|本期目录/Table of Contents|

[1]周立国,王晓霖,李明,等.成品油站场工艺管道风险辨识与评价[J].中国安全生产科学技术,2019,15(6):74-80.[doi:10.11731/j.issn.1673-193x.2019.06.012]
　ZHOU Liguo,WANG Xiaolin,LI Ming,et al.Risk identification and assessment of process pipelines in product oil station[J].JOURNAL OF SAFETY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,2019,15(6):74-80.[doi:10.11731/j.issn.1673-193x.2019.06.012]
点击复制

成品油站场工艺管道风险辨识与评价
分享到：

《中国安全生产科学技术》[ISSN:1673-193X/CN:11-5335/TB]

卷:
15
期数:
2019年6期
页码:
74-80
栏目:
职业安全卫生管理与技术
出版日期:
2019-06-30

文章信息/Info

Title:
Risk identification and assessment of process pipelines in product oil station
文章编号:
1673-193X(2019)-06-0074-07
作者:
周立国1; 王晓霖1; 李明1; 谢成2; 严格2; 杨文2
（1.中国石化大连石油化工研究院，辽宁 大连 113001;
2.中国石化销售有限公司华南分公司，广东 广州 510620）
Author(s):
ZHOU Liguo1;  WANG Xiaolin1;  LI Ming1;  XIE Cheng2;  YAN Ge2;  YANG Wen2
(1.Dalian Research Institute of Petroleum and Petrochemicals, SINOPEC, Dalian Liaoning 113001, China;
2. Sales Co., Ltd. South China Branch, SINOPEC, Guangzhou Guangdong 510620, China)
关键词:
成品油站场; 工艺管道; 风险因素; 风险评价; 检维修决策
Keywords:
product oil station;  process pipeline;  risk factor;  risk assessment;  maintenance decisionmaking
分类号:
X937
DOI:
10.11731/j.issn.1673-193x.2019.06.012
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
为保障成品油站场工艺管道的安全平稳运行，在充分辨识风险因素的前提下，提出了一种基于KENT法和RBI的风险评价方法。首先，以风险机理分析为基础，采用SHEL模型从导致风险上升的直接原因（风险内因）和间接原因（风险外因）2个角度辨识了风险因素，并细化各因素指标项；然后借鉴KENT法，对各指标项进行评分量化；依据RBI法，采用风险外因体系修正风险内因体系的方式确定失效可能性；综合环境后果、人员后果与商业后果，明确失效后果的评价体系与计算方法；最后，结合失效可能性与失效后果进行风险评价，从风险等级和风险排序2方面为检维修决策提供依据。应用表明：该评价方法便于工艺管道风险评价的基层实施，可为基于风险的检维修决策提供有效技术支撑。
Abstract:
In order to ensure the safe and stable operation of process pipelines in the product oil station, a risk assessment method based on KENT method and RBI method was proposed on the premise of fully identifying the risk factors. Firstly, the risk factors were identified from two perspectives of the direct causes (internal causes of risk) and indirect causes (external causes of risk) causing the risk rise by using the SHEL model, and the index items of each factor were refined. Then each index item was scored and quantified by referring to the KENT method. According to the RBI method, the failure possibility was determined using the technical thinking of using the external cause system of risk to correct the internal cause system of risk. The assessment system and calculation method of failure consequence were determined considering the environmental consequence, personnel consequence and commercial consequence. Finally, the risk assessment was carried out combining the failure possibility with the failure consequence, so as to provide the basis for the maintenance decisionmaking from two aspects of risk grade and risk ranking. The application showed that the assessment method was convenient for the basic level implementation of risk assessment on the process pipelines, and it can effectively provide the technical support for the riskbased maintenance decisionmaking.

参考文献/References:

［1］姚安林,黄亮亮,蒋宏业,等. 输油气站场综合风险评价技术研究［J］. 中国安全生产科学技术,2015,11(1): 138-144. YAO Anlin, HUANG Liangliang, JIANG Hongye, et al. Research on comprehensive risk assessment technique of oil and gas transmission station［J］. Journal of Safety Science and Technology,2015,11(1): 138-144.
［2］帅义,帅健,苏丹丹. 企业级管道完整性管理体系构建模式［J］. 中国安全科学学报,2016,26(7):147-151. SHUAI Yi, SHUAI Jiang, SUN Dandan. Mode of constructing pipeline integrity management system for enterprises［J］. China Safety Science Journal,2016,26(7):147-151.
［3］陈健峰,税碧垣,沈煜欣,等. 储罐与工艺管道的完整性管理［J］. 油气储运,2011,30(4):259-262. CHEN Jianfeng, SHUI Biyuan, SHEN Yuxin, et al. Integrity management of storage tank and process pipeline［J］. Oil and Gas Storage and Transportation, 2011,30(4):259-262.
［4］American Petroleum Institute. Risk-based Inspection Methodology: API 581-2016［S］. America: American Petroleum Institute,2016.
［5］裴峻峰,翟云峰,胡建启,等. 场站管道风险评估系统的设计与应用［J］.常州大学学报(自然科学版),2019, 31(1):55-62. PEI Junfeng, ZHAI Yunfeng, HU Jianqi, et al. Design and implementation of risk assessment system for pipeline failure［J］. Journal of Changzhou University(Natural Science Edition), 2019, 31(1):55-62.
［6］李毅,王增国,詹燕民,等. 基于Kent法的海底管道风险评价模型［J］. 油气储运,2014,33(12):1307-1309. LI Yi, WANG Zengguo, ZHAN Yanmin, et al. Kent risk assessment model of subsea pipeline［J］. Oil and Gas Storage and Transportation, 2014,33(12):1307-1309.
［7］宋程成,孙瑞山,刘俊杰. 自愿报告信息分析模型(CRIAM)研究［J］.中国安全生产科学技术,2013,9(9):43-48. SONG Chengcheng, SUN Ruishan, LIU Junjie. Research on confidential report information analysis model［J］. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2013,9(9): 43-48.
［8］程万洲,张华兵,王新. 油气站场工艺管道完整性管理［J］. 化工设备与管道,2015,52(3):76-79. CHENG Wanzhou, ZHANG Huabing, WANG Xin. Integrity management for process piping in oil and gas station［J］. Process Equipment & Piping,2015,52(3):76-79.
［9］曹建国. 川气东送管道普光首站风险评价研究［D］. 成都:西南石油大学,2014.
［10］中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局, 中国国家标准化管理委员会. 埋地钢质管道风险评估方法: GB/T 27512-2011 ［S］. 北京: 中国标准出版社,2011.
［11］国家发展和改革委员会. 钢制管道及储罐腐蚀评价标准——地面钢制管道外腐蚀直接评价: SY/T 0087.1-2006 ［S］.北京: 石油工业出版社,2006.
［12］邢金朵,赵东风,韩丰磊,等. 基于HAZOP与AEMA的输气站场风险评估［J］. 石油与天然气化工,2015,44(4):114-118. XING Jinduo, ZHAO Dongfeng, HAN Fenglei, et al. Risk evaluation of gas transmission station based on HAZOP and AEMA［J］. Chemical Engineering of Oil and Gas,2015,44(4):114-118.
［13］中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局, 中国国家标准化管理委员会. 场站内区域性阴极保护: GB/T 35508-2017 ［S］. 北京: 中国标准出版社,2017.
［14］国家能源局. 输油站场管道和储罐泄漏的风险管理: SY/T6830-2011 ［S］. 北京: 石油工业出版社,2011.
［15］陈欣. 模糊层次分析法在方案优选方面的应用［J］. 计算机工程与设计,2004,25( 10):1847-1849. CHEN Xin. Appliction of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process for optimum selection in decision-making［J］. Computer Engineering and Design, 2004,25( 10):1847-1849.
［16］中华人民共和国国务院. 生产安全事故报告和调查处理条例［Z］. 2007-6-1.
［17］郑登锋,蒋金生,王明勇. 基于风险矩阵和LOPA的风险评价系统在油气管道的应用研究［J］.中国安全生产科学技术,2012,8(10):76-81. ZHENG Dengfeng, JIANGJinsheng, WANG Mingyong. Study on application of risk evaluation system based on risk matrix and LOPA in oil and gas pipeline system［J］. Journal of Safety Science and Technology,2012, 8(10):76-81.

相似文献/References:

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
收稿日期： 2019-04-08
* 基金项目： 国家重点研发计划课题（2017YFF0210404）；中国石油化工集团公司项目（317011）
作者简介： 周立国，硕士，助理工程师，主要研究方向为管道系统完整性管理以及相关技术的研发。
更新日期/Last Update: 2019-07-09