基于数据和知识双驱动的储气库地面管道腐蚀风险评价

doi:10.13809/j.cnki.cn32-1825/te.2024.04.016

Abstract

Abstract:

The research and application of risk analysis and evaluation for underground gas storage facilities are critical due to their diverse equipment, complex process flows, and numerous risk factors. In particular, corrosion failure accidents in ground process pipelines at these facilities have become increasingly common in recent years. Effective and accurate analysis of the causes of these corrosion failures is essential for ensuring the safe operation of underground gas storage facilities. This article presents a risk assessment methodology that leverages data and knowledge fusion. The process begins with a statistical analysis of the corrosion failure data from ground process pipelines in underground gas storage facilities, from which a Bayesian corrosion prediction model is developed. This model serves as the foundation for analyzing the basic events that lead to corrosion failure in these pipelines. Subsequently, a knowledge model of corrosion failure is established, and a detailed analysis of corrosion causes is conducted using the fault tree specific to corrosion failure in ground process pipelines. The importance of each basic event within the fault tree is quantified through the structural importance coefficient assigned to each event. The analysis categorizes the influencing factors of corrosion failure into four main groups. A judgment matrix is then created to determine the relative weight values of these different influencing factors. This matrix is crucial for setting the weight factors in the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation, which ultimately determines the risk level of corrosion failure in ground process pipelines at underground gas storage facilities. By applying examples of corrosion risk assessments for ground process pipelines, this study provides a scientific basis for enhancing safety management and operational practices at underground gas storage facilities.

Key words: data and knowledge dual driven, underground gas storage ground pipeline, corrosion failure, risk assessment, fuzzy comprehensive evaluation

CLC Number:

TE97

Caixia BI. A corrosion risk assessment method for underground gas storage ground pipeline based on data and knowledge dual drivers[J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2024, 14(4): 657-666.

Figures/Tables 16

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Table 1

Table 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Fig. 5

Table 3

Fig. 6

Fig. 7

Fig. 8

Table 4

Minimum cut set for corrosion failure of surface process pipelines in underground gas storage facilities"

序号	最小割集	序号	最小割集	序号	最小割集	序号	最小割集	序号	最小割集
1	{X₁,X₂,X₁₄}	50	{X₂,X₂₃,X₂₇}	99	{X₁,X₅,X₂₀}	148	{X₇,X₂₄,X₂₉}	197	{X₇,X₂₁,X₂₅}
2	{X₂,X₂₁,X₂₂}	51	{X₂,X₂₃,X₂₈}	100	{X₂,X₂₄,X₂₆}	149	{X₇,X₂₄,X₃₀}	198	{X₂,X₂₂,X₂₆}
3	{X₂,X₃₁,X₃₂}	52	{X₂,X₂₃,X₂₉}	101	{X₂,X₂₄,X₂₇}	150	{X₁₁,X₁₂,X₁₃,X₃₁,X₃₂}	199	{X₂,X₂₂,X₂₇}
4	{X₁,X₈,X₁₄}	53	{X₂,X₂₃,X₃₀}	102	{X₂,X₂₄,X₂₈}	151	{X₁,X₆,X₁₅}	200	{X₂,X₂₂,X₂₈}
5	{X₁,X₁₁,X₁₂,X₁₃,X₁₄}	54	{X₄,X₂₃,X₃₀}	103	{X₂,X₂₄,X₂₉}	152	{X₁,X₆,X₁₆}	201	{X₂,X₂₂,X₂₉}
6	{X₁,X₃,X₁₄}	55	{X₄,X₂₄,X₂₆}	104	{X₂,X₂₄,X₃₀}	153	{X₁,X₆,X₁₇}	202	{X₂,X₂₂,X₃₀}
7	{X₁,X₄,X₁₄}	56	{X₄,X₂₄,X₂₇}	105	{X₂,X₂₅,X₂₆}	154	{X₁,X₆,X₁₈}	203	{X₃,X₂₂,X₂₆}
8	{X₁,X₅,X₁₄}	57	{X₄,X₂₄,X₂₈}	106	{X₂,X₂₅,X₂₇}	155	{X₁,X₆,X₁₉}	204	{X₅,X₃₁,X₃₂}
9	{X₁,X₆,X₁₄}	58	{X₄,X₂₄,X₂₉}	107	{X₂,X₂₅,X₂₈}	156	{X₁,X₆,X₂₀}	205	{X₆,X₃₁,X₃₂}
10	{X₁,X₇,X₁₄}	59	{X₄,X₂₄,X₃₀}	108	{X₂,X₂₅,X₂₉}	157	{X₁,X₇,X₁₅}	206	{X₇,X₃₁,X₃₂}
11	{X₁,X₉,X₁₄}	60	{X₄,X₂₅,X₂₆}	109	{X₂,X₂₅,X₃₀}	158	{X₁,X₇,X₁₆}	207	{X₉,X₃₁,X₃₂}
12	{X₁,X₁₀,X₁₄}	61	{X₄,X₂₅,X₂₇}	110	{X₃,X₂₃,X₂₆}	159	{X₁,X₇,X₁₇}	208	{X₁₀,X₃₁,X₃₂}
13	{X₁,X₂,X₁₅}	62	{X₄,X₂₅,X₂₈}	111	{X₃,X₂₃,X₂₇}	160	{X₁,X₇,X₁₈}	209	{X₅,X₂₅,X₂₆}
14	{X₁,X₂,X₁₆}	63	{X₄,X₂₅,X₂₉}	112	{X₃,X₂₃,X₂₈}	161	{X₁,X₇,X₁₉}	210	{X₅,X₂₅,X₂₇}
15	{X₁,X₂,X₁₇}	64	{X₄,X₂₅,X₃₀}	113	{X₃,X₂₃,X₂₉}	162	{X₁,X₇,X₂₀}	211	{X₅,X₂₅,X₂₈}
16	{X₁,X₂,X₁₈}	65	{X₅,X₂₃,X₂₆}	114	{X₃,X₂₃,X₃₀}	163	{X₁,X₉,X₁₅}	212	{X₅,X₂₅,X₂₉}
17	{X₁,X₂,X₁₉}	66	{X₅,X₂₃,X₂₇}	115	{X₃,X₂₄,X₂₆}	164	{X₁,X₉,X₁₆}	213	{X₅,X₂₅,X₃₀}
18	{X₁,X₂,X₂₀}	67	{X₅,X₂₃,X₂₈}	116	{X₃,X₂₄,X₂₇}	165	{X₁,X₉,X₁₇}	214	{X₆,X₂₃,X₂₆}
19	{X₁,X₈,X₁₅}	68	{X₅,X₂₃,X₂₉}	117	{X₃,X₂₄,X₂₈}	166	{X₁,X₉,X₁₈}	215	{X₆,X₂₃,X₂₇}
20	{X₁,X₈,X₁₆}	69	{X₅,X₂₃,X₃₀}	118	{X₃,X₂₄,X₂₉}	167	{X₁,X₉,X₁₉}	216	{X₆,X₂₃,X₂₈}
21	{X₁,X₈,X₁₇}	70	{X₅,X₂₄,X₂₆}	119	{X₃,X₂₄,X₃₀}	168	{X₁,X₉,X₂₀}	217	{X₆,X₂₃,X₂₉}
22	{X₁,X₈,X₁₈}	71	{X₅,X₂₄,X₂₇}	120	{X₃,X₂₅,X₂₆}	169	{X₁,X₁₀,X₁₅}	218	{X₇,X₂₅,X₂₆}
23	{X₁,X₈,X₁₉}	72	{X₅,X₂₄,X₂₈}	121	{X₃,X₂₅,X₂₇}	170	{X₁,X₁₀,X₁₆}	219	{X₇,X₂₅,X₂₇}
24	{X₁,X₈,X₂₀}	73	{X₅,X₂₄,X₂₉}	122	{X₃,X₂₅,X₂₈}	171	{X₁,X₁₀,X₁₇}	220	{X₇,X₂₅,X₂₈}
25	{X₃,X₂₂,X₂₇}	74	{X₅,X₂₄,X₃₀}	123	{X₃,X₂₅,X₂₉}	172	{X₁,X₁₀,X₁₈}	221	{X₇,X₂₅,X₂₉}
26	{X₃,X₂₂,X₂₈}	75	{X₄,X₃₁,X₃₂}	124	{X₃,X₂₅,X₃₀}	173	{X₁,X₁₀,X₁₉}	222	{X₇,X₂₅,X₃₀}
27	{X₃,X₂₂,X₂₉}	76	{X₁,X₁₁,X₁₂,X₁₃,X₁₅}	125	{X₄,X₂₃,X₂₆}	174	{X₁,X₁₀,X₂₀}	223	{X₈,X₃₁,X₃₂}
28	{X₃,X₂₂,X₃₀}	77	{X₁,X₁₁,X₁₂,X₁₃,X₁₆}	126	{X₄,X₂₃,X₂₇}	175	{X₃,X₂₁,X₂₂}	224	{X₃,X₃₁,X₃₂}
29	{X₄,X₂₂,X₂₆}	78	{X₁,X₁₁,X₁₂,X₁₃,X₁₇}	127	{X₄,X₂₃,X₂₈}	176	{X₄,X₂₁,X₂₂}	225	{X₁₁,X₁₂,X₂₆,X₃₃,X₃₄,X₃₅,X₃₆,X₄₀,X₄₂,X₄₄}
30	{X₄,X₂₂,X₂₇}	79	{X₁,X₁₁,X₁₂,X₁₃,X₁₈}	128	{X₄,X₂₃,X₂₉}	177	{X₅,X₂₁,X₂₂}	226	{X₁₁,X₁₂,X₂₆,X₃₃,X₃₄,X₃₅,X₃₆,X₄₀,X₄₃,X₄₄}
31	{X₄,X₂₂,X₂₈}	80	{X₁,X₁₁,X₁₂,X₁₃,X₁₉}	129	{X₆,X₂₃,X₃₀}	178	{X₆,X₂₁,X₂₂}	227	{X₁₁,X₁₂,X₂₆,X₃₃,X₃₄,X₃₅,X₃₆,X₄₀,X₄₁,X₄₅}
32	{X₄,X₂₂,X₂₉}	81	{X₁,X₁₁,X₁₂,X₁₃,X₂₀}	130	{X₆,X₂₄,X₂₆}	179	{X₇,X₂₁,X₂₂}	228	{X₁₁,X₁₂,X₂₆,X₃₃,X₃₄,X₃₅,X₃₆,X₄₀,X₄₁,X₄₆}
33	{X₄,X₂₂,X₃₀}	82	{X₁,X₃,X₁₅}	131	{X₆,X₂₄,X₂₇}	180	{X₂,X₂₁,X₂₃}	229	{X₁₁,X₁₂,X₂₆,X₃₃,X₃₄,X₃₅,X₃₆,X₄₀,X₄₁,X₄₇}
34	{X₅,X₂₂,X₂₆}	83	{X₁,X₃,X₁₆}	132	{X₆,X₂₄,X₂₈}	181	{X₂,X₂₁,X₂₄}	230	{X₁₁,X₁₂,X₂₆,X₃₃,X₃₄,X₃₅,X₃₆,X₄₀,X₄₂,X₄₅}
35	{X₅,X₂₂,X₂₇}	84	{X₁,X₃,X₁₇}	133	{X₆,X₂₄,X₂₉}	182	{X₂,X₂₁,X₂₅}	231	{X₁₁,X₁₂,X₂₆,X₃₃,X₃₄,X₃₅,X₃₆,X₄₀,X₄₂,X₄₆}
36	{X₅,X₂₂,X₂₈}	85	{X₁,X₃,X₁₈}	134	{X₆,X₂₄,X₃₀}	183	{X₃,X₂₁,X₂₃}	232	{X₁₁,X₁₂,X₂₆,X₃₃,X₃₄,X₃₅,X₃₆,X₄₀,X₄₂,X₄₇}
37	{X₅,X₂₂,X₂₉}	86	{X₁,X₃,X₁₉}	135	{X₆,X₂₅,X₂₆}	184	{X₃,X₂₁,X₂₄}	233	{X₁₁,X₁₂,X₂₆,X₃₃,X₃₄,X₃₅,X₃₆,X₄₀,X₄₃,X₄₅}
38	{X₅,X₂₂,X₃₀}	87	{X₁,X₃,X₂₀}	136	{X₆,X₂₅,X₂₇}	185	{X₃,X₂₁,X₂₅}	234	{X₁₁,X₁₂,X₂₆,X₃₃,X₃₄,X₃₅,X₃₆,X₄₀,X₄₃,X₄₆}
39	{X₆,X₂₂,X₂₆}	88	{X1,X₄,X₁₅}	137	{X₆,X₂₅,X₂₈}	186	{X₄,X₂₁,X₂₃}	235	{X₁₁,X₁₂,X₂₆,X₃₃,X₃₄,X₃₅,X₃₆,X₄₀,X₄₃,X₄₇}
40	{X₆,X₂₂,X₂₇}	89	{X₁,X₄,X₁₆}	138	{X₆,X₂₅,X₂₉}	187	{X₄,X₂₁,X₂₄}	236	{X₁,X₁₁,X₁₂,X₂₆,X₃₄,X₃₅,X₃₆,X₄₀,X₄₂,X₄₄,X₄₈}
41	{X₆,X₂₂,X₂₈}	90	{X₁,X₄,X₁₇}	139	{X₆,X₂₅,X₃₀}	188	{X₄,X₂₁,X₂₅}	237	{X₁,X₁₁,X₁₂,X₂₆,X₃₄,X₃₅,X₃₆,X₄₀,X₄₃,X₄₄,X₄₈}
42	{X₆,X₂₂,X₂₉}	91	{X₁,X₄,X₁₈}	140	{X₇,X₂₃,X₂₆}	189	{X₅,X₂₁,X₂₃}	238	{X₁,X₁₁,X₁₂,X₂₆,X₃₄,X₃₅,X₃₆,X₄₀,X₄₁,X₄₄,X₄₉}
43	{X₆,X₂₂,X₃₀}	92	{X₁,X₄,X₁₉}	141	{X₇,X₂₃,X₂₇}	190	{X₅,X₂₁,X₂₄}	239	{X₁,X₁₁,X₁₂,X₂₆,X₃₄,X₃₅,X₃₆,X₄₀,X₄₁,X₄₄,X₅₀}
44	{X₇,X₂₂,X₂₆}	93	{X₁,X₄,X₂₀}	142	{X₇,X₂₃,X₂₈}	191	{X₅,X₂₁,X₂₅}	240	{X₁,X₁₁,X₁₂,X₂₆,X₃₄,X₃₅,X₃₆,X₄₀,X₄₂,X₄₄,X₄₉}
45	{X₇,X₂₂,X₂₇}	94	{X₁,X₅,X₁₅}	143	{X₇,X₂₃,X₂₉}	192	{X₆,X₂₁,X₂₃}	241	{X₁,X₁₁,X₁₂,X₂₆,X₃₄,X₃₅,X₃₆,X₄₀,X₄₂,X₄₄,X₅₀}
46	{X₇,X₂₂,X₂₈}	95	{X₁,X₅,X₁₆}	144	{X₇,X₂₃,X₃₀}	193	{X₆,X₂₁,X₂₄}	242	{X₁,X₁₁,X₁₂,X₂₆,X₃₄,X₃₅,X₃₆,X₄₀,X₄₃,X₄₄,X₄₉}
47	{X₇,X₂₂,X₂₉}	96	{X₁,X₅,X₁₇}	145	{X₇,X₂₄,X₂₆}	194	{X₆,X₂₁,X₂₅}	243	{X₁,X₁₁,X₁₂,X₂₆,X₃₄,X₃₅,X₃₆,X₄₀,X₄₃,X₄₄,X₅₀}
48	{X₇,X₂₂,X₃₀}	97	{X₁,X₅,X₁₈}	146	{X₇,X₂₄,X₂₇}	195	{X₇,X₂₁,X₂₃}	244	{X₁₁,X₁₂,X₂₆,X₃₃,X₃₄,X₃₅,X₃₆,X₄₀,X₄₁,X₄₄}
49	{X₂,X₂₃,X₂₆}	98	{X₁,X₅,X₁₉}	147	{X₇,X₂₄,X₂₈}	196	{X₇,X₂₁,X₂₄}	245	{X₁,X₁₁,X₁₂,X₂₆,X₃₄,X₃₅,X₃₆,X₄₀,X₄₁,X₄₄,X₄₈}

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

Table 8

References 17

[1]	糜利栋, 曾大乾, 刘华, 等. 天然气地下储气库智能化建设关键技术及其发展趋势[J]. 石油与天然气地质, 2024, 45(2): 581-592.
	MI Lidong, ZENG Daqian, LIU Hua, et al. Key technologies and development trends for intelligent construction of underground gas storage facilities[J]. Oil & Gas Geology, 2024, 45(2): 581-592.
[2]	LIU Y M, TAN X, BAO Y Q. Machine learning-assisted intelligent interpretation of distributed fiber optic sensor data for automated monitoring of pipeline corrosion[J]. Measurement, 2024, 226: 114190.
[3]	糜利栋, 曾大乾, 刘华, 等. 中国石化地下储气库一体化综合平台研发与应用[J]. 油气藏评价与开发, 2023, 13(6): 781-788.
	MI Lidong, ZENG Daqian, LIU Hua, et al. Development and application of Sinopec integrated management platform for underground gas storage[J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(6): 781-788.
[4]	糜利栋, 曾大乾, 李遵照, 等. 中国石化地下储气库智能化建设进展及展望[J]. 世界石油工业, 2023, 30(6): 88-95.
	MI Lidong, ZENG Daqian, LI Zunzhao, et al. Progress and prospect of intelligent of Sinopec underground gas storage[J]. World Petroleum Industry, 2023, 30(6): 88-95.
[5]	骆正山, 宁清云, 骆济豪. 盐岩储气库稳定性评估模型与应用研究[J]. 智能计算机与应用, 2024, 14(1): 43-48.
	LUO Zhengshan, NING Qingyun, LUO Jihao. Stability assessment of gas storage reservoirs based on integrated assignment-efficacy factor[J]. Intelligent Computer and Applications, 2024, 14(1): 43-48.
[6]	XUE T F, SHI X L, WANG G B, et al. Study on repairing technical parameters of irregular gas storage salt caverns[J]. Energy, 2024, 293: 130484.
[7]	LI F Q, LI F F, SUN R, et al. A study on the transient response of compressed air energy storage in the interaction between gas storage chambers and horseshoe-shaped tunnels in an abandoned coal mine[J]. Energies, 2024, 17(4): 953.
[8]	李娟, 陈莉, 顾晓敏. 油田集输管道腐蚀特性及防腐技术研究[J]. 化学工程师, 2024, 38(2): 51-54.
	LI Juan, CHEN Li, GU Xiaomin. Research on corrosion characteristics and anticorrosion technology of oilfield gathering and transportation pipeline[J]. Chemical Engineer, 2024, 38(2): 51-54.
[9]	骆正山, 于瑶如, 骆济豪, 等. 基于IAOA-KELM的储气库注采管柱内腐蚀速率预测[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2024, 24(3): 971-977.
	LUO Zhengshan, YU Yaoru, LUO Jihao, et al. Prediction of corrosion rate in gas storage injection-production string based on IAOA-KELM[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2024, 24(3): 971-977.
[10]	黄剑华, 赵春, 赵建国. 油气藏型储气库CO₂腐蚀防护技术研究[J]. 油气田地面工程, 2024, 43(3): 76-81.
	HUANG Jianhua, ZHAO Chun, ZHAO Jianguo. Research on CO₂ corrosion protection technology of oil and gas reservoir type gas storage[J]. Oil-Gasfield Surface Engineering, 2024, 43(3): 76-81.
[11]	康健, 王雨涛, 张璐, 等. 基于层次筛选的风险评价方法在油气集输系统中的应用[J]. 北京石油化工学院学报, 2017, 25(1): 46-50.
	KANG Jian, WANG Yutao, ZHANG Lu, et al. Research on risk evaluation on oil gas gathering and transportation system based on multi-layer risk factors screening[J]. Journal of Beijing Institute of Petrochemical Technology, 2017, 25(1): 46-50.
[12]	孙晓宇. 基于FCE-RAM的油气集输系统风险条块结合评定方法研究[J]. 北京石油化工学院学报, 2017, 25(4): 45-50.
	SUN Xiaoyu. Risk grade evaluation on oil & gas gathering and transportation system based on fuzzy comprehensive evaluation and risk assessment matrix[J]. Journal of Beijing Institute of Petrochemical Technology, 2017, 25(4): 45-50.
[13]	ZHANG G Q, ZHU S N, ZENG D Q, et al. Sealing capacity evaluation of underground gas storage under intricate geological conditions[J]. Energy Geoscience, 2024, 5(3): 100292.
[14]	SOLEIMANI M, SHAHBEIGI S, ESFAHANI N M. A Bayesian network development methodology for fault analysis; case study of the automotive after treatment system[J]. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 2024, 216: 111459.
[15]	XU L, WANG Y F, MO L, et al. The research progress and prospect of data mining methods on corrosion prediction of oil and gas pipelines[J]. Engineering Failure Analysis, 2023, 144: 106951.
[16]	刘毅璠, 闫怡飞, 宋运存, 等. 储气库套管柱环空压力影响因素动态评价[J]. 石油管材与仪器, 2022, 8(5): 51-56.
	LIU Yipan, YAN Yifei, SONG Yuncun, et al. Risk assessment of annular pressure buildup in natural gas storage[J]. Petroleum Instruments, 2022, 8(5): 51-56.
[17]	BIGDELI F, JAVIDI M, PAKSHIR M, et al. Risk assessment of the corrosion resistance performances for epoxy coatings under drilling environments using AHP method[J]. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, 2021, 193: 104470.

标度	说明
1	前指标与后指标具有相同重要性
3	前指标比后指标稍微重要
5	前指标比后指标明显重要
7	前指标比后指标强烈重要
9	前指标比后指标极端重要
2,4,6,8	表示以上相邻判断的中间取值，即小于和大于2个奇数之间的模糊表达
倒数	2个要素i和j的重要性之比为a_ij，则要素j和i的重要性之比为a_ij的倒数

时间/a	最大腐蚀深度/ mm	时间/a	最大腐蚀深度/ mm
1	1.25		8	3.26
2	1.96	9	3.60
3	2.24	10	3.68
4	2.50	11	3.92
5	2.70	12	4.05
6	2.84	13	4.31
7	2.95	14	4.36

事件符号	事件	事件符号	事件
T	腐蚀失效		X₁₆	土壤pH值低
M₁	外腐蚀	X₁₇	土壤含水率高
M₂	内腐蚀	X₁₈	土壤含盐量高
M₃	腐蚀开裂	X₁₉	土壤电阻率低
M₄	土壤腐蚀	X₂₀	土壤硫酸盐还原菌含量高
M₅	大气腐蚀	X₂₁	大气相对湿度
M₆	电流腐蚀	X₂₂	储气库埋深过浅
M₇	外防腐措施失效	X₂₃	土层开挖
M₈	土壤中腐蚀储气库因素	X₂₄	跨沟外露
M₉	防腐绝缘层失效	X₂₅	阀组处外露
M₁₀	第三方破坏	X₂₆	温度
M₁₁	初始缺陷	X₂₇	大气含水量
M₁₂	储气库外露	X₂₈	大气中硫化物含量
M₁₃	大气腐蚀因素	X₂₉	风向和风速
M₁₄	开始缺陷	X₃₀	降尘
M₁₅	内腐蚀失效	X₃₁	阴极保护失效
M₁₆	特定介质腐蚀	X₃₂	电流干扰
M₁₇	防腐措施失效	X₃₃	管龄过大
M₁₈	酸性介质含量高	X₃₄	腐蚀检测结果差
M₁₉	应力腐蚀	X₃₅	内防腐层质量差
M₂₀	拉应力	X₃₆	储气库质量不达标
X₁	储气库抗腐蚀性差	X₃₇	水击
X₂	防腐绝缘涂层过薄	X₃₈	介质流速高
X₃	防腐绝缘涂层破损	X₃₉	介质泥沙含量高
X₄	防腐绝缘涂层老化剥离	X₄₀	介质中水含量高
X₅	防腐绝缘涂层粘结力低	X₄₁	H₂S含量高
X₆	防腐绝缘涂层下部积水	X₄₂	CO₂含量高
X₇	防腐绝缘涂层脆性过大	X₄₃	O₂含量高
X₈	储气库上方违章施工	X₄₄	衬里脱落
X₉	储气库上层移动	X₄₅	内涂层变薄
X₁₀	沿线管压严重	X₄₆	缓蚀剂失效
X₁₁	设计不合理	X₄₇	清管效果差
X₁₂	施工监管不严格	X₄₈	存在应力集中
X₁₃	施工缺陷	X₄₉	存在残余应力

基本事件	结构重要度	基本事件	结构重要度
X₁	I_[_X_1]=0.999 999 991 511		X₂₆	I_[_X_26]=0.999 028 455 528
X₂	I_[_X_2]=0.999 899 547 574	X₂₇	I_[_X_27]=0.998 996 608 722
X₃	I_[_X_3]=0.999 899 547 574	X₂₈	I_[_X_28]=0.998 996 608 722
X₄	I_[_X_4]=0.999 899 547 574	X₂₉	I_[_X_29]=0.998 996 608 722
X₅	I_[_X_5]=0.999 899 547 574	X₃₀	I_[_X_30]=0.998 996 608 722
X₆	I_[_X_6]=0.999 899 547 574	X₃₁	I_[_X_31]=0.929 608 106 613
X₇	I_[_X_7]=0.999 899 547 574	X₃₂	I_[_X_32]=0.929 608 106 613
X₈	I_[_X_8]=0.899 887 084 961	X₃₃	I_[_X_33]=0.023 187 361 927
X₉	I_[_X_9]=0.899 887 084 961	X₃₄	I_[_X_34]=0.031 739 169 359
X₁₀	I_[_X_10]=0.899 887 084 961	X₃₅	I_[_X_35]=0.031 739 169 359
X₁₁	I_[_X_11]=0.422 219 906 607	X₃₆	I_[_X_36]=0.031 739 169 359
X₁₂	I_[_X_12]=0.422 219 906 607	X₃₇	I_[_X_37]=0.000 000 000 000
X₁₃	I_[_X_13]=0.403 280 526 167	X₃₈	I_[_X_38]=0.000 000 000 000
X₁₄	I_[_X_14]=0.929 608 106 613	X₃₉	I_[_X_39]=0.000 000 000 000
X₁₅	I_[_X_15]=0.929 608 106 613	X₄₀	I_[_X_40]=0.031 739 169 359
X₁₆	I_[_X_16]=0.929 608 106 613	X₄₁	I_[_X_41]=0.010 693 670 076
X₁₇	I_[_X_17]=0.929 608 106 613	X₄₂	I_[_X_42]=0.010 693 670 076
X₁₈	I_[_X_18]=0.929 608 106 613	X₄₃	I_[_X_43]=0.010 693 670 076
X₁₉	I_[_X_19]=0.929 608 106 613	X₄₄	I_[_X_44]=0.014 551 549 120
X₂₀	I_[_X_20]=0.929 608 106 613	X₄₅	I_[_X_45]=0.005 847 938 359
X₂₁	I_[_X_21]=0.998 996 608 722	X₄₆	I_[_X_46]=0.005 847 938 359
X₂₂	I_[_X_22]=0.999 968 216 225	X₄₇	I_[_X_47]=0.005 847 938 359
X₂₃	I_[_X_23]=0.999 968 216 225	X₄₈	I_[_X_48]=0.002 926 827 408
X₂₄	I_[_X_24]=0.999 968 216 225	X₄₉	I_[_X_49]=0.002 926 827 408
X₂₅	I_[_X_25]=0.999 968 216 225	X₅₀	I_[_X_50]=0.002 926 827 408

一级因素	二级因素	三级因素	评分
储气库腐蚀失效	腐蚀	外部腐蚀	26
		内部腐蚀	20
		防腐措施失效	7
	自然环境	土壤因素	4
	自然环境	大气因素	4
	储气库设备	储气库本身缺陷	13
	储气库设备	设计施工问题	17
	第三方破坏	人为破坏	3
	第三方破坏	地层运动	6

A corrosion risk assessment method for underground gas storage ground pipeline based on data and knowledge dual drivers

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Like

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 16

References 17

Related Articles 2

Metrics

Comments

Recommended 0

判断矩阵A	腐蚀a₁	自然环境a₂	储气库设备a₃	第三方破坏a₄
腐蚀a₁	1	6	3	5
自然环境a₂	1/6	1	1/5	2
储气库设备a₃	1/3	5	1	5
第三方破坏a₄	1/5	1/2	1/5	1

级别	最大蚀坑深度	腐蚀状态
轻	小于1 mm	1
中	[l，2]mm	2
重	[l0%，50%]壁厚	3
严重	（50%，80%]壁厚	4
穿孔	大于80%壁厚	5

[1]	YU Qiannan,ZHANG Han,LI Ning,TANG Huimin,LI Chenglong,WU Zhuolin,PENG Wei. Development quality evaluation of natural gas hydrate reservoir [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(3): 385-392.
[2]	LI Shilun,TANG Yong,DUAN Shengcai,QIN Jiazheng,CHEN Yinuo,LIU Yaxin,ZHENG Peng,ZHAO Guoqing. Progress in source-sink matching and safety evaluation of CO₂ geological sequestration [J]. Petroleum Reservoir Evaluation and Development, 2023, 13(3): 269-297.