IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/appene/v333y2023ics0306261922018773.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dynamic Bayesian network risk probability evolution for third-party damage of natural gas pipelines

Author

Listed:
  • Hong, Bingyuan
  • Shao, Bowen
  • Guo, Jian
  • Fu, Jianzhong
  • Li, Cuicui
  • Zhu, Baikang

Abstract

Failure and leakage of natural gas pipelines can lead to serious ecological losses and casualties. Third-party damage has become an important cause of pipeline failure and leakage, which urgently needs an accurate risk assessment method to assess the risk. Conventional qualitative risk analysis methods can only point out the critical events of failure accidents but fails to predict the failure probability. This paper proposes a dynamic risk probability analysis method based on Dynamic Bayesian network (DBN), which is validated by a third-party damage case under uncertainty. First, human factors are taken as the main analysis object in the risk analysis, by which two subcategories of intentional and unintentional factors are classified. A complete risk factor analysis is performed by combining expert recommendations with the fault tree analysis method and developing a coupled model with the event sequence diagram. Second, in order to deal with the uncertainty of risk factors, the coupled model is mapped to a DBN model. The prior probabilities of the input DBN model are obtained by database, fuzzy set theory, and Dempster-Shafer evidence theory. Weibull distribution is applied to construct the probability transfer process between time segments, which better fits the characteristics of third-party disruptive factors in onshore pipelines. Finally, the practicality and advantages of the proposed method are demonstrated by a real case study, which identifies 6 critical events and predicts the probabilistic information in different time slices. Furthermore, the method predicts the probability of failure events and potential consequences by processing the time series information, and it is found that the probability of structural damage and explosion is higher than other consequences. In this way, some risk management countermeasures are proposed in a targeted manner. The results show that compared with the conventional BN model which only performs probabilistic inference once, the DBN model can perform temporal dynamic inference to achieve the prediction of failure probability, and it can effectively achieve the numerical prediction of risk failure probability.

