Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Corrosion Risk Assessment Model of Gas Pipeline Based on Improved AHP and Its Engineering Application

  • Research Article-Petroleum Engineering
  • Published:
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The paper is aimed at establishing a corrosion risk assessment model for the buried gas pipeline. To realize the forecast of the gas pipeline corrosion damage risks, the adverse factors of the safe operation were classified, and the index evaluation system of possibility of gas pipeline failure was established based on five first-level indicators and six second-level indicators. According to the index evaluation system, improved analytic hierarchy process (I-AHP) method was used to determine the weight of each indicator, and then the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation was proposed based on improved AHP. The calculation and analysis were carried out, and the membership function of the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation suitable for gas pipeline corrosion risk assessment was obtained, which had improved the practicability. Taking the buried gas pipeline network of Suzhou Industrial Park, China, as an example, the assessment was carried out. Some buried gas pipelines were randomly selected for excavation to verify the degree of conformity between the observation results and the calculation results. The results show that: the evaluation results of this method are consistent with the field detection results. In addition, the evaluation model established in this paper can provide a reference for the establishment of accident database and the management for the pipeline operation enterprise.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Battelle Columbus Division: Guidelines for hazard evaluation procedures. American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York (1985)

  2. Muhlbauer, W.K.: Pipeline Risk Management Manual. Gulf Publishing Company, Houston (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Han, Z.Y.; Weng, W.G.: Comparison study on qualitative and quantitative risk assessment methods for urban natural gas pipeline network. J. Hazard Mater. 189(1–2), 509–518 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2011.02.067

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Brito, A.J.; Almeida, A.T.D.; Mota, C.M.M.: A multicriteria model for risk sorting of natural gas pipelines based on electret tri integrating utility theory. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 200(3), 812–821 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2009.01.016

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Jamshid, A.; Yazdani-Chamzini, A.; Yakhchali, S.H.; Khaleghi, S.: Developing a new fuzzy inference system for pipeline risk assessment. J. Loss Prevent. Proc. 26(1), 197–208 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2012.10.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Senouci, A.; El-Abbasy, M.S.; Zayed, T.: Fuzzy-based model for predicting failure of oil pipelines. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 10(4), 04014018.1–04014018.11 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000181

  7. Alzbutas, R.; Iešmantas, T.; Povilaitis, M.; Vitkutė, J.: Risk and uncertainty analysis of gas pipeline failure and gas combustion consequence. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk A 28(6), 1431–1446 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-013-0845-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Medeiros, C.P.; Alencar, M.H.; Almeida, A.T.D.: Multidimensional risk evaluation of natural gas pipelines based on a multicriteria decision model using visualization tools and statistical tests for global sensitivity analysis. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safe. 165, 268–276 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2017.04.002

  9. Urbina, A.G.; Aoyama, A.; Choi, E.: A polynomial neural network approach for improving risk assessment and industrial Safety. ICIC Express Lett. 12(2), 97–107 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Saaty, T.L.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Mcgraw-Hill, New York (1980)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Yagmur, L.: Multi-criteria evaluation and priority analysis for localization equipment in a thermal power plant using the AHP (analytic hierarchy process). Energy 94, 476–482 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.11.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gao, J.P.; Xu, Z.S.; Liu, D.L.; Cao, H.H.: Application of the model based on fuzzy consistent matrix and AHP in the assessment of fire risk of subway tunnel. Proc. Eng. 71, 591–596 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2014.04.084

