基于合作博弈的管道外腐蚀多层次灰色动态评价

doi:10.11949/j.issn.0438-1157.20181087

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

对管道进行外腐蚀评价可以为管道检维修方案的优化提供依据。考虑到埋地管道外腐蚀影响因素的复杂性、不确定性和时效性，将灰关联分析法引入管道安全评价领域，提出了一种基于合作博弈的管道外腐蚀多层次灰色动态评价方法。首先建立包含土壤腐蚀性、防腐层性能、阴极保护有效性和杂散电流干扰强度4个方面的腐蚀综合评价指标体系，再基于群决策的改进层次分析法确定指标主观权重，综合实时检测客观数据信息得到指标客观权重，两种权重通过基于合作博弈的组合赋权确定指标组合权重，在此基础上构建动态的多层次灰色评价方法模型。以某地区埋地管道检测数据验证了所建方法和模型的有效性和合理性。

关键词: 管道, 腐蚀, 合作博弈, 灰关联分析, 安全, 优化

Abstract:

The external corrosion evaluation of the pipeline can provide a basis for the optimization of the pipeline inspection and maintenance program. Considering the complexity and uncertainty and timeliness of factors of external corrosion of buried pipelines, the grey relational analysis method was introduced to pipeline corrosion evaluation field, so as to propose a multi-level grey dynamic evaluation of external corrosion of pipelines based on cooperative game. Firstly, an evaluation index system of external corrosion of pipelines, in which the soil corrosion, external coating performance, cathodic protection system and stray current interference were included, was established. The subjective weights of the indexes obtained from expert qualitative analysis were quantified by applying improved analytic hierarchy process based on group decision-making. The objective weights of indexes were obtained by detecting real-time data information. After getting the two weights, the synthetic weight of each index was obtained by cooperative game. The dynamic multi-level grey evaluation was established which can be used to determining the risk grade of external corrosion of buried pipelines to be measured. The performance of the proposed method was tested on the practical example about corroded buried pipeline in a certain area. The effectiveness and reasonableness of the constructed model was validated.

Key words: pipeline, corrosion, cooperative game, grey relational analysis, safety, optimization

中图分类号:

TG 172

雷兴国, 王庆锋, 李中. 基于合作博弈的管道外腐蚀多层次灰色动态评价[J]. 化工学报, 2019, 70(6): 2386-2396.

Xingguo LEI, Qingfeng WANG, Zhong LI. Multi-level grey dynamic evaluation of external corrosion of pipelines based on cooperative game[J]. CIESC Journal, 2019, 70(6): 2386-2396.

图/表 9

参考文献 30

1	张鹏, 彭杨 . 考虑随机变量相关性的腐蚀管道失效概率[J]. 石油学报, 2016, 37(10): 1293-1301.
	Zhang P , Peng Y . Failure probability of corroded pipeline considering random variables correlation[J]. Acta Petrolei Sinica, 2016, 37(10): 1293-1301.
2	黄维和, 郑洪龙, 王婷 . 我国油气管道建设运行管理技术及发展展望[J]. 油气储运, 2014, 33(12): 1259-1262.
	Huang W H , Zheng H L , Wang T . Construction and operation management technology and prospect of oil and gas pipelines in China[J]. Oil & Gas Storage and Transportation, 2014, 33(12): 1259-1262.
3	刘宇涛, 胡昊, 宋元斌 . 基于动态风险评估的油气管道完整性管理体系[J]. 上海交通大学学报, 2011, 45(5): 687-690.
	Liu Y T , Hu H , Song Y B . Pipeline integrity management system based on dynamic risk assessment[J]. Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University, 2011, 45(5): 687-690.
4	姚安林, 周立国, 汪龙, 等 . 天然气长输管道地区等级升级管理与风险评价[J]. 天然气工业, 2017, 37(1): 124-130.
	Yao A L , Zhou L G , Wang L , et al . Management of and risk evaluation on long-distance gas pipelines related to regional level upgrading[J]. Natural Gas Industry, 2017, 37(1): 124-130.
5	Yasseri S , Bahai H . Decision support tools for selection of pipelines corrosion coating[J]. Journal of Pipeline Engineering, 2017, 16(6): 93-104.
6	Kalatpoor O , Goshtasp K , S. Health Khavaji , safety and environmental risk of a gas pipeline in an oil exploring area of Gachsaran .[J]. Industrial Health, 2011, 49(2): 209-214.
7	高俊波, 郭越, 王晓峰 . 城市燃气管网的定量风险分析模型研究[J]. 应用基础与工程科学学报, 2008, 16(2): 280-286.
	Gao J B , Guo Y , Wang X F . Research of quantitative risk analysis model for urban gas pipeline network[J]. Journal of Basic Science and Engineering, 2008, 16(2): 280-286.
8	Anesarteche F , Yu K , Bharadwaj U , et al . Challenges in the application of DCVG‐survey to predict coating defect size on pipelines[J]. Materials & Corrosion, 2017, 68(3): 329-337.
9	黄小美, 李百战, 彭世尼, 等 . 燃气管道失效概率评估方法研究[J]. 石油学报, 2010, 31(4): 664-667.
	Huang X M , Li B Z , Peng S N , et al . Assessment methods of failures probability on gas pipelines[J]. Acta Petrolei Sinica, 2010, 31(4): 664-667.
10	崔铭伟, 曹学文 . 腐蚀缺陷对中高强度油气管道失效压力的影响[J]. 石油学报, 2012, 33(6): 1086-1092.
	Cui M W , Cao X W . Impact of corrosion defects on failure pressure of medium-high strength oil-gas pipelines[J]. Acta Petrolei Sinica, 2012, 33(6): 1086-1092.
11	Gadala I , Wahab M A , Alfantazi A . Electrochemical corrosion finite element analysis and burst pressure prediction of externally corroded underground gas transmission pipelines[J]. Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, 2017, 140(1): 11690-11701.
12	张鹏, 陈小波, 王晓娇 . 埋地管道土壤腐蚀后评价的逻辑结构模型[J]. 天然气工业, 2013, 33(5): 120-125.
	Zhang P , Chen X B , Wang X J . A logic structure model of post evaluation of soil corrosion of buried pipelines[J]. Natural Gas Industry, 2013, 33(5): 120-125.
13	席光峰, 张峰, 韩伟, 等 . 杂散电流对长输油气管道的危害及其检测[J]. 油气储运, 2008, 27(7): 40-42.
Xi	Zhang G F , , Han W , et al . Hazard of stray current on long distance oil and gas pipelines and its detection[J]. Oil & Gas Storage and Transportation, 2008, 27(7): 40-42.
14	魏博文, 黄海鹏, 徐镇凯 . 基于云模型和组合赋权的岩体质量二维评价模型[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报, 2016, 35(a01): 3092-3099.
	Wei B W , Huang H P , Xu Z K . Two-dimensional evaluation model of rock mass based on combination weighting and cloud model[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 2016, 35(a01): 3092-3099.
15	张鹏, 陈小波, 王晓娇 . 埋地管道土壤腐蚀后评价的逻辑结构模型[J]. 天然气工业, 2013, 33(5): 120-125.
	Zhang P , Chen X B , Wang X J . A logic structure model of post evaluation of soil corrosion of buried pipelines[J]. Natural Gas Industry, 2013, 33(5): 120-125.
16	程明, 唐强, 魏德军, 等 . 高压直流接地极干扰区埋地钢质油气管道的综合防护[J]. 天然气工业, 2015, 35(9): 105-110.
	Cheng M , Tang Q , Wei D J , et al . Comprehensive protection of buried steel pipelines at HVDC earthed electrode interference area[J]. Natural Gas Industry, 2015, 35(9): 105-110.
17	李自力, 杨燕 . 金属材料交流腐蚀机理、影响因素及风险评价[J]. 化工学报, 2011, 62(7): 1790-1799.
	Li Z L, Yang Y. Mechanism, influence factors and risk evaluation of metal alternating current corrosion[J]. CIESC Journal, 2011, 62(7): 1790-1799.
18	Zakowski K . The determination and identification of stray current source influences on buried pipelines using time/frequency analysis[J]. Anti-Corrosion Methods and Materials, 2009, 56(6): 330-333.
19	邓聚龙 . 灰色系统基本方法[M]. 武汉: 华中理工大学出版社, 1996.
	Deng J L . Basic Methods of Grey System[M]. Wuhan: Huazhong University of Technology Press, 1996.
20	丁丽宏 . 基于改进的灰关联分析和层次分析法的边坡稳定性研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2011, 32(11): 3437-3441.
	Ding L H . Research on estimation of slope stability based on improved grey correlation analysis and analytic hierarchy process[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2011, 32(11): 3437-3441.
21	魏存平, 邱菀华, 杨继平 . 群决策问题的REM集结模型[J]. 系统工程理论与实践, 1999, 19(8): 38-41.
	Wei C P , Qiu W H , Yang J P . Minimum relative entropy aggregation model on group decision making[J]. Systems Engineering Theory & Practice, 1999, 19(8): 38-41.
22	张彦峰 . 基于灰色关联分析的相对熵集结模型[J]. 西北工业大学学报, 2013, 31(2): 255-258.
	Zhang Y F . An effective REM assembly based on the grey correlation analysis[J]. Journal of Northwestern Polytechnical University, 2013, 31(2): 255-258.
23	林振智, 文福拴, 薛禹胜, 等 . 基于多属性群决策特征根法的智能电网黑启动决策[J]. 电力系统自动化, 2010, 34(5): 18-23.
	Lin Z Z , Wen F S , Xue Y S , et al . Black-start decision-making in smart grids using multi-attribute group eigenvalue method[J]. Automation of Electric Power Systems, 2010, 34(5): 18-23.
24	刘思峰, 蔡华, 杨英杰, 等 . 灰色关联分析模型研究进展[J]. 系统工程理论与实践, 2013, 33(8): 2041-2046.
	Liu S F , Cai H , Yang Y J , et al . Advance in grey incidence analysis modelling[J]. Systems Engineering-Theory & Practice, 2013, 33(8): 2041-2046.
25	丁明, 过羿, 张晶晶, 等 . 基于效用风险熵权模糊综合评判的复杂电网节点脆弱性评估[J]. 电工技术学报, 2015, 30(3): 214-223.
	Ding M , Guo Y , Zhang J J , et al . Node vulnerability assessment for complex power grids based on effect risk entropy-weighted fuzzy comprehensive evaluation[J]. Transactions of China Electrotechnical Society, 2015, 30(3): 214-223.
26	王大江, 顾雪平, 贾京华 . 一种扩展黑启动方案恢复效果的评估方法[J]. 电网技术, 2014, 38(12): 3360-3365.
	Wang D J , Gu X P , Jia J H . A method to access restoration effect of extended black-start scheme[J]. Power System Technology, 2014, 38(12): 3360-3365.
27	佟淑娇, 吴宗之, 王如君, 等 . 埋地油气管道沿线土壤腐蚀性可拓评价研究[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2015, 11(12): 116-122.
	Tong S J , Wu Z Z , Wang R J , et al . Research on extension evaluation of soil corrosion along buried oil and gas pipeline[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2015, 11(12): 116-122.
28	苗金明, 王强 . 城市燃气埋地钢管腐蚀失效风险评估方法研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2013, 23(7): 49-54.
	Miao J M , Wang Q . Study on corrosion failure risk assessment method for urban buried gas steel pipeline[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2013, 23(7): 49-54.
29	崔艳雨, 张曼曼, 刘远征, 等 . 埋地管道外防腐层性能评价准则综述[J]. 应用化工, 2015, 44(12): 2312-2316.
	Cui Y Y , Zhang M M , Liu Y Z , et al . The evaluation criterion for external coating performance of buried pipelines[J]. Applied Chemical Industry, 2015, 44(12): 2312-2316.
30	李长春, 何仁洋, 肖勇, 等 . 埋地钢质管道交流杂散电流测试分析方法及评价准则[J]. 腐蚀与防护, 2013, 34(7): 597-599.
	Li C C , He R Y , Xiao Y , et al . Testing methods and evaluation criteria for AC stray current on buried steel pipelines[J]. Corrosion & Protection, 2013, 34(7): 597-599.

测点	B₁									B₂				B₃	B₄
测点	C₁₁/ (Ω·m)	C₁₂/ mV	C₁₃/ mV	C₁₄	C₁₅/ %	C₁₆/ %	C₁₇/ %	C₁₈/ %		C₂₁/ (dB·km^-1)	C₂₂/ (kΩ·m²)			C₃₁/ V	C₄₁/ mV	C₄₂/ V
1	6.36	-625	324	8.67	11.79	0.32	0.11	1.26	33			0.10	-0.933		38	0.038
2	3.77	-624	325	8.36	10.24	0.45	0.31	2.28	31			0.10	-1.034		20	0.012
3	5.65	-618	315	8.82	15.31	0.35	0.12	1.40	32			0.10	-1.038		55	0.075
4	8.92	-603	319	8.68	16.75	0.45	0.21	1.98	31			0.10	-1.077		503	0.235
5	2.89	-637	315	8.84	13.65	0.32	0.20	1.55	31			2.60	-0.570		89	0.017
6	9.42	-521	333	7.68	14.25	0.05	0.05	0.32	52			1.70	-1.200		—	—
7	12..53	-462	367	7.85	13.78	0.11	0.11	0.37	38			0.10	-0.900		—	—

测点	B₁									B₂				B₃	B₄
测点	C₁₁/ (Ω·m)	C₁₂/ mV	C₁₃/ mV	C₁₄	C₁₅/ %	C₁₆/ %	C₁₇/ %	C₁₈/ %		C₂₁/ (dB·km^-1)	C₂₂/ (kΩ·m²)			C₃₁/ V	C₄₁/ mV	C₄₂/ V
1	6.36	-625	324	8.67	11.79	0.32	0.11	1.26	33			0.10	-0.933		38	0.038
2	3.77	-624	325	8.36	10.24	0.45	0.31	2.28	31			0.10	-1.034		20	0.012
3	5.65	-618	315	8.82	15.31	0.35	0.12	1.40	32			0.10	-1.038		55	0.075
4	8.92	-603	319	8.68	16.75	0.45	0.21	1.98	31			0.10	-1.077		503	0.235
5	2.89	-637	315	8.84	13.65	0.32	0.20	1.55	31			2.60	-0.570		89	0.017
6	9.42	-521	333	7.68	14.25	0.05	0.05	0.32	52			1.70	-1.200		—	—
7	12..53	-462	367	7.85	13.78	0.11	0.11	0.37	38			0.10	-0.900		—	—

指标	评价指标取值的等级划分
指标	Ⅰ	Ⅱ	Ⅲ	Ⅳ	Ⅴ
C₁₁/(Ω·m)	> 200	50—200	15—50	5—15	< 5
C₁₂/mV	>-150	-150—-300	-300—-450	-450—-550	< -550
C₁₃/mV	> 400	300—400	200—300	100—200	< 100
C₁₄	8.5—10	7.0—8.5	5.5—7.0	4.5—5.5	< 4.5
C₁₅/%	< 3	3—7	7—10	10—12	12—25
C₁₆/%	< 0.01	0.01—0.05	0.05—0.10	0.10—0.75	> 0.75
C₁₇/%	< 0.01	0.01—0.04	0.04—0.08	0.08—0.65	> 0.65
C₁₈/%	< 0.05	0.05—0.15	0.15—0.35	0.35—0.75	> 0.75
C₂₁/(dB·km^-1)	< 20	20—30	30—35	35—50	> 50
C₂₂/(kΩ·m²)	> 10	5—10	3—5	1—3	< 1
C₃₁/V	< -1.5	-0.95—-1.5	-0.9—-0.95	-0.85—-0.9	> -0.85
C₄₁/mV	< 20	20—60	60—100	100—200	>200
C₄₂/V	< 4	4—6	6—10	10—20	> 20