Suggested Citation

  • Hong, Bingyuan & Shao, Bowen & Guo, Jian & Fu, Jianzhong & Li, Cuicui & Zhu, Baikang, 2023. "Dynamic Bayesian network risk probability evolution for third-party damage of natural gas pipelines," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 333(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:333:y:2023:i:c:s0306261922018773
    DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.120620
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261922018773
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.120620?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Khakzad, Nima & Khan, Faisal & Amyotte, Paul, 2011. "Safety analysis in process facilities: Comparison of fault tree and Bayesian network approaches," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(8), pages 925-932.
    2. Khakzad, Nima & Khan, Faisal & Amyotte, Paul, 2013. "Risk-based design of process systems using discrete-time Bayesian networks," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 5-17.
    3. Khakzad, Nima & Khan, Faisal & Amyotte, Paul, 2012. "Dynamic risk analysis using bow-tie approach," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 36-44.
    4. Reznicek, Evan P. & Braun, Robert J., 2020. "Reversible solid oxide cell systems for integration with natural gas pipeline and carbon capture infrastructure for grid energy management," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 259(C).
    5. Liu, Xiong & Godbole, Ajit & Lu, Cheng & Michal, Guillaume & Venton, Philip, 2014. "Source strength and dispersion of CO2 releases from high-pressure pipelines: CFD model using real gas equation of state," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 56-68.
    6. Hong, Bingyuan & Li, Xiaoping & Song, Shangfei & Chen, Shilin & Zhao, Changlong & Gong, Jing, 2020. "Optimal planning and modular infrastructure dynamic allocation for shale gas production," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 261(C).
    7. Zhang, Y. & Weng, W.G., 2020. "Bayesian network model for buried gas pipeline failure analysis caused by corrosion and external interference," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    8. Zhuang, Wennan & Zhou, Suyang & Gu, Wei & Chen, Xiaogang, 2021. "Optimized dispatching of city-scale integrated energy system considering the flexibilities of city gas gate station and line packing," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 290(C).
    9. Liu, Aihua & Chen, Ke & Huang, Xiaofei & Li, Didi & Zhang, Xiaochun, 2021. "Dynamic risk assessment model of buried gas pipelines based on system dynamics," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    10. Khakzad, Nima & Khan, Faisal & Paltrinieri, Nicola, 2014. "On the application of near accident data to risk analysis of major accidents," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 116-125.
    11. Khakzad, Nima & Landucci, Gabriele & Reniers, Genserik, 2017. "Application of dynamic Bayesian network to performance assessment of fire protection systems during domino effects," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 232-247.
    12. Sevastianov, P. & Dymova, L., 2009. "Synthesis of fuzzy logic and Dempster–Shafer Theory for the simulation of the decision-making process in stock trading systems," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 506-521.
    13. Wu, Wei-Shing & Yang, Chen-Feng & Chang, Jung-Chuan & Château, Pierre-Alexandre & Chang, Yang-Chi, 2015. "Risk assessment by integrating interpretive structural modeling and Bayesian network, case of offshore pipeline project," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 515-524.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yao, Lizhong & Zhang, Yu & He, Tiantian & Luo, Haijun, 2023. "Natural gas pipeline leak detection based on acoustic signal analysis and feature reconstruction," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 352(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Guo, Qingjun & Amin, Shohel & Hao, Qianwen & Haas, Olivier, 2020. "Resilience assessment of safety system at subway construction sites applying analytic network process and extension cloud models," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    2. Bhardwaj, U. & Teixeira, A.P. & Guedes Soares, C. & Ariffin, A.K. & Singh, S.S., 2021. "Evidence based risk analysis of fire and explosion accident scenarios in FPSOs," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 215(C).
    3. Chen, Yinuo & Xie, Shuyi & Tian, Zhigang, 2022. "Risk assessment of buried gas pipelines based on improved cloud-variable weight theory," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    4. Nima Khakzad & Sina Khakzad & Faisal Khan, 2014. "Probabilistic risk assessment of major accidents: application to offshore blowouts in the Gulf of Mexico," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 74(3), pages 1759-1771, December.
    5. Zhang, Limao & Wu, Xianguo & Skibniewski, Miroslaw J. & Zhong, Jingbing & Lu, Yujie, 2014. "Bayesian-network-based safety risk analysis in construction projects," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 29-39.
    6. Wu, Xingguang & Huang, Huirong & Xie, Jianyu & Lu, Meixing & Wang, Shaobo & Li, Wang & Huang, Yixuan & Yu, Weichao & Sun, Xiaobo, 2023. "A novel dynamic risk assessment method for the petrochemical industry using bow-tie analysis and Bayesian network analysis method based on the methodological framework of ARAMIS project," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 237(C).
    7. Mohammad Yazdi, 2019. "A review paper to examine the validity of Bayesian network to build rational consensus in subjective probabilistic failure analysis," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 10(1), pages 1-18, February.
    8. Yang, Yang & Li, Suzhen & Zhang, Pengcheng, 2022. "Data-driven accident consequence assessment on urban gas pipeline network based on machine learning," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).
    9. Liu, Jintao & Schmid, Felix & Li, Keping & Zheng, Wei, 2021. "A knowledge graph-based approach for exploring railway operational accidents," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    10. Liu, Aihua & Chen, Ke & Huang, Xiaofei & Li, Didi & Zhang, Xiaochun, 2021. "Dynamic risk assessment model of buried gas pipelines based on system dynamics," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    11. Li, Mei & Liu, Zixian & Li, Xiaopeng & Liu, Yiliu, 2019. "Dynamic risk assessment in healthcare based on Bayesian approach," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 327-334.
    12. Hassan, Shamsu & Wang, Jin & Kontovas, Christos & Bashir, Musa, 2022. "An assessment of causes and failure likelihood of cross-country pipelines under uncertainty using bayesian networks," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 218(PA).
    13. Bhardwaj, U. & Teixeira, A.P. & Guedes Soares, C., 2022. "Casualty analysis methodology and taxonomy for FPSO accident analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 218(PB).
    14. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    15. Chunchang Zhang & Hu Sun & Yuanyuan Zhang & Gen Li & Shibo Li & Junyu Chang & Gongqian Shi, 2023. "Fire Accident Risk Analysis of Lithium Battery Energy Storage Systems during Maritime Transportation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-12, September.
    16. Jie Xue & Genserik Reniers & Jie Li & Ming Yang & Chaozhong Wu & P.H.A.J.M. van Gelder, 2021. "A Bibliometric and Visualized Overview for the Evolution of Process Safety and Environmental Protection," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-29, June.
    17. Kraidi, Layth & Shah, Raj & Matipa, Wilfred & Borthwick, Fiona, 2019. "Analyzing the critical risk factors associated with oil and gas pipeline projects in Iraq," International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 14-22.
    18. Yin, Yuanbo & Yang, Hao & Duan, Pengfei & Li, Luling & Zio, Enrico & Liu, Cuiwei & Li, Yuxing, 2022. "Improved quantitative risk assessment of a natural gas pipeline considering high-consequence areas," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 225(C).
    19. Ruiz-Tagle, Andres & Lewis, Austin D. & Schell, Colin A. & Lever, Ernest & Groth, Katrina M., 2022. "BaNTERA: A Bayesian Network for Third-Party Excavation Risk Assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 223(C).
    20. Landucci, Gabriele & Argenti, Francesca & Tugnoli, Alessandro & Cozzani, Valerio, 2015. "Quantitative assessment of safety barrier performance in the prevention of domino scenarios triggered by fire," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 30-43.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:333:y:2023:i:c:s0306261922018773. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/405891/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.