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lavasani, S.M.; Zendegani, A.; Celik, M.: An extension to fuzzy fault tree analysis (FFTA) application in petrochemical process industry. Process Saf. Environ. 93, 75–88 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2014.05.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Wang, L.; Tian, S.C.; Wang, X.; Chen, Y.M.; Wang, R.: Research on gas emission combination forecast method based on improved AHP. Appl. Mech. Mater. 522–524, 876–880 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy sets. Inform. Control 8(3), 338–353 (1965). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Singh, M.; Pokhrel, M.: A fuzzy logic-possibilistic methodology for risk-based inspection (rbi) planning of oil and gas piping subjected to microbiologically influenced corrosion (mic). Int. J. Pres. Ves. Pip. 159, 45–54 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpvp.2017.11.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Markowski, A.S.; Mannan, M.S.: Fuzzy logic for piping risk assessment (pfLOPA). J. Loss Prevent. Proc. 22(6), 921–927 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2009.06.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Wu, X.; Xiao, C.Y.; Xu, X.Y.: Research on a nonlinear fuzzy comprehensive assessment method for oil and gas pipeline failure based on fault tree analysis. Appl. Mech. Mater. 1866, 304–310 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Wang, W.H.; Shen, S.M.: Risk assessment model and application for the urban buried gas pipelines. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Reliability, Maintainability and Safety, pp. 488–392 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRMS.2009.5270145

  20. Guo, Z.L.; Sun, L.F.; Bo, L.L.: Application of the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation model based on entropy to the risk evaluation of urban gas pipeline system. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer and Communication Technologies in Agriculture Engineering, pp. 365–368 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1109/CCTAE.2010.5545041

  21. Li, J.; Zhang, H.; Han, Y.S.; Wang, B.D.: Study on failure of third-party damage for urban gas pipeline based on fuzzy comprehensive evaluation. Plos One (2016). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166472

  22. Kozlova, A.A.; Kondrashov, E.K.; Deev, I.S.; Shchegoleva, N.E.: Investigation of the effect of fraction composition and specific surface of anticorrosive pigments on the protective properties of epoxy coatings. Prot. Met. Phys. Chem+. 50(7), 903–909 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1134/S2070205114070090

  23. Yang, L.; Ma, G.Y.; Luo, X.H.: A comprehensive evaluation model to evaluate the buried pipeline soil corrosion ratings. J. Liaoning Shihua Univ. 37(6), 30–35 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-6952.2017.06.006

  24. Miao, J.M.: Study on corrosion failure risk assessment method for urban buried gas steel pipeline. China Saf. Sci. J. 23(7), 49–54 (2013). https://doi.org/10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2013.07.012

  25. Chen, G.H.; Zeng, J.; Jiang, Z.H.; Song, X.Z.: Methods and applications of external corrosion degree assessment for urban steel gas pipelines. Corros. Protect. 29(6), 337–340 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Zhang, Y.; Li, F.; Guan, Y.W.: Fuzzy comprehensive assessment of soil corrosivity for buried gas steel pipeline. Gas Heat 04, 12–14 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Singh, M.; Markeset, T.: A methodology for risk-based inspection planning of oil and gas pipes based on fuzzy logic framework. Eng. Fail. Anal. 16(7), 2098–2113 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2009.02.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Zhang, S.H.; Wong, H.S.; Shen, Y.: Generalized adjusted rand indices for cluster ensembles. Pattern Recogn. 45(6), 2214–2226 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2011.11.017

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Wang, X.; Duan, Q.: Improved AHP–TOPSIS model for the comprehensive risk evaluation of oil and gas pipelines. Petrol Sci. 16, 1479–1492 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12182-019-00365-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research is sponsored by National Key Research and Development Program of China [Grant No. 2016YFC0802400], which is gratefully.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Key Laboratory of Coast Civil Structure Safety, Ministry of Education, Tianjin University, Tianjin, 300072, China

    Zhenning Ba & Jianwen Liang

  2. School of Civil Engineering, Tianjin University, Jinnan District, Yaguan Road 135, Haihe Education Park, Tianjin, 300354, China

    Zhenning Ba, Yu Wang, Jisai Fu & Jianwen Liang

Authors
  1. Zhenning Ba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yu Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jisai Fu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jianwen Liang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zhenning Ba.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ba, Z., Wang, Y., Fu, J. et al. Corrosion Risk Assessment Model of Gas Pipeline Based on Improved AHP and Its Engineering Application. Arab J Sci Eng 47, 10961–10979 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-021-05496-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-021-05496-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation