, a loss evaluation system is constructed based on the loss categories. The loss evaluation scores are configured into five loss levels from low to high, and each level is configured with a different impact coefficient, which increases sequentially. For example, the impact coefficient of level one, which has a lower loss evaluation score, is configured as 1, and the impact coefficient of level two, which has a higher loss evaluation score, is configured as 1.3. Among them, the lower loss levels have a smaller impact and lower priority, so the priority of the corresponding percentage can be reduced, that is, the impact coefficient is smaller. Conversely, the higher loss levels have a larger impact and higher priority, so the priority of the corresponding percentage can be increased, that is, the impact coefficient is larger.

[0031] Here, by configuring different impact coefficients according to the degree of loss, the impact coefficients can more accurately reflect the economic impact of the corresponding failure type and the differences in the degree of economic impact of different failure types. Thus, after correcting the first proportion information using the impact coefficients, the economic impact can be considered in the evaluation results, thereby improving the comprehensiveness and rationality of the evaluation results.

[0032] In practical applications, the first proportion information may include the ratio of the actual number of failures to the total number of actual failures for the corresponding preset failure type. After obtaining the number of failures for the same failure type, the impact coefficient corresponding to each failure can be used as a weight to weight the actual number of failures for that failure type to obtain the corrected failure number. Then, based on the corrected failure number for each preset failure type, the total number of corrections is calculated, and the proportion of the corrected failure number for each preset failure type in the total number of corrections is calculated to obtain the correction proportion for the corresponding preset failure type, which is the second proportion information.

[0033] In practical applications, after determining the correction percentage for each preset failure type, prominent and concentrated failure types can be selected as typical failure types.

[0034] Based on this, in one embodiment, determining multiple typical failure types belonging to a single risk from the multiple preset failure types based on the second proportion information of each preset failure type may include: Based on all the second proportion information, at least one candidate failure type whose proportion exceeds the first proportion threshold is determined from the multiple preset failure types; Determine whether the total proportion of all candidate failure types exceeds the second proportion threshold. If it does, determine that the candidate failure type belongs to a single risk and use the candidate failure type as a typical failure type.

[0035] Here, the first proportion threshold can be used to filter out single failure types that have a high frequency of occurrence and a high proportion of economic consequences, while the second proportion threshold can be used to ensure the reliability of the screening results.

[0036] In practical applications, different threshold standards for monitoring granularity can be configured based on the Pareto principle, namely, a first proportional threshold and a second proportional threshold. The threshold standard to be used is determined according to the monitoring necessity of the pipeline under test. For example, two threshold standards can be configured: threshold standard one is configured as a first proportional threshold of 3% and a second proportional threshold of 60%, and threshold standard two is configured as a first proportional threshold of 5% and a second proportional threshold of 70%. For pipelines that are old and perform critical transportation tasks, which require key monitoring, the monitoring necessity is high, and a more stringent threshold standard needs to be configured, that is, the first threshold standard configuration is used for screening. For pipelines that perform general tasks and are in good health, the monitoring necessity is low, and a general threshold standard can be configured, that is, the second threshold standard configuration is used for screening.

[0037] S103: For each first pipe segment, based on a preset risk scoring table, determine the basic risk values ​​for internal corrosion failure and other failures, and obtain the first basic risk value and the second basic risk value respectively; the risk scoring table is constructed according to the influencing factors associated with each preset failure type, wherein different scoring standards are configured for each influencing factor in the risk scoring table, and the specific score of each influencing factor is determined based on the results of regular inspection and maintenance of the pipe segment.

[0038] In practical applications, a risk scoring table can be constructed based on the influencing factors associated with each preset failure type. The risk scoring table is configured with different scoring standards for each influencing factor. Based on the results of regular inspection and maintenance of the pipeline section, the specific score of each influencing factor is determined, thereby obtaining the basic risk value of the corresponding pipeline section.

[0039] In practical applications, the basic risk value for internal corrosion failure is the first basic risk value. Other failures include various failure types, and the basic risk value for each failure type is the corresponding second basic risk value.

[0040] S104: Based on the risk correction factor, the first basic risk value is corrected to obtain the corrected risk value; the risk correction factor is dynamically determined based on the risk of slug flow occurring in the first pipe segment.

[0041] In practical applications, risk adjustment factors can be configured according to their dynamic changes.

[0042] Based on this, in one embodiment, before correcting the first basic risk value based on the risk correction factor to obtain the corrected risk value, i.e. before executing S104, the method may further include: determining the risk correction factor.

[0043] In one embodiment, such as Figure 2 As shown, the process of determining the risk correction factor may include S201 to S204; S201 to S204 will be described in detail below with reference to specific embodiments.

[0044] S201: Based on the attribute information, determine the structural characteristics of each first pipe segment.

[0045] S202: Based on the structural features, at least one second pipe segment with slug flow risk is identified from the plurality of first pipe segments, and the other first pipe segments are designated as third pipe segments.

[0046] In practical applications, the second pipe section can be understood as the risk pipe section.

[0047] In one embodiment, the second pipe segment may include a Class I risk pipe segment, a Class II risk pipe segment, and a Class III risk pipe segment.

[0048] In one embodiment, the step of determining at least one second pipe segment with slug flow risk from the plurality of first pipe segments based on the structural features, and designating the other first pipe segments as third pipe segments, i.e., S202, may include: For each first pipe segment, based on the structural characteristics, it is determined whether the pipe type of the first pipe segment is a bend, and if the pipe type is a bend, the first pipe segment is regarded as a type of risk pipe segment. Based on the structural features, the attitude information of the first pipe segment is determined; the attitude information includes the tilt attitude and tilt angle of the first pipe segment. Based on the attitude information of the first pipe segment, determine whether the first pipe segment is a Class II risk pipe segment or a Class III risk pipe segment.

[0049] In one embodiment, determining whether the first pipe segment is a Class II or Class III risk pipe segment based on the attitude information of the first pipe segment may include: Determine whether the first pipe segment meets the requirements of an upward tilt and an tilt angle greater than a preset tilt angle threshold. If it does, then the first pipe segment is determined to be a Class II risk pipe segment. Determine whether the first pipe segment meets the condition of a downward tilt and whether its downstream pipe segment is a Class II risk pipe segment. If it does, then determine that the first pipe segment is a Class III risk pipe segment.

[0050] In practical applications, the tilt angle threshold can be configured in advance based on historical data and the properties of the conveying medium; for example, it can be configured to 0.5°.

[0051] Here, by introducing the judgment of pipe segment structure, it is possible to screen out low-lying pipe segments and upward-sloping pipe segments that are at risk of slug flow scouring. Thus, when performing internal corrosion failure prediction analysis, the influence of slug flow scouring on internal corrosion can be introduced, thereby improving the accuracy and reliability of internal corrosion failure analysis results.

[0052] S203: For each second pipe segment, determine the corresponding risk correction factor based on the preset basic correction factor.

[0053] In practical applications, after identifying the pipe segment with slug flow risk, i.e., after identifying the second pipe segment, different basic correction factors can be configured for it according to the pipe segment type, i.e., whether it belongs to a Class I risk pipe segment, a Class II risk pipe segment, or a Class III risk pipe segment.

[0054] Based on this, in one embodiment, determining the corresponding risk correction factor based on a preset basic correction factor, i.e., S203, may include: Based on the pipe segment type of the second pipe segment, the corresponding basic correction factor is obtained from the preset base configuration table; the basic correction factor is different for different types of second pipe segments, and the basic correction factor for the second-risk pipe segment is greater than that for the third-risk pipe segment. Based on the impact of the second pipeline segment's transportation conditions on the pipeline, the basic correction factor is adjusted to obtain the corresponding risk correction factor.

[0055] In practical applications, the three types of risky pipe segments have different structures, and their risks of slug flow also differ. Here, by independently configuring basic correction factors for these three types of risky pipe segments, the final applied risk correction factor can more accurately reflect the failure risk of different pipe types, thereby improving the accuracy of the failure risk value correction result. For example, the basic correction factor for a type I risky pipe segment can be configured as 1.2, the basic correction factor for a type II risky pipe segment can be configured as 1.5, and the basic correction factor for a type III risky pipe segment can be configured as 1.3.

[0056] In practical applications, after determining the basic correction factor for the second pipe section, the current risk correction factor can be determined based on dynamic flow information.

[0057] Based on this, in one embodiment, adjusting the basic correction factor based on the impact of the second pipe segment's transport conditions on the pipeline to obtain the corresponding risk correction factor may include: Based on the task information of the current conveying task performed by the second pipe segment, the change in the flow rate of the conveying medium in the corresponding pipe segment is determined to obtain the operating condition information; when the flow rate of the conveying medium increases, the risk correction factor increases accordingly. Based on the aforementioned operating condition information, the current dynamic operating condition coefficient of the second pipe section is determined; Based on the basic correction factor and the dynamic operating condition coefficient, the corresponding risk correction factor is determined.

[0058] In practical applications, operating condition information may include flow velocity and density; for example, dynamic operating condition coefficients. It can be represented as: ; in, This is an empirical coefficient. The density of the liquid phase is... The apparent flow rate in the gas phase is... The apparent flow rate of the liquid phase is... It is the acceleration due to gravity. For pipe diameter, The angle of inclination of the pipe section.

[0059] In practical applications, after determining the dynamic operating condition coefficient, the basic correction factor can be adjusted using the dynamic operating condition coefficient to obtain the actual risk correction factor; specifically, the dynamic operating condition coefficient and the basic correction factor can be weighted to obtain the risk correction factor.

[0060] For example, the risk adjustment factor can be expressed as: ; in, Indicates the first Risk correction factor for the second pipe section Indicates the first The basic correction factor for the second pipe section. and Indicates the weight.

[0061] S204: For each third pipe segment, the preset value is configured as the corresponding risk correction factor.

[0062] In practical applications, the risk correction factor of the third pipe section can be directly configured to 0 so that the first risk value is equal to the corrected risk value, that is, no correction is performed.

[0063] In practical applications, after determining the risk correction factor, the first basic risk value can be corrected based on the risk correction factor to obtain the corrected risk value, i.e., S104 is executed.

[0064] In practical applications, the adjusted risk value can be expressed as: ; in, Indicates the first The corrected risk value for the first pipe section, Indicates the first The first basic risk value for the first pipe segment; here, when calculating the corrected risk value for the third pipe segment, its first basic risk value is directly configured to 0.

[0065] S105: Based on the corrected risk value and the second basic risk value, determine the comprehensive risk value of the first pipe segment.

[0066] In practical applications, the corresponding weight can be determined based on the proportion of each failure type in the total number of failures, that is, the corresponding weight can be determined based on the second proportion information of each failure type; then, the corresponding failure risk values ​​are weighted according to their respective weights to obtain the comprehensive risk value of the first pipe section.

[0067] In practical applications, for the third pipe section, since the risk correction factor is directly defined as 0, that is, the corrected risk value is the same as the corresponding first basic risk value, the corresponding comprehensive risk value is directly determined based on its first basic risk value and second basic risk value.

[0068] In practical applications, a separate monitoring mechanism can be configured for the comprehensive risk value of each first pipe segment. Specifically, it can be determined whether the comprehensive risk value of each first pipe segment is less than the preset risk threshold. If it is less than the preset risk threshold, S106 is executed. When the comprehensive risk value of any first pipe segment reaches the preset risk threshold, an alarm message is generated while executing S106, and the location and number information of the corresponding first pipe segment are added to the alarm message to prompt on-site personnel to check and maintain it in a timely manner.

[0069] Here, by configuring a separate risk monitoring step for each first pipe segment, it is possible to analyze the overall risk value of the entire pipeline while also conducting specific assessments and warnings for each pipe segment. This avoids the problem that when local failure risks occur, the data is averaged into the overall analysis results and thus cannot be presented significantly, thereby failing to be detected in time. This improves the comprehensiveness, accuracy, and reliability of the risk assessment results.

[0070] S106: Based on the comprehensive risk value of each first pipe segment, the failure risk assessment result of the pipeline under test is obtained.

[0071] In practical applications, the failure risk assessment results can include a failure risk assessment score; the comprehensive risk value of each first pipe segment can be weighted to obtain the failure risk assessment score of the entire pipeline under test.

[0072] In summary, the oil and gas gathering and transportation pipeline failure risk quantification evaluation method provided in this application divides the gathering and transportation pipeline into multiple pipe segments, enabling individual analysis of each segment. Because it fully considers the unique structural characteristics of each segment and its associated failure causes, it can more accurately extract the failure characteristics of local areas compared to analyzing the entire unit as a whole, thereby improving the accuracy and reliability of the overall pipeline risk assessment results and enhancing the generalization ability of the evaluation model. Furthermore, by introducing the influence of slug flow on internal corrosion and using risk correction factors to individually correct the internal corrosion risk, the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the internal corrosion influencing factors can be improved. This allows the assessment results of internal corrosion failure risk to more comprehensively reflect the actual results, thus improving the accuracy and reliability of the internal corrosion failure risk assessment results. Simultaneously, when calculating the comprehensive risk based on the risk values ​​of various failure types, it can also improve the accuracy of the overall gathering and transportation pipeline failure assessment results, thereby achieving optimization of the failure risk assessment method from point to surface.

[0073] To realize the method for quantitatively assessing the failure risk of oil and gas gathering and transportation pipelines as described in this application, embodiments of this application also provide a device for quantitatively assessing the failure risk of oil and gas gathering and transportation pipelines, such as... Figure 3 As shown, the device may include a classification unit 301, a first processing unit 302, a second processing unit 304, and a correction unit 303. The classification unit 301, the first processing unit 302, the second processing unit 304, and the correction unit 303 will be further described in detail below.

[0074] The classification unit 301 is used to divide the pipeline under test into multiple first pipe segments based on the attribute information of the pipeline under test; the attribute information includes the structure and elevation changes of the pipeline under test; and to classify multiple typical failure types of the pipeline under test to obtain internal corrosion failure and other failures; the multiple typical failure types are failure types belonging to single risks among the historical failure types of the pipeline under test. The first processing unit 302 is used to determine the basic risk values ​​of internal corrosion failure and other failures for each first pipe segment based on a preset risk scoring table, and obtain the first basic risk value and the second basic risk value respectively; the risk scoring table is constructed according to the influence factors associated with each preset failure type, wherein the risk scoring table is configured with different scoring standards for each influence factor, and the specific score of each influence factor is determined based on the results of regular inspection and maintenance of the pipe segment; The correction unit 303 is used to correct the first basic risk value based on the risk correction factor to obtain the corrected risk value; the risk correction factor is dynamically determined based on the risk of slug flow occurring in the first pipe segment. The second processing unit 304 is used to determine the comprehensive risk value of the first pipe segment based on the corrected risk value and the second basic risk value; and to obtain the failure risk assessment result of the pipeline under test based on the comprehensive risk value of each first pipe segment.

[0075] In one embodiment, the correction unit 303 can also be used for: Based on the attribute information, the structural features of each first pipe segment are determined; Based on the structural features, at least one second pipe segment with slug flow risk is identified from the plurality of first pipe segments, and the other first pipe segments are designated as third pipe segments. For each second pipe segment, a corresponding risk correction factor is determined based on a preset basic correction factor; For each third pipe segment, the preset value is configured as the corresponding risk correction factor.

[0076] In one embodiment, the second pipe segment includes a Class I risk pipe segment, a Class II risk pipe segment, and a Class III risk pipe segment; the correction unit 303 can specifically be used for: For each first pipe segment, based on the structural characteristics, it is determined whether the pipe type of the first pipe segment is a bend, and if the pipe type is a bend, the first pipe segment is regarded as a type of risk pipe segment. Based on the structural features, the attitude information of the first pipe segment is determined; the attitude information includes the tilt attitude and tilt angle of the first pipe segment. Based on the attitude information of the first pipe segment, determine whether the first pipe segment is a Class II risk pipe segment or a Class III risk pipe segment.

[0077] In one embodiment, the correction unit 303 may be more specifically used for: Determine whether the first pipe segment meets the requirements of an upward tilt and an tilt angle greater than a preset tilt angle threshold. If it does, then the first pipe segment is determined to be a Class II risk pipe segment. Determine whether the first pipe segment meets the condition of a downward tilt and whether its downstream pipe segment is a Class II risk pipe segment. If it does, then determine that the first pipe segment is a Class III risk pipe segment.

[0078] In one embodiment, the correction unit 303 may specifically be used for: Based on the pipe segment type of the second pipe segment, the corresponding basic correction factor is obtained from the preset base configuration table; Based on the impact of the second pipeline segment's transportation conditions on the pipeline, the basic correction factor is adjusted to obtain the corresponding risk correction factor.

[0079] In one embodiment, the correction unit 303 may specifically be used for: Based on the task information of the current conveying task performed by the second pipe segment, the change in the flow rate of the conveying medium in the corresponding pipe segment is determined to obtain the operating condition information; when the flow rate of the conveying medium increases, the risk correction factor increases accordingly. Based on the aforementioned operating condition information, the current dynamic operating condition coefficient of the second pipe section is determined; Based on the basic correction factor and the dynamic operating condition coefficient, the corresponding risk correction factor is determined.

[0080] In one embodiment, the classification unit 301 can also be used for: Based on the historical failure data of the pipeline under test, the distribution of each preset failure type among multiple preset failure types is determined to obtain failure distribution information; Based on the failure distribution information, several typical failure types belonging to a single risk are determined from the various preset failure types.

[0081] In one embodiment, the classification unit 301 can be specifically used for: For each preset failure type, based on the failure distribution information, the proportion of the preset failure type is determined to obtain first proportion information; Based on the historical failure data, the resource loss caused by each failure is determined, and the impact coefficient of each failure is obtained. Based on the impact coefficient of each failure, the first proportion information is corrected to obtain the corresponding second proportion information; Based on the second proportion information of each preset failure type, multiple typical failure types belonging to a single risk are determined from the multiple preset failure types.

[0082] In one embodiment, the classification unit 301 can be specifically used for: Based on all the second proportion information, at least one candidate failure type whose proportion exceeds the first proportion threshold is determined from the multiple preset failure types; Determine whether the total proportion of all candidate failure types exceeds the second proportion threshold. If it does, determine that the candidate failure type belongs to a single risk and use the candidate failure type as a typical failure type.

[0083] It should be noted that the oil and gas gathering and transportation pipeline failure risk quantification assessment device provided in the above embodiments is only illustrated by the division of the above-described program modules when performing oil and gas gathering and transportation pipeline failure risk quantification assessment. In practical applications, the above processing can be assigned to different program modules as needed, that is, the internal structure of the device can be divided into different program modules to complete all or part of the processing described above. In addition, the oil and gas gathering and transportation pipeline failure risk quantification assessment device and the oil and gas gathering and transportation pipeline failure risk quantification assessment method embodiments provided in the above embodiments belong to the same concept, and the specific implementation process is detailed in the method embodiments, which will not be repeated here.

[0084] It should be noted that terms such as "first" and "second" are used to distinguish similar objects, and are not necessarily used to describe a specific order or sequence.

[0085] Furthermore, the technical solutions described in the embodiments of this application can be combined arbitrarily without conflict.

[0086] The above description is merely a preferred embodiment of this application and is not intended to limit the scope of protection of this application.

Claims

1. A method for quantitatively evaluating the failure risk of oil and gas gathering and transportation pipelines, characterized in that, The method includes: Based on the attribute information of the pipeline under test, the pipeline under test is divided into multiple first pipe segments; the attribute information includes the structure and elevation changes of the pipeline under test. The pipeline under test is classified into several typical failure types to obtain internal corrosion failure and other failures; the several typical failure types are the failure types belonging to single risks among the historical failure types of the pipeline under test. For each first pipe segment, based on a preset risk scoring table, the basic risk values ​​for internal corrosion failure and other failures are determined, resulting in a first basic risk value and a second basic risk value. The risk scoring table is constructed based on the influencing factors associated with each preset failure type. The risk scoring table is configured with different scoring standards for each influencing factor, and the specific score for each influencing factor is determined based on the results of regular inspection and maintenance of the pipe segment. Based on the risk correction factor, the first basic risk value is corrected to obtain the corrected risk value; the risk correction factor is dynamically determined based on the risk of slug flow occurring in the first pipe segment. Based on the corrected risk value and the second basic risk value, the comprehensive risk value of the first pipe segment is determined; Based on the comprehensive risk value of each first pipe segment, the failure risk assessment result of the pipeline under test is obtained.

2. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The method further includes: Based on the attribute information, the structural features of each first pipe segment are determined; Based on the structural features, at least one second pipe segment with slug flow risk is identified from the plurality of first pipe segments, and the other first pipe segments are designated as third pipe segments. For each second pipe segment, a corresponding risk correction factor is determined based on a preset basic correction factor; For each third pipe segment, the preset value is configured as the corresponding risk correction factor.

3. The method according to claim 2, characterized in that, The second pipe segment includes a Class I risk pipe segment, a Class II risk pipe segment, and a Class III risk pipe segment; the step of determining at least one second pipe segment with slug flow risk from the plurality of first pipe segments based on the structural characteristics, and designating the other first pipe segments as third pipe segments, includes: For each first pipe segment, based on the structural characteristics, it is determined whether the pipe type of the first pipe segment is a bend, and if the pipe type is a bend, the first pipe segment is regarded as a type of risk pipe segment. Based on the structural features, the attitude information of the first pipe segment is determined; the attitude information includes the tilt attitude and tilt angle of the first pipe segment. Based on the attitude information of the first pipe segment, determine whether the first pipe segment is a Class II risk pipe segment or a Class III risk pipe segment.

4. The method according to claim 3, characterized in that, The step of determining whether the first pipe segment is a Class II or Class III risk pipe segment based on the attitude information of the first pipe segment includes: Determine whether the first pipe segment meets the requirements of an upward tilt and an tilt angle greater than a preset tilt angle threshold. If it does, then the first pipe segment is determined to be a Class II risk pipe segment. Determine whether the first pipe segment meets the condition of a downward tilt and whether its downstream pipe segment is a Class II risk pipe segment. If it does, then determine that the first pipe segment is a Class III risk pipe segment.

5. The method according to claim 2, characterized in that, The determination of the corresponding risk correction factor based on the preset basic correction factor includes: Based on the pipe segment type of the second pipe segment, the corresponding basic correction factor is obtained from the preset base configuration table; Based on the impact of the second pipeline segment's transportation conditions on the pipeline, the basic correction factor is adjusted to obtain the corresponding risk correction factor.

6. The method according to claim 5, characterized in that, The adjustment of the basic correction factor based on the impact of the second pipeline segment's transportation conditions on the pipeline, to obtain the corresponding risk correction factor, includes: Based on the task information of the current conveying task performed by the second pipe segment, the change in the flow rate of the conveying medium in the corresponding pipe segment is determined to obtain the operating condition information; when the flow rate of the conveying medium increases, the risk correction factor increases accordingly. Based on the aforementioned operating condition information, the current dynamic operating condition coefficient of the second pipe section is determined; Based on the basic correction factor and the dynamic operating condition coefficient, the corresponding risk correction factor is determined.

7. The method according to any one of claims 1 to 6, characterized in that, The method further includes: Based on the historical failure data of the pipeline under test, the distribution of each preset failure type among multiple preset failure types is determined to obtain failure distribution information; Based on the failure distribution information, several typical failure types belonging to a single risk are determined from the various preset failure types.

8. The method according to claim 7, characterized in that, Based on the failure distribution information, the determination of multiple typical failure types belonging to a single risk from the multiple preset failure types includes: For each preset failure type, based on the failure distribution information, the proportion of the preset failure type is determined to obtain first proportion information; Based on the historical failure data, the resource loss caused by each failure is determined, and the impact coefficient of each failure is obtained. Based on the impact coefficient of each failure, the first proportion information is corrected to obtain the corresponding second proportion information; Based on the second proportion information of each preset failure type, multiple typical failure types belonging to a single risk are determined from the multiple preset failure types.

9. The method according to claim 8, characterized in that, The second proportion information based on each preset failure type determines multiple typical failure types belonging to a single risk from the multiple preset failure types, including: Based on all the second proportion information, at least one candidate failure type whose proportion exceeds the first proportion threshold is determined from the multiple preset failure types; Determine whether the total proportion of all candidate failure types exceeds the second proportion threshold. If it does, determine that the candidate failure type belongs to a single risk and use the candidate failure type as a typical failure type.

10. A device for quantitatively evaluating the failure risk of oil and gas gathering and transportation pipelines, characterized in that, The device includes a classification unit, a first processing unit, a second processing unit, and a correction unit: wherein, The classification unit is used to divide the pipeline under test into multiple first pipe segments based on the attribute information of the pipeline under test; the attribute information includes the structure and elevation changes of the pipeline under test; and to classify multiple typical failure types of the pipeline under test to obtain internal corrosion failure and other failures; the multiple typical failure types are failure types belonging to single risk among the historical failure types of the pipeline under test. The first processing unit is used to determine the basic risk values ​​of internal corrosion failure and other failures for each first pipe segment based on a preset risk scoring table, and obtain the first basic risk value and the second basic risk value respectively; the risk scoring table is constructed according to the influence factors associated with each preset failure type, wherein the risk scoring table is configured with different scoring standards for each influence factor, and the specific score of each influence factor is determined based on the results of regular inspection and maintenance of the pipe segment; The correction unit is used to correct the first basic risk value based on a risk correction factor to obtain a corrected risk value; the risk correction factor is dynamically determined based on the risk of slug flow occurring in the first pipe segment. The second processing unit is configured to determine the comprehensive risk value of the first pipe segment based on the corrected risk value and the second basic risk value; and to obtain the failure risk assessment result of the pipeline under test based on the comprehensive risk value of each first pipe segment.

Images