指标	评价指标取值的等级划分
指标	Ⅰ	Ⅱ	Ⅲ	Ⅳ	Ⅴ
C₁₁/(Ω·m)	> 200	50—200	15—50	5—15	< 5
C₁₂/mV	>-150	-150—-300	-300—-450	-450—-550	< -550
C₁₃/mV	> 400	300—400	200—300	100—200	< 100
C₁₄	8.5—10	7.0—8.5	5.5—7.0	4.5—5.5	< 4.5
C₁₅/%	< 3	3—7	7—10	10—12	12—25
C₁₆/%	< 0.01	0.01—0.05	0.05—0.10	0.10—0.75	> 0.75
C₁₇/%	< 0.01	0.01—0.04	0.04—0.08	0.08—0.65	> 0.65
C₁₈/%	< 0.05	0.05—0.15	0.15—0.35	0.35—0.75	> 0.75
C₂₁/(dB·km^-1)	< 20	20—30	30—35	35—50	> 50
C₂₂/(kΩ·m²)	> 10	5—10	3—5	1—3	< 1
C₃₁/V	< -1.5	-0.95—-1.5	-0.9—-0.95	-0.85—-0.9	> -0.85
C₄₁/mV	< 20	20—60	60—100	100—200	>200
C₄₂/V	< 4	4—6	6—10	10—20	> 20

准则层指标	权重	指标层指标	数据 (无量纲化)	专家打分	权重		关联系数
准则层指标	权重	指标层指标	数据 (无量纲化)	专家打分	权重		Ⅰ	Ⅱ	Ⅲ	Ⅳ	Ⅴ
B₁	0.2634	C₁₁	0.0212	0.19	0.2038		0.4239	0.7656	0.9428	1.0000	0.9905
		C₁₂	0.0000	0.09	0.0965		0.3878	0.4872	0.6552	0.8507	1.0000
		C₁₃	0.6480	0.05	0.0409		0.7576	1.0000	0.9082	0.6570	0.5146
		C₁₄	0.8670	0.18	0.1290		1.0000	0.9654	0.7399	0.5997	0.5325
		C₁₅	0.5284	0.22	0.2783		0.5746	0.7126	0.8690	1.0000	0.9826
		C₁₆	0.6800	0.09	0.0484		0.6051	0.6376	0.6835	1.0000	0.5249
		C₁₇	0.8900	0.03	0.0399		0.8247	0.8716	0.9406	1.0000	0.4680
		C₁₈	0.0000	0.15	0.1633		0.3333	0.3585	0.4222	0.6552	1.0000
B₂	0.5638	C₂₁	0.4500	0.44	0.0764		0.5332	0.8319	1.0000	0.8813	0.4662
B₂	0.5638	C₂₂	0.0050	0.56	0.9236		0.3333	0.5025	0.6306	0.8462	1.0000
B₃	0.1178	C₃₁	0.4665	1.00	1.0000		0.3333	0.9434	1.0000	0.8957	0.7735
B₄	0.0550	C₄₁	0.8480	0.67	0.6656		0.8472	1.0000	0.8194	0.6168	0.3812
B₄	0.0550	C₄₂	0.9985	0.33	0.3344	1.0000		0.7158	0.6260	0.5005	0.3333